A QUANTITATIVE, CROSS-SECTIONAL, CORRELATION, SURVEY STUDY:

ASSESSING READINESS TO CHANGE IN HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

by

Ronald Allen Solomon, Sr.

STEPHANIE HAWKINS, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

ROGER MORTON, PhD, Committee Member

SARAN TUCKER, PhD, Committee Member

Elizabeth Koenig, JD, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

March 2016
 ProQuest Number: 10100018

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10100018

Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Ronald Allen Solomon, Sr., 2016
 Abstract

Readiness to change may mediate the consequences of the changing demographics and

the problems of the very high unsuccessful organizational change efforts. The first

problem was how to provide public and private sector leaders of health and human

services organizations with the ability to monitor and make adjustments to the change

process to influence and affect positive change outcomes. The second problem was how

to provide those leaders with an instrument to assess their organization’s change

readiness at any specific point in time, and at any stage of the change process. The

purpose of this study was to determine, if there was a relationship and to what extent,

organizational readiness was reflected in the organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes,

and intentions regarding needed changes and the organization’s capacity to make those

changes. The study measured and correlated independent variables discrepancy;

appropriateness; change specific efficacy; and principal management support in the

attempt to quantify the state of readiness, the dependent variable, which utilized a

quantitative, correlation, cross-sectional, survey methodology to collect and analyze the

numeric data. The results of the point biserial correlations indicated that each of the four

beliefs and attitudes (i.e., discrepancy; appropriateness; change specific efficacy; and

principle management support) were correlated with personal valence (readiness), the

null hypothesis was rejected, and the state of readiness quantifiable. A significant

conclusion of this research illuminated the possibility of creating a tool to measure the

state of organizational readiness. Recommendations included continued research of the

measuring instruments’ use in the original study design.

 Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved, maternal grandmother, Mrs. Lucille

Hillman Allen, who emboldened my spiritual and physical life through her teachings and

examples of her faith and her trust in God. To this matriarch, the granddaughter of the

union of a run-a-way slave and beautiful, Native American woman, I dedicate this

dissertation to you, Mama Lucille. Your praying; loving; comforting; nurturing; and

peace-keeping mannerisms guided the family through good and bad times for

generations. You, Mama Lucille, constantly encouraged and advocated for all family

members to obtain “a good education”, although you had attained only a third grade

education. I am most humbly grateful and thankful to have had you in my life. I thank

God for your wisdom; your prayers; your encouragement; your unconditional love; and

your guidance throughout my formative and adult years. Mama Lucille, although you

have passed on at the age of 96 years, I still feel your loving presence and your prayers in

my life. I love you and miss you dearly. This degree is for you, Mama Lucille, my

teacher, my mentor, and my most dearly beloved, constantly praying grandmother.

This dissertation is also dedicated to my mom, Margie. Sweetheart, you have

always been my number one girl; however, sometimes we may have not always agreed

concerning certain items. You will always be mom. I love you dearly, and this section is

for your special dedication. Wow, at 90 years young, living alone independently, with

minimum assistance in the same house your grandfather built, and sassy as usual. You are

at the center of the family. You have also stressed the importance of a great education. I

am most grateful for the encouragement you provided me throughout this educational

journey.

iii
 This degree is also dedicated to my two, lovely, beautiful, granddaughters,

Hannah Pete and Haleigh Pete. The torch is being passed to you both to follow and

acquire a great education. Your parents, Robert and Bridget have also set the example of

acquiring great educations. You both are surrounded by a family of caring, loving, and

dedicated people to show you both the way to a very fulfilling, productive, caring, and

God fearing life. Remember, your grandfather loves you always.

I cannot forget my super grandson, Xavion Solomon, who already at a very young

age, begun to show extreme intellectual maturity, with excellent abilities playing

basketball. You will attain your educational and athletic goals. Your dad, Byron, and all

family members will always be supporting you. Remember, granddad loves you always.

iv
 Acknowledgments

First, I must give praise to God. He has sustained and empowered me throughout

this doctoral journey. He has blessed me and has shown His mercies toward me in so

many ways. God is real. I know not only by completing this educational journey, but

also by Him bring me through the major health issues I developed along this educational

journey. God, I thank you for my life, and thank you for my grandmother’s teachings of

you, your love, your grace, and your mercy. God, I thank you every day for allowing me

to see and experience another day. I pray that you allow me to use this degree to help,

support, and provide permanent housing for poor, homeless, and disable veterans with

mobility issues. I also would like to provide homeless veterans and their family’s

transitional and permanent housing.

Next, I would like to thank my mentor and dissertation chair, Dr. Stephanie

Hawkins, for her patience, her expert guidance, and her understanding as I experienced

some very life threatening health issues. Dr. Hawkins, thank you for all you have done to

make my journey a success. To you Dr. Hawkins, I am most grateful. I would also like

to thank my committee members, Dr. Roger Morton, specialization committee member,

who also stayed with me throughout this educational journey, and Dr. Saran Tucker, my

new research committee member. I am humbled, grateful, and thankful to have had each

of you as my dissertation committee members, without you this document would have

not have been possible. I must also acknowledge dissertation advisors and IRB staff,

some of whom had double roles, Michael Franklin; Niki Spencer; Dr. Saran Tucker; and

Elise Larson. Thank you all for the advice and directions you provided throughout this

v
journey. Dr. Tamika Lott and Dr. Melissa Patton, I thank you for your help getting me

site permission to conduct my research.

I also would acknowledge my dear sister, Sharon L. Henry, and my brother-in-

law, brother, best friend, and body-guard, Fredrick Douglas (Doug) Henry, Sr. I thank

you both for your unending support; prayers; understanding; patience; and

encouragement as you read the many iterations of my writings. Sharon, you are the best

sister a brother could ever have had. You are a very special person, and you occupy a

very special position in the family, the new matriarch. The support you both have given

me throughout this journey has been outstanding, and I am humbled, grateful, and most

thankful.

I also like to acknowledge my three brilliant, super achiever, well mannered

children, Ronald Jr., Bridget, and Byron. You all have encouraged, supported, and

helped me through this journey. I am most grateful for your support.

vi
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments v

List of Tables xi

List of Figures xii

CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Problem 4

Statement of the Problem 10

Purpose of the Study 11

Rationale/Nature of the Study 13

Research Questions 15

Significance of the Study 16

Definition of Terms 19

Study Assumptions 24

Theoretical Assumptions 25

Topical Assumptions 26

Methodological Assumptions 27

Study Limitations 30

Theoretical and Conceptional Framework 31

Readiness for Change Theory 35

Theoretical Synthesis 37

Chapter Summary 38

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 40

Filling a Gap in the Literature 42

vii
 Rational for Selected Methodology 44

The Identification of Key Variables 45

Key Variables and Testing Instruments 46

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 49

Readiness for Change Theory 52

Theoretical Synthesis 55

Convergent and Divergent Views 56

Convergent Views as a Bases for This Author’s Research 62

Conclusion 64

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 66

Introduction 66

Research Methodology 66

Rationale for Research Methodology 67

Research Design 71

Population/Sampling 72

The Survey Population 73

Sampling 75

Research Setting 78

Instruments/Measures 79

Data Collection 83

Data Analysis 85

Ethical Considerations 86

Chapter Summary 89

viii
CHAPTER 4. DATA RESULTS 90

Introduction 90

Pre-Analysis Data Screening 91

Descriptive Statistics 91

Summary of Findings 92

Detailed Analysis 93

Research Question one 93

Research question Two 94

Summary 97

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDADTIONS 98

Introduction 98

Summary of Findings 100

RQ1 100

RQ2 101

Demographic Analysis 105

Population Data 106

Discussion of the Conclusion in Relation to the Literature 109

Recommendations for Further Study 111

Limitations and Recommendations 112

Conclusion 114

ix
REFERENCES 116

APPENDIX A. THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPANTS 124

APPENDIX B. THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT 125

x
 List of Tables

Table 1. Frequencies and Percentage of Sample Demographics 91

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Readiness Composite Scores 93

Table 3. Pearson Correlation Matrix Between Independent Variables 95

Table 4. Point Biserial Correlations Between Personal Valence and the Four

Beliefs and Attitudes 96

xi
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Multilevel Framework of the Antecedents and Consequences of

Readiness for Change 62

xii
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an introduction of the study; the background of the study;

the statement of the problem; and the purpose and rationale of the study. This chapter

also provides the research question information, which suggests the probability of

measuring and correlating the independent variables of the employees’ beliefs and

attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principal

management support for a proposed change. The dependent variables were readiness to

change and valence toward change. Other important items addressed in this chapter are

the significance of the study; the definitions of terms in the study; the assumptions and

limitations of the study; and the theoretical or conceptual framework of the study.

A detailed search and study of management and leadership theories in the

literature revealed a plethora of models of management, leadership approaches, and

methods of addressing such theories, models, and approaches. The vast amount of

sometimes confusing and conflicting resultant data from many management and

leadership theories’ studies seem to have created a convoluted and disintegrated portrait

of these theories in the literature. This convoluted and disintegrated picture of such

theories, particularly concerning management, organizational change, individual change,

and change readiness, seemed to have revealed a reason for the vast inability of such

theories to adequately address the very high, unsuccessful, organizational change

outcomes within organizations. The jingle-jangle fallacy may be a contributing factor to

such a complex and broken picture of these and other theories, models, and approaches of

management and leadership theory study. The jingle-jangle fallacy has origins dating

back to the 1900s. The jingle fallacy was coined or introduced by the American

1
educational and comparative psychologist, Edward Lee Thorndike in 1904. Thorndike

admonished his colleagues in psychology against believing that two tests measure the

same characteristic simply because they share the same name (viz., the jingle fallacy).

Thorndike stated instead of presuming that those test measure equivalent constructs, test

users and researchers in psychology were to refer to the data to determine the tests’

conceptual overlap. Years later, Thorndike’s admonishment was supplemented by

Truman Lee Kelley in 1927, a leading statistician, coined the jangle fallacy. Kelley’s

admonishment argued that “just as problematic as the assumption that two tests sharing

the same name measure the same construct is the failure to recognize that two tests might

be measuring the same construct, despite dramatically different names “ (Rouse, 2012).

The jingle-jangle fallacy has caused complications in many domains of psychology, such

as in trait taxonomies, sport motivation, business management, and emotional

intelligence. Researchers must look beyond the scales’ name to the data to understand

just what a test measures (Rouse, 2012). Since the psychological domain of business

management was affected by the jingle-jangle fallacy, a reason was established for the

vast inability of such theories to adequately address the very high, unsuccessful,

organizational change outcomes within organizations.

Historical, empirical research demonstrates that attempts to implement

organizational change were predominately unsuccessful (Higgs &Rowland, 2011). The

endless problems of unsuccessful change efforts (Burke, 2011; Hallencreutz & Turner,

2011) illuminated the need to address these problems in the context of health and human

service organizations’ abilities to achieve positive change outcomes to meet the new

challenges of change. The new challenges of change, the additional problems and

2
consequences of the changing demographics (i e., the burdens of increased population on

federal, state and local governments, the dependency ratio burden, and the inability of

health and human services to meet the new service demands of the population), create

additional burdens on health and human services organizations and these organizational

leaders in their attempt to influence and affect positive change outcomes (California

Department of Aging, 2012; Ludwig, Schelkle, & Vogel, 2010; Wolf & Amirkhanyan,

2010).

The explicated new challenges of change, which have direct implications for

health and human services organizations, created an urgent need to readdress

organizational change management theories, models, and approaches within the

framework of the individuals involved in the organizational change process. One

problem became how to provide public and private sector leaders with the ability to make

the appropriate adjustments to the change process to influence and affect positive change

outcomes quickly. Another problem became how to provide those leaders with an

instrument to assess their organizations’ change readiness at any specific point in time,

and at any level within the change process.

The purpose of this study was to determine, if there was a relationship and to what

extent, organizational readiness was reflected in the organizational members’ beliefs,

attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the

organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes (Armenakis, Harris, &

Mossholder, 1993). The probability of measuring and correlating the independent

variables (i.e., discrepancy; appropriateness; change specific efficacy; principal

management support) in the attempt to quantify the state of readiness (the dependent

3
variables of readiness and valance toward change) as low or high in a health and human

services organization may provide all stakeholders in the change process with a new

paradigm in addressing change.

Background of the Problem

The vast amount of sometimes confusing and conflicting resultant data from

many management and leadership theories’ studies seemed to have created a convoluted

and disintegrated portrait of these theories in the literature. This convoluted and

disintegrated application of theories, models, and approaches in addressing organizational

change outcomes tends to reiterate the historical and empirical problems associated with

the very high, unsuccessful, organizational change outcomes. Historical, empirical

research has established that attempts to implement organizational change were

predominately unsuccessful (Higgs & Rowland, 2011).

The reasons for the predominately unsuccessful change implementations may not

only be due to the jingle-jangle fallacy, but may also be due to the fact that many change

initiatives have been guided by fundamentally, flawed theories of change. Porras and

Robertson’s (1983)’s meta-analysis of a large number of change studies detected that

fewer than 40 percent of the change efforts produced positive change in the independent

variable of interest, and discovered that in one third of the greatest resource-intensive

change initiatives they studied in depth, the change efforts actually made the situation

worse (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Dent and Goldberg (1999) also asserted that most

change initiatives do not work, due to being guided by a fundamentally, flawed theory of

change. One such flawed theory of change may be the lack of emphasizing the

4
individual, organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the

change.

According to Burke (2011), and Hallencreutz and Turner (2011), at least 70

percent of all organizational change efforts resulted in failure. The failure rates of

mergers and acquisitions are even higher (Burke & Biggart, 1997). Such very high

failure efforts should be unacceptable in any organization and should be unacceptable in

any industry. The vast waste of time and organizational resources attest to the need for a

review of the aforementioned theories, models, and approaches when it comes to

addressing change and the change process.

Another issue of concern was the changing demographics. According to Johnson

(2004), the United Nations, the most widely used predictor of population forecast,

seemed to suggest a rapid growth in world population between 2000 and 2050. The world

population is expected to increase from 6.1 billion to 8.9 billion, an increase of some 47

percent. By 2050, for the first time in human history, the elderly will outnumber children

on the planet. People over the age of 60 throughout the world are expected to increase

from 10 to 22 percent between 2000 and 2050. The fastest growing age group is the

oldest old group (people 85 years and older), where women in that group outnumber men

by a two to one ratio (California Department of Aging, 2012; Health, 2002). If one

concentrates on the rate of population growth and the dependency ratio, as does the

United Nations, (e.g. the ratio of people under the age of 15 years and people over the age

of 64 years), a higher dependency ratio could increase the burden that children and

retirees place on people of working age. Such a burden may be explicated through tax

financed transfers and within family care. The aforementioned characteristics of the

5
changing demographics attest to the grave need for health care and health and human

services organizations to master change initiatives and implementation successfully. The

leaders of these organizations must not use flawed theories of change, which lack

emphasizing the individual, organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions

regarding the change. The gauge of readiness to change may be vital in addressing the

historical high unsuccessful change outcomes and the consequences of the changing

demographics.

The developed world and the U.S. Populations will experience dramatic

demographic changes throughout the 21st century. One fundamental projected

demographic event is a significant increase in longevity, which will increase the life

expectancy at 65 by 1.5 years per decade. Another projected demographic event is a

decline in fertility, which will induce negative population growth for the next 50 years.

The decline in fertility is a consequence of the human success story, which denotes the

only time in history the world population has had the luxury of aging (Kinsella, 2000). A

final projected demographic event is the retirement of the baby-boom generations, which

will accelerate the rise of the old-age- dependency ratio (Ludwig et al., 2010; Rood-

Wilson, 2010).

The health and welfare of all citizens of the world and the consequences of the

changing demographics of both, the World and the U.S. Populations, are more closely

linked than any previous time in history. The United Nations and the U.S. Government,

specifically the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), recognized such

connections. Both have had long standing active roles of engagement in global health

6
efforts to meet the needs of individuals, communities, and countries (U.S. Department of

Health & Human Services, 2012).

The scope of the consequences of the changing and shifting demographics is

most severe and is expected to generate massive stakeholder issues. These stakeholder

issuers include the organizational employees involved in the change process; budgetary

constraints imposed by state and local governments; budgetary constraints imposed by

Congress; the inability to adequately supply services to the public; the inability to provide

adequate services to communities; the inability to provide adequate services to families,

children, and the elderly; and the inability to provide adequate support, services, and

funding to community services organizations, just to mention a few. According to

Kinsella (2000), population aging in the 20th century represented a human success story:

for the first time in history, populations have had the luxury of aging. As the 21st century

began, population aging created massive stakeholder issues, including new service

demands and new financial requirements globally. The new and/or different service

demands and new economic issues may include a key impact on the design and delivery

of care, the shift from acute to chronic illness, and the health and long-term care

workforce issues (Wiener & Tilly, 2002). The aging of the baby Boomer generation,

(Maggs, 2003), will generate significant social and economic changes to the U. S.

Society. Although the impact will differ throughout different geographic regions and

industries, the public sector is particularly vulnerable on the federal, state, and local

levels. This vulnerability is related to the public sector’s predominately older workforce,

the reduced tax base contracts to fund government programs, and the increase demand for

public services as the baby Boomers ages.

7
 California, for example, was projected to be one of the fastest growing states in

the country in total population, and may have comprised some 12 percent of the nation’s

population in 1990. California may well hit the predicted 14 percent of the nation’s

population in 2020. The California Department of Aging (2012) stated that such an

increase in the population represents some 15.7million. The elderly population may be

expected to grow more than twice as fast as the total population of the state. It is

expected that the oldest old group (85 years and older) will increase at an even faster rate

than the 65 year plus baby Boomer generation. The oldest old will have an overall

increase in population of some 143 percent by the year of 2020, which may vary by

region. This oldest old group of the population is predicted to increase greater than 150

percent in 38 counties of California’s 58 counties. In 26 counties in California, that same

population is expected to increase more than 200 percent. The remaining 11 counties in

the state may show that the oldest old population may have increased 300 percent.

Wolf and Amirkhanyan (2010) stated that the public sector consequences of

population change may affect the scope, the structure, and the function of how state and

local governments provide or deliver services. These consequences include economic

implications, changes in the range of services, including service design, and the ways the

governmental agency design service delivery. Other consequences include the manner in

which state and local governments determine their governmental roles in the

implementation processes, and changes in the composition of state and local

governmental workforces.

The aforementioned characteristics and consequences of the changing

demographics, and the historically, very high, unsuccessful change initiatives and

8
implementation outcomes warranted addressing such issues with sound research based

procedures utilizing organizational change readiness. This study attempted to provide the

insight and tools necessary for health and human services organizational leaderships to

provide successful change outcomes based in readiness to change theory. The ability of

health and human services leaders to gauge the change process, and make needed

adjustments at any point in the change process are key factors in reducing the number of

unsuccessful change outcomes.

At the federal government level, the consequences of the population change and

shifts create budgetary implications on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

programs. Post et al., (2010) stated that the population growth among older adults was

expected to be coupled with an increased demand for long-term care facilities. The

addition of the consequences of the demographic changes and shifts complicates the

ability of health and human services organization to experience successful change

outcomes (Wolf & Amirkhanyan, 2010).

In other words, the endless problems of unsuccessful change efforts (Burke, 2011;

Hallencreutz & Turner, 2011) illuminated the need to address these problems in the

context of health and human service organizations’ abilities to achieve positive change

outcomes to meet the new challenges of change. The additional problems of the

changing demographic issues created additional burdens on health and human services

organizations and these organizational leaders in their attempt to influence and affect

positive change outcomes (California Department of Aging, 2012; Ludwig et al., 2010;

Wolf & Amirkhanyan, 2010).

