Download - Dissertation Report- Shivangi
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
1/47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
2/47
Acknowledgement
It is with the deepest sense of gratitude that I wish to thank all the people who have
helped me during the course of this project. I am indebted to Dr. Yasmeen Rizvi and
Prof. Subbha Rao for the valuable time and effort they invested in my project.
Shivangi Joshi
MBA(G)
Amity Business School
Page 2 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
3/47
Declaration
I, Shivangi Joshi, student of Master of Business Administration (G) in academic year
2008-10, Amity Business School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh; herby declare that I
have completed the project titled To analyse impact of locus of control onorganizational change in IT sector as part of the course requirements of MBA of
Amity University.
I further declare that the information presented in this project is true and & original to
the best of my knowledge.
Date Shivangi Joshi
Place A0101908638
Page 3 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
4/47
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SNO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1. Introduction
Abstract
Current Scenario
5
2. Literature review
Variables Defined
Review of Research Papers
Gap Analysis
7
3 Objective and Hypothesis 19
4.Research Methodology
20
5.
Data Analysis
Analysis of PartI
Analysis of Part II
Corelation Between Organization Change and Locus of Control
CrossTabulation Between Type of Change and Reaction to Change
22
6. Conclusion 41
7. Annexure 42
8. Bibliography 46
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Abstract
Page 4 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
5/47
The study aimed to find a relationship between locus of control and organizational
change and how this can in turn be manipulated to increase organizational
effectiveness. Rationale behind conducting the study was to study the micro level
variables in particular locus of control that effect organization control. Organizational
change literature lacks research on such variables especially in IT sector.
According to the findings of the study locus of control and resistance or readiness to
change are not related. However it was found that locus of control could change
according to certain work settings and situations.
1.2 Current Scenario
Dynamic business environment has made change mandatory for organizations. They
need to constantly revamp themselves in order to realign their strategy time and again
to suit their business needs. Nonetheless the impact of such change on an
organizations most valuable resource cant be ignored.
Organizations operate in dynamic environments--- rapidly changing government
regulations affecting their business, new competitors, difficulties in acquiring raw
materials, continually changing product preferences by customers and so on. Static
environments create significantly less uncertainty for managers than do dynamic ones.
And because uncertainty is a threat to an organizations effectiveness, management try
to minimize it. One way to reduce environmental uncertainty is through organizational
change.
Organizational change is an empirical observation in an organizational entity of
variations in shape, quality or state over time, after the deliberate introduction of new
ways of thinking, acting and operating (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Schalk et al,
1998).
Rapid globalization processes, technological development and the constant change of
surroundings have made changes an inseparable part of the existence of contemporary
organizations. The general aim of organizational change is an adaptation to the
environment or an improvement in performance (Leana and Barry, 2000; Keck and
Tushman, 1993).
However the purpose of such change initiatives can only be fulfilled when stakeholders
are taken care of. One of most important stakeholders in this exercise of increasing
organizational effectiveness is an employee. A concrete change is perceived and then it
leads to some kind of emotions and later there comes a decision to react to the change.
(Dunham et al, 1989; Piderit, 2000).
Different authors (Bearley and Johnes, 1995; Vakota et al, 2003; Bovey and Hede,
2001; Nadler, 1998) present various reactions to change typology, however, having
generalized them; it is possible to single out the main two types: resistance to change
and their support. Realizing changes, it is usual to seek employees support andapproval as well as to look for the ways to escape or reduce opposition to them.
Page 5 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
6/47
A number of factors effect an employees response to change. These may be self
esteem, self efficacy, self monitoring, need for achievement, risk propensity etc. One of
the most important personality traits is locus of control.
Locus of control determines how an individual reacts to change in his/her environment.Several studies have proved the correlation between organizational change and locus of
control. High internal locus of control tends to make transition easy for an employee
and this in turn increases the effectiveness of the change interventions.
Chapter2:Literature Review
2.1 Organizational Change
Page 6 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
7/47
Change is generally viewed negatively by employees and engenders a feeling of
insecurity and at times guilt among employees. Change in power, influence, autonomy,
status, enhanced duties is few of the drawbacks that an employee may experience as a
result of change. Few look at change from a broader perspective and as a chance to
initiate improvements in self and organization.
Change is the continuous adoption of corporate strategies and structures to changing
external conditions. Today, change is not the exception but a steady ongoing process.
On contrast business as usual will become the exception from phases of turbulence.
In order to make change effective, organizations need to factor in individual behaviour
and understand its impact on the process
Jones, Gareth R (2004) defines Organisation Change as the process by which
organisations move from the present state to some desired future state in order to
increase their effectiveness. Singh (2005) defines it as the coping process of an
organisation, of moving from the present state to a desired state that individuals, groupsand organisations undertake in response to dynamic internal and external factors that
alter current realities.
Hence, there are two types of changes:
1. Organizational Development. This is the more gradual and evolutionary approach to
change. It bases on the assumption that it is possible to align corporate objectives with
the individual employees objectives. In practice, however, this will rarely be possible.
2.Reengineering. This is known as corporate transformation or business transformation.
It is the more radical form of change management, since it challenges all elements of
processes or structures that have evolved over time.
2.1.1 Phases in Change Processes
In order to successfully manage change processes, it is necessary to analyze the phases
of this process. Managers need to know in which phase they have to expect what types
of situations and problems.
Most successful organizations are those that are able to adjust themselves to new
conditions quickly. This requires planned learning processes that lead to improvedorganizational effectiveness. Ideally, employees are able to reflect their own behaviour
in relation to the organizational context (e.g. processes, products, resources, customers).
Normally, people perceive change processes in seven typical stages
Page 7 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
8/47
2.1.2 Types of Change-
Figure Four types of Change
Planned versus emergent change
Sometimes change is deliberate, a product of conscious reasoning and actions. This
type of change is called planned change. In contrast, change sometimes unfolds in an
apparently spontaneous and unplanned way. This type of change is known as emergent
change. Change can be emergent rather than planned in two ways.
Managers make a number of decisions apparently unrelated to the change that
emerges. The change is therefore not planned. However, these decisions may be based
on unspoken, and sometimes unconscious, assumptions about the organisation, its
environment and the future (Mintzberg, 1989) and are, therefore, not as unrelated as
they first seem. Such implicit assumptions dictate the direction of the seemingly
Page 8 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
9/47
disparate and unrelated decisions, thereby shaping the change process by drift rather
than by design.
