0Original Scientific Paper
Received: 21 March 2024 Revised: 25 April 2024 Accepted: 25 May 2024 Published online: 29 May 2024
UDC: 331.101.3 005.96 005:338.46
DOI: 10.5 937/menhottur2400008N
Navigating employment transformations: Insights into changes within service organizations
Ana Nesic Tomasevic1*, Leposava Grubic-Nesic1, Aleksandra Peric1
1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia
Purpose - In today's dynamic business landscape, service organizations are compelled to navigate constant transformations to adapt to market needs, anticipate shifts, and innovate to meet evolving customer demands. This study delves into the relationship between employees in service organizations and changes, aiming to ascertain organizational readiness for change, focusing on dimensions such as commitment to change implementation and the efficiency of implemented changes. Methodology - Employing the standardized Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) questionnaire, the research surveyed 319 employees in service organizations. Findings - Results highlight challenges in the subjective perception of potential organizational changes, affirming individual differences in attitudes toward change and a notably modest and inconsistent approach in fostering a positive attitude toward change. Variances in attitudes toward change are recognized not only in general demographic characteristics but also in organizational traits. Significantly, organizations often delegate the responsibility for managing change attitudes to individuals, consequently slowing down the change processes. Implications - This research endeavors to offer practical suggestions to organizations, directing them on algorithmic initiatives aimed at fostering favorable employee attitudes towards change.
Keywords: changes, organizations, service industry, employees JEL classification: C1, L2
Transformacija medu zaposlenima: Analiza stavova prema promenama u usluznim organizacijama
Svrha - Savremeni uslovi poslovanja usluznih organizacija stvorili su imperativ stalnih promena kojima bi se organizacije prilagodile potrebama trzista, ali i anticipirale i stvarale nove potrebe kod korisnika usluga. U radu se analizira odnos zaposlenih u usluznim organizacijama prema promenama, sa ciljem ustanovljavanja organizacione spremnosti na promene, sa dimenzijama posvecenost sprovodenju promena i efikasnost sprovedenih promena. Metodologija - Istrazivanje je vrseno standardizovanim upitnikom Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC), na uzorku od 319 ispitanika
* Corresponding author: ana.nesic@uns.ac.rs
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http ://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4. 0/)_
Abstract
Sazetak
zaposlenih u usluznim organizacijama. Rezultati - Rezultati ukazuju na probleme u subjektivnoj percepciji mogucih promena u organizacijama, potvrdujuci individualnost u odnosu prema promenama i veoma skroman i nedosledan nacin u razvoju pozitivnog odnosa prema promenama. Razlike u odnosu prema promenama se prepoznaju ne samo u opstedemografskim karakteristikama, vec i u karakteristikama samih organizacija. Organizacije u velikoj meri prepustaju odnos prema promenama pojedincima, zbog cega se i usporavaju procesi promena. Implikacije - Istrazivanje je usmereno na pruzanje prakticnih smernica organizacijama, kako bi podrzale razvoj pozitivnih stavova prema promenama medu zaposlenima putem preporucenih aktivnosti.
Kljucne reci: promene, organizacije, usluzna delatnost, zaposleni JEL klasifikacija: C1, L2
1. Introduction
Changes encompass a multitude of pivotal elements integral to the potential success of an organization. These elements extend beyond the mere establishment of new business processes, methods of operation, and technological advancements. They delve into the fundamental openness of employees towards embracing transformations across all sectors within the service industry. In this dynamic realm of services, where adaptability and responsiveness are paramount, we have witnessed the emergence of profound business transformations driven by several key factors. Foremost among these catalysts is the expansion of the market landscape, which has undergone substantial growth and diversification, presenting both opportunities and challenges for service providers. Concurrently, there has been a notable shift towards service personalization and customization, reflecting a heightened emphasis on catering to the unique needs and preferences of individual customers. Moreover, the escalating demands of users in this ever-evolving landscape have exerted significant pressure on service organizations to innovate and evolve rapidly. This relentless pursuit of enhanced user experiences and outcomes has necessitated fundamental changes in how services are conceptualized, delivered, and evaluated. Consequently, service providers are compelled to adopt agile and flexible business models that can swiftly adapt to evolving market dynamics and customer expectations.