9
 Statement of the Problem

Change, according to McNabb and Sepic (1995), is the process of “altering

peoples’ actions, reactions, and interactions to move the organization’s existing state to

some future desired state “(p. 370). A core competency of successful organizations

(Burnes, 2004b) was their ability to manage a standard feature of organizational life,

change. There may be significant differences in just how such change is perceived: is

change incremental, punctuated, or continuous; can change be driven from the top down

or is change an emergent process? (Dawson, 2003; Burnes, 2004a). History

demonstrated that those organizations that continually and consistently respond to meet

the challenges presented by change are those that are most successful (Madsen, John, &

Miller, 2006).

The vast amount of sometimes confusing and conflicting resultant data from

many management and leadership theories’ studies seem to have created a convoluted

and disintegrated portrait of these theories in the literature. This convoluted and

disintegrated application of theories, models, and approaches in addressing organizational

change outcomes tends to reiterate the historical and empirical problems associated with

the very high, unsuccessful, organizational change outcomes. Such change outcomes

should be unacceptable in any organization and should be unacceptable in any industry.

The vast waste of time and organizational resources also attest to the need for a review of

the aforementioned theories, models, and approaches when it comes to addressing change

and the change process.

10
 The first problem became how to provide public and private sector leaders of

health and human services organizations with the ability to avoid the consequences of

unsuccessful change outcomes, and when also addressing the consequences of the

changing demographics. A few of the consequences of the changing demographics, and

the historically, very high, unsuccessful change outcomes may be explicated through

organizational budgetary implications; the inability of health and human services

organizations to provide adequate services; increased service demands; waste of

organizational assets; waste of time; and waste of human capital, just to mention a few.

Leaders of health and human services organizations need the ability to make the

appropriate adjustments to the change process to influence and affect positive change

outcomes. The second problem became how to provide those same leaders of health and

human services organizations with an instrument to assess their organization’s change

readiness at any specific point in time and at any stage of the change process.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative, correlation, survey, study was to determine if

there was a relationship and to what extent organizational readiness was reflected in the

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes

(Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Since change may be the process of altering

peoples’ actions, reactions, and interactions to move the organization to any future

desired state (McNabb & Sepic, 1995), readiness of an organization to change may

significantly impact the ability for an innovation to take hold (Lerch, Viglione, Eley,

James-Andrews, & Taxman, 2011).

11
 The probability of measuring and correlating the independent variables (i.e.,

discrepancy; appropriateness; change specific efficacy; principal management support) in

the attempt to quantify the state of readiness (the dependent variables of readiness and

valance toward change) as low or high would provide valuable data concerning the

change process. The valuable data gleamed from such measurements and correlations

would determine the relationship and the extent of how organizational readiness was

reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward the

organizational change process. Establishing such a relationship would add to the

knowledge base and would fill a gap in the literature concerning the quantifiable

measurement of the state of readiness in an organization.

The quantitative correlation research method utilized in this study involved the

measurement of organizational readiness for change by administering the Organizational

Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale’s subscale of discrepancy (4 items) (Armenakis,

Bernard, Pitts, & Walker, 2007), and the Scales of Appropriateness, Management

Support, and Change Efficacy (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007). The use of the

selected instruments also made it possible to correlate readiness between different groups

and within different groups within the same organization (Holt et al., 2007). Weiner

(2009) stated that when organizational readiness is high, these members are more likely

to initiate change, exhibit greater persistence, not resistance, and display a more

cooperative behavior. Although neither of the aforementioned instruments and scales has

ever been used to measure readiness in any health and human services organization or the

memberships of such organizations, as explicated in the literature (Oreg, Vakola, &

Armenakis, 2011), both instruments and scales satisfy psychometric standards of the

12
American Psychological Association and have systematic validity (Armenakis et al.,

2007) and (Holt et al., 2007).

This study employed a non-probability, purposive, sampling design of

participants within a health and human services, membership organization, the National

Organization for Human Services (NOHS). Non-probability sampling cannot depend on

the rationale of probability theory, and is used where the population is unknown (e.g.,

when one has no idea about the number or location of those people who comprise the

population from which one intends to draw a sample) (Glicken, 2003; Trochim, 2001).

In purposive sampling, the researcher samples with a purpose in mind (e.g., the

researcher seeks one or more specific predefined groups, in this case, employees of a

health and human services organization, who are members of the NOHS) (Trochim,

2001). Since the field of human services is broadly defined, and the human services

professionals may be a generic term for individuals who hold professional and

paraprofessional jobs in diverse settings (National Organization for Human Services,

2014), acquiring permission to sample this organizational memberships has demonstrate

noteworthiness.

Rationale/Nature of the Study

This study used a quantitative methodology to collect and analyze numeric data

regarding health and human services, organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and

intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the organization’s

capacity to successfully make those changes. The data are collected utilizing instruments

that were designed to measure those organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and

13
intentions. The collected information was analyzed using statistical procedures and

hypothesis testing (Creswell, 2009).

Quantitative survey research provided written questionnaires to gather

information on those organizations members’ beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and

backgrounds from the larger pool of participants. Survey research is self reporting, and

the researcher does not manipulate a situation or condition to see how participants may

react. The researcher simply records the answers provided by the participants (Newman,

1991/2006). The non-manipulation quantitative design, correlation research, which

examines the strength and magnitude of the association among variables with no attempt

to infer causality, also provided guidelines for the study (Rumrill Jr., 2004).

A qualitative approach was not appropriate for this study because the researcher

does not seek to establish the meaning of a phenomenon from the participants, nor was it

the researcher’s desire to study shared patterns of behaviors of the participants over a

period of time. The researcher did not wish to create a case study or narrative about the

participant’s lived experiences. The quantitative methodology was the best approach to

conduct this research study, since the objective of this research was to collect and analyze

numeric data regarding health and human services, organizational memberships’ beliefs,

attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the

organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes.

14
 Research Questions

In quantitative research studies, the use of quantitative research questions and

hypotheses may be used to shape and to focus the purpose of the research study

(Creswell, 2009). These quantitative research questions, explored the relationships

among the variables in question, especially in survey studies. However, quantitative

hypotheses are the predictions the researcher constructs concerning the expected

relationships among the variables.

RQ1

The primary research question for this proposed study (RQ1): What is the

quantifiable state of readiness of the selected organizational memberships?

To assess research question 1, descriptive statistics were conducted on the state of

readiness. The state of readiness was gleaned from the Scales of Appropriateness,

Management Support, and Change Efficacy survey (Holt et al., 2007), and a subscale

from Organizational Change Recipients Beliefs Scale survey (Armenakis et al., 2007).

The state of readiness was classified as low or high based on a median split of the data,

where approximately 50% of the scores were “low” and 50% of the scores were “high.”

The cutoff value was examined and reported.

RQ2
The secondary research question for this study (RQ2):

15
 Do employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal

valence toward change?

H0: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support do not predict

personal valence toward change.

H1: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal

valence toward change.

To examine research question 2, a binary logistic regression was conducted to

assess if employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal valence

toward change. A binary logistic regression was the appropriate analysis to conduct

when the goal is to assess if several independent variables predict a dichotomous

dependent variable (Stevens, 2009).

Significance of the Study

This study was denotative because it helped address the problems created in the

context of the historically high, unsuccessful, organizational change efforts. This study

was also denotative because the study illuminated the consequences of the changing and

shifting demographic trends on health and human services organizations and their

leadership’s ability to make appropriate adjustments to the change process. It may be

worth emphasizing the fact that this study takes place in the context of the consequences

of the changing demographics and shifts, in the contexts of the very high unsuccessful

16
organizational change efforts, and in the context of the aforementioned organization's

organizational memberships’ environment of constant change. These settings for this

study may also expand the knowledge bases of readiness theory, change management

theory, and organizational change management theory.

Since the scope of the consequences of the changing and shifting demographics is

most severe and is expected to generate massive stakeholder issues, which includes new

service demands and new financial requirements globally, the significance of this study is

an important issue to health and human services organizations and their leadership. The

different service demands and new economic issues may include key impacts on the

design and delivery of care, the shift from acute to chronic illnesses, and health and long-

term care workforce issues (Wiener & Tilly, 2002).

Again, one problem became how to provide public and private sector leaders of

the aforementioned organizations with the ability to make appropriate adjustments to the

change process to influence and affect positive outcomes by assessing their

organizational readiness to change at any specific point in time and at any stage within

the change process. Another problem became how to provide those same leaders of

health and human services organizations with an instrument to assess their organizations’

change readiness at any specific point in time, and at any stage of the change process.

This study sought to integrate organizational readiness to change in the change

process of health and human services organizations, which may significantly impact the

ability for an innovation or change to take hold (Lerch et al., 2011). Organizations that

embrace the challenges of change through change readiness may be successful in

addressing the consequences of the changing demographics, and may be successful in

17
addressing the historically, very high, unsuccessful change outcomes. When

organizational readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to

initiate change; exert greater effort in the change process; exhibit greater persistence; and

display a more cooperative behavior (Weiner, 2009).

Since organizational readiness for change has not been subjected to extensive

theoretical development or empirical study (Weiner, 2009), this study may be a timely

contribution to the knowledge base. This study’s testing of two readiness instruments

(i.e., the Organizational Change Recipient’s Belief’s subscale of discrepancy [Armenakis

et al., 2007] and the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support, and Change

Efficacy [Holt et al., 2007]), which have never been used to test the state of readiness in a

health care or health and human services organization membership, (Oreg, Vakola, &

Armenakis, 2011), may be another important addition to the knowledge base.

Walinga (2008) stated that to unpack the concept of change readiness, it was vital

to explore, understand, and identify relations between organizational change, individual

change, change readiness, and the challenges of change as they are reviewed in the

literature. The convoluted and disintegrated picture of change readiness, change

management, organizational change, management, and organizational theories seem to

have led to the jingle-jangle fallacies (Block, 1995). Block (1995) explained the jingle –

jangle fallacy as two or more quite different theoretical constructs bring labeled

equivalently, considered interchangeable, and accepted as proof of real equality by many

researchers (i.e., the jingle fallacy) and two or more theoretical constructs labeled with

different names that are equivalent constructs being offered the same labels (i.e., the

jingle- fallacy (Block, 1995). Although the definitions of the jingle-jangle fallacies by

18
the original coinage of the terms by Thorndike in 1904 and by Kelley in 1927, and Block

in 1995 are similar, there seem to be some jingle-jangle in defining the terms. Still other

authors may define the terms similarly; thus continuing more jingle and jangle; which

may also attest to the convoluted and disintegrated picture in the literature concerning

many management and other theories. It might be noteworthy mentioning, nowhere in

Block (1995) is there any mention of Thorndike’s admonition to researchers and test

users to refer to (test) data in order to determine their conceptual overlap; thus, creating

more jingle and jangle. This study has no jingle-jangle fallacies, and simply attempts to

measure organizational readiness in a health and human services, organizational

memberships utilizing two APA approved instruments.

Definition of Terms

According to Creswell (2009), definitions provide clarity to the meaning of

specific terms used in the study. The following are terms defined to serve as guidelines

to standardize the understanding of the selected terms and their context and accurate use

in this study. However, in this study, change management, organizational change

management, and change management theory may be used interchangeably.

Appropriateness. The individual must believe that the proposed change is an

appropriate response to the situation (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

Baby Boomers. Persons born in the years of 1946 through 1964 (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2012).

Change. The process of “altering peoples’ actions, reactions, and interactions to

move the organization’s existing state to some future desired, state “ (McNabb & Sepic,

1995, p. 370).

19
 Change Management Theory. The management arena’s discussion of change

encompassing the individual, the group, and the organizational wide levels; however,

currently in terms of scope, change management seems to encompass theory and

intervention strategies. Those theories and intervention strategies are associated in the

academic literature as organizational development (OD); human resource management

(HRM); project management; and strategic change (Madsen et al., 2006; Worren, Ruddle,

& Moore, 1999).

Changing Demographics and Trends. The changing statistical characteristics of

human populations over a period of time (Merriam-Webster, 2003).

Change Specific Efficacy. The individual’s belief that the change message

created a sense of efficacy, which refers to the individual’s perceived capability to

implement a change initiative (Armenakis et al., 2007).

Discrepancy. The individual’s belief that the change message creates a need for

the change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

Department of Health and Human Services. The U. S. Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) is the federal government’s principal agency for protecting the

health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who

are least able to help themselves. HHS works closely with state and local governments

and many HHS-funded service providers at the local level by state or county agencies, or

through private sector grantees.

The Department's programs are administered by divisions, including the U.S.

Public Health Service and Human Services Agencies. In addition to the services they

20
deliver, the HHS programs provide for equitable treatment of beneficiaries nationwide.

HHS Operating Divisions are responsible for implementing programs that touch the lives

of all Americans. Whether it’s providing millions of children, families, and seniors with

access to high-quality health care; helping people find jobs and parents find quality child

care; keeping the food on Americans’ shelves safe and infectious diseases at bay; or

exploring new frontiers of biomedical research, HHS works every day to give Americans

the building blocks they need to live healthy, successful lives (U.S. Department of Health

& Human Services, 2014).

Jingle-Jangle Fallacy. The jingle-jangle fallacy has origins dating back to the

1900s. The jingle fallacy was coinage by the American educational and comparative

psychologist, Edward Lee Thorndike in 1904. Thorndike admonished his colleagues in

psychology against believing that two tests measure the same characteristic simply

because they share the same name (viz., the jingle fallacy). Thorndike stated instead of

presuming that those test measure equivalent constructs, test users and researchers in

psychology were to refer to the data to determine the tests’ conceptual overlap. Years

later, Thorndike’s admonishment was supplemented by Truman Lee Kelley in 1927, a

leading statistician, coinage the jangle fallacy. Kelley’s admonishment argue that “just as

problematic as the assumption that two tests sharing the same name measure the same

construct is the failure to recognize that two tests might be measuring the same construct,

despite dramatically different names “ (Rouse, 2012).

National Organization for Human Services (NOHS). A national organization for

professional and paraprofessional individuals who have diverse job settings, which

21
uniquely approaches the objective of meeting human needs through an interdisciplinary

knowledge base. This organization focuses on prevention, remediation of problems, and

maintaining a commitment to improve the overall quality of life of service populations.

The NOHS also provides a Human Services Board Certification, the HS-BCP Credential,

which professionalizes the field of Human Services and sets the holder apart from other

practitioners (National Organization for Human Services, 2014).

Non-Probability, Purposive, Sampling. A sampling technique which does not

provide the researcher with the ability to generalize the survey data with a degree of

accuracy, since the researcher does not know the probability that a particular participant

would be elicited as a part of the study sample. However, the use of this type of sampling

allows the researcher’s use of his or her professional judgment in selecting respondents or

participants (Rea & Parker, 2005). This researcher is interested in gathering information

about attitudes, beliefs, and intentions of employees of a health and human services

organization. Therefore, the researcher purposely solicits social services employees or

those employees in a health and human services organization.

Non-probability, purposive, sampling cannot depend on the rationale of

probability theory, and is used where the population is unknown (e.g., when one has no

idea about the numbers or location of those individuals who comprise the population

from which one intends to draw a sample (Glicken, 2003: Trochim, 2001). In purposive

sampling, the researcher samples with a purpose in mind (e.g., the researcher seeks one or

more specific predefined groups, in this case, employees of a health and human services

organization, who are members of the NOHS) (Trochim, 2001).

22
 Oldest Old. A term used to describe individuals in the population that are 85 years

and older, where women in this group outnumber men by a two to one ratio (California

Department of Aging, 2012).

Organizational Readiness to Change. Organizational readiness for change is a

multi-level, multi-faceted, and multidimensional construct (Bouckenooghe, 2010;

Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2012). At the organizational level construct,

readiness for change refers to organizational members’ shared resolve to implement a

change (change commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so

(change efficacy). Organizational readiness for change varies as a function of how much

those organizational members value the change, and how favorably they appraise three

key determinants of implementation capability: task demands, resource availability, and

situation factors. Change efficacy is higher when people share a sense of confidence that

collectively they can implement a complex organizational change (Weiner, 2009).

Principle Support. The belief of principle management support, which assesses

an individual’s belief that the organization (i.e., superiors and peers) will provide tangible

support for the change in the form of information and resources, which contributes to the

individual’s sense of efficacy (Armenakis et al., 2002).

Readiness. Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) define readiness as

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes.

Valence. The change belief which is concerned with the individual’s evaluation of

the benefits or costs of the change for his or her role. If an individual does not believe

23
that the change benefits him or her; then, it is not likely that the individual will have a

positive overall evaluation of his or her readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 2002).

Study Assumptions

According to Neuman (1991/2006), “theories contain built- in assumptions,

statements about the nature of things that are not observable or testable” (p. 52). Leedy

and Ormrod (1993/2010) suggested that “assumptions are so basic to research that,

without assumptions, the research problem itself could not exist” (p. 62).

The first assumption of this study was that the participants in this study would

answer all survey questions truthfully, honestly, and objectively concerning their belief,

attitudes, and intentions. The research participation’s invitation outlined the purpose of

the study, any risks, and benefits associated with the study, the right to withdraw from

participation at any time, and information on how confidentiality would be maintained.

Also, within the invitation, contact information of the researcher was provided, and a

request to participate through a web link to an electronic survey, which asked for the

electronic signing of an informed consent form (Mertens, 2010). After participating and

completing the electronic survey, participants received an electronic acknowledgment

that their survey was received along with a thank you for participating in the study.

The second assumption was that the use of non-probability, purposive, sampling

provided the representative sample of the population needed to conduct this study. Since

the researcher did not have any idea about the numbers or location of those individuals

who comprise the population from which he intended to draw a sample, the researcher

used his own professional judgment in selecting respondents or participants.

24
 The third assumption was that the instruments used in the measurement of

organizational readiness for change in this study, the Organizational Change Recipients’

Beliefs Scale’s subscale of discrepancy (4 items), (Armenakis, Bernard, Pitts, & Walker,

2007), and the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support, and Change Efficacy

(Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007), measured the intended variables, and be helpful

in reducing the number of unsuccessful change efforts in the change process of health and

human services organizations. Although neither of the aforementioned instruments and

scales had never been used to measure readiness in any health and human services,

organizational memberships, as explicated in the literature (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis,

2011), both instruments and scales satisfied psychometric standards of the American

Psychological Association and have systematic validity (Armenakis et al., 2007) and

(Holt et al., 2007).

Theoretical Assumptions

The theoretical contributions of change management and readiness for change in

this study were built around the effects of the consequences of the demographic changes

and shifts, and the very high, unsuccessful, organizational change efforts. Many

organizational change challenges reflect complicated human dynamics between

individuals, departments, outside organizations, and the environment (Backer, 1995).

Armenakis et al., (1993) stated that organizational readiness for change is reflected in the

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes.

Readiness for an organization to change may significantly impact the ability for an

innovation or change to take hold (Lerch et al., 2011).

25
 If readiness for change is an essential part of the change process, an assessment of

whether such a state exists (Smith, 2005). Since the concept of readiness was inductively

derived, and readiness may be both a state and a process (Dalton & Gottlieb, 2003),

organizational readiness for change may actually be a multi-level, multi-faceted, and

multidimensional construct (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis,

2012). This assumption builds on the idea that readiness for change can be measured by

reflecting on the organizational members, beliefs, attitudes, and intentions (Armenakis et

al., 2007; Holt et al., 2007; Weiner, 2009). As a direct result of that assumption, it was

further assumed that organizational change can be measured successfully, which may

help reduce the number of unsuccessful change efforts.

Topical Assumptions

The problems of unsuccessful change efforts, and the problems created by the

changing demographics created the need to provide health and human services,

organizational leaders a tool to make appropriate adjustments to the change process at

any point in time. Such any-point-in- time measurement of readiness to change in the

organization may provide these leaders with a quick assessment of the change process.

The quick assessment may enable needed adjustments, which may influence and affect

positive outcomes. The measurement of organizational readiness for change in this study

utilized the Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale’s subscale of discrepancy (4

items) (Armenakis et al., 2007), and the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support,

and Change Efficacy (Holt et al., 2007). This researcher assumed that the selected

instruments for measuring readiness for change would accurately measure readiness for

change in the selected organizational memberships.

