Change Leadership and Employees’  Commitment: A Case of African Development Bank in Kenya

Change Leadership and Employees’  Commitment: A Case of African Development Bank in Kenya

Rael A. Lubasi, Paul Kamaku, Julius Kahuthia
Department of Business Studies, St Paul’s University, Kenya

Received: 28 February 2023; Accepted: 15 March 2023; Published: 11 April 2023

ABSTRACT

Organizations in the 21^st century face major discontinuous change that makes strategic change leadership more difficult and more complex than ever before. This explains why in the modern-day world, management attention has increasingly focused on change leadership. This study views change as fundamental in the current organization and its future direction. Of interest is the complex and dynamic development banking sector in the 21st century, where change leadership plays a very vital role in bringing about banks’ competitiveness, performance improvement and employees’ commitment to change. Consequently, there is need therefore, to ensure that banks have clear change leadership programs that enhance employees’ commitment to change. This research was guided by two specific objectives: to identify change leadership initiatives at the AfDB in Kenya; and to determine the effects of leadership styles in change management on employees’ commitment to change.This study used descriptive research design and data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. The study took a census of the entire population of 100 employees at the AfDB.  The data was analysed using descriptive and inferential analysis with aid of SPSS. In conclusion, the researcher identified that change leadership initiatives and leadership styles have an influence on employees’ organizational commitment to change.

Key words: Change management; Employee Commitment; change leadership; Performance; Competitiveness

INTRODUCTION

In the world today, change is no longer periodic, happening every two years; rather change is something that leaders in organizations have to learn to live with, learn to cope with and structure on how to manage it.  As Bainbridge (1996) noted change is here to stay; leaders who will conquer are the ones who adjust and respond to it.  Change aims for an improvement to organizational performance and adaptation to the ever changing external environment (Keck &Tushman, 2013; Boeker, 1997; and Leana and Barry, 2000). Contributing to this, Ragsdell (2000) commented that the strategic intent of any institution’s change is to move the institution from its current state to a better and improved state.   This means there is a “beforehand” and an “afterward” state (Stettner, &Tushman, 2010).

Adaptation to change has become a common agenda for institutions of all types – governmental (national or even decentralized institutions), business, healthcare, social, cultural and educational.  The effects of change are multifaceted in all organizations.  According to Bainbright, (1996), a new rival enter the marketplace and scoop up established market share and change technology whereby the rules of how business can be undertaken is not business as usual; the way products and services are delivered is reversed and deregulation tosses up whole new trading partners and industry players.  As a result of it all, the stakeholders’ expectations grow as they become more informed and demanding especially the customers.

The Concept of Change Leadership

21^st century review of leadership change by Weick and Quinn (1999) showed a detailed assessment of two different models of organizational change, namely: (a) change that is discontinuous, disjointed and intermittent; (b) change that is uninterrupted, evolving, continuous and incremental.  The two forms clustered by the speed of change are understood as the ‘characteristic rate, pace or pattern of effort or activity’.  The speed distinguishes the kind of invention trailed and its execution process.  Different kinds of invention are characterized by their radicalism, that is, level of risk and novelty of invention (King & Anderson, 1995).   Further contribution by (Tushman&Romanelli, 1985) suggests that radical inventions and innovations occur during period of discontinuous and intermittent change.  This is in contrast to incremental inventions, which ensue in malleable periods.

For effective leadership in organizations, change is meant to be executed at three different levels, that is, individual, group and institution. At every level of change, leadership plays diverse roles and it the sole obligation of a leader to manage the people and make their energies favor change in tandem with institutional objectives. Thus, leading change is an essential area of concentration for today’s businesses that spur growth and sustainable development and effective change in any institution is difficult minus the active contribution of leadership (Ajmal, Farooq, Sajid, N. &Awan, 2012).

Leading change has become one of the essential core competencies of development banks in the world. Organizations are social systems governed by the same rules as human beings, they grow, evolve, progress, face challenges, struggle and adapt, and therefore change becomes a natural phenomenon experienced by each organization.  On change leadership, Jones (2013) observed that regardless of the exertion in identifying what managers do or how they should do it; there has been a long-held belief that the major factor which differentiates effective and successful organizations from the less successful equivalent organizations is the presence of effective and dynamic leadership. Conversely, there is a continuing debate on the difference between leadership and management (Yukl, 2002).

