Organizational Climate and Individual Readiness for Change in the Norwegian Police Organization
Martin Rønning Lunde
Master Thesis at the Department of Psychology UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
May 2021
Acknowledgements
Writing this thesis have been a privilege since day one. Along the way I have received invaluable help, guidance, and support in which I am truly grateful. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Roald Bjørklund for his advisory, strong
encouragement and interesting reflections. Also, I would like to thank Police Inspector Trond Myklebust for his important support in carrying out this research project. Furthermore, a hand of gratitude to Knut Inge Fostervold for his guidance with the analysis, and Marius Hafstad for always being available to help me past all kinds of bumps along the road.
In addition, I would like to thank my friends and fellow students for your inspiration, discussions, and fun along the way. Lastly, I would like to thank my family, and in particular my mom and dad for their unconditional love and support throughout the entire process.
Abstract Author: Martin Rønning Lunde
Title: Organizational Climate and Individual Readiness for Change in the Norwegian Police Organization
Supervisor: Professor Roald Bjørklund, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo
A substantial amount of organizational change initiatives fails to achieve their desired outcomes (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Research suggests that emphasizing positive change attitudes among employees could help organizations turn this rate of change failure.
Particularly, individual readiness for change is identified as an important precursor for successful organizational change initiatives. Accordingly, identifying potential facilitators of individual readiness for change can be of great value. Therefore, this study examines the relationship between two organizational climate types adopted from Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s Competing Values Framework (1983), and individual readiness for change. More specifically, this study investigates the association between the open systems climate and the internal process climate, and individual readiness for change, with a proposed mediation effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The study was a part of a research project between the Norwegian Police University College and the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo. The sample consisted of employees in the Norwegian Police Organization (N = 1417), with data collected by a self-report survey. By applying structural equation modelling, the results illustrated a partially mediated model demonstrating a direct effect from the open systems climate to individual readiness for change, with intrinsic motivation mediating this relationship. The findings provide a nuanced supplement to existing research on individual readiness for change by demonstrating the role of different motivational qualities in different organizational climates. Furthermore, this might assist practical considerations with an idea on how and what organizations should emphasize to successfully implement change
initiatives.
Keywords: Individual Readiness for Change, Organizational Climate, Competing Values Framework, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation
Contents
Introduction ... 1
Theoretical Background ... 3
Organizational Change Approaches ... 3
Attitudes Toward Organizational Change ... 4
Readiness for Change ... 6
Organizational Climate and Culture ... 8
Organizational Climate ... 9
Competing Values Framework ... 10
Competing or Complementary Values? ... 12
Work Motivation ... 13
Self-Determination Theory ... 15
Self-Determination Theory in a Norwegian Work Context ... 17
Hypothesis ... 18
Organizational Climate and Individual Readiness for Change ... 18
Organizational Climate and Motivation ... 20
Motivation and Individual Readiness for Change ... 21
Organizational Climate, Motivation, and Individual Readiness for Change ... 22
Method ... 25
The Research Project ... 25
Ethical Considerations ... 25
Data Collection ... 25
Sample ... 25
Measures ... 26
Readiness for Change ... 26
Motivation ... 26
Open Systems Climate and Internal Process Climate ... 26
Analysis ... 27
Preliminary Analysis ... 27
Structural Equation Modelling ... 27
Chi-Square Test ... 28
Comparative Fit Index ... 28
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ... 29
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ... 29
Results ... 30
Descriptive and Preliminary Analysis ... 30
Structural Equation Modelling ... 31
Measurement Models ... 31
Structural Models ... 34
Removing Paths ... 35
Discussion ... 39
Theoretical Implications ... 40
Practical Implications ... 44
Limitations ... 45
Future Research ... 46
Conclusion ... 48
References ... 49
Appendix A: Measurement scales ... 63
Introduction
In the modern world, the only thing that is unchangeable, is change. Development and transformation are surrounding almost every aspect of not only human lives, but also the lives of organizations. As stated by Burnes (2004b), the continuous presence of change defines organizational life both at a strategic and operational level. The competitive pressure and globalization increases, which in turn makes it more and more important for modern
organizations to handle these changes efficiently if they want to ensure organizational success on a long-term basis (Drzensky et al., 2012). For example, in a study of public sector
employees in Norway, 76% report having experienced change over the last three years (Direktoratet for forvaltning og økonomistyring, 2018). A public sector organization
undergoing major changes is the Norwegian Police Organization. Extensive globalization and technological development, combined with a growing heterogenous population, changes the nature of criminal activity by making it more complex and organized with an increased scope of range (NOU 2013: 09). To face these developmental challenges, the Norwegian police has undergone a comprehensive structural reform with the purpose of increasing quality and productivity in procedures and organization (NOU 2013: 09).
Organizations try during change processes to increase efficiency. However, several studies (Burnes, 2004b; By, 2005; Meaney & Pung, 2008) does not support this assumption.
There are numerous reasons for unsuccessful change, but much of this failure can be assigned to the implementation phase of the change, and a lack of sufficient readiness (Burnes, 2004b;
Jones et al., 2005; Kotter, 1996). Particularly, the underestimation of individuals and their central part in a change process has been pointed out by researchers as an underlying explanation for the change failure (Armenakis et al., 1993; George & Jones, 2001; Lau &
Woodman, 1995). In relation to acknowledging the impact of individuals on organizational performance and development, the concept of work motivation is recognized as one of the most established constructs in organizational psychological theories and models (Miner, 2003). Motivation drives and guides work behavior by determining its direction, form and intensity (Latham & Pinder, 2005). This energetic force is a result of human-environment interactions, thus implicate the importance of considering the contextual factors of work (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Moreover, this suggests that organizations implementing change initiatives should carefully consider their employees motivational state, as well as the organizational context.
While change research previously had a ‘passive’ approach identifying factors hindering organizational change, the literature has taken an ‘active’ turn in the later years, focusing more on constructs fostering change, such as openness to change, commitment to change and readiness for change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). All of these concepts emphasize a proactive approach to change, with a particular attention devoted to the latter as a key factor for creating effective organizational change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Vakola, 2014; Weiner et al., 2008). This entails some implications for the change research, as much of the focus now being dedicated to identifying important antecedents in creating employees’ readiness for change. In particular, organizational climate has gained extensive empirical support in recent years for being a crucial precondition in establishing change readiness (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2007b; Holt & Vardaman, 2013; Oreg et al., 2011). Hence, more and more researchers are acknowledging the significance of individual readiness for change and employee motivation, as well as organizational climate for organizations to implement effective change initiatives.