In essence, the confluence of market expansion, service personalization, customization, and the escalating demands of users has fundamentally reshaped the service sector, ushering in an era of unprecedented change and opportunity. Navigating these transformations requires a strategic vision, proactive adaptation, and a keen understanding of the evolving needs and preferences of customers. Embracing innovation and agility will be imperative for service organizations seeking to thrive in this dynamic landscape, where the ability to anticipate and respond to change effectively will be the cornerstone of sustainable success. Organizational changes epitomize the process of modifying or transforming the existing landscape within organizations to bolster efficiency and effectiveness (Rafferty et al., 2012). This entails a comprehensive spectrum of activities including analysis, planning, and embracement of novel ideas, approaches, forms, and behaviors both among employees and the organization itself. At the heart of orchestrated organizational evolution lies a relentless pursuit of innovative or optimized methodologies aimed at harnessing resources and capacities. This concerted effort amplifies the organization's prowess in value creation endeavors, ushering in a new era of enhanced competitiveness and adaptability. Through strategic modifications in structure, technology, and culture, organizations can significantly augment their intrinsic value proposition (Weiner, 2009).
Indeed, changes serve as catalysts for the emergence of novel process outcomes, job roles, operational activities, organizational forms, and structural frameworks. They not only facilitate the realization of economic objectives but also elevate levels of organizational performance to unprecedented heights. Transitioning from conventional mass production paradigms to more personalized, individualized production frameworks grounded in autonomous team collaboration holds the key to unlocking heightened quality standards and productivity levels within organizations (Helfat & Martin, 2015).
The successful navigation of change within a company is intricately tied to its strategies for motivation, communication, and implementation. The efficiency of these strategies is pivotal in determining the organization's overall level of success.
Incentivizing change initiatives often entails a nuanced interplay of socio-economic factors, including fiscal policies, governmental regulations, technological advancements, management methodologies, and organizational development frameworks. However, it is the individual dimension that often serves as the linchpin in the change process. At the individual level, factors such as levels of knowledge, qualifications, and organizational behavior significantly influence the reception and adoption of change. Employees' attitudes, skills, and willingness to adapt play a crucial role in shaping the organization's capacity to embrace and effectively execute transformative initiatives. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of both the broader social context and the individual dynamics within the organization is imperative for fostering a climate conducive to successful change implementation. There is scant research on attitudes toward changes in organizations in Serbia that acknowledges the challenges of conducting business in highly variable conditions. Investigating changes among employees in service organizations holds paramount importance for organizational development, as these entities often struggle to identify emerging issues and respond appropriately. Previous research endeavors in Serbia have encountered limitations primarily stemming from modest research designs, which have hindered the exploration of attitudes toward change (Gavrilov-Jerkovic, 2004; Grubic-Nesic, 2004). These constraints have resulted in studies that narrowly focus on specific individual segments, thereby overlooking the broader spectrum of factors influencing attitudes toward change within organizational contexts. By constraining their scope, these studies may have inadvertently overlooked critical nuances and interactions that could provide deeper insights into the complexities of organizational change dynamics. Consequently, there exists a compelling need for future research efforts to adopt more comprehensive and inclusive methodologies, capable of capturing the multifaceted nature of attitudes toward change and its implications for organizational effectiveness and resilience.
2. Background
The planned organizational changes are aimed at increasing effectiveness on four levels: increasing the effectiveness of human resources, functional resources, technological capacities and organizational capabilities. The ability to constantly create new products and services and modify the existing ones in such a way that they continue to attract consumers is one of the core competencies of the company (Oreg et al., 2011). Organizational structural and cultural shifts manifest across all echelons, encompassing alterations in habitual behavioral patterns, recalibration of intergroup dynamics, fostering enhanced collaboration amidst divisions, and instigating transformative shifts in corporate ethos via restructuring the upper management cadre (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Hersey and Blanchard (1977) identified four levels of change, namely: knowledge change, attitude change, group-level change, and broad-based organizational change. The four listed changes in the organization are connected in such a way that a change in one necessarily affects the change in the other.
The research findings regarding employees' readiness for change, assessed through various influential factors including organizational readiness, individual readiness, project management maturity, and change management maturity, underscore the significance of individual or human factors in driving change (Errida & Lotfi, 2020). Interesting studies, which explore the correlation between cultural tourism and the economic system, emphasize the pivotal role of leadership in executing organizational changes (Ford et al., 2021; Zhang & Guo, 2022). The resistance exhibited by individuals to change initiatives within organizations has been identified as a significant contributing factor to the failure of numerous change programs (Bovey & Hede, 2001). Consequently, there is ample justification for examining the cognitive processes of individuals as integral components of organizational change endeavors. Research in this domain often implicitly or explicitly draws upon the cognitive consistency model, positing that individuals strive to reconcile disparities between their behaviors and attitudes (Bacharach et al., 1996). Moreover, individuals inherently seek equilibrium in their interactions with their surroundings and display a certain aversion to ambiguity (Gupta & Govindajaran, 1984). Given that change entails transitioning from familiar to unfamiliar territory, individuals with a lower tolerance for ambiguity tend to gravitate towards maintaining the status quo.
