THE EFFECT OF GENDER CHARACTERISTICS ON

READINESS VARIABLES AND CHANGE READINESS

TOWARDS EXPECTED EFFECTIVENESS

How gender characteristics affect communication, trust and self-

efficacy as foundation for readiness and the expectations of effective

change

Master thesis, Msc Business Administration

Specialization: Change Management

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Mei, 2012

J.A.W. RAAIJMAKERS

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Eendrachtskade Zuidzijde 194 9726 DD Groningen

Tel: +31 (0) 648380083

E-mail: jurriaanraaijmakers@gmail.nl

Supervisor/ university

Dr. J. Rupert /Dr. K. Prins/ Frouke de Poel

Acknowledgment:

First, I would like to thank Joyce Rupert for her help and support throughout this research

project. She was always available for help and provided critical but honest feedback. Thank

you for all your time and effort, I really appreciate all you have done for me. In addition, I

would like to thank my family and friends for their enthusiasm and support as well as for the

time and effort given to provide me with feedback on content as well as on my academical

writing skills. Last but not least, a special thanks to all others who supported me and provided

me with the necessary information to complete this study.

1

THE EFFECT OF GENDER CHARACTERISTICS ON

READINESS VARIABLES AND CHANGE READINESS

TOWARDS EXPECTED EFFECTIVENESS

How gender characteristics affect communication, trust and self-

efficacy as foundation for readiness and the expectations of effective

change

ABSTRACT

This field study among 63 employees at one of the sales departments of a large

(mobile) telephone, television and internet provider examined the relationship between

feminine & masculine characteristics, readiness for change and expected efficacy. It was

hypothesized that feminine characteristics have a stronger influence on the creation of

readiness, which should lead to a high level of expected efficacy of the change process. A

negative correlation was shown between masculine leadership characteristics and the quality

of communication. Furthermore, relations are shown between self-efficacy, communication,

trust, readiness for change and expected effectiveness. To ascertain which characteristics are

most suitable to create and maintain readiness within the change processes for a specific

company, more research needs to be conducted. After all: one shoe does not fit al.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................4

2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS ...............................................................................................5

2.1 Gender Characteristics ..........................................................................................................8

2.2 Gender Characteristics and Readiness for Change…………………………………...……9

2.3 Mediation of Change Readiness and Underlying Strategies………………………….......11

2.3.1 The Mediating Role of Trust (and Communication)…...……………………….. 13

2.3.2 The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy………………...…….…………….………..14

2.3.3 Change Readiness and Resistance……………………………………….……….15

2.3.4 Change Readiness as Mediator…………………….…………………….………16

3. METHODS…………………………………………………………..........................17

3.1 Procedures………………………………………………………………………….….….17

3.2 Measures………………………………………………………………………………….18

3.2.1 Measurements (Factor Analysis & Reliability)……………………………….…18

3.2.2 Change Leaders’ Characteristics………………………………………………..19

3.2.3 Change Readiness………………………………………………………………..20

3.2.4 Trust……………………………..……………………………………………….21

3.2.5 Qualitative Communication……..……………………………………………….22

3.2.6 Self-efficacy…...………………………………………………………………….22

3.2.7 Expected Change Effectiveness..............................................................................23

4. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………24

5. DISCUSSION…………………………………….………………………………….27

5.1 Limitations and Future Research Directions……………………………………………..30

3

6. CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS……………………….31

APPENDIX A: SUVEREY ITEMS………………………………………………...39

APPENDIX B: FACTOR ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS…………………..43

APPENDIX C: FACTOR ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS FINAL………….44

APPENDIX D: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS MALE…...45

APPENDIX E: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS FEMALE..45

APPENDIX F: FACTOR ANALYSIS READINESS, TRUST, QUALITATIVE

COMMUNICATION, SELF-EFFICACY AND EXPECTED

EFFICACY……………………………………………………………………..……46

APPENDIX G: FINAL FACTOR ANALYSIS READINESS, TRUST,

QUALITATIVE COMMUNICATION, SELF-EFFICACY AND EXPECTED

EFFICACY…………..………………………………………………………………49

APPENDIX H: EXAMPLES AVERAGES OF CHARACTERISTICS………...50

4

1. INTRODUCTION

To survive in, and adapt to a fast changing environment many companies see change

as inevitable. Different strategies have been developed over the years in order to navigate

change processes in the right direction, but why is it that researchers still indicate that 50 to

even 80 percent of all changes fail to succeed (a.o. Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2004; Self,

Armenakis, & Schraeder, 2007; Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005)? Could it be that we still do

not focus enough on the right characteristics of a change manager? Burnes (1996) mentions

that there is no such thing as a single best way to manage change; but could there be ideal

characteristics? This study focuses on what characteristics of a change leader might be right

for the majority of change recipients. Over time, leadership characteristics preferred by

companies have been changed. The change of these characteristics is among others stimulated

by an increase of women in the labor market and a more contemporary view of society such

as a growing appreciation within companies for relation development (Bakker, 2006).

Williams & Locke (1999) indicate that qualities such as developing relations with employees,

empowering employees and solving problems are becoming more important for organizations.

More recent leadership styles and strategies such as transformational leadership and

Appreciative Inquiry build on these qualities (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen,

2003; Keefe & Pesut, 2004). Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen (2003) take it further

and describe transformational leadership as a feminine leadership style due to necessity of

several characteristics, for example being unselfish, that are often associated with women.

Research indicates that within daily leadership of a company, employees prefer the

androgynous leader (often described as the "ideal" mix of masculine and feminine

characteristics) (Stoker, 2007; Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002). This shows that feminine

characteristics are likely to be more appreciated in today's world, compared to fifty years ago,

when masculine leaders were still the norm.

Solving or improving change-issues differ from daily leadership. To be effective,

change leadership asks for a strong commitment and readiness from management and

employees. Considering this from a leadership perspective, readiness mediates between

feminine leaders’ characteristics and the effectiveness of the change process. This is because

certain feminine abilities such as the ability to comprehend, be affectionate and appease of

displeasure are important in the process of creating readiness (Paassen, 2010). In addition, as

mentioned by Smith (2005), it is important to focus on achieving readiness because people in

5

the organization can be either the key or biggest obstacle to achieving effective change.

Hence, feminine characteristics seem to become more important within daily leadership.

Moreover, they also emerge more clearly in certain change approaches and seem to do what

Lewin (1951) described as unfreezing (creating a readiness situation in which individuals’

attitudes and beliefs regarding pending change are affected in such a way that the imminent

change is considered useful). This unfreezing or influencing the perception of individuals and

thereby creating readiness, is important to be able to establish an effective change in the end.

Daily leadership has been a topic of continuous study and often these studies find that

in comparison to male and female styles of leadership, the androgynous leader seems to be the

best (a.o. Bem & Lewis, 1975; Stoker, 2007). However, are characteristics and skills within

daily leadership of a department or company the same as one might need in an organizational

change process? Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths (2005) argue that the skills necessary to

achieve a successful change implementation are very different from those required for daily

business performance. Capabilities to change seem to differ from daily leadership capabilities

on the points of engagement, development and performance capabilities. Consequently, it is

likely that a change manager also needs different characteristics, at least in certain change

processes. Low levels of change efficacy give reason to continue thinking about solutions to

increase the success rate of change projects. Because feminine leadership characteristics seem

to influence readiness, this research focuses on which characteristics present in change

managers, masculine or feminine, are preferred by change recipients. This research is based

on the question: “Have feminine leadership characteristics a more positive influence on

change readiness and expected change effectiveness in a change process than masculine

characteristics?” The research focuses on if and how these gender characteristics influence

readiness for change of the change recipients in to check eventually if a certain group of

gender characteristics results in higher effectiveness levels.

2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

As mentioned previously, many changes do not bring about the desired results and are

therefore labeled as having failed. But when is a change a success and when does it ‘fail’?

Managing a change successfully is often referred to as the effectiveness of change,

implementation success or similar terms and is measured by indicating the (expected) degree

6

to which objectives are being achieved and targeted problems are solved (Campion, Medsker,

& Higgs, 1993; Hillenga, 2009a). Effectiveness of change is probably one of the best terms to

use because one examines to what extent the change objectives and targeted problems are

achieved. Change effectiveness is, according to Campion, Medsker, & Higgs (1993), built up

of three criteria: productivity, employee satisfaction and manager judgments of effectiveness.

The focus of this research is on expected effectiveness, the reason being that this can be

measured during the change process (which is important because the moment of measurement

was immediately after the kick-off of the change process), whereas satisfaction with the

results and judgments of effectiveness can only be provided at the end of the change process.

Expected effectiveness suggests a comprehensive, though mostly subjective, judgment of

change effectiveness. This means that the judgment indicates employees’ and managers’

perception about effectiveness based on previous experiences. Although it is subjective, the

feeling of employees and managers about change being effective can be a good predictor for

the final effectiveness of the change project. This is because to create a feeling, a situation is

taken into consideration, a quick search in one’s memories is started and based on analogies

one ascribes meaning to a situation (Flora, 2007). Flora recognizes that the more experience

you have in a particular area the more reliable the outcome. For a change situation this means

that one examines previous changes and whether they were effective, in order to compare

them to the upcoming change and in this way the upcoming change predict its success or

failure.

It has been said that a primary reason for failure of a change lies with its leaders

(Gilley, Dixon, & Gilley, 2008), at least part of the effectiveness of the used strategy for

change is affected by the quality of the people that are involved in the process (Govindarajan,

1989). The aforementioned quality refers to experiences, skills, capabilities, attitudes, and

other characteristics of people required for a particular task or position (Peng & Litteljohn,

2001). More specifically, one could say that the effectiveness of the used influence (change)

strategy depends on the change agent that is exerting it, as well as on the change recipients

(Venkatesh, Ajay, & Zaltman, 1995). Therefore, to create readiness, a change strategy has to

be selected that fits the target (change recipients) as well as the change agent. One of the more

important factors of influence for the choice of the change strategy is the change agent itself

(Caluwé & Vermaak, 1999). The change agent leading and executing the change process

often selects a strategy that fits his personality. If the change agent uses a change strategy that

conflicts with his natural way of behavior or the used strategy does not live up to the

7

expectations of the respondents, chances of the change process failing increase due to

inconsistencies. Therefore, to manage readiness for change and stimulate effective change one

might have to research expectations of the change recipients and create a fit between the

chosen strategy, and the target- and change agents’ qualities and characteristics.

Research shows that the earlier mentioned transformational way of management is

commonly seen as satisfying and more effective (e.g. Bass, 1993; Judge & Bono, 2000; Lowe,

Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Leadership in a transformational way has four factors; 1.