26
 Although neither of the aforementioned measuring instruments has ever been used

to measure readiness for change in any health and human services, organizational

memberships, this researcher assumed that the diversity in participant samples, as

outlined in the selected measuring instrument’s test data, offered some level of

generalizability. Both instruments and their scales were developed around diverse

organizational backgrounds (i.e., public and private sector organizations) (Armenakis et

al., 2007; Holt et al., 2007). Since both instruments satisfy psychometric standards and

have systematic validity (Armenakis et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2007), this researcher

assumed that the instruments will measure readiness as designed. This researcher also

assumed that the selected instruments will provide an accurate measurement of readiness

in this study.

Methodological Assumptions

A Post-positivism Approach – This proposed study takes a post-positivism

approach to examine organizational readiness for change. The examination of

organizational readiness for change took place in the context of the consequences of the

present demographic changes and shifts, and in the context of the historically, very high,

unsuccessful change efforts. Mertens (2010) described the post-positivism approach as

being systematic rather than being speculative. Newman (2003) stated that post-

positivism research viewed all knowledge being quantifiable and measurable to gain

scientific knowledge through deductive reasoning. Trochim (2001) supported post-

positivism by using a funnel approach that emphasizes multiple measurements. Crossan

(2003) stated that the post-positivism approach was based in the belief that knowledge

may be resourced from multiple measurements, and that reality was not held in isolation

27
of context. Crossan (2003)’s referenced that reality, not being held in isolation of context

led to the possibility of exploring the influence of gender, environment, and the

relationship of the individual to his/her organizational, cultural environment. The

quantitative methodological assumptions of this researcher were that social facts have

objective reality; that reality is not being held in isolation of context; involve numbers;

are deductive in nature; and uses a structured instrument for data collection (Crossan,

2003).

The Epistemological Approach – Epistemology concerns, opinions about

knowledge. Bakker (2010) stated that epistemology was the philosophical study of the

ways in which one can distinguish between knowledge that can be considered by most

experts to be scientifically true and information that is not valid or reliable. There is also

a philosophical position that extends epistemology to the notion of sound common sense

(Bakker, 2010). Ponterotto (2005) described epistemology as an attempt to study the link

between the known and the unknown without bias through a positivist approach. It may

be viewed by many researchers that epistemology is the study of understanding of how

we know what we know. This refers to the characteristics of knowledge. Is knowledge

relative, measurable, and socially constructed?

Allen, Maguire, and McKelvey (2011) stated that truth can emerge from truth

claims that rest on objective (external evidence), subjective (personal perspective), and

normative (group agreements) arguments and evidence. Since this researcher sought to

measure readiness for change in health and human services organizational memberships

based on a change management and readiness for change theoretical framework,

knowledge or truths may emerge from objective, subjective, and normative arguments

28
and evidence. This stance required both epistemological and ontological realities.

Although the outcomes of this study may be isolated from this researcher’s philosophical

belief, the emergence of truth may emerge from objective, subjective, and normative

arguments and evidence (Allen et al., 2011), and from the fixed and measurable nature of

reality in this study.

The Axiological Approach – The axiological approach requires the examination of

the role values and biases connect with social science (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

Many researchers have stated that axiology refers to the role of values and biases in

science. Should the researcher be objective or subjective in the research process? In

other words, should the researcher’s biases be completely removed when collecting data?

Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) stated that positivists view inquiry as value free.

Newton (2003) stated that the researcher must remain neutral when examining findings.

This researcher’s role in conducting this study was objective, without any biases, and

value free. The employed survey would reduce biases, be value free, and seek statistical

validity through the extension of change management and readiness for change theories.

The Ontological Approach – The ontological approach considers the nature of

reality. Is reality fixed and measurable? The nature of reality for this study was both,

fixed and measurable. It was assumed that the instruments of measurement measured

the constructs they were developed to measure. Although the instruments and scales

have never been used to measure readiness for change in any health and human services,

organizational memberships, it was also assumed that the systematic validity and the built

in generalizability proved to be an important aspect of this study.

29
 Study Limitations

The limitations of a study were considered potential weaknesses in the study,

which may be subjective to the researcher and the reviewer. Generally, limitations of a

study are items that may not be controllable by the researcher, which may reflect people

issues or research method and design issues. Since this study uses Likert-like Scales in

the survey questions, respondents may not provide truthful answers; may have a personal

agenda in responding to the questions; may not be able to respond correctly to the

question, due to a lack of self-reflection; or simply may not understand the questions. A

survey’s results only suggest the data representation, which does not prove anything

(Simon & Goes, 2013). The limitations of research method and design issues may also

include vaguely written survey questions; the survey instrument of measurement may be

incorrect; human bias by the researcher; and problems in the data collection, just to

mention a few. However, this researcher posited that there may be specific limitation to

each study.

Specific limitations of this study may include the limiting factor that the selected

measuring instruments and scales’ use have never been utilized to address organizational

readiness to change in any health and human service organizational memberships

(Armenakis et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2007). The fact that organizational readiness for

change has not been subjected to extensive theoretical development or empirical study

(Weiner, 2009), may be another limiting factor in this study. The complexity of

researching the very high, 70 percent, organizational change failure efforts (Hallencreutz

& Turner, 2011), together with the consequences of the demographic changes and shifts

(Wolf & Amirkhanyan, 2010), may present an immense limitation to this study because

30
of the complexities of the study of change management, and the study of organizational

change failure rates together.

Finally, because organizational readiness for change was posited to be a multi-

level, multi-faceted, and multidimensional construct (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty,

Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2012), another limitation of this study may be that this study

only examines one level, facet, or dimension of the construct of organizational readiness

for change. The design of a study to address all the levels, facets, and dimensions of the

constructs of organizational readiness for change would not only be costly to design, but

also costly to administer.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The very high, 70 percent, organizational change failure efforts (Burke, 2011;

Burnes & Jackson, 2011) may be unacceptable to any organization and may be

unacceptable in any industry. The vast waste of time and the vast waste of organizational

resources (including the vast waste in fiscal expenditures and the vast waste in human

capital costs) are a direct result of such failed change efforts. The addition of the

consequences of the demographic changes, trends, and shifts (Wolf & Amirkhanyan,

2010) complicates the ability of health and human services organizations to experience

successful change outcomes.

Thus, change management theory was a congruously, applicable framework for

this study. Murthy (2007) defined change management as managing the process of

implementing major changes in information technology, business processes,

organizational structures, and job assignments to reduce the risks and costs of the change

31
and optimize its benefits. Theories of management refer to the conceptual frameworks

that the practicing managers used to attain goals within their resource constraints.

A great number of management theories covered management tasks and activities,

and the organizational context that tasks and activities may be performed. These theories

may fall into five broad categories (i.e., scientific management; human relations; systems;

contingency; and specialized management). These five broad categories may also show a

juxtaposed, historical development of the theories of management and change

management theories also, (e.g., Taylorism and scientific management theory [Taylor,

1911]; human relation theory as noted in the Western Electric’s Hawthorne project

[Favol, 1916/1949]; system theories based in open systems interacting with their

environments [Barnard, 1938]; Mintzberg’s role based theory involving managerial roles

and the culture of the organization [Mintzberg, 1973/1980]; and specialized theories of

the 1990s, such as quality management and strategic management [Inkson & Kolb, 1998]

(Management Theories, 2001).

Some theorists addressed change management or organizational change

management based upon individual needs, job satisfaction, and individual performance

(i.e. Maslow [1954], Motivation and Personality Theory; Herzberg [1966], Theory of

Individual Needs; Hackman & Oldham [1975], Job Satisfaction Theory; Skinner [1996],

Individual Performance Theory, Operant Behavior Theory, respectively).

Other theorists seemed to address change management or organizational change

management from the prospective of group norms and values, (e.g., Group Norms and

Value Theory [Lewin, 1947]; interpersonal competence and values, Interpersonal

32
Competence and Value Theory [Argyris, 1992]; group unconscious psychoanalytic based,

Group Unconscious, Psychoanalytic Theory [Bion, 1962; Levinson, 1974].

Still other theorists, Likert (1967), Management Style and System Approach

Theory; Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Organizational Structure Theory; and Levinson

(1974), Organizations as a Family, Psychoanalytic Basis Theory, addressed change

management or organizational change from a systems approach. The system approach

also included the prospective of management style and approach, the organizational

structure, and the organization as a family with a psychoanalytic basis, respectively.

The plethora of categories of management theories, models of management

approaches, and the methods of addressing such theories, models, and approaches of

management, surely provided a backbone of this study. The intermingling of such

theories, models, and approaches, historically, also provided a solid backbone to address

the problem statement of this study.

Change Management (2005) suggested that theories of change management can

be divided by the nature of the change (i.e., planned change or emergent change) or by

the methods and systems used to achieve the change (i.e., hard systems or soft systems)

as cited in Senior (2002). Planned change models are for the most part based on the 1947

work of Kurt Lewin, which was a three phase model of change: ‘unfreezing’ of the

present behaviors and attitudes to reinforce the need for change, then utilizing activities

or processes such as training, restructuring, or staff redevelopment to ‘move’ or change

the status quo, and finally ‘refreezing’ of the new behaviors or attitudes to ensure the

embedding of the change (Burke, 2010/2011; Weiner, 2009). Historically important was

33
the fact that Van de Ven and Poole (1995) synthesized change theories across several

disciplines (Holt et al., 2007).

In the emergent approach to change there is the belief that the forces for change

are so complex and constant that it may be impossible to fully plan the change process.

The hard systems approach to change emphasized the detailed diagnosis of the change

situation, the generation, and the selection of options and the planned change

implementation. The soft systems approach to change seemed to focus on developing

organizational capacity for change utilizing methodologies associated with action

research, team building, cultural and quality initiatives (Change Management, 2005;

Murthy, 2007). Murthy (2007) also stated that people are a major focus of organizational

change management. This included activities such as developing innovative ways to (a)

measure, (b) motivate, and (c) reward performance. It is the people who will ultimately

cause the change to be a success or failure. The implications of change on individuals

are highly important without which it may be impossible to manage change effectively.

This study emphasized and attempted to measure the individual’s and/or the

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; By, 2007).

34
 Readiness for Change Theory

Readiness for change theory provided an organizational, functional, and

theoretical foundation within the framework of change management, organizational

change management, and for this study. The historical aspect of readiness for change has

its early roots as explicated by the research of Coch and French (1948) in their attempt to

address resistance toward change (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Walinga, 2008). Around the

same time, Lewin (1947) established the roots for process models of organizational

change from which a great number of research scientists proposed variations of the basic

unfreezing, moving, and refreezing phases (Armenakis et al., 2007). Later, Jacobson

(1957) introduced the term readiness for change which became the foundation for

readiness as a unique construct that has been embedded within many theoretical models

of the unfolding of the change process.

Organizational readiness for change is posited to be a multi-level, multi-faceted,

and multidimensional construct (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty, Jimmieson, &

Armenakis, 2012). At the organizational level construct, readiness for change refers to

organizational members’ shared resolve to implement a change (change commitment)

and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy). Organizational

readiness for change varies as a function of how much those organizational members

value the change, and how favorably they appraise three key determinants of

implementation capability: task demands, resource availability, and situation factors.

Change efficacy was higher when people share a sense of confidence that collectively

they can implement a complex organizational change (Weiner, 2009).

35
 Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) defined readiness as organizational

members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are

needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes. The change

readiness model explored and elaborated on the gap between preparation and action by

demonstrating that the individual level analysis is the beginning of effective

organizational change (Walinga, 2008). Armenakis et al., (2007) specifically stated that

in any organizational transformation, change recipients make sense of what they hear,

see, and experience. They suggested that change recipients formulate precursors (e.g.,

cognitions, emotions, and intentions), which become a part of their decision processes

that result in resistance or supportive behaviors.

Armenakis and Harris (2002) expanded the discussion of the cognitive

components of change readiness and identified five beliefs underlying an individual’s

change readiness. They argued (1) that the change message must create a sense of

discrepancy, a belief that the change is needed; (2) that the individual must believe that

the proposed change is an appropriate response to the situation; (3) that the change

message must create a sense of efficacy, which refers to the individual’s perceived

capability to implement a change initiative (Armenakis et.al 2007); (4) the belief of

principal support, which assesses an individual’s belief that the organization (i.e.,

superiors and peers) will provide tangible support for the change in the form of

information and resources, which contributes to the individual’s sense of efficacy; and

(5) the change belief of valence, which is concerned with the individual’s evaluation of

the benefits or costs of a change for her or his role. If an individual does not believe that

the change has benefits, then it is not likely that the individual will have a positive overall

36
evaluation of his or her readiness for change. When organizational readiness for change

is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate change; exert greater effort in

the change process; exhibit greater persistence; and display a more cooperative behavior

(Weiner, 2009). Readiness of an organization to change may significantly impact the

ability for an innovation or change to take hold (Lerch et al., 2011). The expanded

discussion of the cognitive components of change readiness, in the change process, may

indeed play a major role in understanding of how to implement change with positive

change outcomes.

Theoretical Synthesis

The confluence of change management theory, organizational change

management theory, and readiness for change theory seemed to provide a potent

framework for this study in the contexts of the consequences of the demographic changes

and shifts, and the historically, very high, unsuccessful change efforts. If an individual

does not believe that the change has benefits, then it is not likely the individual will have

a positive overall evaluation of his or her readiness for change. When organizational

readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate change;

exert greater effort in the change process; exhibit greater persistence; and display a more

cooperative behavior (Weiner, 2009). Readiness of an organization to change may

significantly impact the ability for an innovation or change to take hold, again as stated in

(Lerch et al., 2011). If readiness for change is important, an assessment of whether such

a state exists is vital (Smith, 2005). Walker et al., 2007 clearly stated that change success

may ultimately be determined by the fit between content issues; process issues;

contextual issues; and individual differences. Such a model to address change clearly

37
links change management and organizational change management to readiness. By

integrating the main points of each theory, the assessment of the amount of readiness may

be particularly important in addressing and reducing the challenges presented by change

in any context.

Chapter Summary

Change, according to McNabb and Sepic (1995), is the process of “altering

peoples’ actions, reactions, and interactions to move the organization’s existing state to

some future desired state “(p. 370). A core competency of successful organizations

(Burnes, 2004b) is their ability to manage a standard feature of organizational life,

change. There may be significant differences in just how such change is perceived: is

change incremental, punctuated, or continuous; can change be driven from the top down

or is change an emergent process? (Burnes, 2004b). History demonstrated that those

organizations that continually and consistently respond to meet the challenges presented

by change are those that are most successful (Madsen, John, & Miller, 2006).

The vast amount of sometimes confusing and conflicting resultant data from

many management and leadership theories’ studies seemed to have created a convoluted

and disintegrated portrait of these theories in the literature. This convoluted and

disintegrated application of theories, models, and approaches in addressing organizational

change outcomes tends to reiterate the historical and empirical problems associated with

the very high, unsuccessful, organizational change outcomes. Such change outcomes

should be unacceptable in any organization and should be unacceptable in any industry.

The vast waste of time and organizational resources also attested to the need for a review

of the aforementioned theories, models, and approaches when it comes to addressing

38
change and the change process. A major problem became how to provide public and

private sector leaders of health and human services organizations with the ability to avoid

the consequences of unsuccessful change outcomes, when addressing the consequences

of the demographic changes, shifts, and/ or trends.

The purpose of this quantitative correlation, survey, study was to determine if

there was a relationship and to what extent organizational readiness was reflected in the

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes

(Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Since change may be the process of altering

peoples’ actions, reactions, and interactions to move the organization to any future

desired state (McNabb & Sepic, 1995), readiness of an organization to change may

significantly impact the ability for an innovation to take hold (Lerch et al., 2011).

This study used a quantitative methodology to collect and analyze numeric data

regarding health and human services, organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and

intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the organization’s

capacity to successfully make those changes. The survey population consisted of social

services employees and employees of health and human services organizational

memberships.

The next chapter is a literature review of the history of organizational

management and leadership theories with keen insights into those theories’ relationship

to readiness to change theory and organizational readiness theory. Also, gaps in the

literature, theoretical and conceptional framework, and other item will be addressed.

39
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Three very important phenomena: change, the changing demographics, and the

very high, unsuccessful, organizational change outcomes, warranted this study of

readiness to change in health and human services organizational memberships. The

implementation of organizational changes by healthcare organizations to reduce costs;

improve quality; increase efficiency; increase patient satisfaction; gain market share; and

retain valued employees are evident throughout the healthcare industry (Weiner, Amick,

& Daniel Lee, 2008). Due to the many stakeholders in the healthcare industry, many

healthcare organizations, health and human services organizations, and social services

organizations are under constant flux or change. These healthcare, health and human

services, and social services leaders must be ready to prepare their organizations to

initiate and implement changes with successful outcomes. Thus, individual and

organizational readiness to change was the theoretical and conceptional frameworks for

this study.

Change, according to McNabb and Sepic (1995), was the process of “altering

peoples’ actions, reactions, and interactions to move the organization’s existing state to

some future desired state “(p. 370). History demonstrates that those organizations that

continually and consistently respond to meet the challenges presented by change are

those that are most successful (Madsen, John, & Miller, 2006). However, the vast waste

of time and the vast waste of organizational resources (including the vast waste of fiscal

expenditures and the vast waste of human capital costs) are the direct results of the very

40
high rate of unsuccessful organizational change outcomes and organizational change

failures. Although these are serious issues for any industry or any organization, the scope

of the consequences of the changing and shifting demographics on healthcare, health and

human services, and social services organizations is most severe and is expected to

generate massive stakeholder issues. Such stakeholder issues include economic

implications, changes in the range of services, including service design, and the ways the

governmental agency design service delivery. Other consequences include the manner in

which state and local governments determine their governmental roles in the

implementation processes, and the aging composition of state and local governmental

workforces. At the federal government level, the consequences of the demographic

changes and shifts create budgetary implications on the Social Security, Medicare, and

Medicaid programs.

To successfully address the aforementioned issues, the first problem of this study

became how to provide public and private sector leaders of health and human services,

organizational memberships with the ability to avoid the consequences of unsuccessful

change outcomes, when addressing the consequences of the demographic changes, shifts,

or trends. The leaders of health and human services, organizational memberships need

the ability to make the appropriate adjustments to the change process to influence and

affect positive change outcomes at any specific point in time, and at any stage of the

change process. The second problem became how to provide those same leaders of health

and human services, organizational memberships with an instrument to assess their

41
organization’s change readiness at any specific point in time, and at any stage of the

change process to influence positive change outcomes immediately.

Filling a Gap in the Literature

According to Rafferty, Jimmieson, and Armenakis (2013), an implication which

arises from their multi-level, literature review of change readiness “concerns the

importance of considering what high and low readiness for change actually means in an

organizational setting. For instance, is low readiness for change necessarily a bad

condition?” (p. 129). Since Rafferty et al., (2013) posited that resistance to change may

be an opportunity for an organization to identify weaknesses in the organizational change

strategies and plans’ execution. A low or high level of change readiness may provide

important information to be used to adjust the approach to the change or make immediate

changes to the change process at a specific point in time, as outlined in this researcher’s

study. This researcher’s study attempted to measure organizational readiness to change

in a health and human services, organizational membership by measuring the quantifiable

state of readiness in that organizational memberships.

RQ1
The primary research question for the proposed study (RQ1):

What is the quantifiable state of readiness of the selected health and human

services organizational memberships?

To assess research question 1, descriptive statistics were conducted on the state of

readiness. The state of readiness was appraised by the administration of the Scales of

Appropriateness, Management Support, and Change Efficacy survey (Holt et al., 2007),

and a subscale from Organizational Change Recipients Beliefs Scale survey (Armenakis

42
et al., 2007). The state of readiness was classified as low or high based on a median split

of the data, where approximately 50% of the scores were “low” and 50% of the scores

were “high.” The cutoff value was examined and reported.