In order for the change to succeed, it must be accepted by the employees, physically, intellectually and emotionally. The symptoms of passive resistance include verbal agreement without support, feigning ignorance, and withholding information. Low tolerance for change is defined as the fear that a person will fail to develop the new abilities and behaviors required in a new work environment and circumstances. If an employee has little tolerance for change, the increased ambiguity that results from doing their job in a different way is likely to cause resistance to the new way of doing things (Raferty & Minbashian, 2019). Employees sometimes understand that change is needed, but emotionally they cannot reconcile and resist for reasons they may not even subconsciously understand (Kirrane et al., 2016).
Readiness for change represents systems of individual response to the challenges of change, which is formed in accordance with knowledge, experiences, desires, emotions, and affiliations in given conditions (Grubic-Nesic, 2014). The basic problem when introducing changes in the organization is the potential lack of readiness of employees for a new kind/type of organizational behavior (Jones & Van de Ven, 2016). Directing employees to change their business habits or approaches to work in the direction of reaching the desired goal, often involves facing a series of problems (Albrecht et al., 2020; Marinova et al., 2015). Organizational change capital is not just a simple sum of readiness of individuals for change, it implies a much greater activity of the organizations themselves. The research results highlighted several crucial catalysts for change within service organizations, particularly focusing on empowering employees, fostering cooperation and communication during change implementation, nurturing a service-oriented culture, and enhancing management development (Chaudhry, 2020). Furthermore, the societal shifts have reverberated in tourist organizations, necessitating swift adaptation and innovation to meet evolving demands and create novel services tailored to diverse needs. In our research, the examination of organizational readiness for change is founded on the theory of organizational change, which has been formulated as a practical theory built upon the premises of earlier theories by Kotter, Bridges and other authors (Adelson et al., 2021).
3. Materials and methods
The research aims to develop a concrete model that will help organizations manage changes more efficiently and adapt to new circumstances more quickly from an individual's perspective. The research was conducted on a total sample of 319 respondents. The respondents were employees of different socio-demographic characteristics who work in organizations with different characteristics. Research data were meticulously collected within the organizational setting during standard working hours, following the explicit consent obtained from the general manager.
Data were collected in the period from September till December 2023, in service organizations in the Republic of Serbia. The research was conducted at the workplace, and the data was collected in personal contact and electronically. The research had the approval of the sector or departmental manager.
The selection of participants for the research was conducted using a semi-structured approach, with deliberate efforts made to encompass a diverse array of individuals characterized by varying educational backgrounds, age groups, and genders. Moreover, the organizations enlisted from the service sector were deliberately categorized into two distinct sectors: the private sector and the public sector. This categorization was instrumental in ensuring a balanced representation of participants across both sectors, thereby enriching the breadth and depth of insights gleaned from the study. By adopting such an inclusive approach to participant selection and organizational categorization, the research sought to capture a comprehensive snapshot of attitudes and perceptions towards change readiness within the service sector, while also facilitating nuanced comparisons between different organizational contexts and demographic profiles.
The structure of the sample according to gender is defined in two groups - male and female. The research included a sample of 170 male employees and 149 female employees. The education of respondents is defined through 2 groups - respondents who have finished high school and respondents who have finished college or university. Through frequency analysis, it was determined that 41% of respondents have finished high school, while 59% of them have finished college or university. According to the type of work they perform in the company where they are employed, expert, administrative and managerial jobs are distinguished. According to the frequency analysis, it was determined that 50.3% of respondents perform expert tasks, 27.9% of respondents perform administrative tasks, while 21.8% of them perform managerial tasks.
For the research, metrically verified questionnaires were used to measure attitudes towards change: Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change Questionnaire (ORIC) (Shea et al., 2014), in its original form, the questionnaire was defined through 12 items on a five-point Likert scale. Ordered category scale, on a continuum of responses from 1 = do not agree at all to 5 = completely agree. In the original setting of the model behind the instrument, two factors were defined - Commitment in implementing organizational changes and Change efficiency. In the original version of the questionnaire, commitment to implementing organizational changes was defined through items p6, p7, p8, p9, p10, p11, and p12, while the second factor, the efficiency of implemented changes, was defined through items p1, p2, p3, p4, and p5. The used questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of the paper. Figure 1 shows that all items satisfactorily saturate their assumed object of measurement (>.50).