External factors (such as the economy, competitors behaviour, and political climate)
or internal features (such as the relative power of different interest groups, distribution
of knowledge, and uncertainty) influence the change in directions outside the control ofmanagers. Even the most carefully planned and executed change programme will have
some emergent impacts.
This highlights two important aspects of managing change.
The need to identify, explore and if necessary challenge the assumptions that underlie
managerial decisions.
Understanding that organisational change is a process that can be facilitated by
perceptive and insightful planning and analysis and well crafted, sensitive
implementation phases, while acknowledging that it can never be fully isolated fromthe effects of serendipity, uncertainty and chance (Dawson, 1996).
An important (arguably the central) message of recent management of change literature
is that organisation-level change is not fixed or linear in nature but contains an
important emergent element.
Episodic versus Continuous Change
Another distinction is between episodic and continuous change. Episodic change,
according to Weick and Quinn (1999), is infrequent, discontinuous and intentional.
Sometimes termed radical or second order change, episodic change often involves
replacement of one strategy or programme with another.
Continuous change, in contrast, is ongoing, evolving and cumulative. Also referred to
as first order or incremental change, continuous change is characterised by people
constantly adapting and editing ideas they acquire from different sources. At a
collective level these continuous adjustments made simultaneously across units can
create substantial change.
The distinction between episodic and continuous change helps clarify thinking about an
organisations future development and evolution in relation to its long-term goals. Feworganisations are in a position to decide unilaterally that they will adopt an exclusively
continuous change approach. They can, however, capitalise upon many of the
principles of continuous change by engendering the flexibility to accommodate and
experiment with everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities and
unintended consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski, 1996).
2.1.3 Change and Approaches
The broad relationship is indicated in the following table
Type Possible approach
Page 9 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
10/47
Incremental TQM
Parallel learning structuresand Quality circles
Organisationaldevelopment
Step-change Project management
BPR
Organic TQM
Parallel learning structuresand Quality circles
The Learning Organisation
Benchmarking
Action research
Directive BPR
Project management
Organisationaldevelopment
Planned Project management
Organisationaldevelopment
Emergent TQM
Action research
The Learning Organisation
Episodic BPR
Project management
Continuous Parallel learning structuresand Quality circles
2.1.4 Reaction to Organizational Change
Any person is apt to react to changes. This attitude influences the reaction to any
change in the organization. This attitude usually includes cognitive, emotional and
behavioural components. The reaction to change also embraces these three components.
Any change raises the same chain reaction: the person perceives the change, emotions
and decides to react to the change in one way or another (Dunham et al, 1989; Piderit,
2000).
Bearley and Johnes (1995) conducted the research that showed that organizations are inconstant change, therefore employees react to change. They single out three types of
Page 10 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
11/47
reaction:supportive (moving toward change), neutral(moving away from change), and
resistant(moving against change).
Bovey and Hede (2001) present a unified model of reaction to change. This model
includes only two types of reaction: supportive and resistant. In this case reaction to
changes is analysed in the aspect of an intended behaviour. Behaviour could bebetween active-passive and open-closed. Figure below presents behaviour types.
Passive overt behaviour:
Changes are supported by accepting them and agreeing.
Resistance to changes is passive: changes are observed, some kind accepted, however,
nothing else is done to support them.
Passive covert behaviour: Changes are supported passively and even with a negative attitude, trying to give in,
complain.
Changes are met with resistance; they are ignored trying to avoid them.
Active overt behaviour:
Change support includes initiative and care of changes.
Resistance to change is expressed by the intention to resist and disagree with them, to
argue or even to hinder.
Active covert behaviour:
In this case, support of changes most often means cooperation. Changes are opposed through procrastination
Page 11 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
12/47
2.2 Locus of Control
Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can controlevents that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that
events result primarily from their own behavior and actions.
Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance
primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better
control of their behavior, tend to exhibit more political behaviors, and are more likely
to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external locus of control;
they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more
active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation.
Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of
personality. Lefcourt (1976) defined perceived locus of control as follows: "Perceived
control is defined as a generalized expectancy for internal as opposed to external
control of reinforcements" (Lefcourt 1976, p27).
Locus of Control was derived from the Social Learning Theory developed by Rotter in
1966. The Social Learning Theory states that an individual learns on the basis of his of
her history of reinforcement. The individual will develop general and specific
expectancies. Through a learning process individuals will develop the belief that certain
outcomes are a result of their action (internals) or a result of other forces independent
of themselves (externals). From the social learning theory Rotter developed the Locusof Control Construct, consisting of an Internal External rating scale.
2.2.1 Locus of control personality orientations
It should not be thought however, that internality is linked exclusively with attribution
to effort and externality with attribution to luck, as Weiner's work makes clear. This has
obvious implications for differences between internals and externals in terms of their
achievement motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of
N-ach. Due to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have
less control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more
stressed and prone to clinical depression (Benassi, Sweeney & Dufour, 1988; cited inMaltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007).
Internals were believed by Rotter (1966) to exhibit two essential characteristics - high
achievement motivation and low outer-directedness. This was the basis of the locus of
control scale proposed by Rotter in 1966, although this was actually based on Rotter's
belief that locus of control is a unidimensional construct. Since 1970, Rotter's
assumption of unidimensionality has been challenged, with Levenson, for example,
arguing that different dimensions of locus of control, such as belief that events in one's
life are self-determined, are organized by powerful others and are chance-based, must
be separated.
Page 12 of47
http://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Social_Cognitive_Theory_Overview.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-achhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depressionhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Social_Cognitive_Theory_Overview.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-achhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression -
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
13/47
Weiner's early work in the 1970s, suggested that, more-or-less orthogonal to the
internality-externality dimension, we should also consider differences between those
who attribute to stable causes, and those who attribute to unstable causes. This meant
that attributions could be to ability (an internal stable cause), effort (an internal unstable
cause), task difficulty (an external stable cause) or luck (an external, unstable cause).
Such at least were how the early Weiner saw these four causes, although he has been
challenged as to whether people do see luck, for example, as an external cause, whether
ability is always perceived as stable and whether effort is always seen as changing.