Thus, by using data from an organizational reform in the Norwegian Police, this study examines how types of organizational climate and motivation predicts individual readiness for change. Specifically, the study undertakes how organizational climate affects readiness for change, and the potential mediating role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. To establish the conceptual foundation, empirical and theoretical background of relevant constructs is
explained. Then, forming of hypothesis is presented, before the methodological approach with associated findings is provided. Furthermore, the findings are discussed considering
theoretical and practical implications. Lastly, study limitations and proposed future research is described.
Theoretical Background Organizational Change Approaches
There has been a growing focus on distinctions between planned change and emergent change in the literature. This contrast has gained more importance in recent years by the way it conceptualizes a framework for understanding change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Dunphy (1996) argues that planned change is triggered because of employees failing to establish emergent and adaptive organizations, implicating that change is the result of failure. The recent police reform was initiated as a comprehensive planned change initiative that was accelerated by the terrorist attack the 22nd of July 2011. Hence, this extraordinary event became a trigger for initiating thorough evaluation and planning towards a major
organizational change and development of the Norwegian Police (NOU 2013: 09, 2013).
One of the most influential models for the planned change approach was Kurt Lewin’s three-stage model of change (Choi & Ruona, 2013). The phases of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing comprises the states of an organization, whereas the first step involves a state of equilibrium. The equilibrium must be destabilized for old behavior to be discarded, and for new behavioral patterns to be successfully adopted. The second step includes moving or changing behaviors in a transitional and iterative phase where the purpose is to guide the behaviors in the right direction. The final step, refreezing, seeks to stabilize the behavior at the new equilibrium ensuring no regression tendencies. It is essential that the new behavior is congruent with the organizational environment, hence demonstrating the wanted and
successful outcome (Burnes, 2004a).
Despite the major impact on the field of organizational change, the three-stage model has been subject to criticism. Much of this criticism has pointed towards the fact that it fails to capture the micro-processes, complexity and dynamics of change, as they unfold in a
continuous interplay between the humans within the organization and environmental influences (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Weick and Quinn (1999) argues that change cannot be understood by stable stage models, but instead it must be studied as something ongoing, growing and evolving. Consequently, a different line of researchers seeks to understand organizational changes as emergent or continuous.
The tradition of viewing change as ongoing and unfolding, is based on the idea that minor continuous adjustments completed across units simultaneously, can cumulate and create substantial change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Greenwood and Hinings (1996) argued that to be able to properly understand organizational change, one must consider implications and ramifications of the change beyond what was initially planned. By adopting a perspective of
change as continuous, Tsoukas and Chia (2002) claim this will lead to a more complete understanding of the important underlying processes and micro-dynamics of change at work.
This implies that change initiatives should be adjusted and fine-tuned to the particular context in which they take place (Orlikowski, 1996). Thus, the perspective of change as an ongoing process, could help addressing and overcoming implementation issues of change programs reported in research (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).
Previous research has placed a large focus on how organizations prepare for, implement, and react to change (Oreg et al., 2011). However, an important factor for determining success or failure of a change initiative, is how change recipients react to the change (Judge et al., 1999). This line of research has emerged through the consensus about employees’ key role in determining the potential of successful change implementation
(Bartunek et al., 2006). In order to understand organizational change processes, it is important to address change recipients and their individual attitudes (Caldwell et al., 2004; Oreg, 2006;
Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). This is because “organizations only change and act through their members, and even the most collective activities that take place in organizations are the result of some amalgamation of the activities of individual organizational members” (George &
Jones, 2001, p. 420).
Another key factor for creating successful change initiatives is the establishment of a change supportive basis (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). Generally, there is a strong consensus among researchers about the salient role of climate for change and the level of readiness for change as issues facilitating effective change implementation (Armenakis et al., 1993;
Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2007a; Oreg et al., 2011; Rafferty et al., 2013; Vakola, 2013, 2014; Weiner, 2009). These two concepts have played a significant role in the domain of organizational change, being subjects of several definitions and understandings. This creates a need for properly addressing each of the constructs to gain conceptual clarity, which in turn defines the theoretical perspective adopted in the current study. First, attitudes toward change is addressed to gain a better contextual frame of understanding the readiness for change construct. Then, the theoretical understandings of organizational climate are accounted for, before the theoretical background of motivation and how this unfolds in organizational contexts are presented. Subsequently, a presentation of the hypothesis is provided.
Attitudes Toward Organizational Change
The idea of attitudes towards change is considered as an important aspect in the unfreezing stage of Lewin’s change model (Choi & Ruona, 2013). Traditionally, employees’
attitudes towards change have been conceptualized in negative terms. For example, resistance towards change was conceived as a restraining force striving to maintain status quo (Choi &
Ruona, 2013). This perspective considered resistance as a systemic attribute but has in later research been replaced by an understanding of resistance as a psychological phenomenon that a change recipient experiences when undergoing the unfreezing stage (Choi & Ruona, 2013).
Accordingly, the unfreezing process generates organizational members’ attitudes and beliefs about a change (Choi & Ruona, 2011). Elizur and Guttman (1976) defined attitudes towards change as “a multi-facetted concept comprised of a set of feelings about change, cognitions about change and intentions towards change. Each of these facets reflects three different manifestations of people’s evaluations of a change” (p. 612). These evaluations of change can be made with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). Research on
employees’ attitudes towards change thusly have been characterized by a dualistic perspective, emphasizing positive or negative attitudes (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
Following the negative mind-set on attitudes towards change, both resistance toward change and cynicism about change has been in the scope of research (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
In general, the literature has used the term resistance towards change to explain why organizational change processes fall short of expectations (Oreg, 2006). The concept is viewed as a reactive process in which employees actively oppose initiatives implemented by other agents (Jermier et al., 1994). Thus, resistance towards change encompasses evaluations and behaviors in which hinders successful change processes. In relation to this, cynicism about change concerns a pessimistic viewpoint of the future potential of success due to negative attributions towards the responsible actors of the change (Wanous et al., 2004). This is manifested in resistance behavior, thus it is considered a participating factor for negative intentions and attitudes (Bouckenooghe, 2010). By adopting a focus on these negative
attitudes, a primary attention in change research has been on how to avoid these cognitive and behavioral evaluations, rather than how to create and facilitate positive change attitudes (Choi
& Ruona, 2011).