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment has attracted attention in leadership studies in the recent past (Reichers, 1985; Wright & Bonnet, 2002; Gelaidan& Ahmad, 2013).  This attention is results from commitment in relation to such significant upshots as organizational citizenship behaviors, work performance, and willingness to share knowledge, sluggishness and turnover.  Having committed employees therefore tends to be positive in institutions, which explains why there have been determinations to try and fully comprehend commitment’s precursors as well as its significances (Meyer, Herscovitch, Stanley &Topolnysky, 2002). Organizational commitment can be described as loyalty to the organization (Price & Mueller, 1986). Contributing to this, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) described employee commitment to change as a force or a mind-set that binds an individual to a course of action considered necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative. In other words, organizational commitment is the notch of one’s identification and involvement in an organization.

The role of leaders in an organization is to create and design change processes within an organization.  Change processes which encompass human resources, IT adoption and upgrades, tools and techniques, as well as the basic rules and controls within the organization are the mandate of leaders engaged in the management of change (Bainbridge, 1996).  Leaders are responsible for joining the gap between strategy decisions and the reality of executing the changes within the institution structure and staff of an institution. Nadler and Nadler (1998) emphasized the importance of leaders in organizing and maintaining a climate for change within organizations.  Although participation of all players is necessary, the role of a change leader in any change process is paramount.  It is the leaders – the top management players who keep the change process moving while maintaining the operational integrity of the organization.  Conger, Spreitzer and Lawler (1999) noted that adaptive leaders provide direction, orientation, conflict resolution and the shaping of institutional culture while managing the change process within the overall institutional structure.

Specific Research Objectives

1. To determine the effect of change leadership initiatives on employees’ commitment
2. To determine the effects of leadership style in change management on employees’ commitment

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Literature

Change leadership and management is not a discrete discipline with firm and clearly defined confines; rather the theories and practice of change leadership and management pull on a number of social science disciplines (Burnes, 2009).Consequently, this chapter will look into categorizing the main approaches to leading change in organizations and what is required to achieve, or shape it in line with overall organizational objectives. Several authors have observed that there is a wide recognition that leading change effectively is not a quantitative or technical exercise, successful change is dependent on the human side of an organization (McGregor, 1960; Burnes, 2009). Furthermore, there is an ever-growing generic literature emphasizing the importance of change and suggesting ways to effectively lead it, yet very little empirical evidence has been provided in support of the different theories and approaches suggested (Guimaraes& Armstrong, 1998).  Senior (2002) identified three categories of change as a structure with which to link other main theories and approaches.  These three categories have been identified as change characterized by the rate of occurrence; by scale; and by how it comes about.  For this discussion, the emphasis is on the change that is characterized by how it comes about.

When change is characterized by how it comes about, there are several different approaches; however, the literature is dominated by planned and emergent change (Bamford& Forrester, 2003).  Planned change views organization change as a process of moving from one fixed state to another through a series of pre-planned steps.  Emergent change approach emerged in the 1980s.  Emergent change approach views change as a continuous, open ended and unpredictable process of aligning and realigning the organization to its changing environment.  There are a number of theoretical models of change that explain the two major forms of change.  For the purpose of this study three change leadership theories are discussed.

Kurt Lewin’s Theory of Planned Change

Planned change was first coined by Kurt Lewin to differentiate change that was intentionally embarked upon by an enterprise. As opposed to unintentional changes such as those that might come about by impulse, by accident, by misunderstanding or that might be forced on an unwilling entity (Marrow, 1969). According to Lewin (as cited in Eldrod II &Tippett, 2002) a successful change project must involve the three steps of unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level and refreezing this new level. Firstly, the unfreezing  is the readiness that involves dismantling those things that maintain or support the previous behavior. It is about the willingness to acquire or learn new behaviour. People are willing to accept new ways of doing things but this requires a trigger e.g. declining sales/profits or threat of closure (Schein, 1996).

The second step is change that is adopted where the organization presents a new alternative. This means introducing a clear and appealing option for a new pattern of behavior.   This occurs when people perceive the need for change and try out new ideas. This is still a trial & experimentation period and employees can still eventually reject change. Lastly, the refreezing which is considered institutionalization that requires changed behavior be reinforced both formally and informally in the organization. This involves consolidating new practices and it flows from efforts to maintain the adoption period and reinforce the changes until they become internalized and the norm (Lewin, 1947; Cummings & Huse, 1989).