Indeed, in more recent publications (e.g. Weiner, 1980) Weiner uses different terms for
these four causes - such as "objective task characteristics" in place of task difficulty and
"chance" in place of luck. It has also been notable how psychologists since Weiner
have distinguished between stable effort and unstable effort - knowing that, in some
circumstances, effort could be seen as a stable cause, especially given the presence of
certain words such as "industrious" in the English language.
2.2.2 Attribution style
Attribution style, or explanatory style, is a concept that was introduced by Lyn Yvonne
Abramson, Martin Seligman and John D. Teasdale. This concept goes a stage further
than Weiner, saying that in addition to the concepts of internality-externality and
stability a dimension of globality-specificity is also needed.
Abramson et al. therefore believed that how people explained successes and failures in
their lives related to whether they attributed these to internal or external factors, to
factors that were short-term or long-term and to factors that affected all situations in
their situations.
The topic ofattribution theory, introduced to psychology by Fritz Heider, has had an
influence on locus of control theory, but it is important to appreciate the differences
between the histories of these two theoretical models in psychology. Attribution
theorists have been, largely speaking, social psychologists, concerned with the general
processes characterizing how and why people in general make the attributions do,
whereas locus of control theorists have been more concerned with individual
differences.
Significant to the history of both approaches were the contributions made by Bernard
Weiner, in the 1970s. Prior to this time, attribution theorists and locus of controltheorists had been largely concerned with divisions into external and internal loci of
causality. Weiner added the dimension of stability-instability, and somewhat later,
controllability, indicating how a cause could be perceived as been internal to a person
yet still beyond the person's control. The stability dimension added to our
understanding of why people success or failure after such outcomes. Although not part
of Weiner's model, a further dimension of attribution was added by Abramson,
Seligman and Teasdale, that of globality-specificity
2.2.3 Locus of control and age
Page 13 of47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Teasdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Heiderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weinerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weinerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Teasdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Heiderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weinerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weiner -
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
14/47
It is sometimes assumed that as people age, they will become less internal and more
external, but data here have been ambiguous. Longitudinal data collected by Gatz and
Karel (cited in Johnson et al., 2004 imply that internality may increase up to middle
age, and thereafter decrease. Noting the ambiguity of data in this area, Aldwin and
Gilmer (2004) cite Lachman's claim that locus of control is ambiguous. Indeed, there is
evidence here that changes in locus of control in later life relate more visibly toincreased externality, rather than reduced internality, if the two concepts are taken to be
orthogonal. Evidence cited by Schultz and Schultz (2005), for example Heckhausen
and Schulz (1995) or Ryckman and Malikosi, 1975 (cited in Schultz & Schultz, 2005),
suggests that locus of control increases in internality up until middle age. These authors
also note that attempts to control the environment become more pronounced between
the age of eight and fourteen.
2.2.4 Gender-based differences in locus of control
However, these authors also note that there may be specific sex-based differences for
specific categories of item to assess locus of control - for example, they cite evidencethat men may have a greater internal locus for questions related to academic
achievement (Strickland & Haley, 1980; cited in Schultz & Schultz, 2005).
2.2.5 Scales to measure locus of control
The most famous questionnaire to measure locus of control is the 13-item forced choice
scale of Rotter (1966), but this is not the only questionnaire - indeed, predating Rotter's
work by five years is Bialer's (1961) 23-item scale for children. Also of relevance to
locus of control scale are the Crandall Intellectual Ascription of Responsibility Scale
(Crandall, 1965), and the Nowicki-Strickland Scale.
One of the earliest psychometric scales to assess locus of control, using a Likert-type
scale in contrast to the forced-choice alternative measure which can be found in Rotter's
scale, was that devised by W.H. James, for his unpublished doctoral dissertation,
supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University, although this remained an unpublished
scale
Many measures of locus of control have appeared since Rotter's scale, both those,. such
as The Duttweiler Control Index (Duttweiler, 1984), which uses a five-point scale,
and those which are related to specific areas, such as health.
2.2.5.1 The Internal Control Index of Duttweiler
A scale with reasonably good psychometric properties has been the Internal Control
Index (ICI) of Duttweiler (1984). In her paper on this scale, Duttweiler notes many
problems with Rotter's I-E Scale, including problems with its forced choice format, its
susceptibility to social desirability and her observation that studies which have
subjected the scale to factor analysis suggest it is not assessing an entirely
homogeneous concept. She also notes that, while other scales existed in 1984 to
measure locus of control, "they appear to be subject to many of the same problems"
(Duttweiler, 1984, p211).
Page 14 of47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likerthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likerthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysis -
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
15/47
She developed the ICI to assess several variables especially pertinent to internal locus -
cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to social influence, self-confidence and
delay of gratification. Unlike the forced-choice format used on Rotter's scale,
Duttweiler's 28-item ICI uses a Likert-type scale, in which people have to state whether
they would rarely, occasionally, sometimes, frequently or usually behave as specified
by each of 28 statements.
2.2.5.2 Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory
Questioning the idea of locus of control as a unidimensional construct Dr. Hanna
Levenson argued that understanding and prediction could be improved by studying fate
and chance expectations separately from external control b powerful others. Of the six
externally worded items on the original health locus of control scale. Only one ["I can
do only what my doctor tells me to do"] was related to the dimension of powerful
others externally. Wallston and Wallston saw that new items tapping into this
dimension were necessary. According to Levenson powerful others should not be
internal or external and beliefs about people in general should have less predictivepower than beliefs about one's own control. Realizing the utility and supporting
evidence of the multidimensionality, the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control
Scale was developed.
The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale was developed to create
equivalent forms of the scale so researchers could repeat the measurements. It is
believed that equivalent forms of this instrument would decrease the possibility of
subjects remembering previous responses and increase the sensitivity of the instrument
to belief changes over time.
2.2.5.3 Brief Description of Theory
Health Locus of Control (HLC) is the degree to which individuals believe that their
health is controlled by internal or external Factors. Whether a person is internal or
external is based on a series of statements. The statements are scored and summed to
determine whether the individual has internal or external health beliefs. This is called
the unidimensional HLC Scale that was developed by Wallston. Wallston. Kaplan and
Maides. The IILC Scale consists of II items with a six point Likert response format.