Idealized influence or charisma, the leader is competent, trust worthy or both (trust in

management); 2. Inspirational motivation, the leader is able to communicate the goal(s) and

create meaning and challenge (qualitative communication); 3. Intellectual stimulation, the

leader motivates and supports employees to think independent and creative separate from

previous ways of working (Self-efficacy); And 4. Individualized consideration, which

expresses leaders capacity to empathize, understand individual needs and goals of the

employees (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Yair, 2003). Certain characteristics appear to be important

when a change leader needs to gain trust, communicate (in a qualitative way) with employees,

understand needs and goals of employees, inspire employees, motivate, and stimulate self-

efficacy of employees. Characteristics such as the development of relations, empowering

employees and solving problems (Bakker, 2006) as well as, open communication,

motivating, involving & supporting (coaching) employees, (Gilley et al., 2008) and the

ability to comprehend, be affectionate and appease of displeasure (Paassen, 2010). Many of

these characteristics are very similar to the description of feminine characteristics, such as

being talkative, gentle, appreciative, sophisticated (worldly-wise), meek (democratic) and

having a low desire for dominance as given by Edwards & Williams (1980) and feminine

attributes as consideration, participation, people-orientation by Appelbaum, Audet, & Miller

(2003). The idea that feminine characteristics might be more important in certain situations

can be concluded from Appelbaum, Audet, & Miller (2003) showing that women’s leadership

styles are more effective in current organizational structures due to for example

communication skills, advanced intermediary skills and well developed interpersonal skills.

These characteristics translate in more inclusive, open, rewarding organizations with a

collaborative team approach, which is what many organizations are looking for these days. In

other research focused on the effectiveness of different styles of leadership, it becomes clear

that employees have a strong preference for a more as feminine indicated leadership

approach, contrary to a more masculine approach as for example the transactional way of

leadership (Aldoory & Toth, 2009). Although there is quite some research proving that being

8

effective (in the broadest sense) does not depend on sex, there also is research showing that it

does seem to depend on certain gender characteristics (a.o. Appelbaum et al., 2003; Gilley et

al., 2008; Vecchio, 2002). So being effective is not about sex but about the characteristics one

possess, meaning that men can have feminine characteristics and women can have masculine

characteristics. Characteristics as appreciation, good communicator, sophistication, being

democratic and a low need of dominance should lead to large in-groups due to the tendency to

build an environment with greater social inclusion, interaction and power sharing fostering a

high readiness. A consequence of this should be that changes headed by change leaders with

more feminine characteristics have, change readiness and therefore higher subordinate

satisfaction and higher performance. This consequently results in greater effectiveness which

is according to vecchio (2002) because several of the proposed feminine characteristics such

as frequent contact and information sharing should result in a ‘webs of inclusion’, this feeling

of belonging and involvement fosters greater effectiveness. This is underscored by Burns

(1978), Burns mentions that in change situations charismatic or transformational leaders can

flourish due to their personality to communicate and persuasion of organizational members to

commit to the new vision. So, greater effectiveness is reached through more involvement

from and open, qualitative communication with the change recipients. As this open

environment provides the possibility to indicate potential ‘hazards’ within the change process

and also provides room for ideas to improve during the process, I expect that:

Hypothesis 1. A high level of feminine characteristics within change managers leads to

positive expected change effectiveness

2.1 Gender Characteristics

To recall, being an effective leader is not about gender but about gender

characteristics. Gender characteristics are a series of characteristics used to make a distinction

between male and female. Some of these characteristics are indicated as important to possess

in leadership positions. Due to the fact that many of us still often think stereotypical these

days, women are associated with communal terms, whereas male leaders often are linked to

more agentic characteristics (Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008). If women are

associated with leadership positions, they are, according to Heilman, Block & Martell (1995),

ascribed more agentic than communal characteristics, compared to women in general. The

Agentic (masculine) leadership characteristics are for example decision making and self-

confidence (Abele, 2003; Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). On the other hand, communal (feminine)

9

characteristics are described as for example building relationships, being empathic, taking

perspective and use these characteristics in effective communication (Devitt & Borodzicz,

2008; Granville, 2002). Consequence of displaying characteristics that contradict to the

gender stereotypes could be that one will be evaluated in a more negative way than someone

with the same sex who does not (Eagly & Karau, 2002).This effect is also described as the

‘backlash to agentic women’ (Rudman, 1998). A way to possibly overcome stereotyping is

looking at gender characteristics when selecting the right person for the job. This also counts

for change processes. It is important to have and use specific characteristics to influence the

ones who are affected by the change, in order to create readiness for it. A search throughout

different academic databases shows that limited research has been done between several

individual demographics of change recipients and readiness for change, none was found about

change leader demographics or gender characteristics. Looking at characteristics nothing

substantial has been found; when looking at gender of the recipients, some research was done

exhibiting a lack of consensus. Cunningham et al.,(2002) indicate in their research that they

did not find a relationship between readiness for change and gender or any of the other tested

demographics like marital status. Additionally, Hanpachern (1997) also concluded that there

was no significant relation between readiness, gender and several other demographics. On the

other hand, research among leaders from multiple domains has shown that organizational

commitment (often related to readiness) was marginally related to gender. Finally, research

shows that recipients who have more job involvement, stimulated by feminine characteristics

such as a low need for dominance, also show more organizational commitment (Goulet &

Singh, 2002). Organizational commitment is seen here as the belief in the organization’s

mission, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and the desire

to remain with the organization. In other words involvement of employees in a change leads

to willingness to put effort in the change and readiness for it. The lack of consensus in past

studies encourages continuing to explore these relations. It also instigated a change of focus

from focusing on sex towards a focus on gender characteristics.

2.2 Gender Characteristics and Readiness for Change

Readiness for change can be described as the beliefs, attitudes and intentions of

organizational members (Armenakis, 1993; Cawsey & Descza, 2007; Neves, 2009).

Readiness is also mentioned as the cognitive precursor to the behaviors of resistance or

support to change (Armenakis, 1993). Specific characteristics of a change manager might

have a positive (or negative) influence on readiness, because readiness can be seen as the

10

conjunction of certain strategies that influence members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions.

These strategies include, among others, the creation of a certain amount of trust, the quality of

communication and the amount of confidence in one’s own capabilities. A combination of

these strategies and thereby creating and maintaining readiness is almost similar to how

Lewin & Rivera (1976) describe the process of unfreezing an organization. The unfreezing is

achieved by managing the attitudes, beliefs and intentions of the change recipients broadening

their view about the necessity and usefulness about the upcoming change process. The

creation of readiness is explained in different studies in conjunction with prescriptions for

reducing resistance. Kotter & Schlessinger (1979) for example, discuss strategies to deal with

resistance, such as communication & education, participation & involvement, negotiation &

agreement and facilitation & support. These strategies seem to fit with feminine

characteristics as being communicative, involved, democratic and motivating, as wel as the

ability to comprehend. The importance of readiness can be deducted from the case “cracking

the code of change” by Beer & Nohria (2000). Beer & Nohria explain that to be effective, one

must win the hearts and minds of the change recipients; and to win hearts, minds and to build

& keep interpersonal trust in a change process, it is important that the trustees’ (change

agents’) behavior is not guided solely by rational self-interest. The change process also has to

be guided by the intention to improve the trustors’ (change recepients’) wellbeing

(Lindenberg, 2000; Nooteboom, 2002). Next to this, Beer & Nohria (2000) suggest that, to

win and retain the hearts and minds (and prove that you also care about the trustors’

wellbeing), a change manager has listen constantly, must discuss the changes with the trustors

and be willing to learn. In addition, the change agent also has to understand individual- and

group readiness, he or she has to know how to affect the individual and shared interpretation

of being ready for the change and practice this knowledge by using interpersonal skills.

According to Yukl (2002) women have several advantages in modern organizations due to

their ‘soft’ feminine characteristics (interpersonal skills), including communicative behavior,

upkeep of warm interpersonal relations with employees, being gentle and commiserate. These

characteristics merged with other feminine characteristics such as being more sophisticated,

being appreciative, having lower needs for dominance, being gentle and mild (democratic)

(Edwards & Williams, 1980), seem to be very important characteristics in the process of

winning hearts and minds of change recipients. Although not every characteristic can have the

same influence on each strategy towards change readiness, all together they could make all

the change recipients feel ready for the upcoming change. This means that a change manager

has the possibility to influence attitudes, beliefs and intentions of a trustee, again suggesting

11

that resistance cannot be considered as sudden nor as direct response to a certain change

occurrence. Instead resistance should be considered as part of the quality of the relationship

between the trustee and the trustor (Ford, Ford, & D'amelio, 2008). The importance of the

right characteristics does not only show from winning and keeping the hearts and minds of the

employees; it also can be deduced from the often mentioned change readiness strategies or

triggers that seem to be important in building and retaining the readiness for change. Often

mentioned triggers to affect the attitudes and beliefs of the employees are: the amount of trust

in management (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007b; Kotter, 2007; Lai & Ong, 2010),

(the quality of) communication (Kotter, 2007; Lai & Ong, 2010) as well as believe in one’s

own capabilities (change self-efficacy)(Choi & Ruona, 2011; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, &

Harris, 2007a). As mentioned earlier, feminine characteristics as for example information

sharing, a low need for dominance and frequent contact leads to stimulation of an open

environment. Recipients know the environment, are involved and communicate about what

they want to know and therefore have faith in what is happening around them. So,

involvement is an important factor to create an environment in which employees are ready,

showing their commitment to the organizations’ vision and even are willing to their selves put

considerable effort in the change. I expect that:

Hypothesis 2. Feminine characteristics present in the change agents lead to readiness for

change

2.3 Relation and Mediation of Change Readiness and Underlying Strategies

The creation of readiness for change is complicated, as can be observed when

considering theories such as Maslows’ (Maslow, 1943, 1954) theory of human motivation.

Within the hierarchy of needs, the phase of love and belonging (trust) comes before esteem

and self-actualization. As soon as we feel we are a part of something, we gain confidence and

start to gain and give respect with as final step a higher morale, creativity and problem-

solving attitude. This is why the different readiness strategies including, among others, the

creation of a certain amount of trust, the quality of communication and the amount of

confidence in one’s own capabilities are so important. All of these readiness strategies have a

relation and the same focus, together they build up to a feeling readiness. One of the relations

is between qualitative communication and trust. To have qualitative communication in an

open way one needs to trust each other, for trust one needs honesty (qualitative

communication about what is happening). Another relation is between trust and self-efficacy.

12

To gain trust a change recipient needs support (stimulate self-efficacy and contribute to

personal objectives), but when a recipient has self-efficacy because the recipient already

possess skills related to the change process it also is easier to trust because the recipient is

able to analyze the abilities of the change agent . Finally, to build self-efficacy the change

agent has to communicate with the recipient to find out about the needs (in order to contribute

to personal objectives) but without self-efficacy the change recipient might be afraid to

discuss his opinion about the change (qualitative communication) or might lose trust in the

change manager. This shows that these strategies are to a certain level interconnected and

influence each other. Several (feminine) characteristics of a change agent seem to provide the

advantage of being able to build a strong relationship with the partner (the change recipient),

based on qualitative communication, fair treatment, creating trust and boosting self-efficacy.