Processual Emergent Theory of Change Leadership

Proponents of the emergent approach to change leadership and management expressed that change is a continuous, dynamic, and contested process that emerges in an unplanned and unpredictable fashion (Weick, 2000; Burnes, 2009). The emergent approach suggests change to be so rapid that it is impossible for senior managers effectively to identify, plan and implement the necessary organizational responses (Kanter, Stein &Jick, 1992). The emergent approach to change emphasizes that change should not be perceived as a series of linear events within a given period of time, but as a continuous, open-ended process of adaptation to changing circumstances and conditions (Dawson, 1994; Burnes, 2009). Apart from only being a method of changing organizational practices and structures, change is also perceived as a process of learning (Davidson & De, 1999. and Dunphy&Stace, 1993). Although Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) argue there are no universal rules when it comes to leading and managing change, several advocates of the emergent approach have suggested several models of emergent change.  University of Ulster (2007) noted the processual theory, an approach that seeks to understand change as it happens.

Processualists describe change leadership and management process as ‘a sequence of individual and collective proceedings, happenings and activities; unfolding over time in context (Pettigrew, 2001). Theorists in processual model reject prescriptive and recipe-driven approaches to change.  They are suspicious of single causes or modest explanations of events and instead, when studying change, they focus on the interrelatedness of individuals, groups, organizations and society (Dawson, 2003; Pettigrew &Whipp, 2001).

Beyond Planned and Emergent Change

Successful change in organizations depends on the change agency and the organizational change competency (Maalu, 2007).  Irrespective of the nature or form of change, it has to be managed.  Someone must be assigned the responsibility of ensuring that change takes place (change agent), this can be the team leader, facilitator, a coach, or a dictator.

There is need to identify specialist skills that will be necessary to manage the different types of change, whether this is being done by a manager or a specialist, then the change competency where an organization has a wide capability to apply change management practices successfully and routinely.  It is the presence of a business culture that expects and reacts to change with the understanding, perspectives, tools and techniques to make change seamless and effortless.  This is where an organization that faces constant demands to change uses effective change management over and over with each new initiative making change a part of ‘business as usual’.  This theory emphasizes the importance of empowering of change agents used by the bank to introduce change in the institution.  In this case, different levels of management as well as lower level employees were used to effect change.

Leadership Decision Styles

Rowe and Boulgarides (1998) illustrated the importance of leadership style that involves different decision styles envisioned, namely: (a) directive; (b) analytic; (c) conceptual; and (d) behavioral. On directive, this leadership style has a low tolerance for vagueness with low cognitive complexity. The focus is on technical decisions, and this style is generally autocratic. The decision maker may adopt this style due to a high need for power because of the use of little information and few alternatives, rapid and satisfactory solutions are typical (Hood, 2006).  They basically prefer structure and specific information, which is given verbally. Their orientation is internal to the organization and short-range. Although they are efficient, these decision makers have a high need for security and status. They have the drive required to achieve results, but they also want to dominate others (Rowe & Boulgarides, 1998).

Secondly, is the analytic decision style, where a leader who is a decision maker has a much greater tolerance for ambiguity than the directive style manager and also has a more cognitively complex personality that leads to the desire for more information and the consideration of many alternatives (Hood, 2006). Due to the focus on technical decisions and the need for control, there is an autocratic bent. As a result, this style enjoys problem solving and strives for the maximum that can be achieved in a given situation. Position and ego are important characteristics possessed by the leader. Consequently, these leaders often reach top posts in an organization or start their own companies. They are not particularly quick in their decision-making, and they enjoy variety and prefer written reports. They also enjoy challenges and examine every detail in a situation (Rowe & Boulgarides, 1998).

Thirdly, is the conceptual decision style, which is about having high cognitive complexity and a people orientation, this style tends to use data from multiple sources and considers many alternatives. Similar to the behavioral style, there is trust and openness in relationships and shared goals with subordinates. Leaders are creative and can readily understand complex relationships. Their focus is long-range with high organizational commitment (Hood, 2006). They are achievement-oriented and value praise, recognition, and independence. They may be characterized as thinkers rather than doers. Lastly, is the behavioral style which has a low cognitive complexity scale but the leader has a deep concern for the organization and development of people. Behavioral style managers tend to be supportive and are concerned with subordinates’ well-being. The leader provides counseling, is receptive to suggestions, communicates easily, shows warmth, is empathetic, persuasive, and is willing to compromise and accept a looser control. Leaders avoid conflict, seek acceptance, and tend to be more people-oriented but are insecure sometimes (Rowe & Boulgarides, 1998).