Figure 1: The proposed questionnaire model of the organization's readiness to implement
changes
Source: Authors' research
Table 1 provides the overview of the applied confirmatory factor analysis, on the basis of which relations were obtained between the theoretical model set in the original version by Shea et al. (2014) and the empirical data obtained by the undertaken survey. These relationships were evaluated based on CMIN/df (Minimum Discrepancy Function by Degrees of Freedom divided), NFI - The Normed Fit Index, CFI - The Comparative Fit Index, and RMSEA - The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
The criteria for adequate fitting of the data according to the indicated suitability indices are: CMIN/df is <3, i.e. <5. NFI should be > .90 or > .95 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004), CFI should be > .90, RMSEA values should be closer to 0, criterion is < .08 or < .05. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis shown in the Table below the text indicate that the collected data adequately fit the assumed model of the Shea et al. questionnaire (CMIN/df = 3.031; NFI=.939; CFI=.947; RMSEA=.077).
Table 1: Suitability indices for the Organizational readiness for implementing change
(ORIC) questionnaire
Model CMIN/DF NFI CFI RMSEA
Default Model 3.31 .939 .947 .077
Source: Authors' research
The reliability of the questionnaire was tested using the internal consistency method, and the displayed values refer to the Cronbach' s alpha coefficient. This coefficient indicates the high reliability of the instrument if the values are higher than .60, that is, .80 according to the stricter reliability criterion.
Based on the reliability analysis, it is determined that the Organizational Readiness for Change Implementation (ORIC) instrument is a highly reliable questionnaire, when it comes to both measurement aspects of Commitment to implementing organizational changes (a=.944) and Efficiency of implemented changes (a=.922). Measures of central tendency ar e shown - minimum and maximum in the format of reduced scores from 1 to 5 for each variable, as well as a measure of variability shown through the arithmetic mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). Organizational readiness to implement change as a general score is
moderately to highly expressed (M=3.20; SD=.993), with approximately equal expressions when it comes to its two dimensions - Commitment to implementing changes (M=3.19; SD= 1.031) and Efficiency of implemented changes (M=3.21; SD=1.024).
The data underwent analysis using descriptive statistics to compute, present, and elucidate the features of statistical series. In the examination and elucidation of data garnered from empirical research, a confluence of statistical data processing methods was employed. These included confirmatory factor analysis of the questionnaire, descriptive statistical techniques, correlation analysis, and regression analysis.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Differences in the expression of variables in relation to the characteristics of employees and the organization in which they work
The influence of gender is given through the presentation of arithmetic means and standard deviations for each numerical variable Organizational Readiness for Change, Commitment to Implementation of Change and Efficiency of Implemented Change, in relation to male and female sub-samples.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the variables in relation to the male and female sub-sample
Gender Number M SD
Organizational Readiness for Change M 170 3.19 1.017
F 149 3.21 .978
Commitment to Implementation of Change M 170 3.18 1.051
F 149 3.20 1.017
Efficiency of Implemented Change M 170 3.19 1.055
F 149 3.22 1.001
Source: Authors' research
Based on the arithmetic means, it is determined that the female subsample has more pronounced scores on the following variables: Organizational readiness for change, Commitment to change implementation, and Efficiency of implemented changes.
Table 3 shows the results of the homogeneity of variances test, due to uneven age categories defined on the entire sample. Based on the results of Levene's test of equality of variances, it is determined that the variances for each variable included in the research are homogeneous according to age groups (p>.05).
Table 3: Levene's test of homogeneity of variances
Levene's test df1 df2 P
Organizational readiness for change .915 3 319 .434
Commitment to change implementation .568 3 319 .637
Efficiency of Implemented Change 1.737 3 319 .143
Source: Authors' research
Based on the results of the applied one-factor analysis of variance ANOVA, it is concluded that there are statistically significant differences among respondents of different age categories when it comes to the variable Efficiency of implemented changes (F=2.798; p=.040).