By turning the perspective on change to the more positive side, one can identify and emphasize an active approach to change attitudes. Here, employee support is considered as a critical prerequisite for conducting successful changes, especially when the changes are structure-based which directly or indirectly affects employees (Hornung & Rousseau, 2007).
Terms used to frame supportive employee attitudes are for example commitment to change, openness to change and readiness for change, which are three prominent and overlapping
attitudes focusing on the opportunities and potential of change processes (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
Commitment to change is understood as a binding force that guides the individual to the necessary course of action for successful change implementation (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Importantly, being committed to change does not simply mean that one is absent of negative attitudes or lacking resistance (Fedor et al., 2006). As for openness to change, this encompasses to a greater extent the positive affect towards the outcomes of change, and the willingness to support it (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Similarly, readiness for change also reflects an individual’s overall positive evaluation of a change initiative (Choi, 2011). Yet, compared to the other two positive constructs, it is argued that readiness is especially critical in achieving employees’ support for change processes (Holt et al., 2007a). Thus, the primary focus of the current study is organizational members’ readiness for change. However, this construct has also received multiple definitions and understandings which creates the need for a clear postulation of the conceptual basis adopted in the current study.
Readiness for Change
According to Rafferty et al. (2013), readiness for change is the most studied positive attitude concept in the organizational change literature. Also, the review of Bouckenooghe (2010) revealed that the majority of the conceptual work on change attitudes has been
conducted on readiness for change. One of the most well-established definitions of readiness for change was presented by Armenakis et al. (1993). They stated that readiness for change are 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.” (p. 681). This definition gave rise to an understanding that change readiness is something that originates within the individual, being a cognitive precursor to behaviors of either resistance or support for change (Armenakis et al., 1993).
It is important to note, however, that readiness for change is a multilevel construct which can be theorized and studied at the individual, group, unit, or organizational level of analysis (Weiner, 2009). This paves the way for different conceptualizations and definitions of the readiness construct, potentially resulting in confusion and ambiguity. For example, Vakola (2014) stated that the readiness concept has been used interchangeably for constructs such as individual readiness for change, perceived organizational change and actual
organizational readiness to change. These conceptual ambiguities are also further underlined by Weiner et al. (2008), pointing out that different terms are used about the same phenomenon in the literature. This also works the other way around, where different constructs are given
the same label. Oreg et al. (2011) termed this research issue the jingle-jangle fallacy which creates a disintegrated understanding of the readiness for change construct.
Furthermore, in their multilevel review, Rafferty et al. (2013) addressed that researchers do not have adopted a multilevel perspective in which the authors argue is necessary for understanding the individual and organizational implications of the concept.
They address the notion that readiness is a concept which should be understood both as an individual phenomenon, and a collective phenomenon. Individual readiness is the overall judgement of whether one is ready for organizational change, and is a result of the evaluation of beliefs, the need for change, the capacity of undertaking the change, change outcomes and the individual’s positive emotional responses to a change initiative (Rafferty et al., 2013). The collective readiness for change emerges from individuals affects and beliefs that is shared through social interaction processes which manifest itself as a higher-level collective phenomena (Rafferty et al., 2013).
Despite this theoretical debate, there is consensus among researchers that readiness for change concerns individual-level attitudes of whether the organization is capable of
successfully initiate change processes. This indicates that the individual perspective of readiness is important whether it is regarded as individual or collective in nature. By following the conceptualization of Armenakis et al. (1993), this study adopts readiness for change as an individual-level concept, addressing the psychological nature of the construct, rather than the collective or organizational manifestations. It is important to note however, that individual readiness for change is affected by different antecedents and facilitated through various organizational and interactional processes (Oreg et al., 2011).
Through the lens of Kurt Lewin, the emerging of individual readiness for change happens in the unfreezing stage of organizational changes, when the structure, environment and organizational members’ attitudes are aligned and receptive to a forthcoming change (Choi & Ruona, 2013; Holt et al., 2007a). Therefore, in the process of creating readiness for change, organizations must account for the specific contexts and environments in which the change occurs. This means adopting proactive attempts that extends beyond individual cognitions, because readiness for change involves a social aspect as well (Armenakis et al., 1993).
Because of the positivistic approach in change attitude research, recent literature has tried to identify factors that can enable positive change attitudes such as individual readiness for change. This perspective suggests that change readiness is something which can be created and facilitated by different types of precursors. The literature has identified different
antecedents that affects individual readiness for change, for example change recipient characteristics and internal work climate (Oreg et al., 2011). Cunningham et al. (2002) and Eby et al. (2000) demonstrated that work environment affected employees’ level of readiness for change, with other studies more specifically suggesting that organizational climate is proved to be an important factor for predicting individual readiness for change (Holt et al., 2007b; Oreg et al., 2011).
Organizational Climate and Culture
Recently, there has been an increased interest in the impact of organizational context on the work lives of organizational members (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). Particularly, two constructs have gained attention among organizational context scholars and made a mark in the field of organizational research. Both organizational climate and organizational culture are conceptualizations of the way people experience, make sense, interpret, and describe their work context (Schneider et al., 2011, 2013). The constructs grasp the psychological life or the
“feel” of organizations and has been crucial for understanding the interplay between
employees and their work environment (Hartnell et al., 2011; Schneider et al., 1996). Because organizational climate and organizational culture are distinct, but overlapping constructs, a conceptual clarification is at its place to avoid confusion.
Historically, organizational climate and organizational culture emerged from different academic traditions. Whereas climate research has a longer history and have inherited much from psychological methods and issues concerning affect, attitudes and perception, culture research emerged through sociological and anthropological practices with a primary focus on the collective rather than the individual (Schneider et al., 2011; Schneider et al., 2017). Both concepts have differed in their definitions, but contemporary research now see organizational climate as a set of shared perceptions regarding policies, practices and procedures that get rewarded, supported and expected in the organization (Schneider et al., 2011; Schneider &
Reichers, 1983).
In comparison, organizational culture can be defined as shared basic assumptions, beliefs and values that characterize the workplace, that was learned by a group and thought to newcomers as the correct way to perceive, think and feel (Schein, 2010). Culture
encompasses the deeper, underlying values, dimensions and assumptions of the organization compared to climate, which describes employees’ shared perceptions of observable
phenomena such as priorities and practices (Ostroff et al., 2012). Certainly, one can understand the two concepts of having differing level of abstraction, where climate is the shared perceptions of the surface-level manifestation of the underlying culture in an
organization (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009; Ostroff et al., 2012). The distinction is important when moving towards a more focused perspective on organizational context. The present study emphasizes organizational climate, and further addresses some of the key concerns related to the field of research in the section below.