RQ2
The secondary research question for this study (RQ2):

Do employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy; appropriateness;

change specific efficacy; and principle management support, predict personal

valence toward change?

H0: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support do not predict

personal valence toward change.

H1: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal

valence toward change.

To examine research question 2, a binary logistic regression was conducted to

assess, if employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal valence

toward change. A binary logistic regression was the appropriate analysis to conduct

when the goal is to assess if several independent variables predict a dichotomous

dependent variable (Stevens, 2009).

This study was denotative because it not only fills a gap in the literature

concerning the quantifiable measurement of the state of readiness in a health and human

services, organizational membership, but this study also sought to address organizational

43
readiness to change in the context of the historically high, unsuccessful, organizational

change rates, and in the context of the consequences of the changing and shifting

demographic trends on health and human services organizations. Since the scope of the

consequences of the changing and shifting demographics is most severe and is expected

to generate massive stakeholder issues, which may include new service demands and new

financial requirements globally, the significance of this study was explicated in this

study’s ability to address important issues and major leadership concerns in the

organizational change process. A few of the different service demands and new

economic issues may include the key impact on the design and delivery of care and other

services, the shift from acute to chronic illnesses, and health and long-term care

workforce issues (Wiener & Tilly, 2002).

The denotativeness of this study was also explicated by the use of readiness to

change measurement instruments [the Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale’s

subscale of discrepancy (4 items) (Armenakis et al., 2007), and the Scales of

Appropriateness, Management Support, and Change Efficacy (Holt et al., 2007)], which

have never been used to study readiness in any health and human services organization.

Rational for Selected Methodology

Since this study sought to quantifiably measure readiness to change in a health

and human services, organizational membership, this study used a quantitative

methodology to collect and analyze numeric data regarding health and human services,

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes.

The data are collected utilizing instruments that were designed to measure those

44
organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. The use of quantitative survey

research in this study provided written questionnaires to gather information on those

organizations members’ beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and backgrounds from the larger

pool of participants. Survey research is self reporting, and the researcher does not

manipulate a situation or condition to see how participants may react.

A qualitative approach was not appropriate for this study because the researcher

did not seek to establish the meaning of a phenomenon from the participants, nor is it the

researcher’s desire to study shared patterns of behaviors of the participants over a period

of time. The researcher did not wish to create a case study or narrative about the

participant’s lived experiences. However, such a qualitative approach may be a

recommendation for future research. The quantitative methodology was the best

approach to conduct this research study, since the objective of this research was to collect

and analyze numeric data regarding health and human services, organizational members’

beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and

the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes.

The Identification of Key Variables

The independent variables are employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning

discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principle management

support, which are measured by 25 questions from the Scales of Appropriateness,

Management Support, and Change Efficacy survey (Holt et al., 2007) and four questions

from the subscale, discrepancy, of the Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale

Survey (Armenakis et al., 2007). The dependent variable was valence toward change

which is also measured by the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support, and

45
Change Efficacy survey, and the subscale, discrepancy, of the Organizational Change

Recipients’ Beliefs Scale Survey. Valence toward change was dichotomized into a

negative (0) or a positive (1) level based the coded state of readiness classification. The

low state of readiness was coded as 0, and a high state of readiness was coded as 1. Since

this study was survey based, there was no attempt to manipulate variables.

Predicting variables featured the attributes of discrepancy; appropriateness;

efficacy; and principal support. Armenakis and Harris (2002) described discrepancy as

the belief that the change was needed, and that the proposed change was an appropriate

response to the situation. Armenakis et al. (2007) stated that the change message must

create a sense of efficacy, which refers to the individual or employee’s perceived

capability to implement a change initiative. The belief of principal support assesses an

individual’s belief that the organization (i.e., superiors and peers) will provide tangible

support for the change in the form of information and resources (Armenakis & Harris,

2002). The change belief of valence was defined as the individual’s evaluation of the

costs or benefits of a change to his/her role (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

Key Variables and Testing Instruments

To measure the predicting variables within the research design, Armenakis,

Bernerth, Pitts, and Walker (2007) validated an instrument for measuring five important

precursors that determine the degree of buy-in by organizational change recipients called

the Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale. This established, psychometrically

sound, self-report questionnaire is a 25 item assessment tool that can be administered at

any stage of the change process. This instrument is a multiple item Likert-like scale that

serves as a barometer of the degree- of- buy- in among the recipients. The predicting

46
variables measured are the subscales of discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principle

support, and valence (Armenakis et al., 2007). One value added use of this instrument is

that a single subscale could be used independently of the other subscales (Armenakis et

al., 2007). This value added use was the basis for using the subscale only in conjunction

with the second instrument.

The second instrument to measure the predicting variables within this research

design, the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support, and Change Efficacy (Holt

et al., 2007), was validated to gauge readiness for organizational change at the individual

level. The instrument’s developmental results suggested that readiness for change was a

multidimensional construct influenced by beliefs among employees that “(a) they are

capable of implementing a proposed change (i.e., change specific efficacy), (b) the

proposed change is appropriate for the organization (i.e., appropriateness), (c) the leaders

are committed to the proposed change (i.e., management support), and (d) the proposed

change is beneficial to organizational members (i.e., personal valence)” (Holt et al.,

2007). Each of these predicting variables measured was an aspect of the established

instrument, and the established survey was a multiple item, Likert-like scale that

measures the strength of the constructs (Holt et al., 2007).

The instruments gathered internal data using survey statements via a 7-point

Likert-like scale to measure each independent variable of this proposed study. The 7-

point Likert-like scale responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

An example of the combined use scales (OCRBS and SAMSCE) featured statements

such as: (1) We need to change the way we do some things in this organization (to

measure discrepancy). (2) There are a number of rational reasons for this change to be

47
made (measuring appropriateness). (3) This organization’s most senior leader is

committed to this change (a measurement of management support). (4) I do not anticipate

any problems adjusting to the work I will have when this change is adopted (a

measurement of change efficacy). (5) I am worried I will lose some of my status in the

organization when this change is implemented (measuring personal benefit).

The construct of discrepancy was not a part of Holt et al. (2007)’s instrument

(SAMSCE) because the results from “the content adequacy tests suggested that

participants had problems distinguishing between discrepancy and organizational

valence. The results from this factor analysis reinforced this result, indicating that

participants in a field setting tended to view these ideas (discrepancy and organizational

valence) as a unitary construct. Thus, Factor 1 was labeled appropriateness “(p. 241).

Since the aforementioned coefficient alphas of Armenakis et al. (2007)’s instrument

(OCRBS) yielded an average coefficient alpha of 0.835 or 0.84 for discrepancy, this sub

scale was added to more accurately account for the construct of discrepancy in this study.

There are no major or minor modifications of either instrument. The combination

of a subscale (discrepancy) from Armenakis et al. (2007)’s instrument presented no

problem because “a single subscale could be used independently of the other subscales…,

[and] a second value added use is that the OCRBS can be used in conjunction with other

instruments developed to assess organizational conditions “(p. 500). Neuman (2003)

described, quantitative studies that may need more adaptation to diminish threats to

internal validity. Thus, the adaptation to use the subscale discrepancy diminished a

possible threat to the instrument’s internal validity.

48
 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

A consequential section of this and any literature review features the review of

the scholarly literature surrounding both the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the

study. Since this study sought to address three very important phenomena: change, the

changing demographics, and the very high, unsuccessful, organizational change efforts, a

review of management theory; change management theory; readiness theory; and a few

leadership theories were most vital. Many of the aforementioned theories juxtaposed

seemed to address the same or similar issues in the same or similar contexts. However,

all seemed to the address the individual of organizations or the individuals within the

organization as a unit.

Recent empirical research on leadership theory’s role in change management,

organizational change, and readiness for change research seemed to accentuate the role of

the transformational and charismatic leadership. Such research, suggested that those

leadership styles created a clear view of the future and created a shared organizational

positive belief about change and change events, which may inspire hope and optimism

(Oreg & Berson, 2011; Rafferty et al., 2013).

Change management theory was a congruously, applicable framework for this

study. Murthy (2007) defined change management as managing the process of

implementing major changes in information technology, business processes,

organizational structures, and job assignments to reduce the risks and costs of change and

optimize its benefits. Theories of management referred to the conceptual frameworks

that the practicing managers used to attain goals within their resource constraints.

49
 A targeted search of the literature revealed that a great number of management

theories covered management tasks and activities, and the organizational context that

they may be performed. These theories may fall into five broad categories (i.e., scientific

management; human relations; systems; contingency; and specialized management).

These five broad categories may also show a juxtaposed, historical development of the

theories of management and change management theories also, (e.g., Taylorism and

scientific management theory [Taylor, 1911]; human relation theory as noted in the

Western Electric’s Hawthorne project [Favol, 1916/1949]; system theories based in open

systems interacting with their environments [Barnard, 1938]; Mintzberg’s role based

theory involving managerial roles and the culture of the organization [Mintzberg, 1973/

1980]; and specialized theories of the 1990s, such as quality management and strategic

management [Inkson & Kolb, 1998]) (Management Theories, 2001).

Some theorists address change management or organizational change

management based upon individual needs, job satisfaction, and individual performance

(i.e. Maslow [1954], Motivation and Personality Theory; Herzberg [1966], Theory of

Individual Needs; Hackman & Oldham [1975], Job Satisfaction Theory; Skinner [1996],

Individual Performance Theory, Operant Behavior Theory), respectively.

Other theorists seem to address change management or organizational change

management from the prospective of group norms and values, (e.g., Group Norms and

Value Theory [Lewin, 1947]; interpersonal competence and values, Interpersonal

Competence and Value Theory [Argyris, 1992]; group unconscious psychoanalytic based,

Group Unconscious, Psychoanalytic Theory [Bion, 1962; Levinson, 1974]).

50
 Still other theorists, Likert (1967), Management Style and System Approach

Theory; Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Organizational Structure Theory; and Levinson

(1974), Organizations as a Family, Psychoanalytic Basis Theory, address change

management or organizational change from a systems approach. The system approach

also includes the prospective of management style and approach, the organizational

structure, and the organization as a family with a psychoanalytic basis, respectively. The

plethora of categories of management theories, models of management approaches, and

the methods of addressing such theories, models, and approaches of management, surely

provided a backbone of this study. The intermingling of such theories, models, and

approaches, historically, also provided a solid backbone to address the problem statement

of this study.

Change Management (2005) suggested that theories of change management can

be divided by the nature of the change (i.e., planned change or emergent change) or by

the methods and systems used to achieve the change (i.e., hard systems or soft systems),

as cited in Senior (2002). Planned change models are for the most part based on the 1947

work of Kurt Lewin, which is a three phase model of change: ‘unfreezing’ of the present

behaviors and attitudes to reinforce the need for change, then utilizing activities or

processes such as training, restructuring, or staff redevelopment to ‘move’ or change the

status quo, and finally ‘refreezing’ of the new behaviors or attitudes to ensure the

embedding of the change (Burke, 2010/2011; Weiner, 2009). Historically important was

the fact that Van de Ven and Poole (1995) synthesized change theories across several

disciplines (Holt et al., 2007).

51
 In the emergent approach to change there is the belief that the forces for change

are so complex and constant that it may be impossible to fully plan the change process.

The hard systems approach to change emphasized the detailed diagnosis of the change

situation, the generation, and the selection of options and the planned change

implementation. The soft systems approach to change seemed to focus on developing

organizational capacity for change utilizing methodologies associated with action

research, team building, cultural and quality initiatives (Change Management, 2005;

Murthy, 2007). Murthy (2007) also stated that people are a major focus of organizational

change management. This includes activities such as developing innovative ways to (a)

measure, (b) motivate, and (c) reward performance. It is the people who will ultimately

cause the change to be a success or failure. The implications of change on individuals

are highly important without which it may be impossible to manage change effectively.

This study emphasized and attempted to measure the individual’s and/or the

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; By, 2007; Holt et al., 2007).

Readiness for Change Theory

Readiness for change theory provided an organizational, functional, and

theoretical foundation within the framework of change management, organizational

change management, and for this study. The historical aspect of readiness for change had

its early roots as explicated by the research of Coch and French (1948) in their attempt to

address resistance toward change (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Walinga, 2008). Around the

same time, Lewin (1947) established the roots for the process models of organizational

52
change from which a great number of research scientists proposed variations of the basic

unfreezing, moving, and refreezing phases (Armenakis et al., 2007). Later, Jacobson

(1957) introduced the term readiness for change, which became the foundation for

readiness as a unique construct that has been embedded within many theoretical models

of the unfolding of the change process.

Organizational readiness for change is a multi-level, multi-faceted, and

multidimensional construct (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis,

2013). At the organizational level construct, readiness for change refers to organizational

members’ shared resolve to implement a change (change commitment) and shared belief

in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy). Organizational readiness for

change varies as a function of how much those organizational members value the change,

and how favorably they appraise three key determinants of implementation capability:

task demands, resource availability, and situation factors. Change efficacy is higher

when people share a sense of confidence that collectively they can implement a complex

organizational change (Weiner, 2009).

Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) defined readiness as organizational

members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are

needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes. This change

readiness model explored and elaborated on the gap between preparation and action by

demonstrating that the individual level analysis was the beginning of effective

organizational change (Walinga, 2008). Armenakis et al., (2007) specifically stated that

in any organizational transformation, change recipients make sense of what they hear,

see, and experience. They suggested that change recipients formulate precursors (e.g.,

53
cognitions, emotions, and intentions), which become a part of their decision making

processes that result in resistance or supportive behaviors.

Armenakis and Harris (2002) expanded the discussion of the cognitive

components of change readiness and identified five beliefs underlying an individual’s

change readiness. They argued (1) that the change message must create a sense of

discrepancy, a belief that the change is needed; (2) that the individual must believe that

the proposed change is an appropriate response to the situation; (3) that the change

message must create a sense of efficacy, which refers to the individual’s perceived

capability to implement a change initiative (Armenakis et.al 2007); (4) the belief of

principal support, which assesses an individual’s belief that the organization (i.e.,

superiors and peers) will provide tangible support for the change in the form of

information and resources, which contributes to the individual’s sense of efficacy; and

(5) the change belief of valence, which is concerned with the individual’s evaluation of

the benefits or costs of a change for her or his role. If an individual does not believe that

the change has benefits, then it is not likely the individual will have a positive overall

evaluation of his or her readiness for change. When organizational readiness for change

is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate change; exert greater effort in

the change process; exhibit greater persistence; and display a more cooperative behavior

(Weiner, 2009). Readiness of an organization to change may significantly impact the

ability for an innovation or change to take hold (Lerch et al., 2011).

54
 Theoretical Synthesis

The confluence of change management or organizational change management,

and readiness for change theories seem to provide a potent framework for this study in

the contexts of the consequences of the demographic changes and shifts, and the very

high unsuccessful change efforts. If an individual does not believe that the change has

benefits, then it is not likely the individual will have a positive overall evaluation of his

or her readiness for change. When organizational readiness for change is high,

organizational members are more likely to initiate change; exert greater effort in the

change process; exhibit greater persistence; and display a more cooperative behavior

(Weiner, 2009). Readiness of an organization to change may significantly impact the

ability for an innovation or change to take hold, again, as stated in (Lerch et al., 2011).

If readiness for change is important, an assessment of whether such a state exists is vital

(Smith, 2005). Walker et al., 2007 clearly stated that change success may ultimately be

determined by the fit between content issues; process issues; contextual issues; and

individual differences. Such a model to address change, clearly linked change

management and organizational change management to readiness. By integrating the

main points of each theory, the assessment of the amount of readiness may be particularly

important in addressing and reducing the challenges presented by change in any context.

55
 Convergent and Divergent Views

According to Krause (2008) and others, “change efforts do not occur in a

vacuum” (p. 24). Individual members of organizations have long histories and

experiences with each other, which congeal into perceptions, beliefs, and expectations

concerning the way things are, which in turn influence their behavior and define the

organizational culture. Organizational change literature concerning organizational

change points to an inverse relationship between cynicism; resistance; management lack

of credibility; management perceived lack of support and successful change outcomes

(Krause, 2008). This point of view is in line with the core change message presented by

Armenakis et al., 2007. These researchers’ core message of change refers to the

dimensions along which individuals form beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the

change. Armenakis and Harris (2002) expanded the discussion of the cognitive

components of change readiness, and identified five beliefs underlying an individual’s

change readiness. They argued (1) that the change message must create a sense of

discrepancy, a belief that the change is needed; (2) that the individual must believe that

the proposed change is an appropriate response to the situation; (3) that the change

message must create a sense of efficacy, which refers to the individual’s perceived

capability to implement a change initiative (Armenakis et.al 2007); (4) the belief of

principal support, which assesses an individual’s belief that the organization (i.e.,

superiors and peers) will provide tangible support for the change in the form of

information and resources, which contributes to the individual’s sense of efficacy; and

(5) the change belief of valence, which is concerned with the individual’s evaluation of

the benefits or costs of a change to her or his role. If an individual does not believe that

56
the change has benefits, then it is not likely the individual will have a positive overall

evaluation of his or her readiness for change.

However, the literature concerning organizational readiness for change seemed to

reveal that there may be little consistency with regard to the conceptional terminology,

which may be another example of the jingle-jangle fallacy. Many researchers used some

variant of the term readiness for change. Other used terms consist of change acceptance;

change commitment; attitudes toward change; and commitment to change, just to

mention a few. Some authors describe readiness in psychological terms, emphasizing

organizational members’ attitudes, beliefs, and intentions, as mentioned above. Other

authors utilized Prochaska and D’Clemente’s (1983) Transtheoretical Model of Change

(TTM), which states that there are five stages of behavioral change: precontemplation;

contemplation; preparation; action; and maintenance (Weiner et al., 2008).

Weiner et al., (2008)’s article pointed out the divergence with regard to readiness

theory’s construct levels, e.g., is readiness an individual construct, is readiness a group

construct, or is readiness an organizational construct? It appears that in 46 percent (46

%) of the articles reviewed by Weiner et al., (2008), the authors suggested that readiness

is an individual construct; 57 percent (57%) of the authors’ articles described readiness as

an organizational construct; 4 percent (4%) of the authors’ articles expressed readiness as

both an individual construct and as an organizational construct; and in 5 percent (5%) of

the reviewed articles, the construct of readiness could not be determined by those authors.

There was some observed divergence “as to whether organizational readiness to change

described a general state of affairs that exists in an organization, or whether it described

the organization’s preparedness for a specific change or type of change” (p. 416).

57
 A further search of the literature revealed that many authors did not discuss

organizational readiness in general terms, but discussed organizational readiness in terms

of specific types of organizational change, such as telemedicine, new practice

arrangements, integrated service delivery, and capitation, just to mention a few. The

views of these authors centered on the identification of organizational characteristics and

employee attributes that were very specific to the type of change being discussed and

were not indicative of organizational readiness for other forms of change, such as action

research, team building, and cultural quality initiatives. The literature also revealed that

there is some conceptual ambiguity concerning which stage in the organizational change

process the readiness construct is applied. Is organizational change an instantaneous

event, or a process that unfolds over time? Many authors posited that organizational

change is not an instantaneous event, but a process that unfolds over time. In Van de Ven

and Poole (1995) organizational change was a complex process and is nonlinear.

However, many scholars find it analytically useful to regard the change process as a

sequence of linear stages, such as Rogers (2003), who made reference to two broad stages

in the change process: initiation and implementation.

Backer (1995) stated that many change challenges reflect complicated human

dynamics between individuals, departments, outside organizations, and the environment.