Table 4: Results of one-factor ANOVA in relation to the variable of age of the subject
df Middle square F p
Organizational readiness for change Between groups 3 2.464 2.516 .058
Within groups 319 .979
Total 319
Commitment to change implementation Between groups 3 2.174 2.058 .105
Within groups 319 1.056
Total 319
Efficiency of implemented changes Between groups 3 2.906 2.798 .040
Within groups 319 1.038
Total 319
Source: Authors' research
Presentation of the results according to the analysis of multiple group comparison (LSD), differences were manifested during the analysis of multiple comparison, despite the fact that the results of testing statistical differences in relation to the age of the respondents in the general models were not determined. The following statistically significant results were determined:
• Willingness to implement changes is statistically significantly more pronounced among the respondents in the age categories of 36-45 years and those of up to 35 years of age compared to the respondents of over 55 years of age;
• Commitment to implementing changes is more pronounced among the respondents aged 36 to 45 compared to those of over 55;
• The efficiency of the implemented changes is more pronounced among the respondents aged 36 to 45 and those of up to 35 years of age compared to the respondents of over 55 years of age.
4.2. Differences in the level of education
On the basis of the obtained arithmetic means, it is determined that the part of respondents who have finished high school has higher scores on the following variables: Organizational readiness for changes, Commitment to implementing changes, and Efficiency of implemented changes.
Table 5 shows the result of Levene's test of equality of variances, due to uneven categories of the sample according to the educational categories of the respondents. Based on the results of Levene's test of equality of variances, it is established that the variances for each variable according to education groups are equal (p>.05).
Table 5: Results of Levene's test of equality of variances
Levene's test
F p
Organizational readiness for changes Assumption of equal variances Equality of variances was not assumed 1.571 .211
Commitment to change implementation Assumption of equal variances Equality of variances was not assumed 1.017 .314
Efficiency of implemented changes Assumption of equal variances Equality of variances was not assumed .218 .641
Source: Authors' research
Based on the testing of differences in arithmetic means using the t-test on independent samples, it is determined that there are statistically significant differences among respondents of different levels of education when it comes to the following variables: Organizational readiness for change (t=3.505; df=319; p=.000), Commitment to implementing changes (t=3.659; df=319; p=.000), and Efficiency of implemented changes (t=3.002; df=319; p=.003). Statistical significance was performed at the .05 level. The results of the independent samples t-test are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Independent samples t-test results
Variables The outcome of Levene's test t df p
Organizational readiness for change Assumption of equal variances 3.505 319 .000
Commitment to implementing changes Assumption of equal variances 3.659 319 .000
Efficiency of implemented changes Assumption of equal variances 3.002 319 .003
Source: Authors' research
4.3. Differences in the type of work that employees perform
Table 7 shows the results of the test of homogeneity of variances, due to uneven categories according to the type of work performed by employees (expert administrative or managerial) defined on the entire sample. Based on the results of Levene's test of equality of variances, it is determined that the variances for each variable included in the research according to the type of work are homogeneous (p>. 05).
Table 7: Levene's test of homogeneity of variances
Levene's statistic df1 df2 p
Organizational readiness for change .027 2 319 .973
Commitment to implementing changes .075 2 319 .927
Efficiency of implemented changes .152 2 319 .859
Source: Authors' research
Based on the results of the one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), it is evident that statistically significant differences exist among respondents from different types of work regarding the variables shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Results of the one-factor ANOVA in relation to the variable job type
Sum of squares df Middle square F p
Organizational readiness for change Between groups 3.898 2 1.949 1.980 .139
Within groups 307.861 319 .984
Total 311.759 318
Commitment to implementing changes Between groups 4.048 2 2.024 1.911 .149
Within groups 346.569 319 1.059
Total 350.617 318
Efficiency of implemented changes Between groups 3.811 2 1.905 1.822 .163
Within groups 339.712 319 1.046
Total 343.523 318
Source: Authors' research
4.4. Differences in the type of ownership of the organization
Table 9 shows the results of the test of homogeneity of variances, due to uneven categories according to the type of ownership of the organization where the employees work (state, private and mixed ownership) defined on the entire sample. Based on the results of Levene's test of equality of variances, it is determined that the variances for each variable included in the research according to the groups of ownership type of the organization are homogeneous (p>.05).
Table 9: Levene's homogeneity of variances test
Levin statistic df1 df2 p
Organizational readiness for change 1.622 2 319 .199
Commitment to implementing changes 1.574 2 319 .208
Efficiency of implemented changes 1.338 2 319 .263
Source: Authors' research
Based on the results of the applied one-factor analysis of variance ANOVA, it is concluded that there are statistically significant differences among respondents of different categories of ownership type of the organization when it comes to the following variables: Organizational readiness for changes (F=13.489; p=.000), Commitment to the implementation of changes (F=11.60; p=.000), and Efficiency of implemented changes (F=15.161; p=.000).