Past studies have proven the importance of stimulating trust, qualitative communication and

self-efficacy resulting in readiness. Studies such as the one by Miller, Johnson & Grau (1994),

prove that when employees feel they have received high-quality information, they also report

high levels of readiness for change. Concerning self-efficacy, Wanberg et al., (2000) found

that, together with several change specific variables, self-efficacy was predictive of readiness

for change. Studies by Lewis & Weigert (1985) and McAllister (1995), discuss interpersonal

trust and its importance in stimulating commitment (readiness) and satisfaction of members-

as well as organizational effectiveness. To be effective, one needs to win hearts and minds

(create change readiness) of the change recipients which for example is done by building and

retaining trust in a change process (Beer & Nohria, 2000), which, according to Yukl (2002) is

easiest with “soft” feminine characteristics because those are best used for the upkeep of

warm, interpersonal relationships. Finally, a study on organizational justice mentioned by

(Ford et al., 2008) shows that when people believe they have been treated fairly, they develop

an attitude associated with successful change. This means that positive expectations of change

recipients about results can be associated with effective change results. The attitude of

recipients also can work the other way around, meaning that when people (expect to)

experience injustice or betrayal, they report a desire for retribution and resentment (Folger &

Skarlicki, 1999) resulting in less effective change or a complete failure. A feeling of injustice

or betrayal could stimulate a change of perception, such as a loss of trust of, growing

dissatisfaction with the change process and possibly even a decomposition of the relationship

itself (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Continuing this spiral, the feelings

again might result in less open communication and even in a loss of self-efficacy. The

weakened, interconnected foundation of qualitative communication, trust and self-efficacy

13

together adds to a lower feeling of readiness and eventually resulting in less or even non-

effective change. This is because an individual’s perception about for example readiness can

facilitate or undermine the effectiveness of a change strategy (Armenakis et al., 1993) (see

conceptual model, fig. 1, p. 17). That the strategies might be related and together work

towards readiness for change, does not mean they cannot individually also have a mediating

role, therefore the next section will discuss these strategies and change readiness in detail.

2.3.1 The Mediating Role of Trust (and Communication)

In the process of winning and keeping the hearts and minds of change recipients, one

has to listen constantly, discuss what is happening and make sure change recipients retain

their belief that the change agent takes care of their well-being. Allowing others to care for

your feelings (create a feeling of readiness), and as such determines whether you are happy,

have confidence and are able to be successful, requires among others constant communication

and trust. Trust is depicted as the psychological state of the (change) recipient in which the

recipient accepts to be open and therefore vulnerable to the actions of another individual (the

change manager). This state of mind of the recipient (trustor) towards the change manager

(trustee), is based upon the expectation that the trustee is able to perform a particular action

while maintaining uprightness important to the trustor (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995;

Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Cramer, 1998; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). This means that

it is very difficult to create trust without qualitative communication because, to create and

retain trust, the change recipient has to be able to continuously trust on the abilities, integrity

and support for the change by the change manager. To build trust and allow for change

recipients to speak up, the change manager could be the first to start communicating.

However, research shows that it might not be enough to just provide plain information about a

change or its process, at least not to create readiness among employees; rather the provided

information has to be perceived as ‘high of quality’ to influence employees’ appraisal

(Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004b). For information to be perceived as

‘high quality’ it has to answer to the specific information needs of the diverse change

recipients. This means that the quality of information might be perceived in different ways,

including trust in the source (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999) and whether individuals’ needs

meet the communication (e.g. regarding openness) (Vakola, Soderquist, & Prastacos, 2007).

Individuals’ needs might be constant information, being open about what is going on,

listening to complaints and discussing them. Does the change manager informs the trustors

about the who, what, where, why, when and how of the change process, does the change

14

manager listens to complaints and how does he answer to them, does the change manager

stick to his words and is there active involvement of the change recipients in the process. The

fact that communication is important, is according to Kotter (2007) because hearts and minds

of employees can never be captured without ample and reliable communication. In a study

conducted by Kotter, concerning transformational efforts, executives used all the

communication channels available. On top of that, they transformed standard returning

meetings into interesting, exciting discussions about the change. Kotter also witnessed that, in

one of the cases he studied, feedback from peers and subordinates was used to help the

manager to remind him about the desired behavior. Not providing enough and the necessary

(specific) information also seems to be one of the reasons why many change efforts are

ineffective. This is confirmed by DiFonzo & Bordia (1998) and Schweiger & DeNisi (1991),

who indicate that communication is vital to the effective implementation of organizational

change. Also Appelbaum et al., (2003), as mentioned earlier, mention that more feminine

leaderships styles are preferred in current organizations due to for example qualities such as

advanced intermediary skills, communication skills and well developed interpersonal skills.

The importance of feminine characteristics in creating trust might be underscored by research

of Feingold (1994), who found that females score higher than males on all measures of trust.

Therefore, to create trust and have qualitative communication, a change leader has to build on

feminine characteristics by creating an open environment, with ample shared time, in which

the change recipient is involved, coached, information about the change is available and ideas

of the recipients are heard.

Hypothesis 3a. Trust in (change) management mediates between feminine characteristics

(indicated as important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness

Hypothesis 3b.Qualitative communication mediates between feminine characteristics

(indicated as important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness

2.3.2 The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy

As mentioned, self-efficacy is next to qualitative communication and trust, also an

important part of the creation and upkeep of change readiness. To boost self-efficacy, a

change leader should create a trusted environment and use qualitative, open communication

because recipients in such an environment feel free to inform their change leader of what

bothers them and are confident to indicate what skill improvements they might need regarding

15

the new situation. Other factors that seem to boost self-efficacy include physiological factors,

personal experience (in similar situations), social persuasion (encouragement/

discouragement) and experience of role models (trust in skills & knowledge of the change

agent) (Bandura, 1997). Finally, self-efficacy among employees can be stimulated by

enriching jobs with autonomy and complexity which in turn, according to Parker, Bindl &

Strauss (2010), leads to the creation of enjoyment and an optimal experience. Self-efficacy

felt by change recipients seems to create a proactive ‘can do’ mentality, conveying a relation

to effective outcomes across many domains (Parker et al., 2010). From this, one may

conclude that feminine characteristics such as a low need for dominance, information sharing,

involvement and supporting are important to stimulate self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 3c. Self-efficacy mediates between feminine characteristics (indicated as

important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness

2.3.3 Change Readiness and Resistance

Talking about readiness to change often also brings up the idea of resistance to change

because they can be seen as opposites (Watson, 1971). Though seen as opposites, one should

not look at them as polar opposites, but one might as well look at them as complex states

having an impact on diverse individuals as well as organizational factors (Self, 2007).

Although they are not opposites, low levels of resistance seem to make change efforts more

successful. It needs to be said that resistance is not always bad (Ford et al., 2008). Ford et al.

also point out that readiness can be broken down before or during the change process by

breaking agreements and failure to restore one’s mistakes afterwards. If a change agent breaks

an agreement with a change recipient (trustor), for example an agreement related to promised

(change-related) training, the manner of acting can decrease trust and probably also self-

efficacy of the trustor which results in reduced readiness. Another example could be a change

agent being dominant or working as an autocrat (both often described as male characteristics)

and thereby failing to legitimize choices and misrepresenting chances of success, possibly

contributing to a communication breakdown (Ford et al., 2008). This kind of resistance, also

known as dysfunctional resistance, is unwanted. However, resistance can also be functional

and make blind spots, such as a lack of trust, self-efficacy and communication visible.

Although sometimes functional, having and retaining low levels of resistance during the

change process is important because lower levels of resistance among employees seem to

make change efforts more successful (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Elving, 2005).

16

To create readiness and retain low levels of resistance, it cannot be mentioned often enough

that constant listening, open & appreciative talking and discussing the change and making

‘democratic’ decisions, is important before and during the change process. Together these

three strategies form the base on which change readiness builds.

2.3.4 Change Readiness as Mediator

Although readiness for change has not often been taken into account as a mediating

factor, more recent studies seem to give it some attention. A search through many digital

databases only revealed two papers which looked at readiness as a mediating factor between

the change strategy and effective change. Wanberg & Banas (2000) found a weak support for

the mediating role of readiness. Particular change-specific variables (including provided

information, self-efficacy and active involvement) proved to be predictors of change

readiness. According to Jones et al. (2005) ” the weak support for the mediating role of

change readiness, in the study of Wanberg & Banas, might be ascribed to the general nature

of the employee adjustment measures which did not specifically address outcomes associated

with the restructuring taking place in the organization.” In own research Jones et al (2005)

found no support for the mediating role of readiness when predicting the user satisfaction

(effectiveness), although some evidence was found about employees who felt positive about

upcoming changes. This might indicate that there is a relation between readiness and

(expected) effectiveness because the employees who felt positive about the upcoming changes

also afterwards reported higher satisfaction levels with the accuracy of the system, user-

friendliness and systems formatting functions. Higher satisfaction could be an indicator of

higher reported effectiveness because, as mentioned by Campion et al., (1993), effectiveness

is based on satisfaction, productivity and manager judgments. Being ready does not directly

solve targeted problems and neither does it ensure that objectives are achieved. As such,

effectiveness has not yet been reached. Readiness does mean, as mentioned earlier, that

employees are more cooperative in reaching the set goals; the present trust and

communication could give early notifications of needed training and possible ‘problems’

providing time to address these issues and to solve them. In addition, self-efficacy seems to

have a strong influence on achievements as was shown by a study among students. If the

students’ belief in their efficacy is stronger, they show greater interest, they are better

prepared and show more signs of readiness like greater interest, better preparation and greater

persistence in the end resulting in a hiher level of success in their academic coursework (Betz

& Hackett, 1986; Lent, Brown, & G., 1994). Furthermore change recipients also seem to

17

prefer a more feminine, way of leadership with qualitative communication, trust building and

involvement. A study by Stoker (2007) shows grades of different types of leaders as preferred

by employees. On a scale from 1 to 10 the masculine leader gets a 6.7 and the feminine leader

a 7.1. In addition, it seems that feminine characteristics such as cooperation and qualitative

communication make it more likely to reach the goals set for the change, implying that it

might also contribute to higher productivity and employee satisfaction. This together

contributes to management judgments of the success/ effectiveness of the change, meaning

that all factors of successful or effective change as described by Campion et al., (1993) are

covered. Preference for a more feminine leader, the seemingly positive influence of the

related characteristics on readiness for change as well as effectiveness and a lack of consensus

in previous research provide the ground for hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 3: Readiness for change mediates between feminine characteristics (indicated as

important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness

Figure 1.

