11th Public Management Research Association Conference

The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University

June 2-4, 2011

Research Paper

Intended and Non-Intended Effects of Managing Organizational Change

in Public Organizations

Adrian Ritz

University of Bern, Centre of Competence for Public Management

Schanzeneckstrasse 1, PF 8573

CH-3001 Bern

E-mail: adrian.ritz@kpm.unibe.ch

&

Sergio Fernandez

Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs

1315 East Tenth Street

Bloomington, IN 47405-1701

E-mail: sefernan@indiana.edu

Early draft. Please do not cite without permission of authors.

INTRODUCTION

After two decades of sweeping administrative reforms around the world, reforming govern-

mental agencies remains a priority for legislators, chief executives, and high-level public

managers. This ongoing trend has not induced a high volume of articles addressing the topic

of managing change in public organizations. Fernandez and Rainey (2006) called for studies

investigating organizational change in government organizations using multivariate statistical

techniques and large-sample data to test rival propositions and underlying theories of organi-

zational change.

Overcoming resistance to change and building willingness to change among

public employees is a critical contingency for achieving change in public organizations

(Fernandez and Rainey 2006, Kotter 1996). However, individuals resist change for many rea-

sons, above all because of anxiety associated with the uncertainty of engaging in something

new (Kets de Vries and Balazs 1999). Short of an external shock or stimulus of significant

magnitude (Van de Ven 1993), managers can employ a variety of tactics to reduce resistance

to change and gradually build acceptance to change initiatives, including creating a mutual

understanding for change, providing inducements and rewards, engaging in bargaining, offer-

ing guarantees against personal loss, allowing employees to participate in the planning

process, and providing emotional support (Judson 1991, Thompson and Sanders 1997). Al-

though theoretical work exists, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002: 474) state that “what is surpris-

ing, however, is the paucity of research on employee reactions to change”. Even though em-

pirical work in private management research started a few years ago (Meyer et al. 2007;

Conway and Monks 2008; Fugate and Kinicki 2008), empirical studies in the field of em-

ployee attitudes towards change in government organizations does nearly not exist. Therefore,

we examine in this paper the anticipated consequence of a culture of change as a result of

such tactics on employee attitudes and resistance to change as well as their unintended and

indirect effects.

To do this, we analyze using multivariate statistical techniques (structure equa-

tion modeling) data from a human resources survey administered for the federal administra-

tion of Switzerland and investigate the influence of change-oriented organizational culture on

employee attitudes (job satisfaction, affective commitment, public service motivation) and

attitudes towards change (resistance to change).

The structure of this article is as follows: In a first section we present our theo-

retical model and the assumption on the causal relationships between exogenous and endo-

genous variables formulation three hypotheses. In the section that follows, the dataset, the

method for analysis, and the measures are explained. In section three the theoretical model

gets tested and the results are described. Then the main findings are discussed in section four

before limitations and concluding remarks are presented in the last section of the paper.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Prior to addressing the theoretical linkages between our exogenous variable change culture

and the endogenous variables job satisfaction, affective commitment, public service motiva-

tion, and resistance to change, we will explain the general framework of this study in short.

Porras and Silvers (1991) provided a theory about organizational change and

propose a process how organization change occurs. Their model of planned process of organi-

zational change looks at managers’ purposeful actions as a driver of organizational change.

Organizational context and managers’ change interventions have an impact on organizational

target variables such as organizational culture and climate and employee attitudes toward

change and work. Employee attitudes, including resistance or willingness to change, satisfac-

tion, and intention to leave, in turn influence change-oriented behavior. Upon the reflection

that organizational change does often not follow an elaborate plan and change interventions

might not lead to a cognitive change of employees’ mindset and afterwards to an appropriate

behavior (Burke 2008) our study focuses only on the relationship between the organizational

target variable change culture and individual attitudes towards change. Whether a strategy for

change is chosen first or if change actions cause movement before an elaborate plan was set

up and communicated is not part of our analysis. The question at heart is about the impact of

an organizational culture directed towards the reduction of resistance to change on em-

ployees’ attitudinal reactions.

Change Culture and Resistance to Change

Since Lewin’s (1946, 1947) groundbreaking work on group dynamics and

planned change, scholars have studies a wide range of methods aimed at reducing—rather

than overcoming—employee resistance to change. Several of these methods, including com-

municating with employees about the change and promoting employee participation in the

change process, are captured in employee perceptions of a change-oriented culture. Research

points to the efficacy of participation as a way to overcome resistance to change (Watson,

1967; Judson, 1991; Kets de Vries and Balazs, 1999; Bunker, Alban, and Alban, 1997; Car-

nall, 1995; Greiner, 1967; Johnson and Leavitt, 2001; Nadler and Nadler, 1998; Pasmore,

1994). Participation helps to reduce resistance by creating psychological ownership, promot-

ing the dissemination of critical information, and enhancing feelings of procedural fairness,

thereby increasing receptivity to change. Participation alone, however, is typically insuffi-

cient for overcoming resistance (Quinn, 2000; Bryson and Anderson, 2000; Shareef, 1994),

particularly when it is not widespread and does not span all phases of the change process

(Bruhn, Zajac and Al-Kazemi, 2001). Piderit (2000) noted that for participation to work, em-

ployees should be allowed to openly express any ambivalence toward change, and he urges

managers to engage in the latter form of participation, which allows employees to openly

voice their ambivalence.

Other aspects of a change-oriented culture should also help to reduce resistance

to change. Through open communication between management and employees about the

change and its ramifications, employees begin to feel that their concerns and interests are be-

ing considered, thereby promoting psychological safety and receptivity to change (Schein,

1964). Feelings of psychological safety are also enhanced when managers refrain from pu-

nishing employees for mistakes committed during implementation of change and instead see

those mistakes as a necessary and even desirable aspect of organizational change. Change is

in part a process of assimilating, implementing, and fine-tuning ideas to solve organizational

problems that is rife with errors. The expectancy among employees that such errors will not

result in scorn or punishment help to reduce resistance to change (Brehm, 1966; Judson, 1991;

Burke, 2008; Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo, 1996).

The Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction, Affective Commitment, and Public Service

Motivation

Job satisfaction. Jimmieson, Terry and Callan (2004) suggested that the goal of

organizational change is to alter key organizational variables like, for example, job design,

change of positions and the redefinition of tasks. By altering these key variables organization-

al change can create much uncertainty regarding job security, status, and access to resources

and opportunities for growth. Thus, there will inevitably be consequences for employees

satisfaction within the organization. Their primary psychological states like meaningfulness

of the work, responsibility for work or perceived threat, anxiety, and tension which affect em-

ployee satisfaction get enhanced by change-oriented efforts like, for example, work and job

design (Hackman and Oldham 1980). This causes employees to experience psychic strain and

develop negative feelings toward work. A change-oriented culture that emphasizes commu-

nication about changes and promotes involvement and participation can help to reduce this

kind of uncertainty and increase job satisfaction. Efforts by managers to explain the reasons

for change and opportunities allowing employees to voice their concerns can reduce uncer-

tainty and foster a sense of safety and even control (Richardson and Denton 1996; DiFonzo

and Bordia 1998), leading to higher employee satisfaction. Involving employees in decision

making and encouraging them to develop their own proposals for change improves work re-

lated attitudes in general (Locke and Schweiger 1979; Spector 1986), including attitudes to-

ward change (Sagie et al. 1990; Bordia et al. 2004).

Research findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and resistance to change paint a

puzzling picture. Coch and French’s seminal work found a positive relationship between

employee morale and a willingness to change. Their work suggests satisfied employees are

more receptive to change and likely to possess the motivation to undertake them. In a similar

vein, Hage and Aiken (1967) found job satisfaction to be one of the strongest correlates of the

rate of change in organizations. Change, however, can foster interpersonal conflict, create

significant work-related disruptions, and threaten status and job security. Satisfied employees

may feel like they have more to lose from change than dissatisfied ones employees and

therefore be less inclined to accept change (Mann and Williams 1960). They may also feel

less receptive to change in their behavior or work environment in order to addresses gaps in

performance (March and Simon 1958). Studies of the public sector have shown a weak

relationship between job satisfaction and change orientation (Fernandez and Pitts 2007). As

Pierce and Delbecq (1977) noted, the relationship may be contingent upon organizational

level, with high level managers expressing a willingness to change when faced with poor

performance and dissatisfaction, while lower level employees embrace change when they are

satisfied and motivated at work. In short, we expect job satisfaction and resistance to change

to be correlated, but the direction of the correlation may be either positive or negative. This

leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Change culture has an indirect effect on resistance to change through its

influence on job satisfaction.

Affective Commitment. Commitment, in general, can be defined as “a force that

binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets.” (Meyer and

Herscovitch 2001: 301). This force or mind-set that binds an individual to a course of action

can reflect a desire to provide support for a change process based on a belief in its inherent

benefits, a state characterized as affective commitment to change. A change-oriented culture

should, therefore, positively impact affective commitment because of management’s overall

goal of strengthening the beliefs of employees in the benefits of change. Such a culture, as

measured in this study, involves taking the interests and views of employees into considera-

tion and allowing them to participate in the process of change. These practices characterize a

principle of behavior which is central to effective management of change: “Involvement leads

to commitment. Stated a bit more elaborately, the degree to which people will be committed

to an act is a function of the degree to which they have been involved in determining what the

act will be” (Burke 2008: 95). Without having an influence on the content of a change plan or

having the choice in whether to contribute to it or not, employees will tend to exhibit low le-

vels of commitment. There is considerable research corroborating this link of involvement

practices with higher levels of organizational commitment (Burke 2008; Mayer and

Schoorman 1998; Leana et al. 1992; Fields and Thacker 1992). These practices also exempli-

fy a form of organizational support in the sense that they express consideration and care for

the wellbeing of employees. Empirical findings indicate perceived organizational support is

positively related to organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al. 1990).

As Thompson (1965) suggested in his classic analysis of innovative organiza-

tions, employees who are committed to their organization and who see it as an avenue for

professional growth are more likely to be receptive to change than those who feel alienated

from the organization. Compared to the latter group, the former are more innovative due to

their dedication to their workplace and peers and to the belief that innovation behavior will

result in opportunities to develop professionally and to gain the esteem of their peers. They

are also more likely to feel a sense of responsibility for seeing the organization and its mem-

bers succeed. Other research points to the opposite relationship between commitment and

resistance to change. Among highly committed employees, attachment to familiar pattern of

routines and interpersonal relationships encountered at work can breed complacency and re-

sistance to change. Committed employees have vested interests in the status quo, making

change risky if not harmful to their self-interest. In highly institutionalized settings, escala-

tion of commitment to goals, formal structure, or distribution of power and resources within

organizations may even set in, stifling innovation or any departures from tradition, even when

contributing to the status quo proves to be counterproductive (Mone et al. 1998; see also

Danneels 2002). Thus, we expect job satisfaction and resistance to change to be correlated,

but the direction of the correlation can be either positive or negative. This leads to the second

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Change culture has an indirect effect on resistance to change through its

influence on affective commitment.

The relationship between change culture and resistance to change in public sec-

tor organizations is assumed to be mediated by employee attitudes regarding the service and

community oriented values of public organizations. Change in government organizations, for

example, is driven by a desire to improve the provision of public services or to be more effi-

cient and customer focused for the public (Burke 2008). Often this is caused by a need for

adaption to the task environment, to incorporate elements from the institutional environment

to gain legitimacy or to participate in a larger government reform agenda (Fernandez and Pitts

2007). Institutional rules may be replaced or modified over time through processes of selec-

tion and adaptation. Such adaption is related to the work about institutional logics of March

and Olsen (1989). According to them, institutions foster a logic of appropriateness in the

minds of employees and thus can shape individuals motivation (Perry 2000). “Actors con-

struct believes and behaviors based on what is appropriate in light of their environment and

the norms of behavior of those around them” (Moynihan and Pandey 2007a: 42). According

to Moynihan and Pandey (2007a) work-related rules and norms like organizational institu-

tions influence the basic attitudes of public employees towards the values about public ser-

vice. Their empirical study did not show any significance relationship between group, devel-

opment, rational, and hierarchical culture and public service motivation. However, we argue

against the background of Schein’s (1992) work, that in government organizational culture

can be seen as one main institutional factor influencing how organizations shape the beliefs

and attitudes of their members. A culture of change, thus, might create understanding towards

change of institutional rules and influence employees’ motivation regarding the need for

greater legitimacy, better service provision, or strengthened public service values.