Table 10: The results of the one-factor ANOVA in relation to the variable type of ownership _of the organization ____
Sum of squares df Middle square F p
Organizational readiness for change Between groups 25.427 2 12.714 13.489 .000
Within groups 286.332 316 .943
Total 311.759 319
Commitment to the implementation of changes Between groups 22.634 2 11.317 11.060 .000
Within groups 227.983 316 1.023
Total 350.617 319
Efficiency of implemented changes Between groups 30.166 2 15.083 15.161 .000
Within groups 313.357 316 .995
Total 343.523 319
Source: Authors' research
The presentation of the results according to the analysis of multiple group comparisons (LSD) showed that the following statistically significant results were determined according to the individual variables:
• Commitment to implementing changes is more pronounced among employees who work in a privately owned organization compared to those who work in a state-owned organization.
• The efficiency of implemented changes is more pronounced among employees who work in a privately owned organization compared to those who work in a state-owned organization. On the other hand, this variable is more pronounced among respondents who work in an organization with mixed ownership compared to a state-owned one.
Based on the results of descriptive statistics, it is determined that organizations where employees work are capable of recognizing the need for changes, adapting their processes and structure to it, then providing the necessary resources and infrastructure conditions, as well as supporting employees in the process of adapting to changes through their effective management (Adelson et al., 2021; Shea et al., 2014). Based on the findings derived from the study, it is evident that the observed organizations possess clearly articulated change objectives that are harmonized with their overarching strategic direction. This characteristic makes them capable of identifying and managing the risks that arise during the change process, as well as the ability to provide sufficient financial and human resources to support the changes and to establish appropriate mechanisms for measuring and evaluating the effects of changes while permanently encouraging open and transparent communication within the organization in the process of change (Shea et al., 2014; Weiner et al., 2008).
This capability can prove invaluable during the periods of organizational transition, as it facilitates smoother acceptance and adaptation to new requirements and work processes by employees. Conversely, organizational readiness for change denotes the organization's capacity to adeptly respond to novel challenges and environmental shifts. The outcome suggests the organization' s adeptness in recognizing and evaluating the necessity for change, strategizing and executing change initiatives, and consistently refining its processes and strategies in alignment with environmental shifts. Consequently, readiness for change spans both individual and organizational levels, thereby enabling effective adaptation to changes within both internal and external landscapes.
Furthermore, based on the results of the applied one-factor analysis of variance ANOVA, it is concluded that there are statistically significant differences among respondents of different age categories when it comes to the efficiency of implemented changes (F=2.798; p=.040).
Willingness to implement changes is more pronounced among younger respondents compared to older ones. There are various factors that influence the perception of the organization's readiness to implement changes among different groups of employees. Older employees have more work experience and may have already gone through some changes in the organization, which may lead to less perception (habituation) of the organization's readiness for change. Younger employees, on the other hand, may be less experienced and less familiar with previous changes in the organization, which may lead to a greater perception of the organization's readiness for change. Younger employees are often more technologically literate than older ones, which can make them more ready and sensitive to changes involving the implementation of new technologies or software. Furthermore, organizations that are inherently more innovative and change-oriented may have higher perceptions of readiness for change among all employee groups, including older employees. Furthermore, there are differences in attitudes and values between generations, which can affect the perception of the organization's readiness for change. Younger generations are often more open to change and innovation, while older generations may be more traditional and less ready for change.
Namely, more educated respondents estimate that their organizations are more ready for change compared to employees with lower education. More educated employees often have a greater awareness of changes in the environment, both in business and in society in general. They are usually familiar with new trends, technologies, laws and other factors that may affect the organization's operations (Iverson, 2006). More educated employees usually have developed analytical and critical thinking skills, which enable them to understand complex problems and assess the impact of changes on the organization. These skills can contribute to a greater perceived organizational readiness for change. More educated employees are often more open to change and innovation, because they are used to constant learning and adapting
to new situations. They are more willing to accept new ideas, take risks and experiment with new approaches to business.
Further results indicated that the type of ownership has an impact on the following variables: Organizational readiness for change, Commitment to change implementation and Efficiency of implemented changes. The implementation of change is more pronounced in the private sector than in the public sector for several reasons - the private sector is often more competitive, which means that companies have to be more innovative and adapt to change faster than would be the case in the public sector. Private enterprises often have more flexible and less complex structures than the public sector, which makes it easier to implement change. In the government sector, bureaucratic processes and complex hierarchies can slow down the implementation of change. Private companies usually have clearly defined goals for profitability and growth, which encourages them to make changes to achieve those goals. In the public sector, objectives are often less clearly defined and may change as the political climate changes. Private companies have an organizational culture that encourages innovation and change, while in the state sector there is a tendency to preserve existing processes and structures.