Organizational Climate
Verbeke et al. (1998) identified 32 different definitions of organizational climate in the literature which underlined the conceptual differentiations at various levels, dimensions and focus, in addition to the obscure distinctions between climate and related constructs (Kuenzi, 2008; Schneider et al., 2011). Through the advancement of the climate construct, an important discussion was related to whether work climate is a property of the individual or the
organization. The latter perspective has fallen short, as the majority of climate scholars examine the concept as perceptual in nature (Kuenzi, 2008; Schneider, 1975).
In extension of this discussion, Kuenzi (2008) pointed towards an issue of whether work climate is an individual-level construct, or an organizational level construct. One of the first to address the level of theory and level of analysis was James and Jones (1974), who coined the term psychological climate. This refers to the individual’s perception of the psychological impact the work environment has on his or her well-being (James & James, 1989; Kuenzi, 2008). However, when the individual perceptions are shared among a group of members in a unit or in an organization, the data collected can be aggregated to represent the organizational climate (Schneider et al., 2011). Put differently, this means the level of
measurement is the individual, and the level of the construct is the organization (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000). Thus, it is the organization’s climate, not the individual’s (Schneider et al., 2011). Following this reasoning, the current study applies individual-level measurement of the climate construct, with aggregated scores to represent the climates of the organization.
Several authors have discussed whether work climate should be seen as a
unidimensional or multidimensional concept (Kuenzi, 2008; Schneider et al., 2011). For example, in their review, Campbell et al. (1970) reported that at the time there were four climate dimensions, while Ostroff (1993) suggested three broad dimensions with 12 specific facets. In general, the dimensions have varied greatly in number and focus, leading up to the point where climate as a molar construct lost its meaningfulness (Carr et al., 2003). Due to little conceptual clarification about what organizational climate should encompass, Schneider (1975) called for a more focused approach expressing a “climate for what”-perspective. This was because much of the research adopted a generic conceptualization of work climate with
no measurement focus. He stated that it is essential that the predictor variable matches the criterion variable to optimize the predictability (Schneider et al., 2011).
According to Schneider et al. (2011), this bandwidth issue was problematic because it weakened the validity of the climate construct. In order to deal with the conceptual confusion, the research focus switched from what Kuenzi (2008) termed global climates, to facet-specific climates. While the global climate reflected the general work environment, facet-specific climates are related to a specific aspect of the organizational context, such as service,
innovation, or diversity (Kuenzi, 2008). In short, facet-specific climates are “for something”, which helped increasing the understanding of how work climate influence organizational members and outcomes. However, Kuenzi and Schminke (2009) argued that because of the differing domain-specific focus, climate research became fragmented with no solid theoretical foundation. Similar points of discussion were also made by Schneider (1975), claiming that a clear focus on the outcomes of interest should be guiding the measures of climate. This could help reduce the bandwidth problem, where no particular outcome of interest will create a need for a very wide bandwidth in climate measures in order to compensate for the lack of outcome focus (Schneider et al., 2011). Hence, the current study clearly defines the outcome of interest and applies a molar climate taxonomy with established boundary conditions for measurement and conceptualization of the climate construct.
Due to the fragmented and scattered nature of climate research, the present study applies the theoretical typology of the Competing Values Framework (CVF) as an organizing scope for understanding and defining molar climate constructs. This is done by following the principles of Kuenzi (2008) which used the CVF as a basis for four distinct molar climate types. In line with previous argumentation of understanding climate as an organizational level construct, she states that a molar climate of an organization is simply not a combination of different facet-specific climates. Rather, it is a representation of the shared perceptions of global organizational values related to the general focus and structure (Kuenzi, 2008).
Therefore, molar climate in organizations should be compatible with the CVF. The framework is further addressed in the following section.
Competing Values Framework
In organizational research, the Competing Values Framework is considered as one of the most prominent frameworks for evaluating organizational culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Hartnell et al., 2011; Ostroff et al., 2012). However, the CVF has gained a strong foothold in contemporary climate research (Beus et al., 2020; Patterson et al., 2005).
Originally, the Competing Values Framework was developed as an assessment tool for
organizational effectiveness criteria, where the researchers investigated what indicators people were associating with an effective organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). When identified, the indicators were subsequently organized along a three-dimensional orthogonal structure (Hartnell et al., 2011). One of the dimensions, referred to as the focus dimension, differentiates effectiveness criteria that emphasize internal orientation, integration and unity, from those that accentuate external orientation, differentiation and rivalry (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The second dimension, the structure dimension, separates effectiveness criteria that underlines flexibility, dynamism and discretion from criteria that centers stability, order and control (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The last dimension in the CVF is the means-ends
dimension, which elucidates the behaviors, or means, that each climate type is related with their preferred effectiveness criteria, or ends (Hartnell et al., 2011).
The dimensions constitute four quadrants where all includes opposite, or competing core values, creating four different climate types. For example, human relations climate found in the upper left quadrant identifies values which emphasize an internal organic focus.
Teamwork, employee participation, development and well-being are concerns in this climate type (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Contrary, in the lower right quadrant, the rational goal climate emphasizes external control and focus. Here, economic profitability, marked position, effectivity and competitiveness in changing environments constitute the core values (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The two final climate types, open systems and internal process places a great deal of emphasis on flexibility and external focus, and control and internal focus, respectively (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). The open systems climate, often referred to as adhocracy climate, promotes adaptation, innovation, and
creativity from the employees, where they are highly involved in production and development processes (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). A major focus is being ready for change and new challenges. Another perspective is found in the internal process climate, which is
characterized by creating a formalized and structured working climate. Here, procedures and formal guidelines defines work activities. Good coordination and organization of those activities are considered as key means to ensure predictability and efficiency (Cameron &
Quinn, 2011). The framework is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1
The Competing Values Framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983)
Competing or Complementary Values?
Albeit the CVF is a combination of seemingly contradictory concepts, an important concern is that although certain constructs are paradoxical in nature, this does not require that they are empirical opposites or mutually exclusive in actual organizational settings (Quinn &
Rohrbaugh, 1983). In short, this means that an organization might be stable and flexible.