Those scoring above the median are labelled "health-externals" and those scoring
below the median are labelled "health-internals." External refers to the belief that one'soutcome is under the control of powerful others (i.e., doctors) or is determined by fate.
luck or chance. Internal refers to the belief that ones outcome is directly the result of
ones behaviour.
Dr. Hanna Levenson questioned the conceptualization of the locus of control as a
unidimensional construct. She predicted that the construct could be better understood
by studying fate and chance expectations separately from external control by powerful
others. For this reason. Levenson developed the 3 eight item Likert scale termed the
IPC Scale which was used to measure generalized locus of control beliefs.
I - Internal
P - Powerful OthersC - Chance
Page 15 of47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratificationhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratificationhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htm -
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
16/47
Wallston and Wallston combined their unidimensional HLC Scale and Levenson's IPC
Scale and developed the Multidimensional HLC (MHLC) Scale. The MHLC Scale
consists of 3 six- item scales also using the Likert format.
1. Internal HLC (IHLC) is the extent to which one believes that internal factorsare responsible for health/illness.
2. Powerful Others HLC (PHLC) is the belief that one's health is determined by
powerful others.
3. Chance HLC (CHLC) measures the extent to which one believes that health
illness is a matter of fate. luck or chance.
Although the scale is used to judge the degree to which an individual believes that s/he
can control his/her health, it can be effectively used to understand an employees locus
of control. The scale gives a better picture as compared to Rotters uni- dimensional
construct.
2.2.6 Effectiveness of Organizational Change a function of Locus of Control
Lau and Woodman (1995) argued that reactions to organizational change are affected
by the individual's change schemata, which they defined as "mental map[s]
representing knowledge structures of change attributes, and relationships among
different change events" (p. 538). Through qualitative and quantitative methods, these
researchers noted significant relationships between such schemata and the reactions of
individuals to change, and further found such schemata to be significantly affected by
personality.
2.3 Review of Research Papers
2.3.1 Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Review of the Locus
of Control Construct -Martin B. Kormanik1 and Tonettes.
One aspect of personality, perceptions of internal versus external control of
reinforcement, shifts under conditions of change. The study examines the relationship
between planned organizational change and locus of control.
The research reiterates the result of previous studies that organizational change iseffected by an individuals locus of control. Internal locus of control elicits positive
reaction to change.
2.3.2 Managerial Coping With Organizational Change: A Dispositional
Perspective -Timothy A. Judge and Carl J. Thoresen University of Iowa Vladimir
Pucik and Theresa M. Welbourne
The study tries to identify how organizational change gets effected by certain
personality variables. The study essentially tends to focus on how individual behaviour
effects the change process. That is the study focuses on micro level factors rather thanmicro level factors effecting the change process. The seven traits studied were- locus of
Page 16 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
17/47
control, generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive affectivity (PA), openness to
experience, tolerance for ambiguity, and risk aversion
The study further relates acceptance to change with commitment and job satisfaction.
Moreover, successful coping has been linked to transformation of organizations. The
study also emphasizes on the mechanism adopted by individuals for adapting to change
Levensons (1981) Internality scale was used to measure locus of control. It reduced
some of the shortcomings of Rotters scale and had comparatively high reliability
2.3.3 CEOs Entrepreneurship in Relation to Reaction to Organizational Change
-Asta Pundzien1, Jurga Duobien
The study analyses CEOs entrepreneurship behaviour with high need for achievement,
risk propensity and locus of control. No correlation was found between the three
personality traits. However locus of control and reaction to change was interrelated.Higher internal locus of control ensured positive reaction to change
The result hold a lot of relevance for the present study as it also tries to co-relate an
individuals locus of control and the reaction i.e resistance or readiness to change.
According to the results it is only through locus of control that reactions to change can
be judged. ANOVA was used separately for two dependent variables, i.e. intentions to
resist changes and propensity to support changes
2.3.4 A framework for assessing commitment to change. Process and context
variables of organizational change -Geert devos, Karlien Vanderheyden. Herman van
den broeck
The study analyses different variables that effect commitment to change. The variables
have been classified in three categories viz organizational, departmental level and
individual level.
In the context of the study that is being conducted individual level variables have a lot
of relevance. Locus of control is one of most influential variables in this context.
The research paper has the hypothesis- Internal locus of control is positively related to
emotional involvement and commitment to change.
2.3.5 Locus of control and the three components of commitment to change
Jingqiu Chen and Lei Wang( Department of Psychology, Peking University)
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of locus of control on
psychological reactions to change. It examines the relationship between locus of control
and the three components of commitment to a change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002)
that have been found to exhibit different behavioural implications.
Page 17 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
18/47
The results show that locus of control can significantly predict participants
commitment to a specific change.
In particular, the relationship between locus of control and the three different
components of commitment to change are differentiative: participants with more
internal locus of control were more likely to have high affective and normativecommitment to change, whereas participants with more external locus of control were
more likely to have high continuance commitment to change. The implications for
theoretical research and organizational practice are also discussed.
2.3.6 Individual and organizational facets of change in the public and private
sector: a comparative study- Dave bouckenoogheGeert devos
This study compares individual (i.e., readiness to change and locus of control) and
organizational aspects of change (i.e., participation in decision making and risk-taking
reward orientation)
The hypotheses tested were that; in the public sector people report (a) a lower level of
readiness to change (i.e., emotional involvement and commitment to change); (b) a
lower
level of internal locus of control; (c) a lower risk-taking reward orientation; and (d) a
higher level of participation in decision-making in comparison to the private sector.
2.3.7 Internal-external locus of control and response to influence attempts- John
Biondo 1 A. P. MacDonald, Jr. West Virginia University
It was hypothesized that subjects having external locus of control orientations (would
conform to both subtle and overt influence attempts, whereas internals would react
against such attempts
Results showed that Externals conformed to both levels of influence and Internals
reacted against high influence. Internals were not responsive to low influence
2.4 Gap Analysis
Although a lot of research has been done on the topic of study. Little work has been
done in Indias context and the exploratory research done on the topic failed to find
any research done specifically on IT sector. Given the fact that IT sector had been at the
forefront of Indias exemplary economic growth and has led the transformation to a
knowledge economy, warrants the need to conduct some research in the area.