The relationship between public service motivation and resistance to change has

not been investigated yet. Ore’s (2006) work on resistance to organizational change indicates

perceived threats to intrinsic motivation (e. g. autonomy) are positively related to resistance to

change. That said, organizational change can threaten the individual motivation and, thus,

lead to higher resistance to change. This is in line with work based on self-determination

theory (Deci and Ryan 1985; Ryan 1995) which shows that a supportive work environment

that promotes autonomy facilitates acceptance of change (Gagné et al. 2000). Because auton-

omy is supported when a task appears to be important (Gagné et al. 2000) we assume that in

the public sector, public service motivation will be positively correlated with autonomy. In

addition, given the fact that standard procedures cannot provide answers to all situations that

are faced, bureaucrats are compelled to use discretion to fulfill their tasks. Decisions and ac-

tions of bureaucrats are guided by normative beliefs that simultaneously support the goals of

the policy and are subversive to formal authority (Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2000).

Therefore, we assume that higher levels of public service motivation, which is a specific type

of intrinsic motivation (Perry and Wise 1990; Vandenabeele 2007), will go together with

higher levels of autonomy. In conclusion, public service motivation is assumed to be nega-

tively related with resistance to change because change can threaten intrinsic motivation.

Therefore our last hypothesis: 

Hypothesis 3: Change culture has an indirect negative effect on resistance to change through

its influence on public service motivation.

DATA AND METHOD Data The data of this study were collected within the framework of the 2009 employee survey of

the Swiss federal administration. The survey was planned as a random sample. All seven

ministries of the Swiss federal administration took part in the survey. Based upon the

responses and the statistical indices of the 2007 personnel survey, one representative random

sampling per unit was taken, which was additionally examined according to the representative

distribution of socio demographic features (language, gender, age, and salary class). A total of

26,544 persons were given the questionnaire, which corresponded to approximately three-

fourths of the federal personnel. The response rate was 56.23 percent of those surveyed

(14,926 responses), with response quotas in the seven ministries ranging from 50.0 to 66.6

percent. After sorting and deleting questionnaires with less than 50 percent of questions

answered a sample of 14,835 responses remained. The sociodemographic profile of the

respondents is shown in table 1.

-- Insert Table 1 here --

Method The statistical method applied in this study was Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using

Mplus Version 6 (Muthén and Muthén 1998-2010). Given the Likert-type ordinal items the

estimation is based on a weighted least square parameter (WLSMV) using a tetrachoric corre-

lation matrix and a weight matrix together which are particularly appropriate because they are

distribution free. WLSMV is a diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation method

(Hox et al. 2010) as applied for ordinal scales in other studies (Coursey and Pandey 2007b).

The handling of missing data can affect results of the analysis in a serious way. On the

one hand, missing data can reduce sample size. On the other hand, results based on data with

a nonrandom missing data process could be biased. Only nine out of 101 variables in the sur-

vey had more than 5% missing values, but all below the threshold of 10% (Hair Jr. et al.

2009). A pairwise deletion of missing values was therefore applied in light of the small reduc-

tion in sample size. A comparison of listwise and pairwise deletion did not result in any sub-

stantial differences in sample size and in estimation results.

Model fit is assessed by inferential χ2 and several descriptive goodness-of-fit indices.

Since the χ2-statistic is known to be inflated for samples with N>200 (Kelloway 1998), χ2 is

referred here as descriptive information rather than as a strong inferential test upon which a

model is accepted or rejected. In addition to χ2, root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI) are consulted as

fit indices. In structural equation modeling, a strict confirmatory approach is often abandoned

because the initial tested model is rejected due to low fit.1 Therefore, models are often mod-

ified and tested again using the same data. Except for the above mentioned modification of

the 14-item scale of PSM no further model respecification was necessary.

Measures

All the questionnaire items in this analysis employed 6-point Likert-type scales from 1

(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Although a 5-point scale is the most widely dissemi-

nated type of measurement scale, there is no single number of response alternatives for a scale

which is appropriate for all alternatives. However, Cox (1980) recommended that in general a

1 First, we checked if our analysis needed to meet the following requirements: a non-significant Chi-Square test for the whole model (for a perfect model), significant and high factor loadings, no modification indices (for a perfect model), a good explanation of variance, and fit-indices within threshold levels. In this sense, analyzing fit indices is only one part of the overall evaluation of model.

scale with two or three response alternatives are inadequate because they are incapable of

transmitting very much information and more than nine alternatives bring only minimal mar-

ginal return. Due to the request of a comparable response scale with earlier surveys in the fed-

eral government of Switzerland, a 6-point Likert scale was used, which lies within the “seven

plus or minus two” range recommended by Cox (1980). A complete list of the items used in

each measure is provided in appendix 2.

Change Culture: We used four newly-developed items relating to the establishment

of a culture which promotes a mutual understanding for changes, which takes resistance to

change seriously and which emphasizes improvement and learning through change. The scale

reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for the four-item scale of change culture is 0.91. All

standardized lambda estimates range above 0.84.

Public Service Motivation: The various conceptualizations of PSM have resulted in

different operational definitions. In this study Perry’s (1996) multidimensional measure is

taken as a baseline. He developed a list of 24 items measuring four distinct subscales of PSM

(attraction to policy making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-

sacrifice). For the purpose of this study we reduced the set of items to a 14-item scale that

includes items for all four PSM dimensions. The 14 items were chosen based on previous

research on the psychometric testing of the PSM scale (Coursey and Pandey 2007a; Coursey

et al. 2008; Kim 2008; Vandenabeele 2007) and face validity in the specific context. After

model respecification, we used six items for the second-order construct with its dimensions of

attraction to policy making, compassion, and self-sacrifice. The results of the confirmatory

factor analysis confirmed a three first-order and one second-order factor structure, with two

items for each first-order factor. The fit indices fell within an acceptable range (χ2 = 175.74,

df = 6, RMSEA = 0.04; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; for attraction to policy making, compassion,

and self-sacrifice, α’s = 0.82, 0.71, and 0.46, respectively). All standardized first-order and

second-order lambda estimates range above 0.68.