In the management arena, (Madsen, John, & Miller, 2006), change was discussed in the

individual, the group, and the organization wide levels. In terms of the scope, Worren,

Ruddle, and Moore (1999), stated that the term change management is currently used in a

manner that seems to encompass theory and intervention strategies. Those theories and

intervention strategies are associated in the academic literature as organizational

58
development (OD), human resource management (HRM), project management, and

strategic change. Worren et al., (1999) also stated that one crucial aspect of change

management is that it is seen as only one component of a larger organizational change

effort. The other components being strategy, business processes, and technology.

Since change is the process of altering peoples’ actions, reactions, and

interactions to move the organization to some future desired state (McNabb & Sepic,

1999), readiness of an organization to change may significantly impact the ability for an

innovation to take hold (Lerch, Viglione, Eley, James-Andrews, & Taxman, 2011).

According to Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) organizational readiness was

reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent

to which changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those

changes. Schein (2004) and Jones, Jimmieson, and Griffiths (2005) stated that other

organizational factors associated with readiness for change are organizational climate,

commitment to the organization and the availability of resources. Those scholars also

stated that measuring the readiness of an organization to change is highly essential to

understand why an innovation or change may or may not be successfully implemented.

Those researchers also suggested that measuring readiness enables change agents

(administrators or researchers) who are initiating and implementing change to adapt their

change strategies to address change challenges.

A continued search of the literature revealed Stevens (2013)’s article addressing

the conceptualization of change readiness as a process-based approach. This author

posited that this process model of change “has the advantage of serving as a framework

against which to synthesize extant theorizing on change readiness, incorporating the

59
influences of context and environment over time on an individual’s cognitive and

affective evaluations and subsequent positive and proactive responses to change, and

capturing readiness as a recursive and multidimensional process” (p. 333). Stevens

(2013) also reviewed the following change readiness concepts: Readiness as the change

message; readiness as stages of change; readiness as a commitment to change; readiness

as openness to change; and readiness as capacity. It was pointed out that throughout the

review, “change readiness had been emphasized as a positive and proactive response to

change over time as a function of affective and cognitive evaluations of the conditions of

the immediate change environment; more distal influences from individual, collective,

and contextual sources; and prior and/or anticipated evaluations or responses” (p. 357).

This conceptualization provided the idea that change readiness may be managed

continuously during a change implication.

The researcher in this study has a convergent view concerning the

conceptualization of change readiness as a process-based approach, which may be

measured continuously during the change process. This conceptual model was a key

component of this researcher’s conception of change readiness, and a key element in

addressing the problem statement of this research study (viz., How to provide public and

private sector leaders of health and human services, organizational memberships with the

ability to assess their organizations’ change readiness at any specific point in time and at

any stage of the change process). Rafferty et al., (2013)’s review of the theoretical and

empirical evidence identified the antecedents of change readiness at three levels of

analysis or constructs, viz., the individual, the group, and the organization. This multi-

level approach to change readiness was also the convergent view of this researcher.

60
 Rafferty et al., (2013) discovered that there are three broad classifications of

antecedents of change readiness. “The first category of antecedents [is] external

organizational pressures, such as industry changes, technology changes, and government

regulation modifications, that drive organizational change. This category of antecedents

has been studied primarily when considering organizational level change readiness.

However, it is possible to identify other external organizational factors, such as

professional group memberships, that may act to influence individual and work group

change readiness. The second category of antecedents that we identify [is] internal

context enablers, such as change participation and communication processes, leadership

processes, and so on. Finally, we identify a third category of antecedent factors. At the

individual level of analysis, we label these characteristics personal characteristics,

whereas at the collective level, we label this category of antecedents as group

composition characteristics. Most research on change readiness (or other change-related

attitudes) has focused on antecedents that can be described as internal context enablers

and personal characteristics” (p. 121).

This researcher agreed with Rafferty et al., (2013) concerning the three broad

classifications of antecedents of change readiness, as shown in figure 1, the Multilevel

Framework of the Antecedents and Consequence of Readiness for Change. This same

figure could be used to explain this researcher’s view concerning the ability to measure

the individual, the group, and the group as the organizational readiness for change.

61
Figure1: Rafferty, A. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A., 2013, Journal of Management,

39,1, p. 113. Copyright 2013 by Sage Publications, Southern Management Association,

Reprinted with permission.

Convergent Views as a Basis for This Author’s Research

Individual and organizational readiness to change was the theoretical and

conceptional framework for this study. Organizational readiness for change is a multi-

level, multi-faceted, and multidimensional construct (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty,

Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013). At the organizational level construct, readiness for

change refers to organizational members’ shared resolve to implement a change (change

commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy).

Armenakis et al., (2007) specifically stated that in any organizational transformation,

62
change recipients make sense of what they hear, see, and experience. They suggested

that change recipients formulate precursors (e.g., cognitions, emotions, and intentions),

which become a part of their decision processes that result in resistance or supportive

behaviors. “Nevertheless, the role of exchange relationships in shaping employee

responses to organizational change has received minimal attention in organizational

change literature. This gap in organizational change research means that [it is not known]

whether employees’ perception of give and take with the employer helps change

recipients’ understanding and, therefore, the way they respond to an organizational

change event” (Chaudhry & Song, 2014, p.338).

It is the belief of this researcher that Rafferty et al., (2013) and Stevens (2013)

further validated the conceptual and theoretical framework for this study, which also

validated the need for this researcher’s study. This study attempted to fill a gap in the

literature, attempted to add new knowledge to the knowledge base, and attempted to

create a new tool to quantify or measure the state of readiness in health and human

services organizations. The ability to quantify the state of readiness in any organization

may provide vital information in the change initiative and implementation process. Such

information may allow leaders to make vital adjustments to the change process, and

influence and affect better change outcomes. The utilization of two instruments and

scales, which have systematic validity and satisfies the psychometric standards of the

American Psychological Association, provided both the credibility and the validity of this

research study. The use of the aforementioned instruments, which have never been tested

in any healthcare organization, any health and human services, any organizational

memberships’ organizations, (including social services organizations), may also answer

63
many questions, spur additional research concerning the use of these particular

instruments or scales, and may move the study of these instruments to the next level in

research.

Conclusion

This literature review established and addressed specific gaps in the literature

concerning this study of readiness to change theory. The examination of the research

questions provided a denotative link between this study and the identified gaps in the

literature. Key variables and the selected instruments of measurement are discussed to

emphasize the link between this study and the gaps in the literature, which also may add

new knowledge to the existing knowledge base concerning the measuring instruments.

A theoretical and conceptual framework, a theoretical synthesis, and convergent and

divergent views are discussed to anchor this study to the gaps in the literature; thus,

adding new knowledge.

The purpose of this study was to determine, if there was a relationship and to what

extent, organizational readiness was reflected in the organizational members’ beliefs,

attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the

organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes. The first problem became

how to provide public and private sector leaders of health and human services

organizations with the ability to avoid the consequences of unsuccessful change

outcomes, when also addressing the consequences of the changing demographics.

Leaders of health and human services organizations need the ability to make the

appropriate adjustments to the change process to influence and affect positive change

outcomes. The second problem became how to provide those same leaders of health and

64
human services organizations with an instrument to assess their organization’s change

readiness at any specific point in time and at any stage of the change process. The

solution to the aforementioned problems may be forth coming once the study data are

analyzed.

The next chapter, Chapter 3 Methodology, presents data concerning the

justification and selection of the research methodology. Chapter 3 will contain the

research design; sample; instruments of measurement utilized in the study; data collection

and data analysis; and validity and reliability issues, just to mention a few items covered.

65
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In any of the social or natural sciences’ scientific studies or investigations, the

researcher or investigator must utilize some type of structured plan. Such a structured

plan employs a group of setup principles and/or procedures to conduct experimentation or

investigation (Spector, 1981). These structured principles or procedures are also utilized

to formulate a research problem, to collect the research data, and to test the research

hypotheses. The ordered steps followed, when conducting those experimentations or

investigations, may best be termed the methodology of those experimentations or

investigations. This chapter provided the introduction of the research methodology of

this dissertation research. This chapter also includes the very important research design;

the sampling design; the research setting; the instrumentation/measures; the data

collection information; the data analysis; the ethical considerations; and this chapter’s

conclusion.

Research Methodology

This research study was based in the quantitative tradition. The historical roots of

quantitative research emerged during the 1820s via the positivistic tradition promoted by

French philosopher Auguste Comte, (Guo, 2015), who employed Scientific Revolution

Principles’ applications to explain and relate to practical social purposes. The use of

empirical data to test theoretically derived research hypotheses is an important principle

of positivism, which was explicated in Comte’s 1855/1896 works concerning positive

philosophy. Comte’s reasoning upholds the stance that social sciences and natural

sciences do not differ in terms of the basic methods used to conduct research, viz.,

66
observation, experimentation, and comparison (Guo, 2015). Classic Positivism evolved

considerably during the past centuries with amendments to the thinking. Such changes in

thinking led to the post-positivism approach. The difference between post-positivists and

positivist approach to research may be noted in the role the researcher or investigator

plays in the research process. One argument of the post-positivist approach asserts that

the researcher and the subject of the research cannot be independent of each other.

However, there are many other arguments used in identifying the post-positivist

approach.

Rationale for Research Methodology

This research study took a post-positivism approach to examine organizational

readiness for change. The examination of organizational readiness for change took place

in the context of the consequences of the present demographic changes and shifts, and in

the context of the historically, very high, unsuccessful change efforts. Mertens (2010)

described the post-positivism approach as being systematic rather than being speculative.

Newman (2003) stated that post-positivism research viewed all knowledge as being

quantifiable and measurable to gain scientific knowledge through deductive reasoning.

Trochim (2001) supported post-positivism as using a funnel approach that emphasizes

multiple measurements. Crossan (2003) stated that the post-positivism approach was

based in the belief that knowledge may be resourced from multiple measurements, and

that reality is not held in isolation of context. Crossan (2003)’s reference that reality, not

being held in isolation of context, led to the possibility of exploring the influence of

gender, environment, and the relationship of the individual to his/her organizational,

cultural environment in this study. The quantitative methodological assumptions of this

67
researcher were that social facts have objective reality; social facts involve numbers;

social facts are deductive in nature; and there was the use of a structured instrument for

data collection in this study, as outlined in (Crossan, 2003).

This researcher addressed and considered the epistemological opinions about

knowledge when developing this study. Bakker (2010) stated that epistemology is the

philosophical study of the ways in which one can distinguish between knowledge that can

be considered by most experts to be scientifically true and information that is not valid or

reliable. There was also a philosophical position that extends epistemology to the notion

of sound common sense (Bakker, 2010). Ponterotto (2005) described epistemology as an

attempt to study the link between the known and the unknown without bias through a

positivist approach. Many researchers posited that epistemology is the study of

understanding of how we know what we know. This refers to the characteristics of

knowledge. Is knowledge relative, measurable, and socially constructed?

Allen, Maguire, and McKelvey (2011) stated that truth can emerge from truth

claims that rest on objective (external evidence), subjective (personal perspective), and

normative (group agreements) arguments and evidence. Since this researcher sought to

measure readiness for change in health and human services, organizational memberships

based on a change management and readiness to change theoretical framework,

knowledge or truths may emerge from objective, subjective, and normative arguments

and evidence. This stance requires both epistemological and ontological realities. The

outcomes of this study may be isolated from this researcher’s philosophical belief.

The axiological approach of this research study required the examination of the

role values and biases connect with social science (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Many

68
researchers stated that axiology refers to the role of values and biases in science. Should

the researcher be objective or subjective in the research process? In other words, should

the researcher’s biases be completely removed when collecting data? Teddlie and

Tashakkori (2009) also stated that positivists view inquiry as value free. Newton (2003)

stated that the researcher must remain neutral when examining findings. This researcher’s

role in conducting this study has been objective, without any intention of biases, and

value free. The employed survey would reduce biases, and seek statistical validity

through the extension of change management and readiness to change theories.

The ontological approach to this research study considered the nature of reality.

Is reality fixed and measurable? The nature of reality for this study is both, fixed and

measurable. It is assumed that the instruments of measurement measured the constructs

they were developed to measure. Although the instruments and scales have never been

used to measure readiness for change in any health and human services, organizational

memberships, it is also assumed that the systematic validity and the built in

generalizability proved to be an important aspect of this study.

This study used a quantitative methodology to collect and analyze numeric data

regarding health and human services, organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and

intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the organization’s

capacity to successfully make those changes. The data were collected utilizing

instruments that were designed to measure those organizational members’ beliefs,

attitudes, and intentions. The collected information was analyzed using statistical

procedures and hypothesis testing as stated in (Creswell, 2009).

69
 Quantitative survey research provided written questionnaires to gather

information on those organizations members’ beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and

backgrounds from the larger pool of participants. Survey research is self reporting, and

the researcher does not manipulate the situation or condition to see how participants may

react. The researcher simply records the answers provided by the participants (Newman,

1991/2006). The non-manipulation quantitative design and the correlation design of this

research, which examined the strength and magnitude of the association among variables

with no attempt to infer causality, also provided guidelines for this study as outlined in

(Rumrill Jr., 2004).

The alignment, of the research questions and hypotheses with the chosen research

method and design were explicated through the exploration of the relationships among

the variables in question, and was used to shape and to focus the purpose of the research

study. Since (RQ1) asks, “What is the quantifiable state of readiness of the selected

organizational memberships?” the term quantifiable tends to infer the collection and

analysis of numeric data. RQ2 asks, “Do employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning

discrepancy; appropriateness; change specific efficacy; and management support predict

personal valence toward change?” tends to suggest the exploration of the relationships

among the variables in question, especially in this survey study.

A qualitative approach was not appropriate for this study because the researcher

did not seek to establish the meaning of a phenomenon from the participants, nor was it

the researcher’s desire to study shared patterns of behaviors of the participants over a

period of time. The researcher did not wish to create a case study or narrative about the

70
participant’s lived experiences. The quantitative methodology was the best approach to

conduct this research study. The objective of this research was to collect and analyze

numeric data regarding health and human services, organizational memberships’ beliefs,

attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the

organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes.

Research Design

The research design of this study encompassed the use of a non-manipulative

quantitative, cross-sectional, correlation, 7 point Likert-Like Scale, Survey design.

Although the non-experimental or non-manipulation research design studies may be

considered inferior to experimental design studies (Kish, 1959), non-manipulation design

studies examine the strength and magnitude of the association among variables with no

attempt to infer causality as outlined in (Rumrill Jr., 2004). The cross-sectional design

was chosen due to the need to survey the population at a single point in time, not over an

extended period of time. The correlation design was used to show a statistical

relationship between two or more variables such as, the independent variables of

discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principle management

support with the dependent variables readiness to change and the organizational

members’ personal valence concerning the change. The seven point, Likert-Like survey

design was used to collect behavioral, attitudinal, and descriptive information, which

clearly added rigor to this study. The selection and the description of the research design

represented the first steps in the organization and planning of this research process, and

were put in place once the research idea and the research hypotheses had been outlined

(Toledo-Pereyra, 2012). Clearly, the rationale for the selected methodology and research
71
design has been explicated above. A qualitative approach to this study would not support

any possible statistical relationships between the independent and dependent variables.

Nor would a qualitative approach to this research study support addressing the two

research questions and the hypotheses adequately.

Population/Sampling

This study employed a non-probability, purposive, sampling design in the

selection of participants within a health and human services, membership organization,

the National Organization for Human Services (NOHS). Non-probability sampling

cannot depend on the rationale of probability theory, and is used where the population is

unknown (e.g., when one has no idea about the number or location of those people who

comprise the population from which one intends to draw a sample) (Glicken, 2003;

Trochim, 2001). In purposive sampling, the researcher samples with a purpose in mind

(e.g., the researcher sought one or more specific predefined groups, in this case,

employees of a health and human services, professional organization, who are members

of the NOHS) (Trochim, 2001). Since the field of human services was broadly defined,

and the human services professionals may be a generic term for individuals who hold

professional and paraprofessional jobs in diverse settings (National Organization for

Human Services, 2014), acquiring permission to sample this organizational membership

has demonstrated noteworthiness.

72
 The Survey Population

The purpose of this quantitative, correlation, survey, study was to determine if

there was a relationship and to what extent organizational readiness was reflected in the

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which

changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes

(Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Since change may be the process of altering

peoples’ actions, reactions, and interactions to move the organization to any future

desired state (McNabb & Sepic, 1995), readiness of an organization to change may

significantly impact the ability for an innovation to take hold (Lerch, Viglione, Eley,

James-Andrews, & Taxman, 2011).

The probability of measuring and correlating the independent variables (i.e.,

discrepancy; appropriateness; change specific efficacy; principal management support) in

the attempt to quantify the state of readiness (the dependent variables of readiness and

valance toward change)as low or high would provide valuable data concerning the

change process. The valuable data gleamed from such measurements and correlations

would determine the relationship and the extent of how organizational readiness is

reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward the

organizational change process. Establishing such a relationship would add to the

knowledge base and would fill a gap in the literature concerning the quantifiable

measurement of the state of readiness in a health and human services, professional

membership organization.

73
 The survey population is taken from the NOHS membership’s database, which

contained over 28,000 members. The unit of analysis for this research study was any

surveyed member of the NOHS organization. The criteria for the selection of members

of the selected population are listed as follows:

• 18 years of age and above, a member of the NOHS organization, and is

employed by a health and human services organization or agency.

• A member of the NOHS organization who is employed by a health and

human services organization that fits at least one of the following criteria:

• An organization that is in constant change, due to constantly shifting

stakeholder demands.

• An organization making adjustments, due to internal and/or external

environmental pressures.

• An organization anticipating a change or an organization implementing a

change.

• An organization whose leadership may be in need of acquiring a snapshot

of a point in time at any phase of the change process.

• An organization conducting a strategic organizational realignment.

• An organization presently going through any change and/or an

implementation process, and/or

• An organization whose leadership’s desire is to gauge employees’ reaction

to a future change process.

74
 The participant exclusion criteria for this study were those individuals that were

younger than 18 years; individuals that were not a member of the NOHS organization;

individuals that were not an employee of a health and human services organization or

agency; and those individuals who did not wish to participate in this study.

Sampling

The literature was replete with research articles dealing with the issues of

sampling. As a result of a comprehensive review of the literature, this researcher chose a

non-probability sampling design. This study utilized a non-probability, purposive,

sampling design to select participants from the membership’s database of the NOHS

organization. According to Guo and Hussey (2004), nonprobability sampling refers to

the procedures used by researchers to select or choose their sample populations based

upon their research purpose, the availability of subjects or participants, the researcher’s

subjective judgment or other non-statistical criteria. The essential characteristic of non-

probability sampling was that the researcher did not know the probability that a particular

participant would be elicited as part of the study sample (Rea & Parker, 2005). Non-

probability sampling does not provide the researcher with the ability to generalize the

survey data with a degree of accuracy. However, in the purposive sampling the

researcher may use his or her professional judgment in selecting the respondents or

participants (Rea & Parker, 2005). This researcher was interested in gathering

information about attitudes, beliefs, and intentions of employees of a health and human

services organizational memberships. Therefore, this researcher purposely solicited

75
social services employees or those employees in a health and human services

professional, organizational membership.

There was also a plethora of opinions for determining sample size. The sample

size was critical to ensuring the validity of the study and drawing inferences about the

population (Newman, 1991/2006; Bordens & Abbott, 2002/2011). The sample size may

depend on many factors, including the purpose of the research, the research techniques

used, and the size of the universe or population (Guthrie, 2010). Sample size is one of

four components that make up the power analysis of a study. The other three components

making up the power analysis are effect size, power, and significance level (Statistic

Solutions, 2013). The effect size is a unique measurement that speaks to the strength or

importance of a particular relationship within the study. Power is the probability of not

making a Type II error, while beta is the probability of making a Type II error. The

general guideline as to what is appropriate (typically 0.80) priori power may be unique to

every study. The significance level or alpha of a study is the probability of committing a

Type I error. More simply stated, it is the researcher’s probability of finding a

relationship that does not exist. Generally, committing a Type I error is considered more

severe than committing a Type II error. The significance level measurement is unique to

the study (Statistic Solutions, 2013).