3. METHODS

3.1 Procedures

After selecting the subject it became clear it was necessary to test it in a quantitative

way to ensure the research being measurable and more easy to analyze. Quantitative research

also seemed the most logical to get a strong foundation for possible further research (if

everything would go as smoothly as planned). If not, only one company has been bothered

with the questionnaires making it easier to find other companies in case of a retest or adapted

questionnaire. A field study has been done at a large (mobile) telephone, television and

internet provider in the Netherlands. The researched company was ideal because they needed

to go through a culture change, which was the first type of change that I planned to focus on.

18

A change plan was developed in cooperation with the change guidance team, followed by a

kick-off meeting in which a culture change towards a more open culture was announced. The

study was launched directly after the kickoff meeting to measure the change recipients’

readiness for change. To increase the response rate, surveys were announced by e-mail and a

possible reward was offered to those who returned their survey. Besides this, purpose and

importance of the study were explained within the e-mail and the survey could be filled out

online to allow for easy access. After 4 days a reminder was sent again, including an

explanation of the purpose and importance of the survey, requesting the change recipients to

fill in the survey within five working days. After these five days, the survey was taken offline.

Originally, 63 surveys were sent out within the sales department, 49 surveys were returned,

resulting in a response rate of 77.77 percent. Questioned recipients have on average spent 5

years with the company and the male/female percentage among the recipients is almost 50/50

(25 male, 24 female). Participants represented different levels of education (secondary school

18.4 percent, Lower vocational education 63.2 percent, higher vocational education and

university 18.4 percent).

3.2 Measures

Questions used are based on published studies, while slightly altered to match the

culture change within the company. The questions were translated in Dutch by the author for

a better understanding. After translating them, they were checked by two individuals of which

one was an English student. The questionnaire originally consisted of 98 items, representing

six variables as presented in the conceptual model (page 17). Questions per topic were

selected from papers that seemed to discuss the same subject matter and therefore should

measure the same. Unless otherwise indicated, questions had to be answered on the 5 point

Likert scale from very unlikely to very likely. Before performing the analysis in SPSS,

negatively formulated items were recoded (item: trust5, trust7, QualCom1, QualCom4,

QualCom7, ExEf7). A codebook for these and following items is enclosed and can be found

in appendix A

3.2.1 Measurements (Factor Analysis & Reliability)

The factor analysis on all data presented a spread of all data over 26 components. As

the questions should be grouped under fewer components, items that were expected to belong

to one variable, were often spread over multiple components. In order to see if the questions

asked fitted in the same variable, data was forced into seven components. This showed that

19

quite some characteristics (masculine and feminine) were grouped under the same component.

In addition, some of the other variables showed this same pattern. Due to the large amount of

data and the fact that quite some of the gender characteristics were grouped on one component

which possibly could be named characteristics in general. The decision was made to separate

the questions about masculine- and feminine leadership characteristics from the other

variables (readiness, qualitative communication, self-efficacy, trust and expected

effectiveness). The separation was made because it was expected that, due to the large amount

of data, the answers on the other variables had a negative influence on the statistical

outcomes. A factor analysis for both afterwards resulted again in too many components,

meaning that masculine- and feminine leadership styles were forced into two components

(masculine & feminine, appendix B) and the other variables were forced into five components

(readiness for change, trust in management, qualitative communication, confidence in one’s

own capabilities and expected efficacy, appendix F). No variables were used to check for any

alternative patterns. Although the realization is there that making use of variables to check

for alternative patterns like, do males have different preferences in leadership style than

females do, could provide a different view it did not seem relevant for this research since the

focus was on a pattern for employees in common. Correlations will be tested two tailed. The

reason for this is to check for dissimilarities between masculine and feminine characteristics,

this way one does not rule out one or the other, still being able to check if feminine

characteristics have indeed a more positive influence on change processes. For each variable,

an explanation of why questions were removed and a possible explanation for double

loadings, when a question has been grouped under 2 or more columns, will be provided.

3.2.2 Change Leaders’ Characteristics. To measure the characteristics indicated by

change recipients as necessary for a change manager, recipients were asked to answer

questions from the short BEM Gender Role Inventory (BSRI) as mentioned by Powell,

Butterfield & Parent (2002). The BSRI measurements of masculinity and femininity are based

on ten items each and ten genderless questions to avoid a biased response from the

respondents. The genderless questions are questions with characteristics that are not related to

gender (karakter-2, 4, 11, 13, 15, 20, 23, 29, 32, 35) and because they are of no importance in

this study they have been left out in the factor analysis. Masculinity and femininity are

according to Bem (Bem, 1974; Bem & Lewis, 1975) two separate independent dimensions.

Considering both dimensions together, the androgynous concept, a combination of both

masculine and feminine qualities, arises. Next to the 10 masculine and feminine questions,

20

three masculine and feminine questions taken from Edwards et al. (1980) were added to both

categories. A factor analysis was done to find out whether it was possible to create two

independent variables. Possibly, due to the fact that the amount of respondents (N = 49) was

very low for this kind of study, the outcomes were quite resulting in the characteristics having

to be forced into two components. Six masculine (karakter-1, 3, 5, 10, 28, 34) and five

feminine (karakter-12, 27, 30, 33, 36) items were removed. The reason for removal was that,

due to forcing them into two components, several items showed a value of below .30 or

double loading on multiple components (1, 3, 5, 12, 27, 28, 33, 34). These low values or

double loading could be explained by a change over time in gender characteristics. An

example of a change in gender characteristics is the tendency to defend one’s personal beliefs,

which women do as much as men in today’s world. Another example is wanting to work

rationally. Furthermore, men also show more signs of democratic leadership in comparison

with years ago. Another explanation might lie in interpretation; one should wonder whether

loving children or being forceful really are characteristics that belong to either gender. Other

than the fact that forcing them into two components caused some of these loadings, another

cause might have been that questions are interpreted differently by the reader or might have

been wrongly translated in the process (10, 33, 36). All the questions mentioned above were

removed while constantly monitoring the Cronbach’s Alfa after removal of one of the

questions. The final factor analysis can be found in appendix C. Karakter 9 is enclosed in the

result even though it loads on a different component. This choice was made because removing

this item lowered the Cronbach’s Alfa. The final scale is a combination of both the short

BEM Gender Role Inventory (BSRI) as mentioned by Powell, Butterfield & Parent (2002)

and a few (2, 1 masculine & 1 feminine) questions taken from Edwards et al. (1980), resulting

in two independent variables: a masculine α = 0.65 and a feminine α = 0.82.

3.2.3 Change Readiness. Because readiness does not only deal with trust, the quality

of communication and self-efficacy, 14 questions were added to the questionnaire to measure

readiness individually. These questions are based on Hanpacherns’ original 14-item Readiness

For Change (RFC) scale. In effort to improve the scale, Madsen, Miller & John (2005) made

slight alterations resulting in a slightly altered 14 item change readiness scale. The scale

includes items such as; “my willingness or openness to change the way I work is …” or “my

willingness or openness to be part of the change program is …” with answering possibilities

on a five point scale from very unlikely to very likely. After being forced into five

components (appendix F),- readiness together with trust, qualitative communication,

21

confidence in own capabilities & expected efficacy-, several items did not group with the

mass. This part will discuss the items for change readiness, whereas following parts will

discuss the other components. Over several steps of removing items from the diverse

categories, three items showed high loads on change readiness as well as other components

(Ready-2, 13, 15), which might be the case due to questions having been interpreted

differently or wrong. For example, ready13 “my willingness or openness to improve what we

are currently doing rather than implement a major change” could be interpreted in a negative

way and therefore answered differently by the respondents. Removing ready12 was necessary

foremost because it was not part of the scale as altered by Madsen, Miller & John (2005).

Additionally, it was asked as reversed question, which might have caused a load on a different

component. Besides wrong or negative interpretation, another possible factor that might have

caused loading wrong or high on multiple components can be the low N present in this study.

Removal of these items results in the factor analysis as presented in appendix G. Change

readiness as a dependent variable has an α of 0.91.

3.2.4 Trust. Questions about trust in management were selected from several

published papers. Within the questionnaire, questions from three different studies were

combined to create a respectable amount of questions. In the end, it was decided to remove

two of these sources, due to double loads and loading within different components, leaving

one scale. The final scale was taken from a study by Holt (2002), used again in a study by

Holt, Bartczak, Clark & Trent (2007c). The questions were based on trust in management

support during the change process. The four items left (trust-6, 7, 8, 9) included questions

such as “this departments’ most senior leader is committed to such changes” and “Our senior

leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace changes that will improve knowledge sharing

(openness)”. The factor analysis (appendix G) showed a loading of the trust items left on

several components (trust-7, 8) loaded on the component linked to qualitative communication.

A possible explanation could be that trust 7 “I think we are spending a lot of time on this

change when the senior managers don’t even want it implemented” is formulated as a

reversed question which might have caused it to load somewhere differently. Trust 8 mentions

knowledge sharing, which is communication of knowledge, this might be the reason that it

was grouped under qualitative communication. Trust 9, formulated above as example question

discusses commitment, whereas trust 6 also was grouped on a different component again with

items of confidence in one’s own capabilities and expected efficacy. A possible explanation

might be the low N. Removing one of these items would not help the scale. In fact, removing

22

of one of the items, in most cases, would even significantly lower the reliability. Because it is

an already existing scale used in other studies, the choice has been made to enclose all items

of this scale. This means that the scale consists of four items forming the dependent variable

‘trust in management’ with α of 0.72.

3.2.5 Qualitative Communication. Similar to the trust in management questions, these

questions about qualitative communication were also limited. This resulted in the final 14

questions being taken from different sources. The study by Holt et al. (2007c) provided some

questions used previously in Miller, Johnson & Grau (1994), such as “the information I

received was timely” and “the information I received about this change has adequately

answered my questions. Questions from the other sources, such as Bordia et al (2004a) “The

official information provided about the change, addressed my personal concerns regarding the

change” and Bouckenooghe et al. (2009; 2007) “the information provided about the change is

clear” have a strong theoretical fit and therefore were included. A deeper look showed that the

initial source in most articles was the same, namely Miller et al., (1994). Despite the common

source, several questions were removed. First of al QualCom 5 was removed in response to a

failure in the survey. Additionally, QualCom 13 showed a double load within several factor

analyses, an explanation could be that the change process was just started when the survey

was taken and consequently change recipients might have had doubts about how regularly

they would be informed. Finally, QualCom 1 and 14 also were removed because of double

loading. An explanation for this could be the reversed way of questioning. However, the

double loads also can be explained by the fact that these questions cover more of the change

process than just the beginning. After removal of those four questions, nine questions from

the combined sources remained and qualitative communication was created as a dependent

variable with α = 0.89.

3.2.6 Self-efficacy. The questions about self-efficacy were taken from Holt et

al.,(2007a; 2007c). The study by Holt et al., (2007a; 2007c) provided a respectable amount of

10 questions about change confidence. Questions (confid-8, 9, 10) were mentioned in a

different part of the paper by Holt et al., (2007b; 2007c), within the factor analysis (appendix

G) they also were grouped on different components which could proof that they might

measure something different. Removing them also improved the reliability and the

combination of both provided enough reason to remove these questions. Though not visible,

in the first factor analysis confid- 4 and 7 started showing high loads on multiple components.