Moreover, most of the research conducted on the organizational change has focused on
macro level factors and has failed to take individual behaviour in consideration.
Chapter 3
Page 18 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
19/47
3.1 Rationale of the research
To understand how locus of control can effect the change process within an
organization and if employee behaviour can be manipulated and controlled wrt to locus
of control. In case it can be, how should the change agent go about it.
3.2 Objective
To understand and study the relationship between locus of control and
organizational change
1. To learn the link between readiness or resistance to change and locus of
control
To study if the locus of control changes according to situations and worksettings and under what conditions can it be influenced to increase
organizational effectiveness.
To study whether the reaction to organization change process changes
according to type of change being implemented and the manner in which it is
implemented.
3.3 Hypothesis
Internal locus of control supports acceptance of organizational change
Page 19 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
20/47
Chapter 4:Research Methodology
4.1 Research Methodology
Quantitative research has been employed in the research paper
4.1.1 Research Design Type
The researcher made use of two categories of research design. In the initial stages of
the project, exploratory research was employed in order to properly define the problem
and gather as much information on organizational change, locus of control and the
research conducted on these variables. After sufficient progress had been made on this
front, descriptive research was used.
4.1.2 Sample Design
Data was collected from employees working in IT sector. Organizations such as TCS,
Birla Soft, Capgemini, Kanbay, Accenture were covered. The sample size was 40. Data
was collected informally through e-mail by forming a network of acquaintances.
4.1.3 Data Collection
Questionnaire was used to ascertain if individual with internal locus of control readily
accepted organizational change or resisted it. Levenson scale was used to measure
employees locus of control. Moreover to measure the reaction towards organizational
change, an attitude survey was conducted wherein the employees reaction wasidentified using certain statements with respect to the change process initiated in the
organization. Likert scale was employed to know the degree to which change effected
the employee.
4.1.4 Sources of Data
Secondary sources- Internet and journals were explored to collect preliminary
information about organizational change and locus of control. Different websites and
research papers acted as a base for the exploratory research. Data from secondary
sources was used to get a fair idea about the theoretical construct of the two variables
and the nexus between the two.
Primary sources- Data was collected by administering questionnaires to the employees
who responded to 24 point Levenson scale to identify locus of control and then
responded to an attitude survey which attempted to gauge their reaction towards change
process. Data from these questionnaires was in turn used for further analysis and finally
prove the hypothesis.
4.1.5 Objective of the questionnaire
Page 20 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
21/47
The questionnaire was divided in two parts. The first part, it attempts to identify the
locus of control of the respondent.
The second part of the questionnaire attempts to identify the following issues-
Respondents reaction towards organizational change. That is, did the
respondent resist it or readily accepted it and changed his mind set accordingly.
The kind of OD interventions that were used by the organization and if they
helped in manipulating the locus of control of the respondent.
To know the kind of change that was implemented and did it effect the reaction
to change.
Chapter 5 :Data Analysis
Page 21 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
22/47
5.1. Analysis of Part I
The first part of the questionnaire measures the locus of control of the respondent.
Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory was used for the same. The
individual score of each respondent have been shown below.
Respondent Internal Scale Powerful Others Chance scale Locus of control
Aparna 10 36 39 High External
Arjun 39 23 32 High Internal
Arun 40 35 32 High Internal
Devesh 37 16 20 High Internal
Ekta 40 32 31 High Internal
Mudgha 30 21 23 Medium InternalPankaj 33 25 26 High Internal
Pooja 42 9 17 High Internal
Neha J 41 5 16 High Internal
Neha M 36 16 18 High Internal
Shweta 34 10 18 High Internal
Shilpa 24 30 40 High External
Shivani 41 13 12 High Internal
Subhash 21 31 37 High External
Piyush 30 6 5 High Internal
Mansi 43 14 5 High Internal
Amit 32 26 24 Medium Internal
Santosh 33 27 26 High Internal
Samuya 10 35 41 High External
Anita 16 36 40 High External
Priya 31 12 22 Medium Internal
Surubhi 27 20 22 Medium Internal
Aaarti 36 10 18 High Internal
Archana 31 5 18 Medium Internal
Aditya 29 15 19 Medium Internal
Hitentra 25 10 15 Medium Internal
Saurabh 27 30 39 High External
Rajat 33 14 13 High Internal
Siya 23 31 38 High External
Ankita 29 8 7 Medium Internal
Yash 36 14 5 High Internal
Anil 30 26 24 Medium Internal
Amrita 42 27 26 High Internal
Shraddha 17 35 41 High External
Page 22 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
23/47
The inference from the locus of control some of the respondents is given below-
R1- Respondent has low locus of control or external locus of control and believes thather life is controlled by her superiors and leaves the outcome of events of work life to
fate and luck.
R2-Respondent has internal locus of control. Although he believes in chance or luck,
he doesnt believe in being controlled by others
R3-Repondent has very high internal locus of control. However he also believes that
his work life can be controlled by those in power
R4- Respondent doesnt believe in luck and doesnt think that his destiny is in control
of those in authority
R9- He follows a balanced approach with respect to the three scales
Scale used to determine individual locus of control
Scale Low Internal LOC Medium Internal LOC High Internal LOC
0-16 16-32 32-47
Low Powerful
Others
Medium Powerful
Others
High Powerful
Others0-16 16-32 32-47
Low Chance Medium Chance High Chance
0-16 16-32 32-47
The following graph show that fifty percent of the respondents had internal locus of
control whereas twenty for had external locus of control. The rest had medium
according to the range defined in the scale described above.
5.2 Analysis of Part II
Page 23 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
24/47
The second part of the questionnaire analysis the employees resistance or readiness to
change process carried out in an organization. The questionnaire had 16 statements
which measured the employees attitude on likert scale. Following are the results and
interpretation of each of the statements.
5.2.1 Tenure of the Employee
Options Responses Percentage
Less then 1year
6 15
1-3 10 25
3-6 20 50
6-9 4 10
More than 9years 0 0
40 100
Inference- Fitfty percent of respondents had an experience of 3-6 years. The data was
mainly collected from from team leads or module leads who have an experience of 3-6
years. Project leads have an experience of more than 6 years which comprised 10
percent of the sample.