In this study, a power analysis was conducted for logistic regression to address the

sample size in this study and RQ2. Research question 2, “Do employees’ beliefs and

attitudes concerning discrepancy; appropriateness; change specific efficacy; and

management support predict personal valence toward change?” which used four

76
predictors in the logistic regression. LeBlanc and Fitzgerald (2000) suggested that a

minimum of 30 participants should be gathered per predictor of a logistic regression.

With four total predictors, 120 total participants were needed to examine research

question 2.

Originally, the researcher attempted to directly survey employees of a Northern

California, State and/or County, Agency or Department of Health and Human Services.

After several attempts to obtain site permission from the directors of the aforementioned

organizations or agencies, it became very clear, after waiting for site permission for a

period of nine months, such efforts were futile. The researcher then decided to contact a

cohort and NOHS member, and the NOHS Administrative Manager to obtain site

permission to conduct the researcher’s research study. Within a one week time frame, the

researcher received information from the administrative manager outlining the

information needed to obtain site permission from the NOHS: IRB Approval Letter, a

Letter of Invitation to the membership to participate in the research, and a brief abstract

of the research project. The requested documents were submitted, and the researcher was

granted permission to post the Letter of Invitation and the Informed Consent Form to the

NOHS Membership Database with a secure link to the research survey hosted on

SurveyMonkey’s internet/website site.

77
 Research Setting

The research setting for this study was the NOHS’s Membership Database, the

linked survey hosted on SurveyMonkey’s website, and the environment in which each

participant completed the self-administrated survey. The survey captured the collected

data via secure socket layer (SSL), which ensured confidential user information

transmitted through all current browsers of the internet (SurveyMonkey.com, 2011).

Although the Letter of Invitation and the Informed Consent Form acknowledged

partaking in the electronic survey constituted inform consent, the electronic link affirmed

each participant’s consent before the survey was completed.

The benefits of utilizing this setting for this research are the security of all data,

ease of participants’ participation in the survey, quick response in data collection, and the

cost effectiveness of the research. Other researchers, (Fowler, 2008) acknowledged the

beneficial use of internet-based surveys’ confidentiality, cost savings, convenience, and

ease of access. Jones (2007) discovered the advantages of using internet-based surveys to

reach large, diverse audiences, and the ability for participants to respond to surveys at

their own discretion. This internet-based study reached the large, diverse, professional

and paraprofessional membership of the NOHS.

78
 Instruments/Measures

Since the purpose of this study was to examine the existence of any relationship

between organizational members’ readiness to change, and those same organizational

members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are

needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes, instruments

were needed to predict or measure those relationships. After a thorough search of the

literature, this researcher discovered two psychometrically sound, self reporting,

assessment tools, which could be used to measure the predicting variables. Permission to

use both instruments was granted by Dr. Armenakis. Dr. Armenakis informed this

researcher that there would be no charge to use the instruments, since both instruments

are available and/or open to all researchers.

One such assessment tool to measure the predicting variables, within the research

design, was created by Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, and Walker (2007). Those researchers

validated an instrument for measuring five important precursors that determine the degree

of buy-in by organizational change recipients called the Organizational Change

Recipients’ Beliefs Scale (OCRBS). This established, psychometrically sound, self-

report questionnaire was a 24 item assessment tool that can be administered at any stage

of the change process. This instrument was a multiple item, Likert-Like scale that served

as a barometer of the degree of buy- in among the recipients. The predicting variables

measured were the subscales of discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principle support,

and valence (Armenakis et al., 2007). One value added use of this instrument was that a

single subscale could be used independently of the other subscales (Armenakis et al.,

79
2007). This value added use was the basis for using the subscale discrepancy only in

conjunction with the second instrument.

The second instrument to measure predicting variables, within the research

design, was created by Holt, Armenakis, Field, and Harris (2007). Those researchers

validated an instrument that was used to gauge readiness for organizational change at the

individual level called the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support, and Change

Efficacy (SAMSCE) (Holt et al., 2007). This instrument’s developmental results

suggested that readiness for change was a multidimensional construct influenced by

beliefs among employees that “(a) they are capable of implementing a proposed change

(i.e., change specific efficacy), (b) the proposed change is appropriate for the

organization (i.e., appropriateness), (c) the leaders are committed to the proposed change

(i.e., management support), and (d) the proposed change is beneficial to organizational

members (i.e., personal valence)” (Holt et al., 2007). Each of these predicting variables

was an aspects of the established instrument, and the established survey was a multiple

item, Likert-Like, scale the measured the strength of the constructs (Holt et al., 2007).

The construct of discrepancy was not a part of Holt et al. (2007)’s instrument

(SAMSCE) because the results from “the content adequacy tests suggested that

participants had problems distinguishing between discrepancy and organizational

valence. The results from this factor analysis reinforced this result, indicating that

participants in a field setting tended to view these items (discrepancy and organizational

valence) as a unitary construct. Thus, Factor 1 was labeled appropriateness “ (p. 241).

Since the aforementioned coefficient alphas of Armenakis et al. (2007)’s instrument

80
(OCRBS) yielded an average coefficient alpha of 0.835 or 0.84 for discrepancy, this sub

scale was added to more accurately account for the construct of discrepancy in this study.

The instruments gathered internal data using survey statements via a 7-point

Likert-Like scale to measure each independent variable of this proposed study. The 7-

point Likert scale responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agrees. An

example of the combined use scales (OCRBS and SAMSCE) would feature statements

such as: (1) We need to change the way we do some things in this organization (to

measure discrepancy). (2) There are a number of rational reasons for this change to be

made (measuring appropriateness). (3) This organization’s most senior leader is

committed to this change (a measurement of management support). (4) I do not

anticipate any problems adjusting to the work I will have when this change is adopted (a

measurement of change efficacy). (5) I am worried I will lose some of my status in the

organization when this change is implemented (measuring personal benefit).

There were no major or minor modifications of either instrument. The

combination of a subscale (discrepancy) from Armenakis et al. (2007)’s instrument

presents no problem because “a single subscale could be used independently of the other

subscales…, [and] a second value-added use is that the OCRBS can be used in

conjunction with other instruments developed to assess organizational conditions “(p.

500). Neuman (2003) described, quantitative studies that may need more adaptation to

diminish threats to internal validity.

Reliability and validity favored the use of both test instruments. The acceptable

coefficient alpha measurement should have a value of at least 0.70 to establish internal

81
consistency for instruments to lessen threats (Armenakis et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2007).

Within Armenakis et al. (2007) and Holt et al. (2007) instruments, the coefficient alpha

measurements demonstrated 0.84 for discrepancy; 0.94 for appropriateness; 0.87 for

management support; 0.82 for change efficacy; and 0.66 for personal valence. The

reliability of the two instruments proved adequate because the coefficient alpha numbers

were at or well above the required 0.70 measurement.

Internal consistency reliabilities were acceptable for both the subscales and the

overall OCRBS instrument in each of the three organizations tested. The OCRBS had

demonstrated content, convergent, and discriminant validity (Armenakis et al., 2007).

Armenakis et al. (2007) considered the OCRBS to be a useful assessment tool for

readiness adoption and change intervention. The administration of the OCRBS

instrument to organizational change recipients a change agent has the ability to determine

the extent to which ownership for an organizational change might exists. Also, if the

assessed dimensions are revealed to be unfavorable, change agents may have very useful

information to modify the change or implementation process (Armenakis et al. (2007).

Coefficient alphas for the SAMSCE subscales showed 0.80 for appropriateness;

0.79 for management support; 0.79 for change efficacy; and 0.65 for the personal

valence scores (Holt et al. (2007). The convergent validity assessment indicated that the

readiness factors were correlated with each other (mean r = 0.42, p < 0.05). The

correlation between the variables provided additional evidence of convergent validity.

The locus of control and the general attitudes toward change were positively related to

82
the readiness factors, whereas rebelliousness was negatively related to each of the

readiness factors (Holt et al. 2007).

Data Collection

The data collection process began after full approval from Capella’s IRB was

granted, and a copy of the IRB Approval Letter, a Letter of Invitation, and a brief abstract

of the research project were submitted to the Administrative Manager of the NOHS. The

survey was developed and designed utilizing tools provided by SurveyMonkey’s website.

The constructed survey consisted of a page with the study’s title and purpose; the

Informed Consent form; six (6) demographic questions; twenty-five (25) questions from

instrument 1 (SAMSCE); and four (4) questions from instrument 2 (OCRBS). Once the

survey was constructed, a link to the survey hosted on SurveyMonkey’s website was

provided at the bottom of the Letter of Invitation hosted on the NOHS’s membership

database. The Letter of Invitation with the link to the survey was sent to each NOHS

member’s email by the NOHS Administrative Manager. Each participant’s response was

captured and collected via a secured socket layer (SSL) that ensured both, participant’s

confidentiality and the data’s security. Originally, this researcher had planned to leave

the link to the survey open for 2-4 weeks to get the needed 120 participant responses;

however, after the link to the survey had been open to the participants for just twenty-four

(24) hours, 101 participant responses had been filed and collected. Within two days, the

targeted 120 participant responses had been filed and collected. The survey link was left

open for another seven days, and participant responses slowed considerately. At the end

83
of that week, a total of 138 participant responses had been filed and collected, and the

survey was closed to participants.

The data were downloaded from the Survey Monkey’s website by a contracted

statistician from Statistics Solutions. The data were consolidated and cleaned by a

contracted statistician from Statistics Solutions who has a signed confidentiality

agreement, which also includes conducting the data analysis. Copies of the cleaned data

were sent to this researcher in three different formats, SPSS format, CVS format, and

Excel 2007 format. The copied data supplied to this researcher has been placed under

lock and key in this researcher’s office, and will be kept secure for a period of seven (7)

years. All data on the researcher’s computer are secured by data security programs and

password protected files. Once the research study was completed, all the research data

were removed from this researcher’s secured computer, placed on a jump drive, stored

under lock and key in this researcher’s office for seven (7) years. A quick review of the

data, yielded 134 usable surveys out of the 138 total participant responses. The four (4)

surveys which were deemed unsuitable for data analysis consisted of one (1) participant

response for non-consent, and three (3) participant responses for incomplete surveys.

The three participants who did not complete the survey contacted the researcher stating

the reason for not completing the survey. There seemed to be a problem concerning the

change being addressed in the survey. The confusion may have been due to the

participants not reading the inclusion criteria correctly. The 134 usable surveys were

subjected to the data analysis procedures.

84
 Data Analysis

A first step in this data analysis plan consisted of the data cleaning process, which

consisted of the removal of all participant responses for non-consent, and incomplete

participant responses. Descriptive statistics, which included frequencies and percentages

were performed on the demographic data solicited from the participants’ surveys (viz.,

age; gender; education level; length of time with organization; and manager or supervisor

status). Calculated scores for the independent variables (appropriateness; management

support; change efficacy; discrepancy; and personal valance) were reported and recorded.

Descriptive statistics concerning research question one, which included the means

and standard deviations were calculated for appropriateness; management support;

change efficacy; discrepancy; and personal valance. A calculation of the median split for

personal valance was also calculated, tabulated, and a narrative of the findings discussed.

A binary logistic regression was conducted concerning research question two, which

involved the dependent variable personal valence, and the four independent variables

appropriateness; discrepancy; change specific efficacy; and management support.

The issues of multicollinearity were considered. If the data are not appropriate for

use in the overall binary logistic regression model, additional tests will be conducted to

fit with the levels of measurement. If multicollinearity is determined to be problematic,

bivariate correlations will be conducted instead, these will take the form of four Point

Biserial correlations. A tabulation of all results, and narratives to discuss findings were

also be completed.

85
 Ethical Considerations

The ethical concerns realized by this researcher before, during, and after the

completion of this research study were of the utmost importance. Identifiable ethical

issues within this research study would have been diminished without strict adherence to

the rules of protection from harm, informed consent, right to privacy, and honesty with

professional colleagues (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). Solidifying protections, the Belmont

Report identify three quintessential ethical principles that bound protective human

participant practices as including respect for participants, beneficence, and justice

("Department of Health," 2012). Furthermore, the IRB through Capella University

employed stringent procedures to protect human subjects through the completed

application process (Capella University, 2012). Therefore, it is for those reasons that the

assessment of possible risks associated with this research study’s research design, which

may appear subjective to potentially harming participants for the benefit of seeking

research findings related to studying organizational readiness for change based upon

employees’ beliefs, intentions, and attitudes, were installed (Bordens & Abbott, 2011).

The extensively constructed and developed Informed Consent Form administered

in this research study provided to all participants the following: The purpose of the study;

the number of participants needed; criteria to be a participant in the study; participant

exclusion criteria; the length of the study; what would happen during the study; and any

risks associated with participation in the study. The consent form also stated the

voluntary nature of participation and opting out of the study without any penalty; who

used and share information concerning participant’s personal information; confidentiality

of participant’s personal information. Other important information the consent form

86
provided were all information concerning data security, data storage, and data protection;

and information concerning Capella University’s Research Integrity Office (RIO) to

express any questions, concerns, or problems about the study.

Participants’ privacy and confidentiality were ensured by not using the

participant’s name or any other identifying participant information. Each participant who

responded to the survey was assigned a discrete number, which could not be used to

identify the participant’s personal information. Nor could any participant be identified

through any codes or electronic tags. Clearly, the amount of risk of potential harm to

respondents through identification and selection was eliminated or negated. The study

did not pose more than minimal risk to the participants. There was no undue

psychological or emotional harm created by the use of the data collecting instruments or

the selected research design, since survey research, methodology is self assessed and self

administered.

There were no vulnerable populations considerations needed as outlined by

Capella University’s IRB application process. Nor were there any violations of the

quintessential ethical principles of respect for participants, beneficence, and justice as

outlined by the Belmont Report or 45 CFR 46 (Department of Health and Human

Services, 2012). Although employed professionals and paraprofessionals of a

professional health and human services, membership organization were solicited

participants in this research, this researcher has no business relationships with any

members of the professional organization, nor is the researcher an employee of the

professional membership organization.

87
 The data security was first explicated through the data collection technique, which

promised privacy as outlined within the informed consent statements. Bordens and

Abbott (2011) described ethical issues related to electronic consent forms and the use of

the internet. Full disclosure of possible risks, and the option to withdraw from the study

at any time were specifically addressed by this researcher as outlined by Glicken (2003).

Since the data collection methodology utilized an online survey, special precautions were

taken by using a special, highly secure, web link as outlined in SurveyMonkey’s security

notification procedures or protocols (Survey Monkey, 2015) Each participant’s email

address was kept confidential by the membership organization. Participants’ email

addresses were not supplied to the researcher. Once a participant clicked on the secured

link to the consent form and the survey, a unique PIN or identification number was

assigned to the participant’s email and browser for coding and the protection of the

participant’s identity. Simultaneously, a unique number was issued to each participant’s

response to the survey. Thus, providing a unique number to each survey addressed. The

stored data on Survey Monkey’s web site were collected, stored, and analyzed as outlined

in the data collection and data analysis section above. The collected and analyzed data by

Statistics Solutions were protected, stored, and processed as mentioned above, and as

prescribed by Bordens and Abbott (2011).

88
 Chapter Summary

This chapter explicated, in a detail narrative, the salient methodological

procedures utilized by this researcher in conducting this quantitative, cross-sectional,

correlation, survey research study. Since the purpose of this study was to examine

organizational change readiness as reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes,

and intentions toward an organizational change, the salient issues of the research design;

the sample selection; the research setting; the instruments of measurement; the data

collection; and the vastly important data analysis were addressed. The ethical

considerations of conducting this research study provided valuable information needed to

insure protection of the research participants, the protection and security of the research

data, and the provision of ethical rigor.

89
 CHAPTER 4. DATA RESULTS

Introduction

In the context of the historically high, unsuccessful, organizational change efforts

and the consequences of the changing and shifting demographics, a problem arose

regarding how to provide public and private sector leaders of health and human services

organizations with the ability to make appropriate adjustments to the change process to

influence and affect positive outcomes. The problem also became how to provide those

leaders with an instrument to assess their organizations’ change readiness at any specific

point in time in the change process.

To address the aforementioned problems, this study used a quantitative,

correlation, survey design to collect and analyze numeric data regarding health and

human services, organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the

extent to which changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make

those changes. The data were collected utilizing instruments that were designed to

measure those organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. The survey

population was taken from the NOHS membership’s database, which contained over

28,000 members. The unit of analysis for this research study was any surveyed member

of the NOHS organization.

90
 Pre-Analysis Data Screening

Initially 138 participants joined the study. Four participants were removed for not

consenting to participate in the study. Four participants consented but did not respond to

any questions on the survey. After participants were removed for lack of consent or

responses, 130 participants were used in the final analyses.

Descriptive Statistics

The majority of the participants were female (110, 85%) and, many were between

45 and 54 years of age (39, 30%). Most of the participants’ highest degree was a

Master’s degree (54, 42%). The majority of the participants were married (78, 60%).

Most of the sample was neither a manager nor a supervisor (85, 65%), though 24

managers (19%) and 21 supervisors (16%) were included. Of these, the largest subgroup

included those who reported 1 to 3 years with the company (22, 28%). Equal proportions

also indicated 3 to 5 years (24, 19%), 5 to 10 years (24, 19%), or 15 or more years (25,

19%). Frequencies and percentages for sample demographic information are presented in

Table 1

Table 1Frequencies and Percentages of Sample Demographics

Demographic n %

What is your gender?

Male 20 15
Female 110 85
What is your age?
18 – 24 3 2
25 – 34 12 9
35 – 44 37 29
45 – 54 39 30
55 – 64 27 21
65 – 74 10 8
75 or older 2 2

91
What is the highest level of school you have completed?
Some college but no degree 6 5
Associate Degree 14 11
Bachelor Degree 19 15
Master’s Degree 54 42
Doctoral Degree 37 29
Which of the following best describes your current relationship status?
Married 78 60
Widowed 4 3
Divorced 17 13
Separated 3 2
In a domestic partnership or civil union 2 2
Single, but cohabiting with a significant other 7 5
Single, never married 19 15
Length of time with organization
1 to 6 months 10 8
7 months to 1 year 8 6
1 to 3 years 28 22
3 to 5 years 24 19
5 to 10 years 24 19
10 to 15 years 11 9
15 years or more 25 19
Are you a manager or a supervisor?
Manager 24 19
Supervisor 21 16
Non manager or supervisor 85 65

Note. Due to rounding error, not all percentages may sum to 100.

Summary of Findings

Results of the current research centered on two research questions. Relevant

findings for research question one suggested that, within the selected sample, discrepancy

tended to be the most highly scored measure of interest. Change efficacy was also higher

than the other measures, while the lowest scores were found in the management support

and appropriateness variables. The findings of research question two indicated that

employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change

specific efficacy, and principle management support did predict personal valence towards

92
change. These findings suggested that each of these measures corresponded with personal

valence, and that increased discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, or

principle management support corresponded with lower personal valence toward the

change.

Detailed Analysis

Research Question One

What is the quantifiable state of readiness of the selected organization?

To assess research question one, descriptive statistics for the readiness variables

were examined. The scores for discrepancy ranged from 3.30 to 7.00 with an average of

5.64 (SD = 1.02). The composite score for appropriateness ranged from 3.30 to 7.00 with

an average of 4.57 (SD = 0.54). Change efficacy scores ranged from 2.80 to 7.00 with an

average of 5.20 (SD = 0.72). Management support scores ranged from 2.80 to 6.00 with

an average of 4.50 (SD = 0.78). The composite score for personal valence ranged from

1.00 to 5.70 with an average of 2.99 (SD = 1.05). The descriptive statistics for the

composite scores are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Readiness Composite Scores

Composite Scores Min. Max. M SD

Discrepancy 3.30 7.00 5.64 1.02

Appropriateness 3.30 7.00 4.57 .54
Change Efficacy 2.80 7.00 5.20 .72
Management Support 2.80 6.00 4.50 .78
Personal Valence 1.00 5.70 2.99 1.05

93
Research Question Two

Do employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change

specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal valence towards

change?