A reason for this might have been the reverse questioning applied to these questions,

23

combined with an increase in reliability. Consequently, these questions were removed as well.

The five questions left included “I do not anticipate any problems adjusting to the work I will

have when this change is adopted” and “My past experiences make me confident that I will be

able to perform successfully after the changes are made” and together formed “confidence in

own capabilities” as a dependent variable with α = 0.74.

3.2.7 Expected Change Effectiveness. Finally, expected effectiveness of the change

was examined. This is measured by indicating the (expected) degree to which objectives are

being achieved and targeted and problems are solved. To recall, effectiveness has to answer

according to Campion et al. (1993) to three criteria: productivity, satisfaction and manager

judgments. To gain 10 questions that answer to all these three criteria, questions were used

from a master thesis (Hillenga, 2009b) as well as from two other sources. After the factor

analysis, it was decided to remove questions ExEf 5 – 11. The first reason to remove these

questions was the doubtfulness of the source because, as questions were not used in articles

but taken from a consultancy website (TandemGroup, 2010) and formulated by the author

based on literature. All questions were individually tested for understanding, adapted and

retested again among 20 employees. Whenever two or more employees did not understand the

question, the question was removed. Despite this method, items still showed a spread over the

multiple components. A reason for this could be that they show similarities with questions

asked within the other variables. For instance, “I think we will be able to manage this change

within the time set” were grouped on multiple components, including the one in which

confidence in one’s own capabilities is strongly represented (Item 5, appendix E). In the end it

proved that removing the items that were taken from the (TandemGroup, 2010) and the

questions as formulated by the author increased the reliability of expected change

effectiveness as variable. Removing these questions also contributed to regrouping of items

within other component variables, which leads to a better fit. This also proofs that the low N

plays a strong role within all variables. The four remaining questions are all taken from the

master thesis by Hillenga (2009b), who used a questionnaire by Nutt (1998) to measure the

effectiveness of change. Questions included among others “I think I can get used to the new

way of working and the “new department” that will arise due to the changes that are made”

and “In my opinion this change is going to be a success”. Although from one source, some of

these questions still were not grouped in one component. The fact that they do not have an

individual component might be caused by resemblance visible within the questions of

confidence in own capabilities, trust in management and expected change effectiveness

24

(appendix G). A possible explanation for ExEf4 “After changes the department is likely to be

more effective than it used to” to group on the component in which many questions of

qualitative communication were grouped is that, within the company where research was

done, many of the employees found that this field needed the most improvement. Because the

questions were used in previous studies and did not present any trouble within the test group,

they are used to represent this category. Change effectiveness as a dependent variable has α =

0.71.

4. RESULTS

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics as well as correlations for all variables. To test

the hypotheses, a linear regression analysis was conducted (table 2).

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for All Variables

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Masculine 3.51 .44 - - - - - -

2 Feminine 4.39 .47 .27 - - - - -

3 Trust 4.28 .59 -.26 .02 - - - -

4 Qualitative Communication

3.91 .53 -.29* .12 .71** - - -

5 Self-efficacy 4.23 .49 -.09 .17 .61** .40** - -

6 Readiness 4.37 .49 .08 .20 .56** .41** .62** -

7 Expected Efficacy 4.24 .58 -.21 .17 .46** .65** .52** .68**

N = 49. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The descriptive statistics in Table 1 show high scores and low dispersion, which might

a problem in providing significant regression data. Still, some significant correlations between

the independent variables are visible. A slight, yet significant, negative relation is visible

between qualitative communication and masculine characteristics, giving an indication that

the used as masculine indicated characteristics have a negative relation when one wants to

induce qualitative communication. Therefore, the more leaders will be rated as masculine, the

lower the levels of qualitative communication will be. Qualitative communication has

significant positive relations with trust, self-efficacy, readiness for change and expected

efficacy. Which implies that higher levels of qualitative communication will also result in

higher levels of trust, self-efficacy and together eventually also lead to more readiness for

change. This is also visible in the significant relations between trust, self-efficacy and

readiness for change, as well as for the relation between self-efficacy and readiness. All of

25

these variables influence each other, entailing for example that an improvement in trust will

provide more self-efficacy, will help the quality of communication and together positively

influence readiness for change as well. As mentioned, readiness for change does not only

consist of trust, qualitative communication and self-efficacy strategies. Because readiness for

change also has a positive significant relation with trust, qualitative communication and self-

efficacy, one might conclude that if the other unmentioned strategies of readiness are applied

well, it also has a positive reflection on the other variables. The strong correlation visible

between trust, qualitative communication and self-efficacy shows, that these variables are

indeed an interconnected mix of change readiness strategies. They influence each other in a

positive way, influences on one of them affects all, including readiness for change. However

insignificant, negative relations are also visible between masculine characteristics, trust and

self-efficacy, where feminine characteristics show a slight though not significant positive

relation. This indicates that, although not significant, in this study an increase of feminine

characteristics has a slightly positive influence on the variables of trust, qualitative

communication and self-efficacy, where an increase of masculine characteristics will lead to a

slight decrease. This also counts for the relation between masculine- and feminine

characteristics and expected efficacy. The relation between masculine and feminine

characteristics shows a near to significant relation, this relation might imply that that

masculine and feminine characteristics influence each other in a positive way. If so, the ideal

leader should possess both, masculine and feminine characteristics (androgynous leader) to be

effective. Finally, another positive, significant relation is visible between expected change

efficacy as a dependent variable & readiness for change, trust, qualitative communication and

confidence in own capabilities, as independent variables. This signifies that if readiness or any

of the other variables decreases, it will also influence the expected efficacy in a negative way.

The relation between them is tested in table 2 (p. 26), proving that they, at least in the

company examined, show a significant relation.

26

TABLE 2 Linear Regression Results

DEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Gender characteristics

CE RfC Trust QC Confid

H1 H2 H3a H3b H3c Expected Efficacy

Masculine .060 .864 .053 .022* .347

Feminine .094 .209 .497 .152 .170

Readiness .001 **

Trust .000**

Qualitative communication

.000**

Confidence in own capabilities

.000**

R2 .102 .040 .079 .121 .040 .571

F 2.613 .957 1.976 3.180 1.144 12.785

N = 49 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Hypothesis 1 proposed that ‘a high level of feminine characteristics within change

managers leads to positive expected change effectiveness’. As mentioned, the results

displayed in table 1 already show that there is no correlation between the masculine &

feminine characteristics and expected efficacy. Table 2, the regression analysis, confirms that

there is no significant relation between either feminine (β = 0.09, p = 0.17 ) or masculine

characteristics (β = 0.06, p = -0.20) and expected change effectiveness, meaning hypothesis

1 is rejected.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that feminine characteristics present in change agents lead to

readiness for change. As table 1 indicates, there is no sign of correlation between the gender

characteristics and readiness for change. The regression analysis in table 2 confirms that this

relation is not significant and therefore hypothesis 2 has to be rejected. (β = 0.21 , p = 0.20).

To test whether hypothesis 3 and 3a,b,c show any significant mediating relation, three

conditions must be met (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005). First, one

has to find a significant relationship between the independent variable and the dependent

variable. Second, a significant relationship between the independent variable and the mediator

27

has to be present. Finally, when including the independent variable and mediator in a

regression analysis, the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable

should disappear or be suppressed and the mediator should remain significant. The fact that

hypothesis 1 was rejected closed the opportunity for possible mediation of readiness, trust,

qualitative communication & confidence in one’s own capabilities between the characteristics

and expected effectiveness. Hypothesis 3, 3a,b and c (readiness for change mediates between

feminine characteristics and expected effectiveness), 3a (within readiness for change, trust in

(change) management mediates between feminine characteristics and expected effectiveness),

3b (Qualitative communication mediates between feminine characteristics (indicated as

important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness) and 3c (within

readiness for change, confidence in own capabilities mediates between feminine

characteristics and expected change effectiveness) therefore have to be rejected.

5. DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine whether feminine characteristics are more

effective than masculine characteristics within a change process. Past studies have mainly

focused on gender and leadership, often neglecting the fact that everyone (male or female) has

different characteristics. Results from those studies often differ enormously, as they either see

males as better leaders or females. More recent studies such as the one by Stoker (2007), often

point more towards the androgynous leader as most effective, acknowledging

interchangeability of characteristics. However, these studies still do not consider which

individual characteristics might be important for a change leader. This study builds on the

importance of creating readiness in change projects and questions whether a certain

combination of gender characteristics is more important in the process of change readiness

creation. It was found that masculine- or feminine characteristics do not have a significant

relation with readiness for change or expected change efficacy. An explanation for this might

be that in our effort to single out certain characteristics, these characteristics were categorized

as masculine or feminine characteristics. This was clearly not the right choice, as the

categorization was based on cultural prejudice. Putting together a group of characteristics,

labeling them as masculine or feminine might not (fully) live up to reality. It is very well

possible that a certain combination of both masculine and feminine characteristics (the

androgynous leader) is the best choice. However, it is as of yet unclear which characteristics

the androgynous leader should possess, and whether these should be different in different

28

situations. The first hypothesis in which a relationship is expected between masculine and

feminine characteristics and expected efficacy does not show any significant relation. This

means that possessing more feminine or masculine characteristics does not influence the

expected results of the change process. It also becomes clear from the second hypothesis,

testing the relation between masculine and feminine characteristics and readiness for change,

that it cannot be said that either group of characteristics, masculine or feminine, is best in a

change process. An explanation for this could come from Beer & Nohria (2000), who state

that it might be wise to choose different managers, type E and O, when different types of

change follow on each other. Type E change is a seemingly more masculine leadership

approach, whereas type O seems to be an approach based on leadership that is more feminine.

Another example might come from the case of the XYZ construction (Burnes, 2004), proving

success from matching different change approaches (as for example a planned or more

emergent approach) to different types of change (such as a structural or cultural change) being

undertaken. A different style of managing and a different approach usually go hand in hand

with different characteristics. After all, one of the more important factors of influence for the

choice of the change strategy is the change agent itself (Caluwé & Vermaak, 1999). This

means that when selecting a change manager for the change process, one should not look at

traditional male or female behavior. Again, testing the androgynous concept, a combination of

‘the best of both’ masculine and feminine characteristics, might be an option. The question

remains: which characteristics are the right ones and do these suit any situation? A solution

could be to look at the characteristics of a change leader that have been indicated as important

by change recipients separately. This might be important because change recipients in

different situations are likely to have different needs and reactions towards change processes

based on their experiences and the situation they are facing. The more a change agent or

company is able to deal with these needs and reactions, the more successful the change efforts

will be (Huy, 1998). As shown, readiness, trust, communication and confidence in one's own

capabilities do not mediate the relationship between masculine & feminine characteristics and

the expected change efficacy. The fact that the division of characteristics into masculine and

feminine categories fails to show any relation to readiness or expected change effectiveness,

does not mean that specific individual characteristics (masculine or feminine) cannot have a

relation. Looking individually at the characteristics might reveal which ones are of specific

interest in the process of creating readiness and possibly (expected) change effectiveness.