The designation mentioned may differ from organization to organization
5.2.2 Witnessed Changes
Options Responses Percentage
Yes 36 90
No 2 5
Not aware of nay suchchanges
2 5
40 100
Page 24 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
25/47
Inference- Ninty percent of the respondents had experienced some sort of change
during their tenure. This emphasizes the fact that organizations operating in dynamic
environment have to continuously rejuvinate themselves. This is especially relevant in
the case of IT sector which has an extremely volatile business envirnment.
The result supports the research conducted by Bearley and Johnes (1995) that showed
that organizations are in constant change, therefore employees react to change.
5.2.3 Classify Change
Options Responses Percentage
Radical and Planned 4 10
Continuous and Emergent 12 30Continuous and Planned 16 40
Only Emergent ( Not planned, in bits andpieces, nobody is aware of it )
8 20
40 100
Inference- Forty percent of the respondents said that they experienced Continuous
and Planned Change, whereas thirty percent said that they went through Continuous
and Emergent Change. This emphasis the fact that most IT companies have some kind
of change process at some point or other in their organizations. However, it may also be
Page 25 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
26/47
a concerted effort to rejuvinate or an unconscious effort i.e radical change which ten
percent of the respondents experienced
Attitude Survey
5.2.4 The Employee Felt Enthusiastic but Sceptical
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 10 25
Agree 6 15
Neither Agree norDisagree
14 35
Disagree 8 20
Strongly Disagree 2 5
40 100
Inference- Thirty five percent of the respondents didnt feel much enthusiasm for the
change process. Moreover about twenty five percent didnt feel any enthusiasm for the
same. That is about sixty percent of the respondents were not very keen on accepting
change in their work styles, environment or culture. The data shows that most
employees may resist change.
5.2.5 The Employee Felt Uncomfortable about Change
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 6 15
Agree 16 40
Neither Agree norDisagree
8 20
Disagree 10 25
Strongly Disagree 0 0
40 100
Page 26 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
27/47
Inference- The above data reinforces the fact that people might not accept change very
readily and be uncomfortable with it. Here forty percent of the respondents agreed that
they felt uncomfortable with the changes that they have to go through in their work
settings. Fifteen percent strongly agreed with the statement.
5.2.6 Felt in Control When Experienced One Type of Change Over Other
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 0 0
Agree 14 35
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
18 45
Disagree 6 15
Strongly Disagree 2 5
40 100
Inference- Forty five percent of the respondents gave a nuetral response for the
statement. However thirty five percent agreed.
Page 27 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
28/47
The rationale of the statement was to access whether different type of change had some
effect on an employees locus of control. The question was asked in reference to the
categories of change mentioned in the previous question.
Different kinds of change would entail an diffenent work setting and circumstances
under which he would resist or adapt to change. Therefore if an employee experiencesplanned change, he may feel in control of his environment.
5.2.6 Effect of Change on Employees Performance
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 2 5
Agree 10 25
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
4 10
Disagree 24 60
Strongly Disagree 0 0
40 100
Inference-Twenty percent agreed to the statement that change effected their
performance adversely. Five percent strongly agreed to it. The data proves that change
effects an employees productivity and performance and hence it is extremely
important to manage change well.
One of the ways this can be done isto have planned change rather than emergent change
5.2.7 Change Demoralized the Employee
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 2 5
Agree 20 50
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
4 10
Disagree 12 30
Page 28 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
29/47
Strongly Disagree 2 5
40 100
Inference- Fifty percent of the respondents agreed that change demoralized them. Fivepercent strongly agreed. The data once again reiterates the fact that people find it hard
to accept change and will demoralize them. This may have an adverse effect on
organizational effectiveness.
5.2.8 The Employee Felt Like Switching Job
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 2 5
Agree 12 30
Neither Agree norDisagree
12 30
Disagree 14 35
Strongly Disagree 0
40 100
Inference- Thirty percent of the employees disagreed to the statement that they felt like
switching jobs. This could be attributed to recession and the adverse effect it had on IT
sector
However a high proportion of respondents even agreed to the statement. An employee
may agree to this statement because he wanted to display passive covert behaviour to
change. This shows resistance. (Bearley and Heade (1995) )
Page 29 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
30/47
5.2.9 Increased Particpation in the Change Process Helped Control Environment
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 4 10
Agree 26 65
Neither Agree norDisagree
6 15
Disagree 2 5
Strongly Disagree 2 5
40 100
Inference- Sixty five percent agreed and ten percent strongly agreed that increased
participation helped my take control of their environment. They were able to handle
issues and contingencies beacuase of change, better.
Particpative descision making has also been used as OD intervention in the
organizations in which the repsondents were employed. The subsequesnt questions will
deal with the impact of internventions.
5.2.10 Employee Resisted Change When it Effected Status
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 8 20
Agree 30 75
Neither Agree norDisagree
2 5
Disagree 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Page 30 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
31/47
40 100
5.2.11 OD Interventions Used
Options Responses Percentage
Mentoring Program 6 15
Counseling session 12 30
Participative decisionmaking
8 20
Others 12 30
None 2 5 40 100
Inference- Thirty percent of the respondents went through counseling sessions to
reduce their resistance to change. Organizations also used particpative decision making
in order to involve the employees in the change process.
5.2.12 Interventions Helped Employee Control Environment Better
Page 31 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
32/47
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 4 10.25641026
Agree 26 66.66666667
Neither Agree norDisagree
4 10.25641026
Disagree 2 5.128205128
Strongly Disagree 2 5.128205128
38 100
Inference- Sixty six percent of respondents felt that OD interventions helped them
better control their environment better. This means that the employees felt that could
control their work related activities despite the change. Ten percent strongly agreed tothe statement.
When an employee feels that s/he is able to control his/her environment and is also
able to decide how his/her professional life gets impacted through change, s/he has
internal locus of control. Here majority of repondents agreed with the statement. Hence,
it can be said that locus of control can be manipulated and is effected by work settings
and situations. Here change in work setting and situation refers to increased
particpation .
5.2.13 Change In Perception
Options Responses Percentage
Strongly Agree 2 5.263157895
Agree 16 42.10526316
Neither Agree norDisagree
20 52.63157895
Disagree 0 0
Page 32 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
33/47
Strongly Disagree 0 0
38 100
5.2.14 Change In Stance
Options Responses Percentage
Yes 26 68.42105263
No 10 26.31578947
Didnt experienceinterventions
2 5.263157895
38 100
Inference- Sixty eight percent said that they changed their stance towards change and
hence reduced their resistance towards it.