Empirical Literature

Organizations in the 21^st century face major, discontinuous change that makes strategic change leadership more difficult and more complex than ever (Tichy& Ulrich, 2011). This explains why in the contemporary world, change leadership has become an increasing focus for management attention. Change involves fundamental changes in the business of the organization and its future direction. Val and Fuentes, (2003) described change along a continuum starting in low-scope or evolutionary changes to high-scope or strategic ones but always keeping in mind that real change is not a pure type but a mixture.  First, we have the evolutionary incremental changes also referred to as first order changes which alter certain operational aspects and look for an improvement in the present situation but keep the general working framework.

The second types of change are transformational, revolutionary and strategic change (second order ones).  They are radical transformations, where the organization totally changes its essential framework (Bluementhal & Haspeslagh as cited in Val & Fuentes, 2003).  The organization looks generally for competitive advantage and aspects that affect the basic capabilities of the organization (Hutt, Walker &Frankwick, 1995).

Hyde (2008) observed that when preparing for strategic change, one needs to ask how ready the organization is in proceeding with a strategic change.  These include: – sponsorship of the change – that is, to what extent are the leaders and managers in the organization in support of the change effort?

Managing organizational change starts with understanding how to manage change with a single person.  To lead change effectively, it is important to recognize that the ‘change’ itself does not need as much managing as the people involved in it.  To successfully manage and lead people through any type of change, it helps to be aware of the different ways people prefer to deal with change, and to realize that perceptions of the change styles of others are colored by the leader’s perception.  Among the tools available to drive individual change is the ADKAR model, developed by Prosci (1998), the world leader in change management research and content creation, is commonly used.

Boulgarides and Cohen (2008) research in which he compared decision styles with leadership flexibility observed that the extremes of being too flexible or indecisive, or too inflexible and authoritarian are the least effective. Vilet (2013) suggested that it is easier to change almost anything than a manager or professional’s personality and style.

However, even in a given phase of the organization’s life cycle, a flexible style that can be used to match a given situation was more effective than a nonflexible style. From his exhaustive review of studies on leadership Stewart (2006) noted that although such studies were abundant in terms of the sheer number of empirical studies, a central concept of leadership styles has yet to be developed.

Cabrey, Haughey and Cooke-Davies (2014) found that effective change leadership that will enable employee commitment to change involve standardized project and program management practices; engaged sponsors who actively rally senior management to commit to change; and managing people through change.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The study adopted the following conceptual framework based on the empirical review:-

Source: Author, 2017

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Creswell (2003) described a research design as a plan of carrying out a study while controlling the factors that may have interference on the study findings’ validity. In other words, a research design outlines how, where, and when data will be collected and analysed. This study used a descriptive research design. A descriptive research design describes the attributes of phenomenon or population being studied.

Descriptive research is the investigation in which data is collected and analyzed in order to describe the specific phenomenon in its current events, current trends and linkages between different factors at the current time (Saunders &Thornhill, 2009). Descriptive research design will be used because it facilitates generalization of the findings to a larger population in business studies. The study will use both qualitative and quantitative data.

Population of Study

Bryman and Bell (2007) explained that a population of study is the totality of the individuals and objects from which a scientifically generalizable inference can be achieved. The population of the study were all the employees at AfDB in Kenya. The study considered and selected all the employees at different levels since they were few in number (100).

Data Collection Procedure

The study made use of primary and secondary data. Primary data according to Kothari (2004) is the data collected afresh for the first time while secondary data is that data that has already been collected and passed through statistical processes. Secondary data was obtained from existing records at AfDB in Kenya including strategic plans, corporate annual reports, organizational structure, Email cascades, newsletters, magazines, research and studies done on the bank and other relevant documents.