Another explanation could be that the low amount of respondents causes complications

because, when considering the correlations, masculinity often has a negative correlation with

29

the other variables (not significant), whereas the feminine characteristics show a positive

relation (again not significant). Finally, the timing of the research, just after the kick-off,

could be of influence because change recipients might experience difficulties in judging for

example about their trust in management. This again could have caused high averages and

low dispersion within the given answers influencing on its turn the regression analysis.

The fact that there is no significant relation visible between either masculine or feminine

characteristics and most of the dependent variables (change readiness, trust in management,

qualitative communication, confidence in own capabilities and expected change effectiveness)

denotes that neither set of characteristics is superior when applied in the process of creating

change readiness.

One relation however, was considered significant. The combined masculine

characteristics seem to reflect negatively on qualitative communication, meaning that when

leaders are rated more masculine, the quality of communication will be rated lower. Because

several characteristics are now combined into one masculine and one feminine variable, it

might be a good idea to see which individual characteristics are necessary when improving

communication and which characteristics might have a negative influence.

A significant correlation between readiness, trust, qualitative communication and

confidence in one’s own capabilities can be observed, where each factor influences every

other factor. This means that they are indeed interconnected, because an increase in one of the

variables affects the other variables in a positive way. Part of the correlation was already

shown in a study by Ford et al. (2008), mentioning that readiness can be broken down already

before or during the change process by not living up to agreements and failure to restore made

mistakes afterwards. The regression analysis (table 2, p. 23) shows a significant relation

between expected change efficacy and the change readiness variables. This demonstrates that

it is important for companies in a (culture) change process to invest in creating a situation

where qualitative communication, trust and confidence are constantly present to create and

maintain readiness for change during the process. These findings are confirmed in several

studies, such as Beer and Nohria (2000) who explained that for change to be effective, the

change agent has to win recipients’ hearts and minds. Additionally, research based on

resistance in change processes found that low levels of resistance among change seemed to

make change efforts more successful (Armenakis et al., 1993; Elving, 2005). Finally, Jones et

al., (2005) found that being ready for change had a positive influence on satisfaction with the

end result. This indicates that it is indeed important to make sure that employees are ready for

change and that being ready leads to results that are more positive.

30

5.1 Limitations and Future Research Directions

As any study, this study has a number of limitations. First of all, as mentioned before,

no evidence for the hypothesis based on masculine or feminine characteristics was found.

Looking deeper into the individual questions about masculine or feminine characteristics and

examining averages it becomes clear that certain characteristics are either preferred, while

others seems to be insignificant to the change recipients (for examples, see appendix M). With

this knowledge, a focus on individual characteristics of a change leader like sensitivity to the

needs of others and their effect on readiness and effectiveness might have been a better

approach. Therefore, further research should examine which characteristics change recipients

prefer, which characteristics they are opposed to and whether these characteristics have a

significant influence on readiness for change and (expected) change efficacy. Secondly, this

research was performed using a small sample, due to the large amount of gathered data a

situation can exist in which a lack of representation is causing imprecise data. Imprecise data

can exist when a group is small and many of the respondents have the same opinion therefore,

other opinions do not have a chance, which creates a distorted image of reality. Use of more

respondents and therefore a larger sample size could lead to increased precision of the results

providing a better image of reality and increasing the relevance for other change projects.

Thirdly, this research was performed at one point in the process it might be ideal to check two

or three times to see if change recipients experience any changes. Checking multiple times

could also contribute to a better view on averages and dispersion. Fourthly this study was

conducted based on only one company, which makes it not representative for all branches.

Future research should therefore collect data from companies in different areas and branches

in order to provide an outcome that can be applied widely. One should keep in mind that it

might be hard to find complete questionnaires on change readiness strategies and change

effectiveness. Although research questions do exist, complete questionnaires are often not

presented. A combination of sample questions from several papers, seemingly measuring the

same, might result in chaos due to a different setup of questions or due to slight differences in

the definition of the researched variable. The use of an already tested questionnaire is likely to

have questions that are better adjusted and therefore provides results that are more balanced.

One also might consider focusing on different readiness strategies than the ones discussed in

this paper, as less research is conducted on those strategies, while they also seem of interest in

influencing the effectiveness of a change process. Finally, this research only focused on a

culture change. As change processes and consequently needs of change recipients differ from

each other, future research should be conducted within a wide range of different change

31

processes such as cultural or structural change processes, so as to find characteristics that are

most suitable for a specific change process. The impact of a change process on change

recipients can differ greatly, small changes in procedures have a different impact and

experienced necessity might be easier to accept than a culture change or even reorganization.

Employees have to feel ready, which is linked to a feeling that the organization is ready (Eby,

Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000). This entails that the organization or change leader is able to

handle the change and can provide qualitative communication, trust and confidence in one’s

own capabilities, which might ask for different characteristics when changes become more

complicated. Dividing data into for example characteristics necessary for a first- or second

order change provides an opportunity to find the most suitable characteristics for change

processes and therefore also the possibility to select a change manager who suits the project

the most. Discovering the right characteristics to foster readiness is important because, as

shown, creating readiness among change recipients has a strong influence on the (expected)

change efficacy.

6. CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

All things considered, this study shows that the characteristics as grouped into

masculine or feminine do not show a significant relation with readiness for change and

expected change effectiveness. These results convey that the relationship between masculine

and feminine characteristics and the expected change efficacy are not mediated by readiness,

trust in management, qualitative communication or confidence in one's own capabilities. This

study proves that readiness for change builds on several interconnected variables (qualitative

communications, trust and self-efficacy) which all influence the expected efficacy of the

change process. This means for example, that when trust in management declines, the overall

readiness for change also declines. A decline in readiness again influences the expected

change efficacy negatively. Knowing the importance of the creation and upkeep of readiness

for change, trust, qualitative communication and self-efficacy, implications for management

could be to foster and maintain this environment. In addition, when selecting a change

manager, one should focus on finding a manager with the most suitable characteristics to

influence change readiness from as many change recipients as possible. To ascertain which

characteristics are most suitable to create and maintain readiness within the change process

for a specific company, more research needs to be conducted. After all: one shoe does not fit

al.

32

References

Abele, A. 2003. The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(Vol 85(4)): 768-776.

Aldoory, L. & Toth, E. 2009. Leadership and Gender in Public Relations: Perceived Effectiveness of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(2): 157-183.

Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. 2003. Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1): 43-51.

Armenakis, A. A. 1993. Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703.

Bakker, M. 2006. Sekseverschillen in Leiderschap: Onderzoek naar de relatie tussen leiderschapsstijlen, self-efficacy en stereotypen en de impact van geslachtsverschillen. Universiteit Twente, Twente.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, N.Y.: Freeman.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6).

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Yair, B. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 207-218.

Bass, B. M. A., Bruce J. 1993. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

Beer, M. & Nohria, N. 2000. Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3): 133-141.

Bem, S. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 42(2): 155-162.

Bem, S. L. & Lewis, S. A. 1975. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4): 634-643.

Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. 1986. Applications of Self-Efficacy Theory to Understanding Career Choice Behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3): 279-289.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. 2004a. Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 13: 45.

33

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. 2004b. Uncertainty during organizatonal change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 13(3): 345-365.

Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. 2009. Organizational Change Questionnaire-Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness. Journal of Psychology, 143(6): 559-599.

Bouckenooghe, D. D., Geert. 2007. Psychological Change Climate as a Crucial Catalyst of Readiness for Change: A Dominance Analysis: 38. Gent: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.

Burnes, B. 2004. Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9): 886-902.

Burns, J., MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Caluwé, L. d. & Vermaak, H. 1999. Leren veranderen. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4): 823-850.

Cawsey, T. & Descza, G. 2007. Toolkit for Organizational Change. CMA Management, 81(6): 6-6.

Choi, M. & Ruona, W. 2011. Individual readiness for organizational change and its implications for human resource and organization development. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1): 46-73.

Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. 2002. Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psycology, 75(4): 377-392.

Devitt, K. & Borodzicz, E. 2008. Interwoven Leadership: the Missing Link in Multi-Agency Major Incident Response. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 16(4): 208.

Eagly, A. & Karau, S. 2002. Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3): 57.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. 2003. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4): 569-591.

Eagly, A. H. & Sczesny, S. 2009. Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: have times changed? Washington: Amrican Psychological Association.

34

Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J., & Gaby, S. 2000. Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors Related to Employees' Reactions to the Implementation of Team-Based Selling Human Relations, 53(3): 419-442.

Edwards, J. R. & Williams, J. E. 1980. Sex-trait stereotypes among young children and young adults: Canadian findings and cross-national comparisons. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 12(3): 210-220.

Elving, W. J. L. 2005. The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2): 129-138.

Feingold, A. 1994. Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Gender Differences in Personality, 116(3): 429-456.

Flora, C. 2007. Gut Almighty, Psychology Today: 3. New York: Sussex Publishers, LLC.

Folger, R. & Skarlicki, D. 1999. Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1): 35-50.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'amelio, A. 2008. Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 362-377.

Gilley, A., Dixon, P., & Gilley, J. W. 2008. Characteristics of leadership effectiveness: Implementing change and driving innovation in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2): 153-169.

Goulet, L. R. & Singh, P. 2002. Career Commitment: A Reexamination and an Extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1): 73-91.

Govindarajan, V. 1989. Implementing Competitive Strategies at the Business Unit Level: Implications of Matching Managers to Strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3): 251-269.

Granville, K. 2002. Crisis Management & Team Effectiveness: A Closer Examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3): 235.

Hanpachern, C. 1997. The Extension of the theory of margin: A framework for assessing readiness for change. Colorado: Colorado State University.

Heilman, M., Block, C., & Martell, R. 1995. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10(6): 237-252.

Hillenga, M. P. 2009a. Masterscriptie Strategy & Organization, Implementation & Chage Management. Open Universiteit, Amsterdam.

Hillenga, M. P. 2009b. Betekenisgeving door de middenmanager, De invloed van betekenisgeving op de effectiviteit van verandering. Open University Amsterdam.

Holt, D. T. 2002. The measurement of readiness for change: The development of a scale, Annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Denver.

35

Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. 2007a. Readiness for Organizational Change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2): 232-255.

Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. 2007b. Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43(2): 232-255.

Holt, D. T., Bartczak, S. E., Clark, S. W., & Trent, M. R. 2007c. The development of an instrument to measure readiness for knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5: 75-92.