5.2.15 Reasons for Changing Stance
Options Responses Percentage
Good changemgmt
26 65
Page 33 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
34/47
Fear of Job Loss 0 0
Others 14 35
40 100
Inference- Majority of the respondents attributed good change management by the
employer as the reason for changing their stance as far as resistance to change was
concerned. Respondents who chose the third option said that they still could not accept
change and hence their stance has not change. It also included two respondents whose
organization didnt go for any OD interventions.
5.3 Correlation Between Locus of Control and Organization Change
This section attempts to test the hypothesis that locus of control impacts organizational
change. That is to what extent an employee would resist or accept change if s/he has
internal locus of control.
Here specific questions from Part II of the questionnaire have been linked to the eight
statements of the Internal Scale of Levensons Standard Locus of Control Inventory
SPSS Software was used to calculate correlation.
5.3.1 Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change
Process * Whether Or Not I Get Into A Car Accident Depends On How Good A Driver
I am
I feltenthusiasticbut skeptical
about thechange
process?
Whether or notI get into a car
accidentdepends mostlyon how good a
driver I am.
I felt enthusiastic but
sceptical about the
Pearson Correlation 1 -.251
Sig. (2-tailed) . .119
Page 34 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
35/47
change process? N 40 40
Whether or not I getinto a car accidentdepends mostly onhow good a driver Iam.
Pearson Correlation -.251 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .119 .
N 40 40
Karl Pearsons Coefficient is -.251. The relation between the two variables is weak.
Hence it can be said that the statements are not related.
5.3.2 Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change
Process * When I make Plans I am almost Certain to Make Them Work
I felt
enthusiasticbut skepticalabout thechange
process?
When I make
plans, I amalmost certainto make them
work.
I felt enthusiastic butsceptical about thechange process?
Pearson Correlation 1 -.038
Sig. (2-tailed) . .815
N 40 40
When I make plans, Iam almost certain tomake them work.
Pearson Correlation -.038 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .815 .
N 40 40
Karl Pearson Coefficient is -.038. The variables are correlated to some extent but have
have a weak relationship
5.3.3 Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change
Process * * I Am Usually Able To Protect My Personal Interests
I felt
enthusiasticbut skepticalabout thechange
process?
I am usually
able to protectmy personalinterests.
I felt enthusiastic butsceptical about thechange process?
Pearson Correlation 1 .131
Sig. (2-tailed) . .421
N 40 40
I am usually able toprotect my personalinterests.
Pearson Correlation .131 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .421 .
N 40 40
Page 35 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
36/47
Karl Pearson Coefficient for the above statements is .131. Although the statements are
related, it can not be said that they are very strongly correlated.
5.3.4 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process That
Took Place In My Organization * I Am Usually Able To Protect My PersonalInterests
I am usuallyable to protectmy personal
interests.
I feltuncomfortable
about thechange thattook place in
theorganization
I am usually able to
protect my personalinterests.
Pearson Correlation 1 -.151
Sig. (2-tailed) . .352
N 40 40
I felt uncomfortableabout the change thattook place in theorganization
Pearson Correlation -.151 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .352 .
N 40 40
Even for the above two statements a weak correlation of -.151 was found.
5.3.5 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process ThatTook Place In My Organization *How Many Friends I Have Depends On How Nice
Person I Am
I feltuncomfortable about thechange thattook place in
theorganization
How manyfriends I havedepends onhow nice a
person I am.
I felt uncomfortableabout the change thattook place in theorganization
Pearson Correlation 1 -.390(*)Sig. (2-tailed) . .014
N 40 39
How many friends Ihave depends on hownice a person I am.
Pearson Correlation -.390(*) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .
N 39 39
The correlation coefficient in this case was only - .390. Hence the variables are related
to some extent but a complete relationship can not be established.
Page 36 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
37/47
5.3.6 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process That
Took Place In My Organization *When I make Plans I Am Almost Certain to Make
Them Work
I feltuncomfortable about thechange thattook place in
theorganization
When I makeplans, I am
almost certainto make them
work.
I felt uncomfortableabout the change thattook place in theorganization
Pearson Correlation 1 -.107
Sig. (2-tailed) . .511
N 40 40
When I make plans, Iam almost certain tomake them work.
Pearson Correlation -.107 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .511 .
N 40 40
Karl Pearson coefficient for the two statements is -.107. The relationship can not be
established and hence the statements can not be said to be related.
5.3.7 Correlation Between The Change Effected My Performance Adversely *When I
make Plans I am almost Certain to Make Them Work
When I makeplans, I am
almost certainto make them
work.
The changeeffected myperformance
adversely
When I make plans, Iam almost certain tomake them work.
Pearson Correlation 1 -.313(*)
Sig. (2-tailed) . .049
N 40 40
The change effectedmy performanceadversely
Pearson Correlation -.313(*) 1Sig. (2-tailed) .049 .
N 40 40
Even for the above two statements a weak correlation of -.313 was found.
5.3.8Correlation between The Change Effected my Performance Adversely * I am
Usually Able to Protect My Personal Interests
Page 37 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
38/47
The changeeffected myperformance
adversely
I am usuallyable to protectmy personal
interests.
The change effected
my performanceadversely
Pearson Correlation 1 -.301
Sig. (2-tailed) . .059
N 40 40
I am usually able toprotect my personalinterests.
Pearson Correlation -.301 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .059 .
N 40 40
The correlation coefficient in this case also was only - .310. Hence the variables are
related to some extent but a complete relationship can not be established.
5.3.9 Correlation between At Times I Felt Demoralized During The Exercise * I am
Usually Able to Protect My Personal Interests
I am usuallyable to protectmy personal
interests.
At times I feltdemoralizedduring theexercise
I am usually able toprotect my personalinterests.
Pearson Correlation 1 .021
Sig. (2-tailed) . .896N 40 40
At times I feltdemoralized during theexercise
Pearson Correlation .021 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .896 .
N 40 40
Although they are related to some extent, here the relationship between the two
statements is weak. The coefficient is only .021.