Affective Commitment: For organizational commitment a measure of three items

developed within the scales of Mowday et al. 1982), Meyer and Allen (1991) and Balfour and

Wechsler (1996) expressing the employees’ emotional attachment to and affiliation with the

organization was used. Although different terms regarding the sub-dimensions of

organizational commitment which include our second item “I feel a strong sense of belonging

to my organization” exist (Meyer and Allen: affective commitment; Balfour and Wechsler:

affiliation commitment), the dimension used in this study is called affective commitment

because the items express a general affective reaction to the organization and an emotional

facet of an employee’s identification. The reliability coefficient of this latent factor is 0.83.

Resistance to Change: We used a newly-developed two-item measure for resistance

to change. In comparison with Oreg’s (Oreg 2003) widely disseminated measurement scale

for resistance to change, our items are less oriented towards work routine seeking or change

induced stress for an individual. Rather, we measure the willingness of an individual to be

open for a change towards another job environment. First, employees were asked how much

they are willing to change to a different administrative unit within the federal administration.

Second, they had to declare their willingness to change work site. Thus, this measure shows

the readiness or resistance to a possible change of the job situation with a relatively high im-

pact. The items were reversed for the measurement of resistance to change. The scale relia-

bility coefficient for this latent variable was 0.75 and standardized Lambda estimates range

above 0.69.

Job Satisfaction: A single-item measure for general job satisfaction is applied. Job sa-

tisfaction is one of the exceptions to the norm of using measurement scales with multiple

items to measure psychological constructs. It characterizes a measurement construct that is

sufficiently narrow and unambiguous to the respondent and, thus, is accepted as single-item

measure like, for example the measurement of self-reported sociodemographic facts, such as

years of education, age, etc. (Sackett and Larson 1990; Wanous et al. 1997).

Furthermore, gender, age, leadership position, and full- or part-time employment

were used as control variables for the endogenous variable of resistance to change.

Because of the use of newly-developed items for two scales (change culture and re-

sistance to change) and in order to perform meaningful analysis of the causal model, the

measures used need to display certain empirical properties. Reliability of the research scales

have to be investigated to see the degree to which these scales indicate the latent constructs.

Cronbach alpha and composite reliability are seen as useful tests to measure construct

reliability (Hair Jr. et al. 2009). The result indicates that all except for the PSM subdimension

self-sacrifice the Cronbach alpha values for the constructs exceeded the recommended value

of 0.70, which according to Kline (Kline 2000), indicates that the instrument is reliable. In

addition, all composite reliability values were greater than the recommended value of more

than 0.70 as suggested by Hair et al. (Hair Jr. et al. 2009). Consequently, according to the

above two tests, all the research constructs in this study are considered reliable. Convergent

validity, which is the degree to which individual questionnaire items measure the same under-

lying construct, was tested by significance of the standardized coefficient of the individual

item (greater than twice its standard error) (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Appendix 2 shows

that all coefficients exceed twice their standard error and are highly significant. Discriminant

validity of the factors ensures adequacy of the measurement model indicating that groups of

variables measure different latent constructs. The test of inter-factor correlations (see table 2),

which are not approaching 1.0, indicates discriminant validity. In addition, the Fornell Larck-

er criteria for all latent constructs were measured. In this test, the average variance explained

(AVE) of the latent variables must be higher than the squared correlation between the latent

variables which was met in our measures (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

-- Insert Table 2 about here –

RESULTS The bivariate correlations between change culture and the four variables job satisfaction, af-

fective commitment, public service motivation, and resistance to change as listed in table 2 (r

= .649; .569; .212; .219; p < .01) provided preliminary evidence to support hypotheses 1, 2

and 3 which state that change culture has significant relationships with the three mediating

variables. The comparatively low correlation between change culture and resistance to change

gives preliminary evidence for the assumed mediating effect. Supporting hypothesis 3 is the

finding showing resistance to change is negatively correlated with public service motivation (r

= -.139; p < 0.01).

The structural equation model tests the hypothesized relationships by estimating the

overall fit of the model as well as the estimates of all individual parameters. The overall mod-

el fit of the hypothetical model was tested according to the generally accepted thresholds for a

good model fit (Brown and Cudeck 1993; Hu and Bentler 1999: χ2/df < 2.5; RMSEA < 0.06;

CFI > 0.95; TLI > 0.95). The results for the hypothetical model showed good fit to the data

(χ2 = 4898.299; df = 152, RMSEA = 0.047; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.984). Figure 2 shows the

structural model with its parameter estimates. We found the hypothesized relationships among

change culture, job satisfaction, affective commitment, and public service motivation signifi-

cant.

The coefficient of the path from change culture to job satisfaction is significant (β =

0.49, p < 0.001), as are the coefficients of the paths from change culture to affective commit-

ment (β = 0.51, p < 0.001), from change culture to PSM (β = 0.21, p < 0.001), from job satis-

faction to resistance to change (β = 0.38, p < 0.001), from affective commitment to resistance

to change (β = 0.09, p < 0.001), and from public service motivation to resistance to change (β

= -0.23, p < 0.001). The path coefficient between change culture and resistance to change is

slightly negative at a lower level of significance (β = 0.03, p < 0.05). In addition, the relation-

ships between the mediating variables are significant; from public service motivation to affec-

tive commitment (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), from public service motivation to job satisfaction (β =

-0.07, p < 0.001), and from affective commitment to job satisfaction (β = 0.32, p < 0.001). All

in all, 20% of the variance in resistance to change is explained. Change culture explains 5% of

PSM, and 40% of the variance of affective commitment is explained by change culture and

public service motivation. 48% of job satisfaction is explained by change culture, affective

commitment, and public service motivation.

-- Insert Figure 1 about here –

In summary, the results support all three hypotheses. The three variables job satisfac-

tion, affective commitment, and public service motivation mediate the relationship between

change culture and resistance to change. In contrary to the preliminary results from bivariate

correlations, the structural equation model reveals nearly a full mediation effect of change

culture on resistance to change by the three intermediate latent variables. The direct effect of

change culture on resistance to change is very low and compared to all other path coefficients

only slightly significant. Indirect effects on resistance to change can be observed from change

culture through job satisfaction (0.18), through affective commitment (0.05), through affec-

tive commitment and job satisfaction (0.06), through public service motivation (-0.05),

through public service motivation and affective commitment (0.005), through public service

motivation, affective commitment, and job satisfaction (0.007), and through public service

motivation and job satisfaction (-0.001).