Huy, Q. N. 1998. Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence and Radical Change: 46. Fontainebleau: INSEAD.

Johnson, S., Murphy, S., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. 2008. The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1): 39-60.

Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. 2005. The Impact of Organizational Culture and Reshaping Capabilities on Change Implementation Success: The Mediating Role of Readiness for Change. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2): 361-386.

Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 751-765.

Keefe, M. & Pesut, D. 2004. Apreciative Inquiry and Leadership Transitions. Journal of Professional Nursing, 20(1): 103-109.

Kotter, J. & Schlesinger, L. 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57: 106-114.

Kotter, J. P. 2007. Leading Change Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1): 96-103.

Lai, J.-Y. & Ong, C.-S. 2010. Assessing and managing employees for embracing change: A multiple-item scale to measure employee readiness for e-business. Technovation, 30(1): 76-85.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & G., H. 1994. Toward A Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1): 79-122.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Bros.

Lewin, K. & Rivera, J. D. 1976. Field theory as human science (1st ed.). New York: Gardner Press.

36

Lindenberg, S. 2000. It Takes Both Trust and Lack of Mistrust: The Workings of Cooperation and Relational Signaling in Contractual Relationships. Journal of Management and Governance, 4(1-2): 11-33.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, G. K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness Correlates of Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of The MLQ Literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 385-415.

Madsen, S., Miller, D., & John, C. 2005. Readiness for organizational change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2): 213-234.

Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Mayer, R., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.

Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. 1994. Antecedents to Willingness to Participate in a Planned Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1): 59-80.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. 2005. When Moderation Is Mediated and Mediation Is Moderated. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(6): 852-863.

Neves, P. 2009. Readiness for Change: Contributions for Employee's Level of Individual Change and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9(2): 215-231.

Nooteboom, B. 2002. Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Nutt, P. 1998. Leverage, Resistance and the Success of Implementation Approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2): 213-240.

Paassen, D. v.; Intermediair onderzoek: de Ideale baas is een macho; http://www.intermediair.nl/artikel/leidinggeven-in-de-praktijk/199848/intermediair-onderzoek-de-ideale-baas-is-een-macho.html; 18-7-2011, 2011.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. 2010. Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive Motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4): 827-856.

Peng, W. & Litteljohn, D. 2001. Organisational communication and strategy implementation – a primary inquiry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7): 360 - 363.

Powell, G., Butterfield, A. D., & Parent, J. 2002. Gender and Managerial Stereotypes: Have the Times Changed? Journal of Management, 28(2): 177-193.

Robinson, S. & Rousseau, D. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3): 245-259.

37

Robinson, S. 1996. Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 574-599.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Cramer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: a crossdiscipline view of trust. academy of Management Review, 23(3): 393-404.

Rousseau, D. M. & Tijoriwala, S. A. 1999. What's a Good Reason to Change? Motivated Reasoning and Social Accounts in Promoting Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4): 514-528.

Rudman, L. 1998. Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74: 629.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 2007. AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 344-354.

Self, D. R. 2007. Organizational change - overcoming resistance by creating readiness. Development and Learning in organizations, 21(5): 11-13.

Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schraeder, M. 2007. Organizational Change Content, Process, and Context: A Simultaneous Analysis of Employee Reactions. Journal of Change Management, 7(2): 211-229.

Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. 2005. The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10): 108-118.

Smith, I. 2005. Achieving readiness for organisational change. Library management, 26(6): 408-412.

Stoker, J. 2007. Sekse en leiderschap. M&O, 61(1): 5-17.

TandemGroup; Organization Effectiveness Assessment; http://tandemgroupinc.com/; 25-7-2011, 2011.

Vakola, M., Soderquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. P. 2007. Competency management in support of organisational change. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4): 260-275.

Vecchio, R. 2002. Leadership and gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 643-671.

Vecchio, R. P. & Boatwright, K. J. 2002. Preferences for idealized styles of supervision. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4): 327-343.

Venkatesh, R., Ajay, K. K., & Zaltman, G. 1995. Influence Strategies in Buying Centers. The Journal of Marketing, 59(4): 71-82.

Wanberg, C. & Banas, J. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1): 132-142.

Watson, G. 1971. Resistance to Change. American Behavioral Scientist, 14(5): 745-766.

38

Williams, M. L. & Locke, V. N. 1999. Supervisor Mentoring: Does a Female Manager Make a Difference?, Institute for Behavioral and Applied Management (IBAM) conference: 1 - 20. Annapolis.

Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations (5 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

39

APPENDIX A: SURVEY ITEMS

Code Question Source

Karakter1 [... defends own beliefs (M)] My ideal change leader … Powell et al. (2002)

karakter2 [... is moody (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

karakter3 [... is independent (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

karakter4 [... is conscientious (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter5 [... works rational (M)] My ideal change leader ... Edwards et al. (1980)

Karakter6 [... is affectionate (F)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter7 [... likes to impress others (M)] My ideal change leader ... Edwards et al. (1980)

Karakter8 [... is assertive(M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter9 [... has a strong personality (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter10 [... is forceful (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter11 [... is truthful (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter12 [... is democratic (F)] My ideal change leader ... Edwards et al. (1980)

Karakter13 [... is reliable (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter14 [... is sympathetic (F)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter15 [... is jealous (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter16 [... has leadership abilities (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter17 [... is sensitive to other's needs (F)] My ideal change leader ...

Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter18 [... willing to take risks (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter19 [... is understanding (F)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter20 [... is secretive (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter21 [... is compassionate (F)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002) Karakter22 [... is eager to soothe hurt feelings (F)] My ideal change

leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter23 [... is conceited (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter24 [... is dominant (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter25 [... is warm (F)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter26 [... is willing to take a stand (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter27 [... is tender (F)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter28 [... is aggressive (M)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter29 [... is adaptable (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter30 [... Loves Children (F)] My ideal change leader .. Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter31 [... is talkative (F)] My ideal change leader ... Edwards et al. (1980)

Karakter32 [... is tactful (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter33 [... is sophisticated (F)] My ideal change leader ... Edwards et al. (1980)

Karakter34 [... is reticent (M)] My ideal change leader ... Edwards et al. (1980)

Karakter35 [... is conventional (TQ)] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002)

Karakter36 [... is gentle] My ideal change leader ... Powell et al. (2002) Ready1 [... work more because of the change is] My willingness or

openness to... Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready2 [... create new ideas is] My willingness or openness to... Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready3 [... be part of the new project is] My willingness or Madsen et al. (2005)

40

openness to...

Ready4 [... make change successful is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready5 [... do things in a new or creative way is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready6 [... change the way I work is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready7 [... take responsibility for the change if it fails in my area is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready8 [... be part of the change program is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready9 [... learn new things] My willingness or openness to... Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready10 [... change something even if it appears to be working is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready11 [... support change is] My willingness or openness to... Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready12 [... make change fail (R)] My willingness or openness to… EXIT

Ready13 [... improve what we are currently doing rather than implement a major change is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready14 [... to sell(/share my) ideas about the change is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Ready15 [... to solve university problems is] My willingness or openness to...

Madsen et al. (2005)

Trust1 [Management of my department is sincere in its attempts to meet the workers' point of view]

Cook (1980)

Trust2 [I can trust management in making sensible decisions for the future of ..(this department)..]

Cook (1980)

Trust3 [Management of ..(this department).. seems to do an efficient job]

Cook (1980)

Trust4 [I feel quite confident that management of this department always tries to treat me fairly and honest]

Cook (1980)

Trust5 [Management of our department would be quite prepared to gain advantage by deceiving the workers (R)]

Cook (1980)

Trust6 [Our senior leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace changes that will improve knowledge sharing (openness)]

Holt et al. (2007)

Trust7 [I think we are spending a lot of time on this change when the senior managers don't even want it implemented (R)]

Holt et al. (2007)

Trust8 [Management has sent a clear signal this department is going to make changes that will improve knowledge sharing (openness)]

Holt et al. (2007)

Trust9 [This departments' most senior leader is committed to such changes]

Holt et al. (2007)

Trust10 [The executive management is likely to fulfill its promises] Bouckenooghe et. Al. 2007

Trust11 [The executive management consistently implements its policy in all departments/ shops]

Bouckenooghe et. Al. 2007

Trust12 [The two way communication between the executive management and the department/ shops is good]

Bouckenooghe et. Al. 2007

QualCom1 [I feel like no one ever tells me anything about what's Holt et al. 2007

41

going around here (R)]

QualCom2 [The information I received about this change was timely] Holt et al. 2007

QualCom3 [The information I received about this change has adequately answered my questions]

Holt et al. 2007

QualCom4 [The information I received about this change helped me understand the change]

Holt et al. 2007

QualCom5 [The information I received about the change was effective]

DELETE

QualCom6 [The official information provided about the change, communicates the reason for the change]

Bordia et al 2004

QualCom7 [The official information provided about the change, addressed my personal concerns regarding the change]

Bordia et al 2004

QualCom8 [The official information provided about the change, was accurate]

Bordia et al 2004

QualCom9 [The official information provided about the change, gave as much information as possible]

Bordia et al 2004

QualCom10 [I am thoroughly satisfied with the information] Holt et al. 2007

QualCom11 [The official information provided about the change, involved employees in the change process and decisions made]

Bordia et al 2004

QualCom12 [The Information provided about the change is clear] Bouckenooghe et. Al. 2007

QualCom13 [I am regularly informed about the progress of the change]

Bouckenooghe et. Al. 2007

QualCom14 [Information concerning the changes reaches us mostly as rumors (R) (and expect that it continues this way)]

Bouckenooghe et. Al. 2007

Confid1 [I do not anticipate any problems adjusting to the work I will have when this change is adopted]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid2 [I am too set in my ways to implement this change (R)] Holt et al. 2007c

Confid3 [When I set my mind to it, I can learn everything that will be required when this change is adopted]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid4 [There are some tasks that will be required when we change, I don't think I can do well (R)]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid5 [I have the skills that are needed to make such culture changes in my work]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid6 [My past experiences make me confident that I will be able to perform succesfully after the changes are made]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid7 [I am intimidated by all tasks I will have to learn because of this change (R)]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid8 [When I heard about this change, I thought it suited my skills perfectly]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid9 [After this change is implemented, I am confident I will be able to do my job]

Holt et al. 2007c

Confid10 [When we implement the changes, I feel I can handle them with ease]

Holt et al. 2007c

ExEf1 [I think I can get used to the new way of working and the "new department" that will arise due to the changes that are made]

Hillenga 2009

ExEf2 [I think everybody supports the goals as set for this Hillenga 2009

42

change]

ExEf3 [In my opinion this change is going to be a success] Hillenga 2009

ExEf4 [After changes the department is likely to be more effective than it used to]

Hillenga 2009

ExEf5 [I think we will be able to manage this change within the time set]