Recent meta-analytical studies support this notion, demonstrating that all climate types in the framework are positively correlated (Beus et al., 2020; Hartnell et al., 2011). These findings indicate that the four climate types coexist and should be viewed as complementary rather than competing (Hartnell et al., 2011). Furthermore, contrary to the original CVF theory, this suggests that identifying dominant climate types might be of limited value because they do not fully grasp the organizational context’s bandwidth (Hartnell et al., 2011). Empirical considerations of multiple existing organizational climates have been encouraged by scholars in current literature (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009; Schneider et al., 2013).
According to Cameron et al. (2014), a key insight of the CVF is that if organizations want to create valued outcomes, they should recognize the inherent tensions that exist between the conflicting climates. By following this line of suggestion, the current study
focuses on two theoretical conflicting climates, and their association with a particular
outcome criterion. More specifically, investigations of the open systems climate and internal process climate in the CVF is conducted, and how these climate types affect employees’
individual readiness for change in the Norwegian police organization.
Furthermore, the potential mediating effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is also examined. Linking internal process climate to a police setting is of considerable interest because both share bureaucratic characteristics (Patterson et al., 2005; Yilmaz, 2013).
Moreover, the current thesis is an extension of Nilsen’s (2018) study on work motivation’s mediating effect on the relationship between human relation climate and rational goal climate, and employee change readiness. The author explicitly called for more research on how the remaining two climate types of the CVF would affect work motivation and relate to individual readiness for change. To the authors knowledge, this combination of variables has not
previously been investigated in a police setting. Thus, this study provides a supplement to existing findings provided by Nilsen (2018). In the section that follows, the concept of work motivation is addressed before the theoretical and empirical foundations for the postulated hypothesis are presented.
Work Motivation
Motivation has been of extensive focus and importance of industrial and
organizational psychology the last decades (Steers et al., 2004). A reason for the enduring attention of work-related motivation, is because it is a crucial determinant for employee behavior and have a significant impact on the well-being and attitudes of organizational members (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). At the same time, work motivation is a key topic to organizations concerned with developing work environments and organizational success (Kanfer et al., 2017).
Historically, different perspectives and approaches have been important to understand the construct of work motivation (Van den Broeck et al., 2019). For example, early
reinforcement theories suggested that people’s motivational behavior was determined by its consequences, where desirable behaviors is rewarded, and undesirable behaviors are punished (Steers et al., 2004). Contrary to the reinforcement theories which focused on environment and observable factors of motivation, needs theories was introduced, which emphasized internal psychological and social needs essential for supporting life and growth (Kanfer et al., 2017).
According to Maslow, these needs can be arranged hierarchically starting with basal physiological, safety and security needs. When these needs have been fulfilled, people can
strive to realize their social and personal needs which includes belongingness, esteem and self-actualization (Van den Broeck et al., 2019). While this theory focused on motivation’s individual differences, Herzberg and his colleagues highlighted how the nature of the job and work activities influence motivation and performance (Steers et al., 2004). The theory
proposed two factors influencing work motivation and job satisfaction, namely hygiene factors and motivators (Bassett‐Jones & Lloyd, 2005). The latter is associated with a need for growth and self-actualization, and includes recognition, achievement, and responsibility (Herzberg et al., 1959). In comparison, the hygiene factors include external work conditions such as company policies and salary, and relates to the need to avoid dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). However, the theory was subject to criticism of the empirical fundament on which the theory was based, and subsequent evidence does not provide support for the classification of hygienes and motivators (House & Wigdor, 1967).
The major proportion of research on motivation was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s (Bassett‐Jones & Lloyd, 2005). At this point, organizations were characterized by
hierarchical, rigid, and bureaucratic processes, anchored in scientific management principles (Kanfer et al., 2017). This view regarded employees as lazy and work-shy, considering motivation as a question of extrinsic rewards to enhance performance (Kanfer et al., 2017).
This was an effective strategy for the mindless, repetitive and mundane work activities that characterized the work processes at the time (Bassett‐Jones & Lloyd, 2005). However, because of a changing work force, and a dramatic change in the dynamics of the environment during the 1990s, the need for creativity and innovation became essential for organizations to survive. In these circumstances, the extrinsic rewards came short in enhancing employee and organizational performance (Bassett‐Jones & Lloyd, 2005). This implied that work motivation is more complex than simply rewarding good behavior. It underlines the importance of
considering work motivation as a psychological process emerging from the individual and the environment (Latham & Pinder, 2005). For that reason, Pinder (1998) defines motivation as
“a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity and duration” (p.
11). These energetic forces have been reflected in most motivational theories, viewing motivation as a unitary concept that varies from very little motivation to a large amount of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
However, according to Ryan and Deci (2000a), in addition to having different amounts of motivation, people also have different kinds of motivation. Stated differently, not only do people vary in how much motivation they have, they also vary in type of motivation. The
latter concerns the underlying attitudes that drives behavior, or the why of actions (Ryan &
Deci, 2000a). A contemporary need theory that addresses this subject is the Self-
Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). The theoretical principles of the SDT has been important for organizing and understanding motivational processes, determinants and outcomes across domains with strong empirical evidence (Deci et al., 2017; Vallerand et al., 2008). Thus, the theoretical framework of SDT is applied in the current study and is described in more detail below.
Self-Determination Theory
A fundamental emphasis in SDT is that people in nature are growth-oriented and proactive, as a function of the social conditions in which they operate (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
At a basic level, the theory distinguishes between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Intrinsic motivation refers to doing an activity because it is inherently enjoyable or interesting, while extrinsic motivation refers to doing something to attain a separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). SDT views intrinsic motivation as an evolved inherent propensity, thus it is not concerned about what causes intrinsic motivation, but rather investigates the conditions that elicit and sustain, versus diminish and hinders this innate tendency (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In order to explain the variability of people’s intrinsic motivation, the SDT builds on the assumptions from a subtheory called cognitive evaluation theory (CET) (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
The CET states that intrinsic motivation will flourish if the conditions conduce
towards a sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness, a set of fundamental psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b). The CET further specifies that feelings of competence only will enhance intrinsic motivation if the employee simultaneously have a sense of autonomy in the activity. In short, it is important that the behavior is self-determined and gives the experience of competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
Furthermore, the theory has illustrated the importance of a third factor for enhancing and sustaining intrinsic motivation. The feeling of relatedness is facilitated in surroundings that provides a sense of belongingness and connectedness to a person, group or workplace disseminating a goal (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Additionally, support and satisfaction of
competence and relatedness are highly correlated when there is organizational and managerial support for autonomy (Deci et al., 2017). The authors argue this is because employees who experience autonomy support, also feel more effective and related to the organization (Deci et al., 2017).