DISCUSSION [Limitations: cross-sectional study, analysis of change situation]

Upon reflection of the results of this study, two issues must now be discussed in-depth. First,

the positive mediation of the path between culture and resistance to change through job satis-

faction is of interest. The more employees perceive the organizational culture as supporting,

the more satisfied the respondents are, and, thus, resistance to change increases. Although our

measure for resistance to change is not about how employees react to change plans or about

their preferences for non-routine work, it shows that the more satisfied employees are the less

ready for a change of their work situation they will be. The same effect results when looking

at the mediating variable of affective commitment. As formulated in the theoretical, section

employee satisfaction gets enhanced by a higher understanding of the reasons for a change

and if employees are allowed to voice their concerns. The picture that emerges from the re-

sults is that the happier and safer employees feel, the less willing they become to embrace

chance in work situation. This can be seen as a result of the development of a job environ-

ment which in general is appreciated by employees and creates a positive emotional state. As

Mann and Williams (1960) stated, satisfied employees may feel like they have more to lose

from change than dissatisfied employees and therefore they may be less inclined to accept

change.

Another interesting explanation for this can be found in the work of Büssing (1992;

1998) and Bruggemann (1976) who further developed the concept of job satisfaction. In con-

trast to the concept of general job satisfaction, they argue different forms of job satisfaction

exist. Thus, job satisfaction is a result of individuals’ reactions to discrepant relations between

personal aspirations and the actual work situation. If individuals perceive congruence between

their aspirations and their work situation, they will be likely either to increase or maintain

their level of aspiration. On the contrary, if they perceive a discrepancy, they will be likely

either to decrease or maintain their level of aspiration. Consequently, if individuals diminish

their level of aspiration, they reach a positive state of satisfaction. In contrast, by maintaining

their level of aspiration, individuals might encounter limitations like job dissatisfaction or

long-term frustration. In regard to our study, we deduce from this that high satisfaction is not

always positive for behavioral outcomes related to organizational change. A supportive

change culture positively influences the congruence between employees’ aspirations like, for

example, job security and the work situation. However, in the case of a change in working

conditions, this might not lead to the change of attitudes and behavior in favor of a change

like, for example, openness to change work site or work unit. Rather, employees get more

attached to their work and work environment and see the potential loses that could result from

change. Büssing and Bruggemann state that there are more productive forms of job satisfac-

tion. These are characterized by a certain degree of dissatisfaction which leads to a wrestling

with the concrete work situation and to openness for improvements. Against this background

we wonder if openness for change and lower resistance to change needs a change culture

which challenges the employees with the future realities instead of creating a sound culture of

mutual understanding and learning. Thus, a certain degree of dissatisfaction with the work

situation can lead to higher aspirations in order to pursue change.

The second issue to be discussed concerns our variable of public service motivation.

In contrast to the two other mediating variables, public service motivation is less influenced

by a culture of change. This is also reflected in a low level of explained variance of public

service motivation. A major reason for this might be that this specific form of intrinsic moti-

vation gets rather strengthened by societal influences like, for example, volunteering, family

socialization, political party affiliation, and religion or union membership (Anderfuhren-Biget

2010; Perry 1997; Perry et al. 2008; Taylor 2007) or individual antecedents like, for example,

gender, religion, hierarchical grade, and professionalism (Bright 2005; Camilleri 2006;

Camilleri 2007; DeHart-Davis et al. 2006; Naff and Crum 1999) than by organizational ante-

cedents. While our study shows a positive relationship between public service motivation and

affective commitment which is line with other studies (Crewson 1997; Leisink and Steijn

2009; Moynihan and Pandey 2007b; Park and Rainey 2007), the negative relationship be-

tween public service motivation and job satisfaction is rather unusual when compared to other

studies which found a positive relationship between the two variables (Moynihan and Pandey

2007b; Naff and Crum 1999; Liu 2008; Vandenabeele 2009) based on the assumption that

public sector jobs provide many opportunities to serve the public interest. Against the back-

drop of person-organization fit theory, employees whose motives are anchored in needs for

pursuing the common good are likely to be satisfied with their public sector jobs (Kristof

1996; Taylor 2007). However, there is research which found rather weak or insignificant cor-

relations (Moynihan and Pandey 2007b; Steijn 2008; Taylor 2007; Taylor 2008). Taylor

(2008) and Steijn (2006) show in their study that a positive link between public service moti-

vation and job satisfaction does not depend on the general motivation of employees to serve

the public good, but is rather linked to the presence of attributes to the workplace which allow

public service motives to come into play and help the employees to achieve their public ser-

vice needs. Thus, job environment can act as a facilitator or constraint to the realization of

public service motives (Taylor 2008). In the light of these findings, the negative impact of

public service motivation on job satisfaction and also resistance to change can be explained

by a job environment which does not fit the public service needs of the respondents. Thus, the

positive impact of change culture could be crowded out by the fact that employees with high

levels of public service motivation cannot achieve their public service needs to a satisfactory

extent. This could be a reason why their levels of satisfaction and resistance to change are

lower.

Another explanation leads to the essential difference between public service motiva-

tion and organizational or work related attitudes like job satisfaction and organizational com-

mitment. As explained in the theoretical section, change can threaten intrinsic motivation.

Thus, autonomy of individuals gets diminished and resistance to change increases. However,

high levels of public service motivation express a high need for autonomy of an individual.

Highly public service motivated employees seek autonomy in the sense of pursuing the public

interest. As long as the change does not directly threaten the situation in such a way public

service motives cannot come into play anymore, resistance to change stays at a lower level. A

supportive change culture even contributes to the needs of pursuing the public interest. Thus,

higher levels of public service motivation might broaden the perspectives of individuals of

having other opportunities, like for example, getting another job at another worksite within

the same office or getting another job within the federal administration. From a perspective of

institutional theory, public service motivation can be understood as a broader concept of work

motivation which goes beyond motives primarily related to job or organizational interests

(Perry and Vandenabeele 2008; Vandenabeele 2007; Ritz and Brewer 2010). In contrast to

affective commitment, which describes an individual’s desire to remain in his or her organiza-

tion (Herscovitch and Meyer 2002), public service motivation can be rather described as a

desire to remain in any job which allows working for public service motives. Thus, a change

situation which does not threaten the satisfaction of public service needs does not necessarily

have a negative outcome like higher resistance to change. Our study supports this argument

due to the finding that higher levels of public service motivation do not lead to resistance

against changing work sites or organizational units within the federal administration.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper was the investigation of organizational change in government or-

ganizations in the light of management decisions and behavior creating an organizational cul-

ture which helps to overcome resistance to change and to build willingness to change among

public employees. The study tested a mediation model using a multivariate statistical tech-

nique. It showed that an organizational culture which takes resistance to change serious,

creates mutual understanding for change, and encourages opportunities of learning and im-

provement among the employees primarily has an indirect effect on resistance to change me-

diated by employee attitudes like job satisfaction, commitment, and public service motivation.

