Discussion of Research Results on Factors Affecting Individual Readiness for Change

The mean values of the factors reflecting the readiness of individuals for organizational change are all greater than 3. The highest is the perception of the suitability of change with the organization (Mean = 3.69) and the lowest is the level of perception of the ability to implement change and the benefits of trade-offs of individuals, the Mean values are 3.31 and 3.3 respectively (Table 4.17). This shows that the readiness of individuals for changes in production and business strategies at the surveyed equitized state-owned enterprises is at an average level, not high. In the study of Holt et al. (2007) on the readiness of individuals for changes in applying an information management system, the readiness level is higher when the mean value is from 4.0 to 4.9. On the contrary, the study of Mohamed Haffar (2014) showed that the level of individual readiness for change when the organization applies total quality management (TQM) in companies in Syria is quite low (from 2.32 to 2.42).

5.1.2. Discuss research results on factors influencing individual readiness for change

As the research model proposed by the author in chapter 2, the proposed factors influencing individual readiness for change are (1) personal characteristics including extroversion and emotional stability and (2) factors belonging to the organizational context of change including management trust, communication climate and organizational justice. Testing the research model has given very different results on the level of influence of these factors on readiness for change.

Personal characteristics

Of the two personality traits proposed to influence change readiness, extroversion (the TCHN factor) had no impact on change readiness. Four out of five hypotheses about the impact of emotional stability were accepted. Individuals with emotionally stable personalities had no impact on the perception of benefits affected by change, and hypothesis H2e was rejected. The impacts of emotional stability on each component of change readiness had estimated impact coefficient values ranging from 0.062 (for LIDD) to 0.212 (for SSCX). All impacts were positive.

Hypothesis

Content	Result
The relationship between extroversion and readiness for change
Hypothesis H1a	Extraversion personality has a positive influence on individual's feelings towards organizational change.	Reject
Hypothesis H1b	Extraversion personality has a positive influence on perceptions of the appropriateness of change to the organization.	Reject
Hypothesis H1c	Extraversion personality positively influences perceptions of leadership support for change	Reject
Hypothesis H1d	Extraversion has a positive influence on perceptions of an individual's ability to implement change.	Reject
Hypothesis H1e	Extraversion has a negative effect on trade-off perceptions	Reject
The relationship between emotional stability and readiness for change
Hypothesis H2a	Emotional stability has a positive influence on individual's feelings of change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H2b	Emotional stability has a positive influence on perceptions of change fit with the organization.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H2c	Emotional stability positively influences perceptions of leadership support for change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H2d	Emotional stability has a positive influence on perceptions of ability to implement change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H2e	Emotional stability negatively affects individuals' perceptions of trade-offs	Reject

Maybe you are interested!

This result can be explained that people with a tendency to have a stable or balanced emotional personality are usually calm and psychologically stable, they will be less disturbed, anxious, and pressured by work in general as well as this specific change. When the organization changes, they will calmly consider and support the change. Eysenck (1991) in his model of personal identity believes that extroverts are often enthusiastic, proactive, and sociable while the opposite is calm and careful. With the survey results of employees (including managers and employees) at state-owned enterprises, the personality tendency that is expressed is not extroversion but on the contrary, introversion. The average value of the EX1 statement "I am often the leader in all activities" is even lower than the normal level (2.95). This also explains why in the test results of the impact of extroversion on readiness for change, there are some results obtained that TCHN has a negative impact (contrary to the initial hypothesis) on readiness for change (TCHN → SSCX,  = - 0.342, p= 0.000 and TCHN → SPH,  = - 0.209, p= 0.002). If considered like that, the statements assessed on the scale of personal personality are also quite consistent with the

The results of respondents' assessment of the scale on emotional stability. The mean scores of the options for the scale on emotional stability are all greater than normal (>3), which shows that respondents tend to show themselves as calm people, less prone to negative emotions, anxiety and sadness. This result is quite similar to the results of Holt et al. (2007) when the authors concluded that individuals with negative emotions also have a negative impact on readiness for change. Several other studies on psychological states with change also gave similar results. For example, Erdheim et al. (2006) and Syed et al. (2015) confirmed that extroversion and emotional instability have a negative impact on organizational commitment in different aspects. Thus, with this result, it can be confirmed that individuals with a tendency towards emotional stability will have a higher readiness for change. With extroversion, it is clear that the number of respondents did not show a clear tendency towards extroversion but tended to be balanced in the middle, even leaning towards introversion. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to conclude about the positive impact of extroversion on personal readiness for change.