A core consideration in SDT is the issue of autonomous motivation versus controlled motivation, which has been hotly debated in motivation research. Initially it was demonstrated that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). The CET helped explain these findings, stating that extrinsic rewards could shift people’s locus of causality from internal to externally controlled, thus diminishing their feeling of autonomy (Deci et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan, 1987). Additionally, the undermining effect has been especially consistent for task-contingent rewards because of their direct association with the activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Like tangible rewards, threats, deadlines, directives and imposed goals also diminish intrinsic motivation because they are experienced as controllers of behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
Although intrinsic motivation is considered an important type of motivation, a central aspect of the SDT is that this is not the only type of motivation, or even the only self-
determined type of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In fact, most of the activities people do are not intrinsically motivated, but rather extrinsically driven by a separable outcome (Ryan &
Deci, 2000a). Extrinsic motivation can vary greatly in the degree to which it is autonomous, with different forms organized along the self-determination continuum (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
The continuum ranges from amotivation, which is the lack of motivation, to intrinsic motivation, with the various types of extrinsic motivation placed in between (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The different types of motivation adhere to a quasi-simplex pattern which means that motivations closest to each other correlates most positively, and the motivations farthest from each other correlates most negatively (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
The two least autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation are external regulation and introjected regulation. In the former, individuals typically perceive their behavior as
controlled by external factors, whereas the latter involves behavior focused on approval being self-controlled by processes such as self-esteem and concern for recognition (Deci et al., 2017). The two most autonomous types of extrinsic motivation is identified regulation, where people identifies with the personal importance of their work or behaviors, and integrated regulation, in which the identifications have been integrated and the behavior is congruent with one’s own needs and values (Deci et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). These types of motivations can all be present with different extents in organizational members, depending on what the work environment facilitates or undermines. Simultaneously however, the SDT suggests that the three psychological needs are universal, which means the relation between need satisfaction versus need undermining will be confirmed across different cultures (Deci &
Ryan, 2012).
Over the years, the theory has undergone several revisions (Vallerand, 2000). Many of the points in the theory has been discussed through different perspectives which has
highlighted fruitful elements of consideration. For example, Vallerand (2000) presented a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation that addressed some issues related to the SDT. Particularly, he argued that the different types of motivation take place within the individual and are arranged at three hierarchical levels: the global level, the contextual level and the situational level (Vallerand, 2000). These levels interact with each other through top- down or bottom-up effects, which can demonstrate important motivational compensations (Vallerand, 2000). This aspect is not addressed in SDT. Furthermore, the SDT proposes that positive psychological outcomes are due to the process of need satisfaction. However, Vallerand (2000) suggested that outcomes rather is a consequence of the needs’ ability to create and sustain the motivation which in turn facilitates psychological growth.
Another important question raised by Vallerand (2000) is to what degree the three psychological needs for intrinsic motivation can differ in their relative importance at the individual level. Contrary to the SDT, he points out that people might yield different value to autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This indicates different production of motivation, which makes individual differences in psychological needs a rather important issue
(Vallerand, 2000).
Several cross-cultural studies have examined the universal validity of SDT, providing support for the needs’ relevance across cultures (Deci & Ryan, 2012). For example, Chirkov et al. (2003) found that autonomy was relevant and important in both Western and Eastern cultures. Furthermore, autonomy has been proved important for positive work outcomes in nonindividualistic cultures (Deci et al., 2001). Specifically, the results indicated that autonomy support predicted autonomy satisfaction among employees in both America’s capitalist economy and the socialist economy of Bulgaria. These findings provide interesting implications for the application of SDT in a Norwegian work context because it offers an indication of the models’ transferability to this culture.
Self-Determination Theory in a Norwegian Work Context
The Norwegian work life model is recognized by close collaboration between managers, unions, owners, and employees (Levin et al., 2012). In general, the relationship between employees and managers are highly organized, with a collaborative orientation seeking to undertake the rights and interests of both employers and employees (Levin et al., 2012). This is strictly regulated by legislation and agreements, which provides a foundation for organizational development whereas employee participation is a key factor (Gustavsen,
2011). For example, the working environment act, provides directives for securing work environment that facilitates the opportunity for contact and communication between
employees (arbeidsmiljøloven, 2005, § 4-3), as well as foster adaptations of work activities to individual employees qualifications (arbeidsmiljøloven, 2005, § 1-1). These are fundamental democratic principles enshrined in law which provides employees the rights to co-
determination and participation (Gustavsen, 2011). Such central building blocks in the Nordic Work Model have a clear overlap with the suggested fundamental needs of intrinsic
motivation in SDT. The sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness are all psychological needs in which both employees and employers in a Norwegian work context strongly
accentuate.
Therefore, the present study applies the Self-Determination Theory as the theoretical framework for conceptualizing and measuring intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation in the Norwegian police organization. In the section that follows, the suggested hypotheses are presented, before methodological procedures are elaborated.
Hypothesis
Organizational Climate and Individual Readiness for Change
The open systems climate emphasizes a dynamic organizational structure with shared perceptions of growth, external focus and flexibility with the purpose of maintaining
congruence with changes in the environment (Goodman et al., 2001; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). This includes encouragement and support of new ideas and innovative approaches, placing a general orientation towards change. The external focus includes being responsive and adaptive to environmental forces, engaging a concern on review and reflection of objectives, work processes and strategies (Patterson et al., 2005). In other words, the importance of change is manifested throughout the entire organization: in the attitudes and values of the employees, the internal characteristics of the job, as well as the external context (Schneider & Bowen, 1993).