Structured questionnaires both open and close-ended were used in the study in the collection of primary data so as to gather substantial information. Questionnaires are the most commonly used methods when respondents can be reached and are willing to cooperate. The close-ended questionnaires can greatly help attain standardization and uniformity of the responses that provides a set of responses or options from which a respondent indicates his/her choice (Kothari, 2004). Since this study partly concerns factual issue with a limited range of responses, close-ended questions are particularly useful. On the other hand, open-ended questions were very useful in exploring sensitive issues at AfDB in Kenya; investigating the change leadership and employees’ commitment to change at AfDB. This also allowed the respondent’s opinion to be included in the study.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was done after data collection. This is a process used to attach meaning to the data. The type of data analysis tool that will be used is contingent on the type of data, that is; is the data qualitative or quantitative (Kothari, 2004). The completed questionnaires will be edited for completeness and consistency. Code numbers were assigned to each answer of the question to generate a coding list or frame which will then be fed into computer software SPSS (V.21.0). Descriptive statistics included measures of central tendencies (mean), measures of dispersion (standard deviation), frequencies and percentages. This was facilitated by use of the Likert Scale which enabled easier presentation and interpretation of data. Data was then presented in tables, charts and graphs. Content analysis was used in processing qualitative data and results presented in prose form. The study also used correlation analysis to establish the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variables. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis was also done to determine the same.

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Response Rate

The researcher took a sample of  100 representing 100% of the target population.  However, only 70 questionnaires were properly filled representing 70% of the target population.

Descriptive Analysis

After data collection, the same was coded and entered in SPSS for analysis.  The study started with descriptive analysis and the findings were presented and discussed.  The analysis was carried out section by section, based on the various research variables under investigation.

To clean the data all missing values of the main research questions were replaced with the mode of the valid responses per the item under analysis.

Employees’ Commitment to Change

To understand the types of commitment typically displayed by employees during a change process, employees were asked to indicate which type of commitment best described their commitment to change initiatives at the bank.  The respondents who had affective commitment towards change initiatives at the bank was 62.9%, while those who had normative commitment was 21%, followed by continuance commitment 4% and the others who felt none of the above commitments 1%.  This shows that majority of the employees of the bank chose to remain with the bank in spite of change because they wanted to.  The majority of the employees were happy working for the organization because they felt a sense of satisfaction with their jobs as well as remuneration and other working conditions.

Table 1 Change Leadership

Source:  Survey Data, 2016

Change Leadership

The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the following elements played a role in defining change leadership at the bank.  The results were analyzed and tabulated as per table 4.4 below.   From the analysis, a mean score of 4.0571 and Std. Dev. of .663 indicate that majority of the respondents agreed that having senior management committed to change played the most important role in defining change leadership, while having engaged executive sponsors did not play a major role in defining change leadership at the bank with a mean score of 2.9000 and Std. Dev. of 1.15658.

Leadership Styles

The respondents were asked to indicate the leadership style that was evident with management.  The results were analyzed and tabulated in figure 4.5 below.  50% of the respondents indicated that the conceptual leadership style was most evident with the management, followed by 24.29% for analytic style, 20% for directive style, 4.286% for behavioral style, while 1.429% indicated other types of leadership styles.

Change Leadership and Employees’ Commitment to Change

The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the elements given influenced employees’ organizational commitment to change at the AfDB.  The results were analyzed and tabulated as per table below.

Table Change leadership and Employees’ Commitment to Change

Source:  Survey Data, 2016

From table above, the respondents agree that to a very large extent that leadership style play a role in influencing the employees’ organizational commitment to change at African Development Bank Group in Kenya, ranked first with a mean of 4.1571. Change leadership initiatives to a great extent play a role in influencing the employees’ organizational commitment to change with a mean of 3.9429. Strategic change envisioning to a moderate extent with a mean of 3.8; empowering change agents to a lesser extent in influencing the employees’ organizational commitment to change with a mean score of 3.1571; while stakeholders engagement in the change process to no extent play a role in influencing the employees’ organizational commitment to change at African Development Bank Group in Kenya with a mean score of 3.1143.

Considering the standard deviation, there was consensus attributed to the fact that all the components of change leadership apart from stakeholders’ engagement in the change process influence the employees’ organizational commitment to change at African Development Bank Group in Kenya having a standard deviation less than 1. Leadership style had 0.73496; leadership initiatives had 0.84931; strategic change envisioning had 0.91049; empowering change agents had 0.98739 indicating an insignificant variation from the mean.

A standard deviation of more than 1 indicates that there is no consensus on the responses obtained, which is the case for stakeholders’ engagement in the change process with Std. Dev. of 1.02918. Thus no consensus among the respondents on the role played by stakeholders’ engagement in the change process to influence the employees’ organizational commitment to change at African Development Bank Group in Kenya.