5.3.10. Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change
Process* When I Make Plans I am Almost Certain To Make Them Work
I feltenthusiasticbut sceptical
about thechange
process?
When I makeplans, I am
almost certainto make them
work.
I felt enthusiastic but
sceptical about the
Pearson Correlation 1 -.038
Sig. (2-tailed) . .815
Page 38 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
39/47
change process? N 40 40
When I make plans, Iam almost certain tomake them work.
Pearson Correlation -.038 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .815 .
N 40 40
The result in this case is also same as the other nine sets of statements considered for
correlation. Karl Pearson coefficient is -.038. hence the statements can not be said to be
related.
5.4.Relation Between Type of Change and Reaction to Change
In order to identify whether the type change experienced by employees has any effect
on their reaction to change and inturn their locus of control, crosstabs have been
calculated for two questions asked in the second part of the questionnaire.
Crosstabs Between If yes, how will you classify the change? * I felt enthusiastic but
skeptical about the change process?
Cross tabulation
I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about thechange process?
Total
1 2 3 4 5
If yes, how will youclassify the change?
Continuous andEmergent
0 0 4 2 6 12
Continuous and
Planned
0 2 8 4 4 18
Only emergent 2 2 2 0 2 8
Radical andplanned
0 2 0 0 0 2
Total 2 6 14 6 12 40
Fifty percent of the respondents experienced planned change during their tenure with
their present organization. If these fifty percent of the respondents were enthusiastic
about the change process we can say that reaction to organization change process
changes according to type of change being implemented.
Here according to the above table, the respondents who experienced planned change
and were also enthusiastic about change are 16 in number. That makes it forty percent
of the respondents. However employees who experienced emergent change and are
also enthusiastic were 12 in number. That is less as compared to the former type.
Therefore, it can be said that reaction to change may different for different types of
changes.
Page 39 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
40/47
Chapter 6:Conclusion
The following inferences were drawn from the research-
1. There is no relation between resistance or readiness to organizational
change and locus of control.
Page 40 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
41/47
The reason for this can be that information seeked by locus of control
questionnaire is a personal matter and employees may not have been willing to
divulge all the details. Hence the scale could have been manipulated and as a
result didnt reflect the true picture.
2. Locus of control is situation specific and can be manipulated
It was found that manipulating work settings and situations increased
acceptance to change. Increased participation in the change process made
employees control their environment better and inturn increase readiness to
change. Moreover, it was established that OD interventions can play a crucial
role in changing the attitude towards change and can be even considered as a
tool for effective change management.
3. Reaction of employees may vary for different kinds of change.
Chapter 7:Annexure
7.1 Questionnaire
Part IDirections
Page 41 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
42/47
Following is a series of attitude statements. Each represents a commonly held opinion.
There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some items and
disagree with others. We are interested in the extent to which you agree or disagree
with such matters of opinion.
Read each statement carefully. Then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagreeusing the following responses:
If you agree strongly, respond +3
If you agree somewhat, respond +2
If you agree slightly, respond +1
If you disagree slightly, respond 1
If you disagree somewhat, respond 2
If you disagree strongly, respond 3
First impressions are usually best. Read each statement, decide if you agree or disagree
and the strength of your opinion, and then respond accordingly.
Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory
1. (I) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability.
2. (C) To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings.
3. (P) I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people.
4. (I) Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I
am.
5. (I) When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.
6. (C) Of ten there is no chance of protecting my personal interests form bad luck
happenings.
7. (C) When I get what I want, it is usually because Im lucky.
8. (P) Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibilitywithout appealing to those positions of power.
9. (I) How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.
10. (C) I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
11. (P) My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others.
12. (C) Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck.
13. (P) People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interestswhen they conflict with those of strong pressure groups.
Page 42 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
43/47
14. (C) Its not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out
to be a matter of good or bad fortune.
15. (P) Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me.
16. (C) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether Im lucky enough to be
in the right place at the right time.
17. (P) If important people were to decide they didnt like me, I probably wouldnt
make many friends.
18. (I) I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life.
19. (I) I am usually able to protect my personal interests.
20. (P) Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver.
21. (I) When I get what I want, its usually because I worked hard for it.
22. (P) In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of
people who have power over me.
23. (I) My life is determined by my own actions.
24. (C) Its chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends.
Part II
1. For how long have you been employed in your present organization?
Less than 1 year
1-3
3-5
5-7
2. Have you witnessed any significant change during your tenure ?
Yes
No
Not aware of any changes
3. If yes, how will you classify the change?
Radical and Planned
Continuous and Emergent
Continuous and Planned
Only Emergent ( Not planned, in bits and pieces, nobody is aware of it )
Page 43 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
44/47
If answer for the second question is No , respond to the questions from the
perspective of an employee who might have experienced change in the
organization. For instance: The morale of the concerned employee decreased
significantly instead of My morale decreased significantly
4. I felt enthusiastic but also sceptical about the change process that took place in my
organization
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
5. I felt uncomfortable about the change that took place in the organization
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
6. I felt in control of the environment when I experienced one type of change rather
than the other (With reference to the categories of change mentioned above)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
7. The change effected my performance adversely
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
8. At times I felt demoralized during the exercise
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
9.At times I felt like changing the job during the exercise
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Page 44 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
45/47
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10.Increased participation in the change initiatives helped me control and decide as to
how my professional life got effected.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
11. Resistance to change was more when it adversely effected my position, status or
security
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly Disagree
12. The change interventions used by the organization were :
13. After experiencing these interventions I felt that I could control my environment
better
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
14. The interventions changed my perception about the change process
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
15.I changed my stance during the change process
Yes
No
16. The reason for changing the stance was
Good change management
Fear of job loss
If other, please specify
Page 45 of47
-
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
46/47
Chapter 8:Bibliography
http://www.karis.biz/storage/crew_cv/types%20of%20change.pdf
http://www.themanager.org/strategy/change_phases.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control
http://cart.rmcdenver.com/instruments/multidimensional_locus.p
Page 46 of47
http://www.karis.biz/storage/crew_cv/types%20of%20change.pdfhttp://www.themanager.org/strategy/change_phases.htmhttp://www.karis.biz/storage/crew_cv/types%20of%20change.pdfhttp://www.themanager.org/strategy/change_phases.htm -
8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi
47/47
http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/51/5000830.pdf