Table 5.1. Descriptive statistics of the extroversion personality scale

EXP1	EXP2	EXP3	EXP4	EXP5
N	Valid	364	364	364	364	364
N	Missing	0	0	0	0	0
Mean		2.95	3.10	3.43	3.49	3.21
Mode		3	3	3	3	3
Std. Deviation		.805	.663	.671	.690	.544
Skewness		.217	.063	.325	-.026	1,019
Std. Error of Skewness		.128	.128	.128	.128	.128
Kurtosis		-.617	1,082	.248	.077	1,890
Std. Error of Kurtosis		.255	.255	.255	.255	.255
Minimum		1	1	1	1	2
Maximum		5	5	5	5	5

Source: results of data analysis of the topic

For demographic variables

The results of the study indicate that gender, age and job position have little effect on perceptions of change through aspects such as fit, support, ability to change, or trade-off benefits. This is quite consistent with other studies in the world. The determination that age and gender do not affect readiness for change is also quite consistent with previous studies by (Cunningham, 2002). However, according to previous studies, job position has an impact on readiness for change, in which managers tend to support change.

higher than that of employees. However, the results of the thesis do not provide enough evidence to prove this. One possible explanation is that the surveyed enterprises have much fewer managers than employees (about 10-20% of the total number of employees) who are well-qualified and professional. These managers are also mainly at the grassroots level, and the empowerment of them is very little in the enterprises. In the research sample of the thesis, the number of managers is 61 compared to the number of employees surveyed is 303, so it is difficult to avoid the result of insufficient evidence to prove it.

Changing Organizational Context – Trust in Management

As expected, the factor of trust in management has a positive impact on individual readiness for change in all 5 aspects including emotions and perceptions of change. All hypotheses of group H3 were accepted. In which, trust in management has the strongest impact on the perception of the appropriateness of change (  = 0.31) and the perception of leadership support for change (  = 0.325). The role of managers, especially senior managers in organizations is undeniable. Good management capacity will create confidence in organizational members that this change is necessary, beneficial and will be successful. This result completely coincides with the studies of Armenakis et al. (2002), Holt et al. (2007), Vakola (2005) and some other studies.

The results of the previous qualitative interviews in the study also showed that there were some cases where individuals left their jobs immediately after the change was announced. They explained their decision by saying that they decided to find another place to work because they saw in the organization's change plan that the person responsible for leading the change was someone they did not trust in their abilities.

Changing Organizational Context - Communication Environment

The communication environment in the organization represents the level of information exchange between individuals in the organization. Information can be transmitted through formal and informal channels. The communication environment is measured through the factor of communication atmosphere in the organization. That is, measuring the informal exchange of information between colleagues, whether information about change is repeated many times, whether many people repeat it to the individual or not. The analysis results show that out of the 5 hypotheses in group H4, 4 hypotheses are supported. The hypothesis about the impact of the communication environment on the individual's feelings about change is not supported (p=0.764

>0.05). This can be explained that, the exchange of information within the organization can make individuals understand more about this change of the organization, thereby having a more correct perception and being more ready for the change. However, emotion can be a different psychological state unlike perception. This can be the feeling of the individual right after receiving the information.

information about organizational change, over time along with the progress of implementing the change, the perception of change can be improved through information exchange but the feelings about change such as "liking", excitement", "looking forward" may not change. Because this is a new factor added to the scale measuring individual readiness for change, more in-depth studies are still needed to confirm. However, in terms of perception of change, the study has had results that overlap with previous studies on readiness for change such as Hol et al. (2007), Vakola (2014), ...

Hypothesis

Content	Result
The Relationship Between Management Trust and Readiness for Change
Hypothesis H3a	Managerial trust positively influences emotions toward organizational change	Acceptance
Hypothesis H3b	Management trust positively influences perceptions of the appropriateness of organizational change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H3c	Management trust positively influences perceptions of leadership support for organizational change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H3d	Management beliefs positively influence individuals' perceptions of their ability to implement organizational change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H3e	Managerial trust negatively affects individuals' perceptions of trade-offs	Acceptance
The Relationship Between Communication Environment and Readiness for Change
Hypothesis H4a	Communication environment has a positive impact on emotions with organizational change.	Reject
Hypothesis H4b	Communication Environment Has a Positive Impact on Perceptions of Appropriateness of Organizational Change	Acceptance
Hypothesis H4c	Communication environment has a positive impact on perceptions of leadership support.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H4d	The communication environment has a positive impact on an individual's ability to make change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H4e	The communication environment has an inverse effect on individuals' perceptions of trade-offs.	Acceptance

Changing Organizational Context – Organizational Justice

Organizational justice is expressed through the individual's perception of fairness in performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is a management content that is carried out in every enterprise, the results of performance appraisal can be the answer to whether individuals receive what they deserve for the work they have completed or not? In organizations, performance appraisal results are the basis for employee treatment such as salary, bonus, ... Fairness in performance appraisal is measured through two aspects: fairness in the performance appraisal process (CBQT) and fairness in performance results (CBPP). Research results show that CBQT has a positive impact on readiness for change from both cognitive and emotional perspectives. The strongest impact was on the perception of the suitability of change for the organization (β=0.564) and the lowest impact was on the perception of the individual's ability to implement change (β=0.204).