Indeed, when an organization exhibits a high level of organizational readiness for change, it signifies its capacity to not only adapt to shifts effectively but also to proficiently execute alterations within its processes and practices (Adelson et al., 2021), which can be key to achieving business success and maintaining competitiveness on the market.
5. Conclusion
Changes in service organizations occurred as a result of globalization, greater mobility, as well as the possibility of attaining certain knowledge and competences, which significantly increased the competitiveness of the employee. New approaches in looking at individuals in the work process are reflected in an engaged holistic approach, which is based on a multidisciplinary approach that implies much more than, until now, the most applied, behavioral approach that separates the employee's behavior from his most important personal characteristics. In addition to the holistic approach, a contingency approach must take an important place, which allows for the possibility of the action of various factors and circumstances that largely determine organizational behavior (By, 2005). Research on readiness for change primarily relies on the established models, which may not adequately capture the complexities of modern conditions and the dynamic nature of today's workforce (Stouten et al., 2018).
Work on accepting new concepts and organizational learning in general is the basis of a sustainable competitive advantage, therefore a dynamic perspective is directed towards continuous development, monitoring the process and dynamics of comparative development that would contribute to the creation of new capabilities (Albrecht et al., 2020). The strategic perspective emphasizes the importance of coordinating the company's policy and strategic observation of the development of more efficient and effective work outcomes (Sitkin et al., 2010). Establishing alignment between managers and their employees regarding attitudes towards changes is paramount for organizational success (Walk & Handy, 2018). This necessitates fostering a collaborative environment where both parties engage in open dialogue and mutual understanding. By cultivating such a culture of shared perspective, managers can effectively harness the collective wisdom and insights of their employees, fostering a sense of ownership and commitment to the change initiatives. This collaborative approach not only enhances employee morale and engagement but also facilitates smoother transitions and implementation of change strategies. Consequently, organizations are better
positioned to navigate challenges and capitalize on opportunities arising from the ever-evolving business landscape.
The way in whish a company chooses to motivate, communicate and implement change will determine its level of success. Incentives for change often depend on the social environment such as fiscal policy, government policy, technology, management methods, organizational development, and mostly on the individual level of change related to the areas of individual knowledge, qualifications and organizational behavior. The research indicates that negative reactions to change exhibit a negative correlation with both the time invested by employees and the efforts exerted at work (McLarty et al., 2021). This underscores the significance of considering employee time allocation and level of engagement in understanding their responses to organizational changes. By recognizing these dynamics, organizations can tailor their change management strategies to mitigate resistance and enhance employee buy-in, ultimately fostering a more conducive environment for successful change implementation.
The essential benefit of the research is reflected in the recognition and design of recommendations for organizations that would direct the algorithms of activities that would facilitate the attitude towards changes of employees in organizations. The conducted research has several methodological and general research shortcomings and limitations. The first organization refers to research instruments that have not been used so far in socio-demographic conditions in our country. At the onset of our research, we encountered a methodological quandary regarding whether employees' readiness for change could serve as a reliable predictor of change implementation within their organizations. This posed a significant challenge despite the clear establishment of the predictive validity of the test. Resolving this question was crucial for ensuring the robustness and efficiency of our research methodology. By addressing this methodological hurdle, we aimed to contribute nuanced insights into the interplay between employee readiness for change and its impact on organizational change initiatives.
Furthermore, the questions and statements that are part of the survey questionnaire are aimed at self-assessment of behavior, emotions, motivation, as well as the subjective aspect of attitudes, which does not always contribute to a clear picture in the organization.
Acknowledgement
This research has been supported by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation (Contract No. 451-03-65/2024-03/200156) and the Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad through project "Scientific and Artistic Research Work of Researchers in Teaching and Associate Positions at the Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad" (No. 01-3394/1).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. References
1. Adelson, P., Yates, R., Fleet, J., & McKellar, L. (2021). Measuring organizational readiness for implementing change (ORIC) in a new midwifery model of care in rural South Australia. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 321-368. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06373-9
2. Albrecht, S. L., Connaughton, S., Foster, K., Furlong, S., & Yeow, C. J. L. (2020). Change engagement, change resources, and change demands: A model for positive
employee orientations to organizational change. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 531944. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.531944
3. Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. (1996). The organizational transformation process: The micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 477-506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393939
4. Bove, W., & Heede, A. (2001). Resistance to organisational change: The role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-548. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006166
5. By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5, 369-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010500359250
6. Chaudhry, S. (2020). Understanding change enablers in service organizations: A contingency theory perspective. South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research, 27(2), 5-83.
7. Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2020). Measuring change readiness for implementing a project management methodology: An action research study. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 1-17.
8. Ford, J., Ford, L., & Polin, B. (2021). Leadership in the implementation of change: Functions, sources, and requisite variety. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 87-]119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861697
9. Gavrilov-Jerkovic, V. (2004). Profil spremnosti klijenta za promenu i preferencia tipicnih procesa promena [The profile of client readiness for change and preferences for typical change processes]. Psihologija, 37(1), 89-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/PSI0401089G
10. Grubic-Nesic, L. (2014). Razvoj ljudskih resursa [Human resources development]. Novi Sad: Fakultet tehnickih nauka.
11. Grubic-Nesic, L. (2004). Humani aspekti strategijske kontrole - spremnost zaposlenih za promene [Human aspects of strategic control - The readiness of employees for a change]. Strategijski menadzment, 9(4), 13-16.
12. Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 25-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/255955
13. Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capability: Review and assesment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1281-1312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314561301
14. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, P. (1977). Management of organizational behaviour: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
15. Iverson, R. D. (2006). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 122-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585199600000121
16. Jones, S. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2016). The changing nature of change resistance: An examination of the moderating impact of time. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(4), 482-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316671409
17. Judge W., & Douglas T. (2009). Organizational change capacity: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 635649. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810910997041
18. Kirrane, M., Lennon, M., O'Connor, C., & Fu, N. (2016). Linking perceived management support with employees' readiness for change: The mediating role of psychological capital. Journal of Change Management, 17(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1214615
19. Marinova, S. V., Peng, C., Lorinkova, N., Van Dyne, L., & Chiaburu, D. (2015). Change-oriented behavior: A meta-analysis of individual, and job design predictors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjvb.2015.02.006
20. McLarty, B. D., Muldoon, J., Quade, M., & King, R. A. (2021). Your boss is the problem and solution: How supervisor-induced hindrance stressors and LMX influence employee job neglect and subsequent performance. Journal of Business Research, 130, 308-317. "https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusres.2021.03.032
21. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 47, 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
22. Rafferty, A. E., & Minbashian, A. (2019). Cognitive beliefs and positive emotions about change: Relationships with employee change readiness and change-supportive behaviors. Human Relations, 72, 1623-1650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718809154
23. Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417
24. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610904
25. Shea, C., Jacobs, S., Esserman, D., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. (2014). Organizational readiness for implementing change: A psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-7
26. Sitkin, S., See, K., Miller, C., Lawless, M., & Carton, A. (2010). The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible. Academy of Management Review, 36. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.61031811
27. Stouten, J., Rousseau, D., & Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095
28. Walk, M., & Handy, F. (2018). Job crafting as reaction to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 349370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318777227
29. Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.L132
30. Weiner, B. J., Amick, H., & Lee, S. Y. (2008). Review: Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review, 65(4), 379-436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558708317802
31. Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
32. Zhang, Z., & Guo, M. (2022). Change of tourism organizations: Implications from a review of cultural tourism research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1000117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000117
Appendix 1
Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change - ORIC (Shea et al., 2014)
p1. The individuals employed here are dedicated to putting organizational changes into action. 1 2 3 4 5
p2. The people who work here are determined to implement change. 1 2 3 4 5
p3. The people who work here are motivated to implement change. 1 2 3 4 5
p4. The people who work here will do everything to make changes happen. 1 2 3 4 5
p5. The people who work here have a desire to make a difference. 1 2 3 4 5
p6. People who work here feel that they can retain the energy needed to implement organizational change. 1 2 3 4 5
p7. The people who work here feel confident that they can manage the policy of implementing change. 1 2 3 4 5
p8. People who work here feel confident that the organization can support people as they adapt to change. 1 2 3 4 5
p9. People who work here feel confident that the organization can support people during the implementation of changes. 1 2 3 4 5
p10. The people who work here feel confident that they can coordinate tasks so that the change process goes smoothly. 1 2 3 4 5
p11. People who work here feel confident that they can monitor progress in implementing change. 1 2 3 4 5
p12. People who work here feel confident that they can handle the challenges that might change in the implementation of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5