Studies have provided empirical evidence which illustrates the link between flexible climate types and readiness for change (Eby et al., 2000; Haffar et al., 2014). Eby et al. (2000) state that a climate which support and facilitate change is necessary for the change process to be successful. Furthermore, Haffar et al. (2014) found in a recent study that the open systems climate has a strong and positive influence on individual readiness for change, indicating that employees are more willing to accept change initiatives if the organizational culture is
characterized by flexibility, innovation and creativity. Based on this, the current study postulates the following hypothesis:
H1a: There is a positive direct effect of open systems climate on readiness for change
In contrast to the open systems climate type, the internal process climate emphasizes formalized and structured processes guiding the employees’ actions (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The primary focus is stability, internal control, efficiency, and predictability through the means of information management and communication. With sufficient coordination and organization, employees will gain a psychological sense of security and continuity (Quinn &
Rohrbaugh, 1983). During times of change, organizational members can experience a lack of situational control due to high levels of uncertainty and stress (Bordia et al., 2004). In these chaotic circumstances the employees will attempt to make sense of the situation and form impressions about the organization’s possibility of sustaining the changing conditions (Armenakis et al., 1993). For individuals undergoing this sense-making process, it is important that the organizational environment facilitates a communication climate and efficient information management ensuring a feeling of inclusion and involvement. In turn, this can foster a sense of change readiness among change recipients (Armenakis et al., 2007;
Oreg et al., 2011). According to Armenakis et al. (1993), communication is a necessary means for increasing willingness to participate and accept change, hence creating individual
readiness for change.
Furthermore, focusing on established procedures and high internal control during a change process will potentially enable resource efficiency, which can be viewed as an important factor in implementing successful change initiatives. Weick and Quinn (1999) pointed out that in order to successfully implement change initiatives, firms have to adopt not only an organic structure, but also emphasize a mechanistic process in which well-defined roles and clear priorities are important means of containing efficiency. The resource efficiency is a result of close monitoring and productive coordination, preserving the reliability of workflow through the organization as a whole (Tong & Arvey, 2015). Thus, there is reason to believe that applying core aspects of the internal process climate in change processes can be advantageous.
A number of studies conducted on organizational climate and readiness for change argues that climate types corresponding with characteristics of the internal process climate in general has weaker associations with readiness for change compared to more flexible,
supportive and open climates (Holt et al., 2007a; Jones et al., 2005; Vakola, 2013; Zammuto
& O'Connor, 1992). However, Burnes (2004b) suggested a model of organizational change, demonstrating different approaches to change situations, depending on the nature of the organization. Specifically, he recommended a “tayloristic” approach of planned change if the organization was of a bureaucratic nature. This means focusing on stability, tasks and
procedures, characteristics corresponding to the internal process climate. He found a significant positive effect of internal process climate characteristics on change readiness (Burnes, 2004b).
The Norwegian police organization has several bureaucratic features implying that a specific change situation in this organizational context could be facilitated by internal process climate. Therefore, the present study somehow challenges previous views on climates effect on change by proposing the following hypothesis:
H1b: There is a positive direct effect of internal process climate on readiness for
change
Organizational Climate and Motivation
The SDT largely emphasize the social climates in which fosters positive human
potential, and research guided by SDT has had a continuous concern with social environments optimizing people’s performance, well-being and development (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In relation to this, organizational climate is considered as one of the most significant antecedents to individual work motivation (James et al., 1977; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Tyagi, 1982).
Findings point out that conditions emphasizing and supporting autonomy and competence, facilitates intrinsic motivation, especially if the activities have an individual appeal of novelty and challenge (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). One of the main goals of open systems climate is to enhance creativity and innovation through the values of growth, variety and autonomy (Hartnell et al., 2011). These characteristics corresponds with environments associated with increased intrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Based on this rationale, following assumptions are made:
H2a: There is a positive direct effect of open systems climate on intrinsic motivation
Furthermore, when addressing organizational success and performance, studies have considered different types of performance related to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (Dalal &
Hulin, 2008). One of the most important distinctions has been made between so-called quality tasks and quantity tasks (Campbell et al., 1993). Quality tasks are complex, requiring higher engagement and personal investments from organizational members compared to quantity tasks, which are characterized by less complexity and autonomy, primarily focused on structured behavior guided by external factors and particular outcomes. Thus, Cerasoli et al.
(2014) argues that quantity tasks have a stronger association with extrinsic motivation. From the perspectives of CVF, the internal process climate values routinization and consistency with employees’ having clearly defined roles which directs their effort and performance (Hartnell et al., 2011). Researchers suggests that when it is clearly communicated what is expected in order to achieve valued organizational outcomes, members will be motivated to follow these indicators (Kanfer et al., 2008; Vroom, 1964). Anchored in this theoretical basis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2b: There is a positive direct effect of internal process climate on extrinsic motivation
The recent meta-analysis of Cerasoli et al. (2014) demonstrated that intrinsic motivation coexists with extrinsic motivation and that both motivational regulations are important in the workplace. Especially, intrinsic motivation illustrated importance on performance in both quality tasks and quantity tasks (Cerasoli et al., 2014). In addition, the joint contribution of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives on performance are
manifested in various climates, thus there is reason to assume that their relative effects will be important, regardless of work environment. Accordingly, employees in an internal process climate should be intrinsically motivated, and members in an open systems climate should be extrinsically regulated by tasks that are not intrinsically motivating. Therefore, the two following hypotheses are postulated:
H3a: There is a positive direct effect of internal process climate on intrinsic motivation
H3b: There is a positive direct effect of open systems climate on extrinsic motivation
Motivation and Individual Readiness for Change
According to Judge et al. (1999), individual motivation plays a key role in the success of change initiatives. Studies investigating motivational needs as antecedents to individual reactions to change has provided results indicating that employees driven by growth or
achievement more willingly engage in change implementation and organizational
restructuring (Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow, 2003; Miller et al., 1994). Furthermore, change recipients scoring high on autonomous orientations, a core psychological need yielding
intrinsic motivation, demonstrated more positive evaluations of change outcomes (Hornung &
Rousseau, 2007). Additionally, other studies suggest that organizational members’ perceived benefits and rewards from the change will positively influence their individual readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 2007; Oreg et al., 2011). In short, this indicates that both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation should influence change readiness. Thus, the
hypothesized relationships are as follows:
H4a: There is a positive direct effect of intrinsic motivation on individual readiness for change
H4b: There is a positive direct effect of extrinsic motivation on individual readiness for change
Organizational Climate, Motivation, and Individual Readiness for Change
The important role of organizational climates in directing employee behavior and attitudes has been consistently illustrated by research (Boswell et al., 2008). Employees who perceive their organizational procedures and policies as flexible and dynamic have reported increased readiness for change (Eby et al., 2000). These findings have been supplemented by additional studies suggesting that change recipients involved in jobs with high decision latitude and autonomy reported higher change readiness (Cunningham et al., 2002; Weber &
Weber, 2001). This nature of organizational climate corresponds with the open systems climate in the CVF, which emphasizes flexible and adaptive structures, encouraging employee autonomy, creativity and novelty (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Furthermore, the SDT suggests that these climate-values will satisfy the fundamental psychological needs, which in turn will promote self-determination and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In line with the postulations made above, the current study hypothesizes the following:
H5a: There is a positive indirect effect of intrinsic motivation between open systems climate and individual readiness for change
In extension to the theoretical rationale provided, it is important to be aware of the nuanced implications of incentives and extrinsic motivation in organizational contexts like the
open systems climate. Even though the climate type typically appeals to intrinsic motivational factors, intrinsic motivation rarely operates in a vacuum separated from other motivations (Cerasoli et al., 2014). This implies that extrinsic motivation also can and will play a role in the relationship between the open systems climate and change readiness. Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
H5b: There is a positive indirect effect of extrinsic motivation between open systems climate and readiness for change
Furthermore, in accordance to the previous illustrated theoretical assumptions,
extrinsic motivation has a greater effect on quantity-tasks, compared to quality tasks (Cerasoli et al., 2014). The internal process climate characteristics applies to a quantity-task
perspective, as it emphasizes routinization driven by control mechanisms, which in turn promotes organizational stability with a focus on increasing effectiveness through
predictability and efficiency (Beus et al., 2020; Hartnell et al., 2011). By emphasizing precise communication, this organizational climate generates predictability for its members
undergoing change initiatives by explicitly notifying them of the valued outcome.