Reliability Test

To achieve reliability of the questionnaire, the Cronbsch’s Alpha technique was used to administer an internal consistency technique, where alpha values range from 0 to 1, with the reliability increasing as the alpha value increases. The commonly used coefficient in the acceptance of reliability is 0.6 to 0.7, with greater than or equal to 0.8 indicating a good reliability (Kothari, 2004). Thus from the table below, reliability of 0.790 indicates good reliability.

Table 4.9:  Reliability Statistics

Source: Pilot test data

Test of  Sampling Adequacy

To test whether the sample was adequate for data analysis Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure were used. KMO measure varies between 0 and 1, and values closer to 1 are better with a threshold of 0.5 (Williams, Brown and Onsman, 2012).  The KMO test statistics are shown in table below:

Table : KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Source: Survey Data, 2016

 From the table 4.9 above, all that all the KMO test statistics were greater than 0.5. Thus the sample used by the study was adequate and representative of the study population. Therefore, the findings from the study can be generalized on the entire population of the development banks in Kenya and to beyond to African countries.

Regression Analysis

The researcher carried out multiple regression to establish the relationship between the dependent variable and the various independent variables.

Table 4.11: Regression Analysis Model

a. Predictors: (Constant), Empowering change agents, leadership style, strategic change envisioning, change leadership

Source: Survey Data, 2016

From the table above, on the multiple regression, the R squared of 0.613 implies that the model could explain 61.3% of the variables relationship. The Adjusted R squared of 0.590 explains that the variance of 59% on the dependent variable, (employees’ commitment to change), can be explained by the independent variables (change leadership initiatives, leadership styles, strategic change envisioning, stakeholders’ engagement in the change process and empowering change agents). The remaining 41% can be explained by other variables not included in the study.

This shows that the study’s conceptualization of the model is good and the research was done appropriately.

The study also used Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) consists of calculations that provide information about levels of variability within a regression model and form a basis for tests of significance as shown in table 4.11 below:

Table 4.12: ANOVA^a

a. Dependent Variable: change leadership and employees’ commitment to change

b. Predictors: (Constant), Empowering change agents, leadership style, strategic change envisioning, change leadership

Source:  Survey Data, 2016

In the ANOVA table above, the F statistic is equal to 25.785.  The P-value for the F test statistic is less than 0.001, (<0.05) indicating that the model is significant at 95% precision level.

Table 4.13 Coefficient Table

a. Dependent Variable: change leadership and employees’ commitment to change

Source:  Survey Data, 2016

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Leadership change and employees’ commitment to change process have been, and continue to be, important disciplines of study for both researchers and practitioners. This study has demonstrated the importance of better integrating these two areas of study. If successful change in organizations requires leadership, and leadership is about facilitating change, then there is need to more closely marry these concepts in study’s investigations of change leadership and employees’ commitment to change process. In this study, change leadership was conceptualized and operationalized as a group-level variable, whereas employees’ commitment to change was assessed at the individual level. The findings as discussed as per each objective above increase the confidence that the significant relationships are not spurious or based on linear forms of bias. Furthermore, although most studies of change focus on one change, investigating cross-change relationships so as to obtain and examine variance in critical variables, such as change leadership, change implementation practices and employees’ commitment to change is also important.

In the light of the findings of the study, the researcher identified that majority of employees have an affective commitment towards change initiatives at the bank. This implies that the staff develops emotional ties with the bank and remains with the bank in spite of change because they want to do so. More so, employees at AfDB agree that the various components of change leadership play a role in influencing the employees’ organizational commitment to change at African Development Bank Group in Kenya.

It can be concluded that leadership style, change leadership initiatives to strategic change envisioning and empowering change agents have an influence on the employees’ organizational commitment to change at African Development Bank Group in Kenya.

The findings of this study have practical implications for development banks in Africa. The study found several statistically significant relationships with practical applications. Development banks that are interested in implementing change must be concerned with leadership style, strategic change envisioning, stakeholders’ engagement in the change process and empowering change agents as well as with employees’ commitment to organizational change process. To increase the probability of employees’ commitment to change process in development banks, making strategic choices and having senior management committed to change are considered better predictors in generating employees’ commitment to change process leadership. Analytical and conceptual leadership styles helps to generate commitment among the staff as opposed to directive style, because employees feel slightly less obligated to support a change initiated by directive style of leadership.