Hypothesis

Content	Result
The Relationship Between Procedural Justice and Readiness for Change
Hypothesis H5a	Procedural justice has a positive effect on emotions toward change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H5b	Procedural Justice Has a Positive Effect on Perceptions of Appropriateness of Change	Acceptance
Hypothesis H5c	Procedural justice has a positive effect on perceptions of leadership support.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H5d	Procedural justice has a positive impact on individuals' ability to implement change.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H5e	Procedural fairness has a negative effect on individuals' perceptions of trade-offs.	Acceptance
The Relationship Between Distributive Equity and Readiness for Change
Hypothesis H6a	Distributive justice has a positive effect on emotions toward change.	Reject
Hypothesis H6b	Distributive Equity Has a Positive Effect on Perceptions of Appropriateness of Change	Acceptance
Hypothesis H6c	Distributive justice has a positive effect on perceptions of leadership support.	Reject
Hypothesis H6d	Distributive justice has a positive impact on individuals' ability to make changes.	Acceptance
Hypothesis H6e	Distributive justice has an inverse effect on individuals' perceptions of trade-offs.	Reject

Meanwhile, fairness in job performance evaluation results only has a significant impact on two factors: suitability and ability to implement change, the estimated impact coefficients are  = 0.157 and  = 0.266 respectively (see Table 4.19). It is possible that because fairness in job performance evaluation results is often associated with the benefits (treatment, salary, bonus) that individuals will achieve when performing their work, the perception of fairness in results may not be consistent among individuals in the same organization compared to fairness in the process, because individuals tend to think more about their own benefits than other factors. According to the initial qualitative research results, interviewee No. 2 said: " I see that in the current way of evaluating work results, our current salary calculation level is quite low compared to the outside, so when we see the way of doing it, there is no bias towards anyone, but everyone is aware that the salary is lower than the outside, so it is not satisfactory" . And the opinion of interviewee No. 6: "I think that first of all, we should change the salary calculation method, because if the salary calculation method is the same as now, no matter what the leaders plan to change, it is difficult to support. As it is now, my salary for direct work is the same as in the office, but I work much harder" . It is clear that the use of performance evaluation results to calculate salary in some companies needs to be improved. The current situation of fairness in the SOEs in the research sample is also not in a good condition. The average value of perceived fairness in distribution (performance evaluation results) is also at a low average level (Mean = 3.49). Fairness in performance appraisal needs to be improved even though the majority of individuals still support organizational change.

This result has some disagreements with the study of Shan (2011) on the impact of organizational justice on readiness for change. Accordingly, when studying the context of restructuring the education sector in Pakistan, Shan (2011) found that organizational justice in two aspects, procedural justice and distributive justice, both have a positive impact on readiness for change. However, the research method of Shan (2011) is to use Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis to conclude on this relationship. In addition, readiness for change in Shan's study (2011) was measured by the scale of Madsen et al. (2005) which is a unidimensional scale, focusing on the aspect of intended behavior, and cannot fully analyze the impact of organizational justice on each aspect of readiness for change like the multidimensional scale of Holt et al. (2007). Therefore, this is still a finding of the topic in affirming the positive impact of organizational justice and individual readiness for change. Especially affirming the impact of distributive justice

positively affects individuals' perceptions of the appropriateness of change (β=0.181) and individuals' ability to implement change (β=0.233).

Characteristics of the organization – field of activity and state ownership ratio

As the results of regression analysis and ANOVA mean difference analysis, organizational readiness for change is affected by the factors of the field of activity and the state ownership ratio. The field of activity of the organization has been identified by some previous studies as having an impact on individual readiness (Cunningham, 2002). However, the analysis results show that the field of activity of the organization has an impact on the perception of leadership support and the perception of the suitability for organizational change. Specifically, the perception of leadership support for change is higher in SOEs in the manufacturing sector than in the remaining group, SOEs in the service sector.

Regarding the influence of production ownership ratio, this factor affects individual readiness for organizational change through the aspects of perception of the appropriateness of change, perception of leadership support for change and perception of ability to implement change. Specifically, readiness for change expressed through perception of the appropriateness of change and ability to implement change has a higher impact in SOEs with less than 50% ownership compared to SOEs with ownership ratio of over 50%. Perception of leadership support for change is influenced by the state ownership ratio in the opposite direction, higher in SOEs that are equitized for the first time (ownership ratio of over 50%) compared to SOEs with full divestment. ( Table 4.21 ). In search of an explanation for this result, the author found that in SOEs that have been equitized and where the state still holds a controlling stake (more than 51%), the change plan often does not include changes in the enterprise's leadership. Meanwhile, in SOEs that have completely divested, the change often goes hand in hand with changes in the organizational structure, and in some cases, even changes to most of the leadership. This may be the cause of the inconsistent impact of the state ownership ratio on the perception of leadership support for change (The estimated coefficient  for leadership support is -0.1, while the values corresponding to the perception of suitability and implementation capability are all positive. This is quite consistent with the assessment of experts and management agencies on transformation in SOEs. According to the Government's report to the National Assembly in 2019, in SOEs with a high state capital ownership ratio, there has been no change in the governance and business model (according to Vietnamnet). The management apparatus has hardly changed, especially senior leaders. In contrast, in SOEs that have divested all state capital, the interests of senior managers may be affected, making it difficult for these leaders to have a supportive attitude.

Comment