Although theoretical arguments support the assumed relationships of our model, the

findings of this study contribute to our understanding of employee reactions towards the ef-

fects of managed organizational change. From a theoretical viewpoint two insights are of high

interest. First, it is important to see that change interventions can be in contradiction with the

intended attitudinal effects. At least from our cross-sectional analysis we can learn than a pos-

itive perception of a change supportive organizational culture is correlated with higher job

satisfaction and affective commitment which leads to lower willingness to change. There are

unintended effects of typical change interventions like creating understanding for change or

making change less threatening than it really is. The strength of a positive causal link between

visions for change, managerial interventions, and employee actions like change supportive

behavior might, therefore, be reduced or even reversed. The theoretical conclusion of this is

that a change of mental mind-sets, attitudinal reactions, and intended behaviors of employees

do not automatically follow well-meant interventions creating support for change. Thus, some

degree of discomfort is needed in order to make people open for serious consequences of

change like, for example, a change of worksite. As a practical implication, one of the roles

leaders have to play in bringing about change is to convince employees that the status quo is

unacceptable and will bring about psychic pain that can only be relieved through change ra-

ther than through the decrease of discomfort as a consequence of change initiatives.

Second, our findings reveal an interesting result about attitudes towards change in

public organizations which is in line with a viewpoint of institutional theory on public service

motivation. Intrinsically motivated people who care for the specific values of public service

are less resistant to change. This is in contradiction with assumption about bureaucratic atti-

tudes and behaviors of public sector employees enhancing resistance to change. As defined,

public service motivation characterizes a facet of employee motivation which is strongly re-

lated to the overall mission of government organizations, namely, the fulfillment of services

to the public. It could be that this facet of employee motivation reduces the need of employees

to complete unfinished business and, thus, reduced their need for achieving closure in a

change situation. These employees need less mental and emotional energy to finish “old busi-

ness” and move faster through phases of ending and go in a change process. As a conse-

quence, energy in the form of simply talk about former ways of doing things or, even more

resistantly, sabotaging organizational change might be reduced (Burke 2008). Thus, our find-

ings encourage more research investigating the impact of institutional change on public ser-

vice motives and as a consequence on various forms of resistance to change like, for example,

resistance towards intra-organizational change or broader initiatives like a fundamental

change of an agency when getting decentralized or privatized.

Literature: Anderfuhren-Biget, S. 2010. “Social Antecedents of Public Service Motivation in a

Multicultural Setting.” Paper prepared for the IRSPM, 6-9 April, Bern. Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411-423. Balfour, D. L. and W. Barton. 1996. “Organizational Commitment: Antecedents and

Outcomes in Public Organizations.” Public Productivity & Management Review, 19(3): 256-277.

Bordia, P., E. Hobman, E. Jones, C. Gallois, and V. J. Callan. 2004. “Uncertainty During Organizational Change: Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies.” Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4): 507-532.

Bright, L. 2005. “Public Employees With High Levels of Public Service Motivation.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2): 138 - 154.

Brown, M. W. and R. Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative ways of assessing model fit.” Pp. 445-455 in K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long, eds, Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bruggemann, A. 1976. “Zur empirischen Untersuchung verschiedener Formen der Arbeitszufriedenheit.” Zeitschrift für Abeitswissenschaft, 30: 71-74.

Büssing, A. 1992. “A dynamic view of job satisfaction in psychiatric nurses in Germany.” Work & Stress, 6: 239-259.

Büssing, A. and T. Bissels. 1998. “Different Forms of Work Satisfaction: Concept and Qualitative Research.” European Psychologist, 3(3): 209-218.

Burke, W. W. 2008. Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Camilleri, E. 2006. “Towards Developing an Organisational Commitment - Public Service

Motivation Model for the Maltese Public Service Employees.” Public Policy and Administration, 21(1): 63-83.

Camilleri, E. 2007. “Antecedents Affecting Public Service Motivation.” Personnel Review, 36(3): 356-377.

Conway, E. and K. Monks. 2008. “HR practices and commitment to change: an employee-level analysis.” Human Resource Management Journal, 18(1): 72-89.

Coursey, D. H. and S. K. Pandey. 2007a. “Content Domain, Measurement, and Validity of the Red Tape Concept: A Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3): 342-361.

Coursey, D. H. and S. K. Pandey. 2007b. “Public Service Motivation Measurement: Testing an Abridged Version of Perry's Proposed Scale.” Administration & Society, 39(5): 547-568.

Coursey, D. H., J. L. Perry, J. L. Brudney, and L. Littlepage. 2008. “Psychometric Verification of Perry's Public Service Motivation Instrument: Results for Volunteer Exemplars.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(1): 79-90.

Cox, E. P. 1980. “The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review.” Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 17(4): 407-422.

Crewson, P. E. 1997. “Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4): 499-518.

Danneels, E. 2002. “The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences.” Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1095-1121.

Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

DeHart-Davis, L., J. Marlowe, and S. K. Pandey. 2006. “Gender Dimensions of Public Service Motivation.” Public Administration Review, 66(6): 873-887.

DiFonzo, N. and P. Bordia. 1998. “A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during organizational change.” Human Resource Management, 37(3-4): 295-303.

Eisenberger, R., P. Fasolo, and V. Davis-LaMastro. 1990. “Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1): 51-59.

Fernandez, S. and H. G. Rainey. 2006. “Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector.” Public Administration Review, 66(2): 168-176.

Fernandez, S. and D. W. Pitts. 2007. “Under What Conditions Do Public Managers Favor and Pursue Organizational Change?” The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3): 324-341.