REFERENCES

1. Ajmal, S., Farooq, Z., Sajid, N. &Awan, S. (2012). Role of Leadership in Change Management Process. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (2), 111-124.
2. Applebaum, H., & Donia, M., (2001).The realistic downsizing preview. A management intervention in the prevention of survivor syndrome (part II).Career Development International, 6(1), 5-19.
3. Bamford, D. & Forrester, P. (2003). Managing Planned and Emergent Change Within an Operations Management Environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(5), 546–564.
4. Bennis, WG & Nanus, B (1985) Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA.
5. Bollinger, D., & Inam F. (2012).  Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). The international Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 41-65
6. Boulgarides, J. D. & Cohen, W. A. (2009).Leadership style vs. leadership tactics. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 6, (1), 59-73.
7. Bullock, R. & Batten, D. (1985). It‟s just a Phase We‟re Going Through: A Review and Synthesis of OD Phase Analysis. Group and Organization Studies, 10(1),   8-9.
8. Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics.5^th ed. Milan, Prentice Hall.
9. Cabrey, T., Haughey, A. & Cooke-Davies, T. (2014).Enabling Organizational Change through Strategic Initiatives. United Kingdom: Project Management Institute.
10. Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Towards an understanding of the relationships between organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 868–882.
11. Cheng, C. (2000). Strategic Leadership for Educational Transformation in the New Millennium, Chulalongkorn. Educational Review 6(2).
12. Churchill, G. (2002). Marketing research: Methodological Foundations. Chicago: Dryden Press.
13. Conway, E., & Monks, K. (2008). HR practices and commitment to change: an  employee-level analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(1), 72-89.
14. Cooper, C. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008).Business Research Methods, 10^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
15. Creswell, J.W., (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
16. Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2005) Organization Development and Change.8^th ed. South-Western College Publishing: Mason, OH, USA.
17. Davidson, M. & De, M. (1999). Corporate Change: Education as a Catalyst, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, MCB: University Press, 7(2), 34-36.
18. Dawson, P (2003) Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. Routledge:  London.
19. Dunphy, D. & Stace, D. (1993).The Strategic Management of Corporate Change. Human Relations, 46(8), 905–918.
20. Eldrod II, P. & Tippett, D. (2002).The “Death Valley” of Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 273–291.
21. Elias, S. M. (2009). Employee Commitment in Times of Change: Assessing the Importance of Attitudes Toward Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 35(1), 37-55.
22. Fedor, D., Caldwell, S. &Herold, D. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multi-level investigation. Personnel Psychology,   59, 1–29.
23. Firth-Cozens, J. (1998).Celebrating Team work. Quality in Health Care, 7, 3-7.
24. Gelaidan, M. & Ahmad, H. (2013) The Factors Effecting Employee Commitment to Change in Public Sector: Evidence from Yemen. International Business  Research, 6 (3), 75-88.
25. Glicken, M. D. (2008). Social Research: A Simple Guide. New York: Rowman and Littlefield
26. Greener, S.L. (2008).Business Research Methods. Copenhagen: Ventus Publishing ApS.
27. Guimaraes, T. & Armstrong, C. (1998).Empirically Testing the Impact of Change Management Effectiveness on Company Performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(2), 67- 76.
28. Hayes, J., (2010). The Theory and Practice of Change Management, (3rd ed) Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
29. Headrick L, &Wilcock, P. (1998). Inter-professional working and continuing medical education’, British Medical Journal, 316 (7), 771-774.
30. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487
31. Hood, D. (2006). Leadership and Change Management. New York: MacMillan.
32. Howarth, M. D., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Transformational Leadership And Organizational Change: The Impact Of Vision Content And Delivery. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
33. Husting, P. (1996). Leading work teams and improving performance, Nursing Management, 27 (9), 35-38.
34. Hutt M., Walker, B. &Frankwick, G. (1995). Hurdle the Cross-functional Barriers to Strategic Change. Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 200-207.
35. Hyde A. (2008). Are You Ready for Strategic Change? Journal of Strategic Change. Retrieved from www.3rdperspective.com.
36. Jackson, H. & Morgan, C. (1982).Organization Theory.2^nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
37. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., &Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122
38. Jones, G. (2013). Organizational Theory, Design and Change. 7^th ed. Boston: Pearson
39. Karp, T &Helgo T. I. (2008).  From Change Management to change leadership: Embracing chaotic change in public service organisations.  Journal of  8 – 96.