Simultaneously, as these external forces create predictability and consistency, the employees might experience a sense of control over the change process. Individual perceived control over change has previously shown to increase acceptance and openness to change among employees (Lau & Woodman, 1995; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Furthermore, the SDT suggests that individuals who feels competent, will have increased intrinsic motivation (Deci
& Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In order to achieve this feeling, employees must be successful and effective in their jobs (Fisher, 1978). Fisher (1978) also found empirical support suggesting that personal control over performance increase intrinsic motivation.
Aligning these theoretical and empirical assumptions with organizational climate and individual readiness for change, the potential of internal process climate characteristics to create individual feelings of control during turbulent change processes may generate both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated members, positively influencing their change readiness. Thus, the present study hypothesizes the following:
H6a: There is a positive indirect effect of intrinsic motivation between internal process climate and readiness for change
H6b: There is a positive indirect effect of extrinsic motivation between internal process climate and readiness for change
All hypothesis is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Hypothesis
Note. Only direct effects are displayed in the model. H5a concerns the paths from Open Systems → Intrinsic Motivation → Readiness for Change; H5b concerns paths from Open Systems → Extrinsic Motivation → Readiness for Change; H6a concerns paths from Internal Process → Intrinsic Motivation → Readiness for Change; H6b concerns paths from Internal Process → Extrinsic Motivation → Readiness for Change.
Method The Research Project
The current study is a part of a long-term collaborative research project between the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo, and the Department of Research at the Norwegian Police University College. The purpose with the overall project is to study how organizational climate relates to change readiness in a large organizational merger in the Norwegian Police organization. In total, four master’s students where simultaneously
conducting their study related to the research project. All students had access to the same data material and research tools. Consequently, close collaboration throughout the project period has led to some methodological similarities in the analytical processes. Especially, results of the preliminary and descriptive analysis will have small or no differences among the four studies. The current study focuses on whether the two climate types open systems and internal process facilitates individual readiness for change, and how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation mediates this relationship.
Ethical Considerations
The present study is in line with the Norwegian Centre for Research data’s guidelines on national ethical standard for research on human beings. All participation was voluntary and confidential, with the possibility of withdrawing consent at any time. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study and data storage procedures. All answers are registered in the database TSD 2.0, securing confidentiality of registering, storage, and analysis.
Data Collection
The current study was provided with a complete and anonymized dataset. All data material has been collected by a self-report survey from respondents in four different police districts. Participants received the survey via email, except those in district 1 who answered it in paper format. The answers are based on the employees’ personal experience of working in the police organization. In total, the survey consisted of nine measures with 146 items.
However, this study only adopted three of the measures, all of which is further addressed in the following section.
Sample
The initial data set contained 1562 cases. Missing values were removed in order to attain a complete dataset. Little’s MCAR test was applied to investigate whether the values were missing completely at random (Schafer & Graham, 2002). The test was non-significant
(ρ < .05) which supports the assumption of data missing completely at random. Hence, a total of 145 missing values was removed listwise which was considered acceptable because of the large N (N=1417).
After removal of missing values, the final sample consisted of 1417 employees. Most respondents where men, constituting 54,4% of the sample, with women accounting for 45,6%.
Age varied from 23 years or younger to 64 years or older, and the largest age group was 24-27 years old, with a total of 13,6% of respondents. Of the four police districts, a clear majority of the respondents were from “Øst” police district, with a frequency of 799, accounting for 56,4% of the sample. The three remaining districts had a more even distribution of respondents, ranging from 13,8% to 15,2% of the sample.
Measures
Three different scales were applied for measuring the constructs of interest in this study. The scales have previously been validated in different studies (Koritzinsky, 2015;
Kuenzi, 2008; Tremblay et al., 2009; Vakola, 2014), and demonstrate high internal
consistency for all measurement scales, with an acceptable cut-off value α ≥ .70 (Gliem &
Gliem, 2003). A table of all measurement items can be found in Appendix A.
Readiness for Change
Readiness for change was measured as an individual level criterion variable using the scale developed by Vakola (2014). Before adopted to the current study, the scale was
translated to Norwegian by Koritzinsky (2015). The scale includes six items, measured with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “definitely false” (1) to “definitely true” (5). Example of items are: “When changes occur in my company, I have always the intention to support them”
and “I believe that I am more ready to accept change than my colleagues” (Vakola, 2014).
Motivation
The scale used to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were anchored in the
“Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale” (WEIMS) by Tremblay et al. (2009). A total of six individual level items on a 5-Point likert scale ranging from “definitely false” (1) to
“definitely true” (5), was adopted in the current study. A translation of the scale had
previously been conducted by Koritzinsky (2015). Examples of items is: “For the satisfaction I experience from taking on interesting challenges” and “Because it allows me to earn
money”.
Open Systems Climate and Internal Process Climate
Both the Open Systems climate scale and Internal Process climate scale originates from the Competing Values Framework by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) and was developed