Ho2: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change

specific efficacy, and principle management support do not predict personal valence

towards change

Ha2: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change

specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal valence

towards change.

The researcher proposed a binary logistic regression with personal valence as the

dichotomous dependent variable, and discrepancy, appropriateness, change efficacy, and

management support as the independent variables. Before conducting the binary logistic

regression, assumption of absence of multicollinearity was tested with a Pearson

correlation matrix. This matrix was used to determine correlations between independent

variables, which may results in inaccurate results (Stevens, 2009). The predictor

variables in the binary logistic regression were correlated to a degree (i.e., p < .01) that

may have contributed to inaccurate results, and the regression could not be conducted as

planned (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). These Results of this correlation matrix are

presented in Table 3.

94
Table 3 Pearson Correlation Matrix between Independent Variables
Variable Appropriateness Management Change Discrepancy
support efficacy

Appropriateness -
Management
Support .38** -
Change efficacy .38** .36** -
Discrepancy .46** .41** .39** -

Note. A single asterisk (*) indicates a p < .05; two asterisks (**) indicate a p < .01.

To confirm the findings of the correlation matrix, which suggest that the model

may give inaccurate findings due the collinear nature of the predictor variables, the

logistic regression was conducted and examined for irregularities. Results of the binary

logistic regression indicated a significantly predictive model (χ2(4) = 14.25, p = .007,

Nagelkerke R2 = .24). However, upon examination of the individual predictors, none

were able to be parsed out to indicate significance (i.e., p > .050 for each predictor). This

issue is likely attributed to the multicollinear nature of the independent variables, where

estimated variances are artificially inflated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). As such, a

series of four bivariate point biserial correlations were conducted to assess each variable

as they correlate directly with the dependent variable. The point biserial correlation is the

appropriate correlational analysis to conduct between a pair of variables where one

variable is continuous and one variable is dichotomous (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). In

these bivariate point biserial analyses, the multicollinear nature of the independent

variables does not present any issues (Stevens, 2009).

Results of the point biserial correlations indicated that each of the four beliefs and

attitudes (i.e., discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principle

95
management) were significantly correlated with personal valence, and the null hypothesis

could be rejected in favor of the alternative. Discrepancy was found to have the most

significant correlation with personal valence, at the .001 level. Similarly, appropriateness

had a highly significant association with personal valence at the .002 level. Change

efficacy had a slightly lesser significant correlation with personal valence (p = .023), and

the least significant correlation was found between management support and personal

valence (p = .043). All four beliefs and attitude variables were found to be negatively

associated with personal valence. This suggests that an increase in either discrepancy,

appropriateness, change efficacy, or management support corresponded with higher odds

of placement in the “low” personal valence group. Discrepancy had the strongest

correlation with personal valence (rpb = -.37), followed by appropriateness (rpb = -.35),

change efficacy (rpb = -.26), and management support (rpb = -.23). Results of these point

biserial correlation are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Point Biserial Correlations between Personal Valence and the Four Beliefs and

Attitudes
Demographic Personal Valence
rpb p

Discrepancy -.37** .001

Appropriateness -.35** .002
Change Efficacy -.26* .023
Management Support -.23* .043

Note. A single asterisk (*) indicates a p < .05; two asterisks (**) indicate a p < .01.

96
 Summary

Chapter Four restated the problem relevant to the study, and the resulting purpose

of the research. Pre-analysis data cleaning procedures were outlined, describing the

procedures followed to arrive at the final sample size of 130. The sample used in

conducting these analyses is also described. This chapter also included a brief summary

of the findings, followed by a detailed description of the analyses used to make these

inferences. Chapter Five describes the way that these findings correspond to the relevant

theory, and includes a discussion and suggestions for future research.

97
 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter includes a review of the purpose statement and problem statement;

research questions and survey questions; summary and interpretations of findings;

demographic analysis; and population data. This chapter also includes a discussion of

conclusion in relation to the literature; recommendations for further study; limitations and

recommendations; and the chapter’s conclusion. The purpose of this quantitative,

correlation, survey, study was to determine if there was a relationship and to what extent

organizational readiness is reflected in the organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and

intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the organization’s

capacity to successfully make those changes.

The problem statement advanced two issues. One problem issue was how to

provide public and private sector leaders of the health and human services organizations

with the ability to avoid the consequences of the historically very high, unsuccessful,

organizational change outcomes, when also addressing the consequences of the changing

demographics. These leaders must have the ability make appropriate adjustments to the

change process to influence and affect positive outcomes, which includes assessing their

organizational readiness to change at any specific point in time, and at any stage within

the change process. Another problem issue was how to provide those same leaders of

health and human services organizations with an instrument or tool-in hand to assess their

organizations’ change readiness at any specific point in time, and at any stage of the

change process.

98
 This study attempted to integrate organizational readiness to change in the change

process of health and human services organizations, which may significantly impact the

ability for change initiatives and implementations to be successful. Those health and

human services organizations that embrace the challenges of change through change

readiness may be successful in addressing the consequences of the changing

demographics, and may be successful in addressing the historically, very high,

unsuccessful change outcomes. When organizational readiness for change is high,

organizational members are more likely to initiate change; exert greater effort in the

change process; exhibit greater persistence; and display a more cooperative behavior

throughout the change process. The research questions for this study were designed to

determine the quantifiable state of readiness of the selected health and human services

organizational memberships being studied, and to ascertain whether or not employees’

beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy; appropriateness; change specific efficacy;

and principle management support, predict personal valence toward change.

The survey population was taken from the NOHS membership’s database, which

contained over 28,000 members. Initially, 138 participants joined the study. Four

participants were removed for not consenting to participate in the study. Four

participants consented but did not respond to any questions on the survey. After

participants were removed for lack of consent or responses, 130 participants were used in

the final data analyses. The unit of analysis for this research study was any surveyed

member of the NOHS organization. The criteria for the selection of members of the

selected population and a list of the survey questions are found in Appendix A and

Appendix B, respectively.

99
 Summary of Findings

The research questions were answered by using quantitative research questions

and hypotheses to shape and to focus the purpose of the research study, and explore the

relationships among the variables in question. Quantitative hypotheses are the

predictions the researcher constructs concerning the expected relationships among the

variables.

RQ1

The primary research question for this proposed study (RQ1): What is the

quantifiable state of readiness of the selected organizational memberships?

To assess research question 1, descriptive statistics were conducted on the state of

readiness. The state of readiness was determined by the instruments utilized to measure

employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change

specific efficacy, and principle management support. The state of readiness was

appraised by the administration of the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support,

and Change Efficacy survey (Holt et al., 2007), and a subscale from Organizational

Change Recipients Beliefs Scale survey (Armenakis et al., 2007). The state of readiness

was classified as low or high based on a median split of the data, where approximately

50% of the scores were “low” and 50% of the scores were “high.” The cutoff value was

examined and reported.

100
RQ2
The secondary research question for this study (RQ2):

Do employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal

valence toward change?

H0: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support do not predict

personal valence toward change.

H1: Employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal

valence toward change.

To examine research question 2, a binary logistic regression was conducted to

assess if employees’ beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness,

change specific efficacy, and principle management support predict personal valence

toward change. A binary logistic regression is the appropriate analysis to conduct when

the goal is to assess if several independent variables predict a dichotomous dependent

variable.

The results of this research centered on two research questions. Relevant findings

for research question one suggested that, within the selected sample, discrepancy tended

to be the most highly scored measure of interest. Change efficacy was also higher than

the other measures, while the lowest scores were found in the management support and

appropriateness variables. The scores of discrepancy ranged from 3.30 to 7.00 with an

average of 5.64 (SD = 1.02). The composite score for appropriateness ranged from 3.30

101
to 7.00 with an average of 4.57 (SD =0.54). Change efficacy scores ranged from 2.80 to

7.00 with an average of 5.20 (SD = 0.72). Management support scores ranged from 2.80

to 6.00 with an average of 4.50 (SD = 0.78). The composite score for personal valence

ranged from 1.00 to 5.70 with an average of 2.99 (SD = 1.05). Please note Table 2,

Descriptive Statistics for Readiness Composite Scores. Such findings suggest that the

state of readiness is quantifiable, and the selected instruments did measure what they

were designed to measure: Discrepancy; change efficacy; management support; and

personal valence.

This valuable data gleamed from such measurements and correlations did

determine a relationship and the extent of how organizational readiness was reflected in

organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward the organizational

change process. Such findings suggested the possibility of quantifying the state of

readiness within health and human services organizational memberships. Since those

individual organizational memberships made up the organization, these findings also

suggested the possibility of quantifying the state of readiness of the organization as a

unit. These findings also suggested that all stakeholders involved in a change initiative or

implementation process may benefit from these findings.

The findings of research question two indicated that employees’ beliefs and

attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principle

management support did predict personal valence towards change. These findings

suggested that each of these measures corresponded with personal valence, and that

increased discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, or principle

management support corresponded with lower personal valence toward the change. This

102
researcher proposed a binary logistic regression with personal valence as the

dichotomous dependent variable, and discrepancy, appropriateness, change efficacy, and

management support as the independent variables. However, before conducting the

binary logistic regression, the assumption of absence of multicollinearity was tested with

a Pearson correlation matrix. This matrix was used to determine correlations between

independent variables, which may result in inaccurate results (Stevens, 2009). The

predictor variables in the binary logistic regression were correlated to a degree (i.e., p <

.01) that may have contributed to inaccurate results, and the regression could not be

conducted as planned (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Please note Table 3 Pearson

Correlation Matrix between Independent Variables.

To confirm the findings of the correlation matrix, which suggested that the model

may have given inaccurate findings due to the collinear nature of the predictor variables,

the logistic regression was conducted and examined for irregularities. Results of the

binary logistic regression indicated a significantly predictive model (χ2(4) = 14.25, p =

.007, Nagelkerke R2 = .24). However, upon examination of the individual predictors,

none were able to be parsed out to indicate significance (i.e., p > .050 for each predictor).

This issue was likely attributed to the multicollinear nature of the independent variables,

where estimated variances are artificially inflated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). As such,

a series of four bivariate point biserial correlations were conducted to assess each

variable as they correlate directly with the dependent variable. The point biserial

correlation is the appropriate correlational analysis to conduct between a pair of variables

where one variable is continuous and one variable is dichotomous (Tabachnick & Fidell,

103
2012). In these bivariate point biserial analyses, the multicollinear nature of the

independent variables did not present any issues (Stevens, 2009).

Results of the point biserial correlations indicated that each of the four beliefs and

attitudes (i.e., discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principle

management) were significantly correlated with personal valence (readiness), and the null

hypothesis could be rejected in favor of the alternative. The rejection of the null

hypotheses confirmed research question two (RQ2), and the hypotheses H1 as being true.

Discrepancy was found to have the most significant correlation with personal valence, at

the .001 level. Similarly, appropriateness had a highly significant association with

personal valence at the .002 level. Change efficacy had a slightly lesser significant

correlation with personal valence (p = .023), and the least significant correlation was

found between management support and personal valence (p = .043). All four beliefs and

attitude variables were found to be negatively associated with personal valence. This

suggested that an increase in discrepancy, appropriateness, change efficacy, or

management support corresponded with higher odds of placement in the “low” personal

valence group. Discrepancy had the strongest correlation with personal valence (rpb = -

.37), followed by appropriateness (rpb = -.35), change efficacy (rpb = -.26), and

management support (rpb = -.23). Results of these point biserial correlations are

presented in Table 4. Point Biserial Correlations between Personal Valence and the Four

Beliefs and Attitudes

Again, the findings of research question two indicated that employees’ beliefs and

attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principle

management support did predict personal valence towards change. These findings also

104
confirms the answer to research question 2, “Do employees’ beliefs and attitudes

concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, and principle

management support predict personal valence towards change?” These findings also

suggested that each of these measures corresponded with personal valence, and that

increased discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy, or principle

management support corresponded with lower personal valence toward the change.

Such findings, confirmed a positive answer and the test of hypotheses 1, H1: Employees’

beliefs and attitudes concerning discrepancy, appropriateness, change specific efficacy,

and principle management support predict personal valence toward change. Here again,

all stakeholders would benefit from the use of readiness to change concepts when

conducting any phase or stage of the change process. Health and human services

organizational leaders now may have a tool to help them gauge their organizational

change process.

Demographic Analysis

The majority of the participants were female (110, 85%) and, many were between

45 and 54 years of age (39, 30%). Most of the participants’ highest degree was a

Master’s degree (54, 42%). The majority of the participants were married (78, 60%).

Most of the sample was neither a manager nor a supervisor (85, 65%), though 24

managers (19%) and 21 supervisors (16%) were included. Of these, the largest subgroup

included those who reported 1 to 3 years with the company (22, 28%). Equal proportions

also indicated 3 to 5 years (24, 19%), 5 to 10 years (24, 19%), or 15 or more years (25,

19%). Frequencies and percentages for sample demographic information are presented in

Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages of Sample Demographics.

105
 Population Data

Sampling’s purpose provides the researcher with the ability to make

generalizations about a population based on the scientifically selected subset of that

population (Rea & Parker, 2005). This study employed a non-probability, purposive,

sampling design in the selection of participants within a health and human services,

membership organization, the National Organization for Human Services (NOHS). Non-

probability sampling cannot depend on the rationale of probability theory, and is used

where the population is unknown (e.g., when one has no idea about the number or

location of those people who comprise the population from which one intends to draw a

sample) (Glicken, 2003; Trochim, 2001). In purposive sampling, the researcher samples

with a purpose in mind (e.g., the researcher seeks one or more specific predefined groups,

in this case, employees of a health and human services, professional organization, who

are members of the NOHS) (Trochim, 2001). Since the field of human services was

broadly defined, and the human services professionals may be a generic term for

individuals who hold professional and paraprofessional jobs in diverse settings (National

Organization for Human Services, 2014), acquiring permission to sample this

organizational membership demonstrated noteworthiness.

Originally, this research study was designed to attempt to measure organizational

readiness in any organization or agency of a state, county, or local health and human

services organization directly. However, after 9 months of negotiating with directors

and/ or their assistants, such actions proved fruitless. This researcher had to look

elsewhere for a study population. After some contact with a cohort, it was suggested that

contacting the NOHS organization might prove to be fruitful. Such a contact did prove to

106
be fruitful, and this researcher was able to gain site permission to conduct this research

study. The IRB was notified of the changes, and corrections to the research plan were

conducted. With IRB approval, specific criteria were provided to the prospected

participants concerning who may participate in the study. Please see Appendix A.

Initially, 138 participants joined the study. Four participants were removed from

the study for not consenting to participate in the study. Four participants consented, but

did not respond to any questions on the survey. The four participants who consented, but

did not respond to any question were unexpected reactions to the survey. The feedback

from three of the four possible participants seemed to suggest that they were concerned

about “the change” mentioned in the list of the criteria for participation in the study.

This confusion may have been due to those possible participants not accurately reading

and understanding the criteria list. One of the four possible participants contacted this

researcher via email, and explained that he did not want to create a confounding situation

for the study, since it was difficult for him to understand just “what change” the criteria

referenced. Here again, there may have been inaccurate reading or understanding of the

criteria list. After participants were removed for lack of consent or responses, 130

participants were used in the final analyses. This survey population was taken from the

NOHS membership’s database, which contained over 28,000 members. The unit of

analysis for this research study was any surveyed member of the NOHS organization.

Since there was a change in the targeted population, specific criteria for the selection of

members of the selected population were needed, and were created. See Appendix A.

The participant exclusion criteria for this study were those individuals that are younger

than 18 years; individuals that were not a member of the NOHS organization; individuals

107
that were not an employee of a health and human services organization or agency; and

those individuals who do not wish to participate in this study.

Although the original research plan was to directly survey employees of the

aforementioned health and human services organizations or agencies going through a

change initiative or implementation process, the change in the selection of the survey

population to the NOHS memberships proved not only to be fruitful based upon the data,

but also added to the knowledge base concerning readiness theory and the selected

instruments of measurement.

The inferences which were made about the selected population from the

descriptive statistics data were that majority of the membership organization was made

up of females, between the ages of 45 to 54 years. Most of whom were married with

master degree or above. Most of the membership were neither managers nor supervisors

and had been with their organizations for five years or less. From such data, this

researcher posited that if the study was done on the original intended participants, those

members of any health and human services, the demographics would have been the same

or very similar. The selected instruments of measurement used in this study may very

well be the tool organizational leaders may need to effectively manage change within

their organizations. All stakeholders in any change process may benefit from this study’s

findings.

108
 Discussion of the Conclusions in Relation to the Literature

One implication which arose from a multi-level, literature review of change

readiness concerned the importance of considering what high and low readiness for

change actually means in an organizational setting. Is low readiness for change

necessarily a bad condition? Rafferty et al., (2013) posited that resistance to change may

be an opportunity for an organization to identify weaknesses in the organizational change

strategies and plans’ execution. This researcher asks: How is such resistance measured?

This researcher posits that a low or high level of change readiness may provide important

information needed to adjust the approach to the change immediately, and at any stage of

the change process, as outlined in this research study.

The data analysis taken from research question one, which asked about the

quantifiable state of readiness of the selected organization, seemed to suggest that

readiness may be quantifiable. The state of readiness was appraised by the administration

of the Scales of Appropriateness, Management Support, and Change Efficacy survey

(Holt et al., 2007), and a subscale from Organizational Change Recipients Beliefs Scale

survey (Armenakis et al., 2007). The resultant scores from the analyses for discrepancy

ranged from 3.30 to 7.00 with an average of 5.64 (SD = 1.02). The composite score for

appropriateness ranged from 3.30 to 7.00 with an average of 4.57 (SD = 0.54). Change

efficacy scores ranged from 2.80 to 7.00 with an average of 5.20 (SD = 0.72).

Management support scores ranged from 2.80 to 6.00 with an average of 4.50 (SD =

0.78). The composite score for personal valence ranged from 1.00 to 5.70 with an

average of 2.99 (SD = 1.05). Such findings tends to suggest the possibility of providing

public and private leadership of health and human services with a in hand tool to

109
constantly monitor the change process within their organizations at any specific point-in-

time, and at any stage of the change process. Such findings, not only adds to the

knowledge base concerning the selected instruments of measurement used in this study,

but also creates new knowledge to the readiness theory. This new knowledge added

value to this research, and benefits all stakeholders in the change process.

The literature also revealed that there were some conceptual ambiguities

concerning which stage in the organizational change process the readiness construct was

applied. Is organizational change an instantaneous event, or a process that unfolds over

time? Many authors posited that organizational change was not an instantaneous event,

but a process that unfolded over time. In Van de Ven and Poole(1999); Van de Ven and

Poole (1995) organizational change is a complex process and is nonlinear. However,

many scholars find it analytically useful to regard the change process as a sequence of

linear stages, such as Rogers (2003), who made reference to two broad stages in the

change process: Initiation and implementation. The finding of this study tends to suggest

that Rogers (2003) may be correct in that there are two broad stages in the change

process, since the instruments used to detect change readiness may be applied to both

stages of the change process: Change initiation and change implementation. Here again,

the value of this research study may be displayed.