40. Lear, L. (2012). The Relationship between Strategic Leadership and Strategic Alignment in High-Performing Companies in South Africa.Published Dissertation, Doctor of Business Leadership: University of South Africa.
41. Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics. In D Cartwright (ed) (1952): Field Theory in Social Science. Social Science Paperbacks: London.
42. Lo, M. C., Ramayah, T., & Run, E. C. D. (2010 ). Does transformational leadership style foster commitment to change? The case of higher education in Malaysia.  Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5384-5388.
43. Loxley, A. (1997). Collaboration in Health and Welfare, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
44. Maalu, J. (2007). Managing Strategic Change: DSM 610 [Lecture notes]. Nairobi, Kenya: University of Nairobi, Department of Business Administration.
45. Marrow, A. (1969) The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin.  Teachers College Press (1977 edition): New York, USA.
46. Meyer, J. & Allen, N.  (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application, Sage Publications, London.
47. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill: New York, USA.
48. Meyer, J., Srinivas, E., Lal, B. &Topolnytsky, L. (2007). Employee commitment and  support for an organizational change: Test of the three component model in two    cultures. Journal of Occupational & Organizational   Psychology, 80(2), 185-211.
49. Meyer, J. Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L. &Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior,  61(1), 20-52.
50. Miller, D. (2011). Successful change: how to implement change through people. London, John Wiley & Sons.
51. Nahavandi, A. (2012). The Art and Science of Leadership. 6^th ed. Pearson Education Inc: New Jersey.
52. Pettigrew, AM (1997) What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of  Management, 13(4), 337–48.
53. Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R. (1993).Understanding the environment. In C Mabey and B Mayon White (eds): Managing Change (2nd edition). The Open University/Paul Chapman Publishing: London.
54. Pettigrew, A. & Woodman, R. & Cameron, K. (2001). Studying organizational  change and development: challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697–713.
55. Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R. & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of   Applied Psychology.59: 603-609.
56. Price, J. & Mueller, W. (1986).Handbook of organization measurement. Marshfield.  Massachusetts. USA: Pitman.
57. Prosci, G. (1998). Business and People Dimensions of Change: Key Roles in Change Management – Putting the ‘Gears’ in Motion, USA, p.132.
58. Rowe, A. J., &Boulgarides, J.D. (1998).Managerial decision making. New York: MacMillan.
59. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., &Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business  Students, 5^thed. New Delhi: Pearson Publishing.
60. Schein, E. (1996) Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes towards a model of management learning. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27-47.
61. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1990, 7-23
62. Senior, B. (2002). Organisational Change. 2^nd ed. London: Prentice Hall.
63. Shum, P., Bove, L., &Seigyoung, A. (2008). Employees’ affective commitment to change The key to successful CRM implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(11/12), 1346-1371.
64. Smith, W. K., Binns, A., &Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43, 448-461.
65. Stewart, J. (2006) Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy.54, 89-95.
66. Svensen, E., Neset, G., &Eriksen, H. R. (2007). Factors associated with a positive attitude towards change among employees during the early phase of a downsizing process. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 153-159.
67. Tichy N. & Ulrich, D. (2011). The Leadership Challenge: A Call for the Transformational Leader, Sloan Management Review. 3(4, 67-86.
68. Tran, Q. and Tian, Y. (2013). Organizational Structure: Influencing Factors and Impact   on a Firm. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management.3 (1),  229 236.
69. Tushman, M. L. (2013). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
70. Val M. & Fuentes C. (2003). Resistance to Change: Literature Review and Empirical Study, Management Decision, Emerald, MCB UP Limited.
71. Van A. & Poole, M. (2008).Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation.  USA, Oxford University Press.
72. Vilet (2013).Fielder Contingency Model.Retrieved from http://www.toolshero.com.
73. Walton, R. (1986). A Vision-Led Approach to Management Restructuring.  Organizational Dynamics, 14 (4) 5-17.
74. Weick, K. & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational Change and Development, Annual Review  of Psychology, 5 (3), 56-64.
75. Wolf, D. (2002). Execution and Structure.Retrieved from www.dewarsloan.com.
76. Yukl, G (2002) Leadership in Organizations (5th edition). Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
77. Zikmund, G. Babin,J.,Carr,C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods. 8^th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western/ Cengage Learning.