Fields, M. W. and J. W. Thacker. 1992. “Influence of Quality of Work Life on Company and Union Commitment.” The Academy of Management Journal, 35(2): 439-450.

Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.

Fugate, M. and A. J. Kinicki. 2008. “A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(3): 503-527.

Gagné, M., R. Koestner, and M. Zuckerman. 2000. “Facilitating Acceptance of Organizational Change: The Importance of Self-Determination1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(9): 1843-1852.

Hackman, J. R. and G. R. Oldham. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Hage, J. and M. Aiken. 1967. “Program Change and Organizational Properties a Comparative

Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology, 72(5): 503-519. Hair Jr., J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2009. Multivariate Data

Analysis, 7 edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Herscovitch, L. and J. P. Meyer. 2002. “Commitment to organizational change: Extension of

a three-component model.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 474-487. Hox, J. J., C. J. M. Maas, and M. J. S. Brinkhuis. 2010. “The effect of estimation method and

sample size in multilevel structural equation modeling.” Statistica Neerlandica, 64(2): 157-170.

Hu, L.-T. and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1-55.

Jimmieson, N. L., D. J. Terry, and V. J. Callan. 2004. “A Longitudinal Study of Employee Adaptation to Organizational Change: The Role of Change-Related Information and Change-Related Self-Efficacy.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1): 11-27.

Judson, A. S. 1991. Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Kelloway, K. E. 1998. Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling - A Researcher's guide. Thousand Oaks Sage.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and K. Balazs. 1999. “Transforming the Mind-Set of the Organization.” Administration & Society, 30(6): 640-675.

Kim, S. 2008. “Revising Perry's Measurement Scale of Public Service Motivation.” The American Review of Public Administration, 39(2): 149-163.

Kline, P. 2000. The handbook of psychological testing. . London: Routledge. Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading Change. Waterton, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kristof, A. L. 1996. “Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of its

Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications.” Personnel Psychology, 49(1): 1-49.

Leana, C. R., R. S. Ahlbrandt, and A. J. Murrell. 1992. “The Effects of Employee Involvement Programs on Unionized Workers' Attitudes, Perceptions, and Preferences in Decision Making.” The Academy of Management Journal, 35(4): 861-873.

Leisink, P. and B. Steijn. 2009. “Public service motivation and job performance of public sector employees in the Netherlands.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1): 35-52.

Liu, B., Ningyu Tang, Xiaomei Zhu. 2008. “Public service motivation and job satisfaction in China: An investigation of generalisability and instrumentality.” International Journal of Manpower, 29(8).

Locke, E. A. and D. M. Schweiger. 1979. “Participation in decision making: One more look.” Pp. 265-339 in B. M. Staw, ed., Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mann, F. C. and L. K. Williams. 1960. “Observations on the Dynamics of a Change to Electronic Data-Processing Equipment.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(2): 217-256.

March, J. G. and H. A. Simon. 1958. Organizations: Its Management and Value, (6. Aufl. 1965) edn. New York.

March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York, London.

Mayer, R. C. and F. D. Schoorman. 1998. “Differentiating antecedents of organizational commitment: a test of March and Simon's model.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1): 15-28.

Maynard-Moody, S. and M. Musheno. 2000. “State Agent or Citizen Agent: Two Narratives of Discretion.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2): 329-358.

Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen. 1991. “A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.” Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61-89.

Meyer, J. P. and L. Herscovitch. 2001. “Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model.” Human Resource Management Review, 11(3): 299-326.

Meyer, J. P., E. S. Srinivas, J. B. Lal, and L. Topolnytsky. 2007. “Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2): 185-211.

Mone, M. A., W. McKinley, and V. L. Barker, III. 1998. “Organizational Decline and Innovation: A Contingency Framework.” The Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 115-132.

Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, and R. M. Steers. 1982. Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Moynihan, D. P. and S. K. Pandey. 2007a. “The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation.” Public Administration Review, 67(1): 40 - 53.

Moynihan, D. P. and S. K. Pandey. 2007b. “Finding Workable Levers over Work Motivation: Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment.” Administration & Society, 39(7): 803-832.

Muthén, L. K. and B. O. Muthén. 1998-2010. Mplus User's Guide, 6 edn. Los Angeles CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Naff, K. C. and J. Crum. 1999. “Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a Difference?” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4): 5 - 16.

Oreg, S. 2003. “Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 680-693.

Oreg, S. 2006. “Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.” European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 15(1): 73-101.

Park, S. M. and H. G. Rainey. 2007. “Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3): 197-226.

Perry, J. L. and L. R. Wise. 1990. “The Motivational Bases of Public Service.” Public Administration Review, 50(3): 367-373.

Perry, J. L. 1996. “Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1): 5-22.

Perry, J. L. 1997. “Antecedents of Public Service Motivation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(2): 181-197.

Perry, J. L. 2000. “Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2): 471 - 488.

Perry, J. L., J. L. Brudney, D. Coursey, and L. Littlepage. 2008. “What Drives Morally Committed Citizens? A Study of the Antecedents of Public Service Motivation.” Public Administration Review, 68(3): 445-458.

Perry, J. L. and W. Vandenabeele. 2008. “Behavioral Dynamics: Institutions, Identities, and Self-Regulation.” Pp. 56-79 in J. L. Perry and A. Hondeghem, eds, Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. New York et al.: Oxford University Press.

Pierce, J. L. and A. L. Delbecq. 1977. “Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation.” The Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 27-37.

Porras, J. I. and R. C. Silvers. 1991. “Organization Development and Transformation.” Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1): 51-78.

Richardson, P. and D. K. Denton. 1996. “Communicating change.” Human Resource Management, 35(2): 203-216.

Ritz, A. and G. A. Brewer. 2010. “Does Culture affect Public Service Motivation? Evidence of subnational Differences in Switzerland

” Paper for th 14th IRSPM Conference, Bern, April 7-9, 2010. Ryan, R. M. 1995. “Psychological Needs and the Facilitation of Integrative Processes.”

Journal of Personality, 63(3): 397-427. Sackett, P. R. and J. R. J. Larson. 1990. “Research strategies and tactics in industrial and

organizational psychology.” Pp. 419-489 in M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough, eds, Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2 ed., Vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Sagie, A., D. Elizur, and M. Koslowsky. 1990. “Effect of Participation in Strategic and Tactical Decisions on Acceptance of Planned Change.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4): 459 - 465.