Stevens (2013) reviewed the following change readiness concepts: Readiness as

the change message; readiness as stages of change; readiness as a commitment to change;

readiness as openness to change; and readiness as capacity. It was pointed out that

throughout the literature review, “change readiness had been emphasized as a positive

and proactive response to change over time as a function of affective and cognitive

110
evaluations of the conditions of the immediate change environment; more distal

influences from individual, collective, and contextual sources; and prior and/or

anticipated evaluations or responses” (p. 357). This conceptualization provided an idea

that change readiness may be managed continuously during a change implication. Here

again, the instruments used in this study were able to detect change readiness in both

stages of the change process, initiation, and implementation. Since the change process of

initiation takes place at a different point in time from the process of change

implementation, simple reasoning seemed to dictate that the instruments of measurement

used in this study may measure change continuously during the change process. Such

findings, adds to the knowledge base, fills a gap in the literature concerning change

readiness, and brings value to this study.

Recommendations for Further Study.

Since the original design of this research study was to survey a health and human

services organization or agency on the state, county or municipal level going through a

change initiative or implementation process, this researcher recommends repeating this

research utilizing the original design. This researcher posits that such research may

provide value to the study, and may further extend the knowledge base concerning the

two instruments of measurement.

All stakeholders in the change process would benefit if the change process could

be monitored at any stage of the change process, and at any point-in-time. Since the data

suggest that the instruments of measurement used in this research study assisted in

answers research questions one (RQ1, two (RQ2), and answered the hypotheses1 (H1) in

the affirmative, this researcher recommends conducting more research studies to

111
determine the state of readiness using the aforementioned instruments. From such

research, a specific tool may be developed to assess change readiness, reduce the very

high change failure rates, and address the consequences created by the changing

demographics successfully.

The leadership of all health and human services organizations, public and private,

must be able to address any form of change to successfully. This researcher recommends

that all change agents within all health and human services organizations utilize a

standardized protocol, a developed tool from these measuring instruments and scales, to

assess change readiness within their organization at all stages of the change process.

Limitations and Recommendations

Generally, limitations of a study are items that may not be controllable by the

researcher, which may reflect people issues or research method and design issues, just to

mention a few. One limitation to this study may have been the use of Likert-like Scales

in the survey questions. Some respondents may not have provided truthful answers; may

have had a personal agenda in responding to the questions; may not have been able to

respond correctly to the question, due to a lack of self-reflection; or many simply may not

have understood the questions. As explicated earlier, a few of the respondents to this

study’s survey seemed to have had a problem understanding a few questions pertaining to

“the change,” which was explained in the selection criteria.

Another respondent gave consent to participate in the study, but did not answer

any of the questions. This respondent contacted this researcher, and provided his reason

for not answering any of the survey questions. The respondent stated, since he did not

understand “the change” mentioned in many of the survey questions, he did not want to

112
create a confounding issue in the study. This researcher recommends making sure that

any and all information needed by the survey participants be very specific, and easy to

understand.

Another limitation of this study may have been that the selected measuring

instruments and scales, which had never been utilized to address organizational readiness

to change in any health and human service organizational memberships, although the

instruments and scales have proven generalizability for use. The collected and analyzed

data from this study proved that the instruments and scales actually measured what they

were intended to measure. However, since organizational readiness for change was

posited by some researchers as being a multi-level, multi-faceted, and multidimensional

construct, the measuring instruments and scales may have only examined one level, facet,

or dimension of the construct of organizational readiness for change. This researcher

recommends further study of the use of these measuring instruments and scales in other

health and human services organizations, and in other industries and organizations. A

further examination of what multi-level, multi-faceted, and multidimensional construct

mean in describing organizational readiness for change is also recommended.

A final limitation of this study may be the fact that organizational readiness for

change has not been subjected to extensive theoretical development or empirical study.

This researcher recommends more studies be conducted concerning organizational

readiness for change with emphases on the removal of any jingle-jangle fallacies from the

proposed new studies. Such actions may remove some of the convoluted and

disintegrated information concerning the important theory of readiness.

113
 Conclusions

Several recommendations were made in this study. First, since the original design

of this research study was to survey a health and human services organization or agency

on the state, county or municipal level going through a change initiative or

implementation process, this researcher recommends repeating this research utilizing the

original design. Second, this researcher recommends conducting more research studies to

determine the state of readiness using the aforementioned instruments. From such

research, a specific tool may be developed to assess change readiness to reduce the very

high change failure rates, and address the consequences created by the changing

demographics successfully. Third, this researcher recommends that all change agents

within all health and human services organizations utilize a standardized protocol,

utilizing a developed tool from the measuring instruments and scales to assess change

readiness within their organization at all stages of the change process. Fourth, this

researcher recommends making sure that any and all information needed by the survey

participants be very specific, and easy to understand. Fifth, this researcher recommends

further study of the use of the measuring instruments and scales in other industries and

organizations. A further examination of the multi-level, multi-faceted, and

multidimensional construct of organizational readiness for change is also recommended.

Finally, this researcher recommends more studies be conducted concerning

organizational readiness for change with emphases on the removal of any Jingle-Jangle

Fallacies from the proposed new studies. Such actions may remove some of the

convoluted and disintegrated information concerning the important theory of readiness.

114
 Based on the aforementioned recommendations, specifically testing of the

selected instruments of measurement in the setting of health and human services

organizations, a tool to constantly monitor organizational state of readiness may be

forthcoming. The importance of the development of such a tool would mediate the very

high change failure rates in all industries, and reduce the consequences of the changing

demographics upon all stakeholders in health and human services organizations in all

geographical areas, especially in California. Further studies of this type may help to

address the convoluted and disintegrated information concerning management and

readiness theories.

115
 REFERENCES

Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (2011). The sage handbook of complexity and
management complexity and the dynamics of organizational change. Sage
Knowledge, 1, 317-333.

Argyris, C. (1992). Looking backward and inward in order to contribute to the future
(Vol. 1) [Management laureates] (A. G. Bedeian, Ed.). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational
change recipients' belief scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2007(43), 481. doi:
10.1177/0021886307303654.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. doi:
10.1177/001872679304600601.

Armenakis, A., & Harris, S. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183. doi:
10.1108/095348102 10423080.

Backer, T. E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for
technology transfer. In Backer, T. E., David, S. L., & Soucy, G. (Eds.) Reviewing
the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer. National Institute
on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, 21-41.

Bakker J. I. (Hans). (2010). Epistemology. In encyclopedia of case study research

epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 332-336). New York: Sage Publishing.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The function of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Bion, W. R. (1962). The psycho-analytic study of thinking. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis, 43, 306-310.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187.

Bordens, & Abbott. (2011). Research Design and Methods A Process Approach (8th ed.).
New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients' attitudes toward change in the

organizational change literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
46(4), 500-531. doi:10.1177/0021886310367944.

116
Burke, W. W. (2011). A perspective on the field of organization development and
change: The Zeigarnik effect. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 143-
167. doi:10.77/0021886310388161.

Burke, W. W., & Biggart, N. W. (1997). Interorganizational relations. In J. E. Singer. D.

Cummings & H. van Cotts (Eds.), Enhancing organizational performance (pp.
120-149). Washington, D. C: National Academics Press.

Burnes, B. (2004a). Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: Back to the future? Journal of
Change Management, 4(4), 309-325. doi:10.1080/1469701042000303811.

Burnes, B. (2004b). Managing Change (4th ed.). Manchester, UK: Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

By, T. R. (2007). Read or not. Journal of Change Management, 7, 3-11.

doi:10.1088/14697010701265249.

California Department of Aging. (2012). California Department of Aging. Retrieved

January 18, 2012, from http: //www.aging.ca.gov/stats/fact_about_elderly.asp

Change management [Special issue]. (2005). In International Encyclopedia of

Hospitality Management, 1.

Chaudhry, A., & Song, L. J. (2014). Rethinking psychological contracts in the context of
organizational change: The moderating role of social comparison and social
exchange. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 337. doi: 10.
1177/0021886314521291.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations,
1, 512-532. doi:10.1177/001872674800100408.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Crossan, F. (2003). Research philosophy: Towards an understanding. Nurse Researcher,

11(1), 46-55. doi: 10.7748/nr2003.10.11.1.46c5914.

Dalton, C. C., & Gottlieb, L. N. (2003). Nursing theory and concept development or
analysis. The concept of readiness to change. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
42(2), 108-117. doi:1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02593.x.

Dawson, P. (2003). Organizational Change: A processual approach. Routledge, London:

Routledge.

117
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change". The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25. doi:10.1177/0021886399351003.

Department of Health, England. (2012). Department of Health Publications. Retrieved

from http://www.department of health.org

Favol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Pitman. (Original work
published 1916)

Fowler, F. J. (2008). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications

Glicken, M. D. (2003). Social research a simple guide. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Guo, S., & Hussey, D. L. (2004). Nonprobability sampling in social work research:
Dilemmas, consequences, and strategies. Journal of Social Service Research,
30(3), 1-18. doi:10.1300/J079v30n03_01.

Hackman, R. J., & Oldman, G. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. doi:10.1037/h0076546.

Hallencreutz, J., & Turner, D. M. (2011). Exploring organizational change best practice:
Are there any clear-cut models and definitions? International Journal of Quality
and Service Science, 3(1), 60-68. doi: 10.1108/17566691111115081.

Health, J. L. (2002). Why an aging population is the greatest threat to society. The
Independent, pp. 1-3. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from http://
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-an-aging-population-is-the-
greatrst-threat-to-society-656997.html?printService=print

Herzberg, F. H. (1966). Work and the nature of man. New York: The World Publishing
Company.

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully?
A study of the behaviors of successful change leaders. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309-335. doi:10.1177/0021886311404556.

Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for
organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 2007(43), 232. doi:10.1177/0021886306295295.

Inkson, K., & Kolb, D. (1998). Management. Aucland, NJ: Addison Wesley.

118
Jacobson, E. H. (1957, 15-17 April). The effect of changing individual methods and
automation on personnel. Paper Presented At the Symposium on Prevention and
Social Psychology, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, R. (2004). Economic policy implications of world demographic change.

Economic Review- Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 89(1), 39-64.

Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational
culture and reshaping capabilities of change implementation success: The
mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2),
361-385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00500.x.

Jones, M. F. (2007). The impact of leaders' values and organizational culture on

hospitality program effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts. (UMI No. 32726000)

Krause, T. R. (2008, March). Assessing readiness for change. Occupational Hazards The
Magazine of Safety, Health, and Loss Prevention, 1, 24,26.

Kinsella, K. (2000). Demographic dimensions of global aging. Journal of Family Issues,

21, 541. doi:10.1177/019251300021005002.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment- managing

differentiation and intergration. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irom.

Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2010). Practical research planning and design (Ninth ed.).
Boston: Pearson. (Original work published 1993).

Lerch, J., Viglione, J., Eley, E., James-Andrews, S., & Taxman, F. S. (2011).
Organizational readiness in corrections. Federal Probation, 75(1), 5.

Levinson, H. (1974). Don't choose your own successor. Harvard Business Review, 52(6),
53-62.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.

doi:10.1177/001872674700100201.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ludwig, A., Schelkle, T., & Vogel, E. (2010). Demographic change, human capital, and
welfare (196-10). Mannheim, Germany: Mannheim Research Institute for the
Economics of Aging (MEA).

119
Madsen, S. R., John, C. R., & Miller, D. (2006). Influential factors in individual readiness
for change. Journal of Business and Management, 12(2), 93.

Madsen, S. R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. (2005). Ready for organizational commitment
and social relationships in the workplace make a difference. Human Resource
Quarterly, 16, 213-234. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1134.

Maggs, A. J. (2003). Drops, plops, and backdrops: Changing demographics of the US

Workforce. Benefits Law Journal, 16(4), 105-114.

Management theories [Special issue]. (2001). In Reader's Guide to Social Sciences, 1.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01136.x.

McNabb, D. E., & Sepic, F. T. (1995). Culture, climate, and total quality management:
Measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity & Management Review,
18(4), 369-385.

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2003). Demographic. In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate

dictionary (11th ed., Vol. 11, p. 332). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated.

Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education psychology: Integrating

diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mintzberg, H. (1980). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper; reprinted
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall 1980. (Original work published
1973)

Murthy, C. S. V. (2007). What is change management? In Change Management (p. 29).

Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/capella/Doc?id=10415538&ppg=29

National Organization for Human Services. (2014, November 4). What is human
services? Retrieved from http://www.nationalhumanservices.org/what-is-human-
services

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Newman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approaches

(6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

120
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients" reactions to
organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 2011(47), 461. doi:10.1177/0021886310396550.

Ponterotto, J. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on

research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52(2), 126-136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126.

Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1983). Organization development: Theory, practice, and
research. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), The handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 719-822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Post, L., Page, C., Conner, T., Prokhorov, A., Fang, Y., & Biroscak, B. (2010). Elder
abuse in long-term care: Types, patterns, and risk factors. Research on Aging,
2010(33), 323. doi:10.1177/0164027509357705.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of

smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390.

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A

multi-level review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135. doi:
10.1177/0149206312457417.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing & conducting survey research A
comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rood-Wilson, C. (2010). Aging Michiganders: Demographic changes and cumulative

inequality. Michigan Sociological Review, 1, 2496-126.

Rouse, S. V. (2012). [Review of the book Assessing masculinity and femininity, Without
the Jingle or Jangle]. Sex Roles, 149-151. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0062-x.

Rumrill, P., Jr. (2004). Non-manipulation quantitative designs. Work, 22(3), 255-260.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture & leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Senior, B. (2002). Organizational change (2nd ed.). Harlow, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Skinner, B. F. (1966). The phylogeny on ontogeny of behavior. Contingencies of

reinforcement throw light on contingencies of survival in evolution of behavior.
Science, 153(3741), 1205-1213. doi:10.1126/science.153.3741.1205.

121
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for
success. Seattle, WA: Dissertation Success LLC. Retrieved from
http://dissertationrecipes.com.

Smith, I. (2005). Achieving readiness for organisational change. Library Management,

26(6/7), 408-412. doi:10.1108/01435120510623764.

Spector, P. E. (1981). Introduction. In Research Designs. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE

Publications, Inc. Retrieved from
http://srmo.sagepub.com.librry.capella.edu/view/research-designs/SAGE.xml.
doi: 10.4135/9781412985673.

Stevens, G. W. (2013). Toward a processed-based approach of conceptualizing change

readiness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49, 333-360. doi:
10.1177/021886313475479.

Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Routledge Academic.

SurveyMonkey.com. (2015). SurveyMonkey.com. Retrieved from http://

www.SurveyMonkey.com

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research:

Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral
sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

Toledo-Pereyra, L. H. (2012). Research design. Journal of Investigative Surgery, 25, 279-

280. doi:10.3109/08941939.2012.723954.

Trochim, W. (2001). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
Atomic Dog Publishing.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, January 18). U. S. Census Bureau. Retrieved January 18,
2012, from http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qed/states/06000.html

U.S. Department of Health, & Human Services. (2012). United States Department of
Health and Human Services. Retrieved January 13, 2012, from http: global health.
Gov/global-programs-and-initiatives/global-health-st

U.S. Department of Health, & Human Services. (2014, May 7). U. S. Department of
Health and Human Services. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from https://www.hhs.gov.

122
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 45, 510-540.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508.9508080329.

Walinga, J. (2008). Toward a theory of change readiness: The roles of appraisals focus,
and perceived control. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 315.
doi:10.1177/0021886308318967.

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

organizational change efforts: An integrative investigation of change content,
context, process, and individual differences. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 20(6), 761-773. doi:10.1108/09534810710831000.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation

Science, 4(67), 9. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.

Weiner, B. J., Amick, H., & Daniel Lee, S-Y. (2008). Review: Conceptualization and
measurement of organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in
health services research and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review,
65(4), 379-436. doi:10.1177/1077558708317802.

Wiener, J. M., & Tilly, J. (2002). Population aging in the United States of America:
Implications for public programmes. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31,
776=781. doi:10.1093/ije/31.4.776.

Wolf, D. A., & Amirkhanyan, A. A. (2010). Demographic changes and its public sector
consequences. Public Administration Review, Dec 2010(70), S12. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02242.x.

Worren, N. A. M., Ruddle, K., & Moore, K. (1999). From organizational development to
change management; The emergence of a new profession. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 35, 273. doi:10.1177/0021886399353002.

123
 APPENDIX A. THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPANTS

The survey population is taken from the NOHS membership’s database, which

contained over 28,000 members. The unit of analysis for this research study is any

surveyed member of the NOHS organization. The criteria for the selection of members of

the selected population are listed as follows:

• 18 years of age and above, a member of the NOHS organization, and is

employed by a health and human services organization or agency.

• A member of the NOHS organization who is employed by a health and

human services organization that fits at least one of the following criteria:

• An organization that is in constant change, due to constantly shifting

stakeholder demands.

• An organization making adjustments, due to internal and/or external

environmental pressures.

• An organization anticipating a change or an organization implementing a

change.

• An organization whose leadership may be in need of acquiring a snapshot

of a point in time at any phase of the change process.

• An organization conducting a strategic organizational realignment.

• An organization presently going through any change and/or an

implementation process, and/or

• An organization whose leadership’s desire is to gauge employees’ reaction

to a future change process.

124
 APPENDIX B. THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The Complete Survey and Response Choices

The complete survey contains 35 questions. The demographic variables, such as

age, will use numbers between 0 to 9 to be placed in two boxes to determine the age (i. e.,

5 and 9, respectively in the two available boxes, representing the age of 59 years of age),

and gender may be requested utilizing numbers and choice between 1 and 2 (i. e. 1 =

female, and 2 = male). Marital status will be utilized 1 = married, or 2 = single.

However, the variable of education will also be represented by a seven point Likert Scale

(i. g., 1 = some high school; 2 = high school or GED; 3 = some college; 4 = Associates; 5

= Bachelors; 6 = Masters; and 7 = Doctoral). The variable, length of time with the

organization will also be represented by a seven point Likert Scale (i. g., 1= 1 to six

months; 2 = seven months to 1 year; 3= 1 year to 3 years; 4= 3 years to 5 years; 5= 5years

to 10 years; 6 = 10 years to 15 years; 7= 15 years or more. Manager or supervisor status

(item 6) will use 1 = yes, and 2 = no.

1. Age

2. Gender

3. Marital Status

4. Educational Level

5. Length of time with the organization

6. Manager or supervisor status

125
 A seven point, Likert Scale to collect answers in this questionnaire or survey is

the scale format used in the original instrument. The seven point Likert Scale utilizes the

following range of answers: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = disagree;

4 = undecided; 5 = somewhat agree; 6 = agree; 7 = strongly agree.

7. I think that the organization will benefit from this change.

8. It doesn’t make much sense for us to initiate this change.

9. There are legitimate reasons for us to make this change.

10. This change will improve our organization’s overall efficiency.

11. There are a number of rational reasons for this change to be made.

12. In the long run, I feel it will be worthwhile for me if the organization

adopts this change.

13. This change makes my job easier.

14. When this change is implemented, I don’t believe there is anything for me

to gain.

15. The time we are spending on this change should be spent on something

else.

16. The change matches the priorities of our organization.

17. Our senior leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace this change.

18. Our organization’s top decision makers have put all their support behind

this change effort.

19. Every senior manager has stressed the importance of this change.

20. This organization’s most senior leader is committed to this change.

126
21. I think we are spending a lot of time on this change when senior managers

don’t even want it implemented.

22. Management has sent a clear signal this organization is going to change.

23. I do not anticipate any problems adjusting to the work I will have when

this change is adopted.

24. There are some tasks that will be required when we change that I don’t

think I can do well.

25. When we implement this change, I feel I can handle it with ease.

26. I have the skills that are needed to make this change work.

27. When I set my mind to it, I can learn everything that will be required when

this change is adopted.

28. My past experiences make me confident that I will be able to perform

successfully after the change is made.

29. I am worried I will lose some of my status in the organization when this

change is implemented.

30. This change will disrupt many of the personal relationships I have

developed.

31. My future in this job will be limited because of this change.

32. We need to change the way we did some things in this organization.

33. We need to improve the way we operate in this organization.

34. We need to improve our effectiveness by changing our operation.

35. A change was needed to improve our operations.

127