Hillenga 2009

ExEf6 [I think things will be better after the change] EIGEN

ExEf7 [After the changes my job-satisfaction will be lower (R)] EIGEN

ExEf8 [I think the change teams will work effectively together and understand what it takes to operate as high performance teams]

Tandemgroup 2010

ExEf9 [I think our leaders can adapt readily to change. We have successfully tackled some big challenges and made previous changes in our shop/ department that have produced some real results]

Tandemgroup 2010

ExEf10 [I Think we can consistently achieve or exceed our performancde targets as department/(company) for the coming three to five years]

Tandemgroup 2010

ExEf11 [I am confident that this change will improve many of the currently ongoing issues]

EIGEN

43

APPENDIX B: FACTOR ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS

1 2

Karakter Masc 1 ,194 ,249

Masc 3 ,016 ,174

Masc 5 ,142 ,162

Masc 7 ,555 -,227

Masc 8 ,690 ,057

Masc 9 ,534 ,248

Masc 10 ,261 -,617

Masc 16 ,741 -,221

Masc 18 ,310 -,049

Masc 24 ,278 -,241

Masc 26 ,464 -,068

Masc 28 -,134 -,358

Masc 34 -,438 -,072

Fem 06 ,457 ,597

Fem 12 ,263 ,336

Fem 14 ,487 ,619

Fem 17 ,579 ,443

Fem 19 -,036 ,671

Fem 21 ,047 ,630

Fem 22 ,157 ,670

Fem 25 ,504 ,535

Fem 27 -,225 ,497

Fem 30 -,119 ,244

Fem 31 ,505 ,242

Fem 33 ,585 ,047

Fem 36 -,134 ,335

Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax. Item 2, 4, 11, 13, 15, 20, 23, 29,

32, 35 were deleted from the scale.

44

APPENDIX C: FACTOR ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS FINAL

1 2

Karakter Masc 7 ,720

Masc 8 ,324 ,615

Masc 9 ,514 ,357

Masc 16 -,827

Masc 18 -,402

Masc 24 ,168 -,459

Masc 26 ,237 ,325

Fem 6 ,740 ,190

Fem 14 ,782

Fem 17 ,739 ,248

Fem 19 ,546 ,267

Fem 21 ,566 ,229

Fem 22 ,640

Fem 25 ,723 ,165

Fem 31 ,445 ,310

Notes: Extraction Method: Principal

Component Analysis. Rotation Method:

Varimax. Item1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13,

15, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35,

36 were deleted from the scale.

45

APPENDIX D: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS MALE

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item- Total Correlelation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted

Karakter Item 7 21,82 6,153 ,465 ,374 ,558

Item 8 20,71 7,792 ,416 ,346 ,586

Item 9 20,71 8,042 ,288 ,268 ,618

Item 16 20,51 6,755 ,703 ,548 ,501

Item 18 21,24 7,980 ,245 ,156 ,632

Item 24 21,76 7,397 ,254 ,161 ,640

Item 26 20,80 8,582 ,176 ,135 ,645

APPENDIX E: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS FEMALE

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item- Total Correlelation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted

Karakter Item 6 30,65 10,523 ,646 ,643 ,781

Item 14 30,71 10,417 ,675 ,723 ,776

Item 17 30,76 11,730 ,640 ,447 ,782

Item 19 30,86 11,417 ,420 ,363 ,814

Item 21 30,88 10,651 ,423 ,298 ,812

Item 22 30,84 10,931 ,520 ,352 ,800

Item 25 30,92 10,743 ,589 ,487 ,789

Item 31 30,39 12,617 ,387 ,276 ,815

46

APPENDIX F: FACTOR ANALYSIS READINESS, TRUST, QUALITATIVE

COMMUNICATION, SELF-EFFICACY and EXPECTED EFFICACY

1 2 3 4 5

Readiness Ready 1 ,064 ,826 ,150 ,255 -,015

Ready 2 ,068 ,312 ,236 ,396 -,162

Ready 3 ,019 ,811 ,061 ,287 -,054

Ready 4 ,110 ,729 ,272 ,284 -,024

Ready 5 -,115 ,700 -,033 ,096 ,034

Ready 6 ,206 ,653 ,132 -,157 -,014

Ready 7 ,280 ,719 ,344 ,030 ,004

Ready 8 ,107 ,801 ,259 ,107 ,087

Ready 9 ,161 ,694 ,280 ,291 ,052

Ready 10 -,008 ,484 -,129 -,068 ,055

Ready 11 ,362 ,551 ,361 ,259 -,233

Ready 12 ,140 ,132 ,362 ,440 ,047

Ready 13 -,128 -,206 -,099 -,068 ,603

Ready 14 ,299 ,595 ,451 ,168 -,056

Ready 15 ,300 ,499 ,539 ,198 ,116

Trust in Trust 1 ,231 ,398 ,386 ,090 ,357

management Trust 2 ,113 ,181 ,218 ,259 ,610

Trust 3 ,196 ,247 -,009 ,183 ,497

Trust 4 ,175 ,478 -,044 -,304 ,398

Trust 5 ,042 ,029 ,302 ,313 ,184

Trust 6 ,410 -,037 ,028 ,576 ,144

Trust 7 ,401 ,420 ,245 ,253 ,275

Trust 8 ,556 ,276 ,019 ,199 ,039

Trust 9 ,309 ,285 ,607 ,371 ,206

Trust 10 ,589 ,130 ,018 ,342 ,378

Trust 11 ,282 -,017 ,158 ,200 ,381

Trust 12 ,324 -,191 ,211 ,055 ,510

47

Qualalitative QualC 1 ,146 ,425 ,488 ,146 ,125

Commmunication QualC 2 ,384 ,086 ,277 ,013 ,371

QualC 3 ,629 -,024 ,249 ,111 ,082

QualC 4 ,742 ,352 ,176 ,108 ,180

QualC 5 ,739 -,043 ,080 ,291 ,194

QualC 6 ,535 ,278 -,019 ,276 ,100

QualC 7 ,518 ,223 ,366 -,026 ,115

QualC 8 ,742 ,100 ,291 -,017 -,007

QualC 9 ,708 ,143 -,075 -,081 ,158

QualC 10 ,869 ,095 ,053 ,139 ,078

QualC 11 ,676 -,022 ,175 ,063 ,120

QualC 12 ,608 ,028 ,409 ,082 ,329

QualC 13 ,212 ,129 ,302 ,121 ,581

QualC 14 ,100 ,151 ,500 ,170 ,300

Self-efficacy SelfE 1 ,018 ,183 ,772 ,171 ,098

SelfE 2 ,118 ,262 ,611 ,366 ,295

SelfE 3 ,294 ,245 ,423 ,216 -,429

SelfE 4 -,059 ,297 ,499 ,089 -,224

SelfE 5 ,060 ,210 ,368 ,683 -,098

SelfE 6 -,105 ,421 ,086 ,457 ,235

SelfE 7 -,008 ,219 ,358 ,629 -,069

SelfE 8 ,627 -,124 ,140 ,060 -,053

SelfE 9 ,133 ,396 ,104 ,493 ,188

SelfE 10 ,328 ,289 -,189 ,549 ,074

Expected Efficacy ExEf 1 -,075 ,307 ,409 ,528 ,271

ExEf 2 ,183 ,078 ,728 ,058 ,178

ExEf 3 ,357 ,142 ,703 ,086 -,090

ExEf 4 ,405 ,142 ,285 -,175 ,369

ExEf 5 ,301 -,299 -,157 ,299 -,082

ExEf 6 ,564 ,166 ,283 -,075 -,172

ExEf 7 ,203 ,127 ,433 -,039 ,266

ExEf 8 ,045 -,086 ,408 ,268 ,024

ExEf 9 ,338 ,190 ,377 ,127 -,108

48

ExEf 10 ,145 -,028 ,157 ,394 ,103

ExEf 11 ,272 -,088 ,663 ,084 ,094

Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax.

49

APPENDIX G: FACTOR ANALYSIS READINESS, TRUST, QUALITATIVE

COMMUNICATION, SELF-EFFICACY and EXPECTED EFFICACY

1 2 3 4 5

Readiness Ready 1 ,842 ,167 ,166

Ready 3 ,825 ,248

Ready 4 ,748 ,239 ,217

Ready 5 ,735 -,164

Ready 6 ,645 ,156 ,157

Ready 7 ,713 ,275 ,327 ,188

Ready 8 ,828 ,217

Ready 9 ,707 ,166 ,251 ,232

Ready 10 ,519 -,430

Ready 11 ,552 ,312 ,203 ,221 ,449

Ready 14 ,611 ,283 ,319 ,352

Trust in Trust 6 ,445 ,656

management Trust 7 ,382 ,489 ,219 ,286

Trust 8 ,272 ,620

Trust 9 ,275 ,336 ,532 ,482 ,267

Qualitative QualC 2 ,416 ,534 -,204

Communication QualC 3 ,626 ,313

QualC 4 ,323 ,768 ,211

QualC 6 ,229 ,499 ,442

QualC 7 ,217 ,497 ,461 -,185 ,213

QualC 8 ,706 ,236 ,215

QualC 9 ,749

QualC 10 ,868 ,195

QualC 11 ,751

QualC 12 ,675 ,376 ,241 -,159

Self-efficacy SelfE 1 ,218 ,835 ,178

SelfE 2 ,293 ,178 ,661 ,393

SelfE 3 ,263 ,797

SelfE 5 ,259 ,195 ,687 ,360

50

SelfE 6 ,430 ,575 -,265

Expected ExEf 1 ,293 ,360 ,691

Efficacy ExEf 2 ,191 ,787

ExEf 3 ,275 ,663 ,153 ,374

ExEf 4 ,495 ,325 -,263

Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax.

Item Ready-2, 13, 15; Trust- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,10, 11, 12; QualCom- 1, 5,13, 14; Confid-4, 7, 8, 9,

10; ExEf- 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were deleted from the scale.

APPENDIX H: EXAMPLES AVERAGES OF CHARACTERISTICS

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Karakter 6 Fully

Disaggree

1 2,0 2,0 2,0

Neutral 1 2,0 2,0 4,1

Aggree 19 38,8 38,8 42,9

Fully agree 28 57,1 57,1 100,0

Total 49 100,0 100,0

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Karakter 17 Disaggree 2 4,1 4,1 4,1

Aggree 24 49,0 49,0 53,1

Fully agree 23 46,9 46,9 100,0

Total 49 100,0 100,0

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Karakter 20 Fully

Disaggree

19 38,8 38,8 38,8

Disaggree 9 18,4 18,4 57,1

Neutral 9 18,4 18,4 75,5

Agree 12 24,5 24,5 100,0

Total 49 100,0 100,0

51

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Karakter 28 Fully

Disaggree

26 53,1 53,1 53,1

Disaggree 18 36,7 36,7 89,8

Neutral 5 10,2 10,2 100,0

Total 49 100,0 100,0