Schein, E. H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2. ed. (paperback) edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spector, P. E. 1986. “Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work.” Human Relations, 39(11): 1005-1016.

Steijn, B. and P. Leisink. 2006. “Organizational commitment among Dutch public sector employees.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2): 187-201.

Steijn, B. 2008. “Person-Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation.” International Public Management Journal, 11(1): 13-27.

Taylor, J. 2007. “The Impact of Public Service Motives on Work Outcomes in Australia: A Comparative Multi-Dimensional Analysis.” Public Administration, 85: 931-959.

Taylor, J. 2008. “Organizational Influences, Public Service Motivation and Work Outcomes: An Australian Study.” International Public Management Journal, 11(1): 67-88.

Thompson, J. R. and R. P. Sanders. 1997. “Strategies for Reinventing Federal Agencies: Gardening vs. Engineering.” Public Productivity and Management Review, 21(2): 137-155.

Vandenabeele, W. 2007. “Towards a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Motivation: An Institutional Approach.” Public Management Review, 9(4): 545-556.

Vandenabeele, W. 2009. “The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on self-reported performance: more robust evidence of the PSM—

performance relationship.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1): 11-34.

Wanous, J. P., A. E. Reichers, and M. J. Hudy. 1997. “Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2): 247-252.

  

Table 1: Sample Characteristics       N %

Gender  Female 4261 28.7

   Male 10264 69.2

   Missing 310 2.1

   Total 14835 100.0

Age  <20 years 8 .1

   20-29 Years 1276 8.6

   30-39 Years 3922 26.4

   40-49 Years 5094 34.3

50-59 Years 3736 25.2

   > 59 Years 427 2.9

   Missing 372 2.5

   Total 14835 100.0

Leadership Posi‐tion 

No 4851 32.7

Yes 9723 65.5

   Missing 261 1.8

   Total 14835 100.0

Salary  Class 1-11 655 4.4

   Class 12-17 3878 26.1

   Class 18-23 4898 33.0

   Class 24-29 4558 30.7

   Class 30-38 445 3.0

   Missing 401 2.7

   Total 14835 100.0

Tenure  < 1 year 810 5.5

   1 - 5 years 2863 19.3

   6 - 10 years 3375 22.8

   > 10 years 7577 51.1

   Missing 210 1.4

   Total 14835 100.0

Full‐/Part‐time  less than 50% 205 1.4

   50-90% 2997 20.2

   more than 90% 11435 77.1

   Missing 198 1.3

   Total 14835 100.0

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities and Correlations

N Meanb s.d.b 1 2 3 4 5

1 Public Service Motivation 13336 4.29 0.77 (.71)

2 Change Culture 14703 4.57 0.96 0.212** (.91)

3 Resistance to Change 14648 3.40 1.41 -0.138** 0.219** (.75)

4 Affective Commitment 14438 3.86 1.14 0.396** 0.569** 0.197** (.83)

5 Job Satisfaction 14817 4.43 1.21 0.157** 0.649** 0.374** 0.565** (-)

** p < .01; bMean and standard deviation for variables 1 to 4 are calculated as additive indexes

Figure 1: Results of Structural Equation Modeling

Change Culture

PSM

Resistanceto Change

.21***

-0.03*

.09***

.49***

.29***

AffectiveCommitment

.51***

* = p<.05** = p<.01*** = p<.001

Controlsgender (non‐significant)age**

leadership position***full‐/part‐time work***

JobSatisfaction

.32***

-.23***

.38***

-.07***

.60E

.95E

.80E

.52E

Appendix 1:

Lambda (SE) z-Value Standardized Loadings

R2

Change Culture V1 1 (---) --- .90 .81 V2 .94 (.02) 59.51*** .89 .80 V3 .83 (.01) 67.26*** .86 .75 V4 .73 (.01) 66.12*** .84 .70 Affective Commitment V1 1 (---) --- .92 .85 V2 1.22 (.04) 27.96*** .95 .90 V3 0.29 (.01) 42.13*** .56 .32 Resistance to Change V1 1 (---) --- .95 .89 V2 .33 (.05) 6.40*** .69 .47 Public Service Motivation Attraction to Policy Making .20 V1 1 (---) --- .86 .73 V2 0.99 (.08) 12.53*** .86 .73 Compassion .55 V1 1 (---) --- .82 .67 V2 .73 (.03) 23.21*** .72 .52 Self-Sacrifice .80 V1 1 (---) --- .68 .46 V2 1.00 (.04) 29.02*** .68 .46 ** : p<0.01 ; *** : p<0.001

Appendix 2: List of Variables and Items

Chance Culture:

- In my administrative unit, a mutual understanding for required changes is reached with the employees

- In my administrative unit, resistance to change is taken seriously - In my administrative unit, mistakes are used as an opportunity to learn and improve - In my administrative unit, employees are consistently encouraged to offer ideas and

recommend improvements Job Satisfaction:

- How satisfied are you overall with your work situation Affective Commitment:

- The fate of my federal administration is very important to me - I feel a strong sense of belonging to my administrative unit - In my work, I am not satisfied with merely meeting goals, but, instead, I try to achieve

even better performance PSM (Attraction to Policy-Making; Compassion; Self-Sacrifice):

- I am very interested in politicians and their work (APM) - I like to discuss political subjects with others (APM) - I am highly moved by the plight of the underprivileged (COM) - Most social programs are too vital to do without (COM) - Much of what I do is for a cause bigger than myself (SS) - It is important that people give back to society more than they get from it (SS)

Resistance to Change:

- I am willing to transfer to a different administrative unit (Reversed) - I am willing to change work sites (Reversed)

Controls:

- Gender: 0=male; 1=female - Age: 1=below 20 year, 2=21-29, 3=30-39, 4=40-49, 5=50-59, 6=above 60 - Leadership position: 0=no, 1=yes - Salary: 1=salary classes 1-11 (lowest), 2=12-17, 3=18-23, 4=24-29, 5=30-38 (highest) - Tenure: 1=until 1 year, 2=1-5, 3=6-10, 4=more than 10 years - Full-/Part-Time work: 1=less than 50% employment, 2=50-90%, 3=90-100%