Organisation Preparedness to Change and Employees’  Commitment. Case of The African Development Bank in Kenya

Organisation Preparedness to Change and Employees’  Commitment. Case of The African Development Bank in Kenya

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

Received: 28 February 2023; Revised: 16 March 2023; Accepted: 21 March 2023; Published: 20 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 three specific objectives: to investigate the relationship between strategic change envisioning and employees’ commitment to change; to establish whether engaging stakeholders in the change process has an effect on employees’ commitment to change; and to determine the effects of empowering change agents on employees’ commitment to change.  This study used descriptive research design and data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. A target population of 100 employees at the AfDB was selected for the Census.  The data was analysed using descriptive and inferential analysis with aid of SPSS.  In conclusion, the researcher identified that strategic change envisioning and empowering change agent have an influence on employees’ organizational commitment to change.

Key words:    change leadership; employees’ commitment to change; strategic change envisioning

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

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.

Organizational Commitment to change

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. It can be viewed to have three attributes: (i) value commitment which means that one believes in and accepts organizational overall objectives and core values; (ii) effort commitment where the employees are willing to make an effort; and (iii) retention commitment which means that employees have a strong aspiration to retain the association of the institution (Porter, Steer, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). 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.

Research Objectives

1. To assess the effects of strategic change envisioning on employees’ commitment
2. To evaluate the effect of stakeholders engagement in the change process on employees’ commitment
3. To determine the effects of empowering change agents 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). This model of change recognizes the need to discard old behaviour, processes, structures,  and culture before successfully adopting new approaches (Bamford and Forrester, 2003).  Even though this three-step model was adopted as a general framework for understanding the process of organisational change, it is rather broad (Eldrod II and Tippett, 2002). Several authors have, therefore, developed Lewin’s work in an attempt to make it more practical (Bamford and Forrester, 2003). By reviewing more than 30 models of planned change, Bullock and Batten (1985) developed a four-phase model of planned change that splits the process into exploration, planning, action and integration.  This theory can be used for the study to show how the change initiatives introduced at the bank need to go through the three stages before they can be institutionized.  The leadership style used by the top management also determines how fast the changes introduced will be adopted by the staff.

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.

Meyer and Allen’s Employee Commitment Model

Meyer and Allen (1997) developed a three component model that considers the types of commitment typically displayed by employees during a change process as comprising affective, normative and continuance commitment as depicted in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Meyer and Allen’s Employee Commitment Model

Source: Meyer and Allen (1997)

In the context of change leadership, organizational commitment goes beyond just positive attitudes toward the change to include the intention to support it as well as a willingness to work hard for its successful implementation. Thus, change commitment represents a psychological alignment with, or attachment to, the change rather than just reflecting a favorable disposition toward it, such as being open to, or accepting of it.

Furthermore, employees’ commitment to change has been found to be conceptually and empirically distinct from organizational commitment (Fedor, Caldwell & Herold, 2006) and to be a better predictor of support for change than organizational commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).

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. ADKAR is a useful framework for leading in the planning and execution of their work (Prosci, 1998).   The framework was developed after research with more than 300 companies undergoing major change projects.  To effectively use the framework, a leader needs to understand the underlying change initiatives.  In the diagram below, change happens on two dimensions: the business dimension (vertical axis) and the people dimension (horizontal axis). Successful change happens when both dimensions of change occur simultaneously.  Prosci (1998) explained that the business dimension of change includes the typical project elements, namely: – business need or opportunity is identified; project is defined (scope and objectives); business solution is designed (new processes, systems and organizational structure); new processes and systems are developed; and the solution is implemented into the organization.  On the people dimension of change, research shows that problems with the people dimension of change is the most commonly cited reason for project failures.  In a study of 248 companies, effective change management of employees was listed as one of the top three overall success factors for the project.  Helping managers be effective sponsors of change was considered the most critical success factor overall.  Effective management of the people dimension of change requires managing five key goals that form the basis of the ADKAR model.  The key goals are:-awareness of the need to change; desire to participate and support the change; knowledge of how to change (and what the change looks like); ability to implement the change on a day-to-day basis; and the reinforcement to keep the change in place (Prosci, 1998). 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. An in-depth report provides insights from a 2014 PMI study of experienced project management practitioners from around the globe that indicated that very few organizations successfully manage these strategic initiatives to keep up with the volatile global economy (Cabrey, Haughey & Cooke-Davies, 2014). The research indicated that only 18 percent of organizations report being highly effective; 18% minimally effective and majorly; and 64% are moderately effective at organizational change leadership. However, organizations that are highly effective at change leadership incorporate certain practices that they deem important to the success of strategic initiatives, namely: (a) having well-defined milestones and metrics; (b) having senior management committed to change; (c) establishing and communicating concrete ownership and accountability; (d) using standardized project management practices; (e) having engaged executive sponsors. On the primary causes of organizational change failure, the research indicated that 59% is due to insufficient communications and only 56% due to lack of leadership (Cabrey, Haughey & Cooke-Davies, 2014). 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. Other studies, for instance, Hayes (2010) found out that willingness on the part of employees to commit to future change can be reduced due to their experiences, and subsequently influence levels of overall commitment to the organization. The research into significant organizational change in employees at a development bank showed that all these factors have come to the fore; in particular, more attention needs to be paid to internal communication to ensure that  employees are committed to the reasons for change, and attention needs to be given to  how to manage future change to ensure a successful outcome as almost 70% of  organizations undertake further reductions in the year following an initial downsizing (Applebaum & Donia, 2001). For effective change, the study reveals that leadership and trust in top management are important. They are strongly correlated (positively) with change implementing behavior, monitoring of anticipators, management level, and department connection (Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag, 2009). According to Noer (1997), the leader, as a person, is the most important tool for change. The leader’s spirit, insight, wisdom, compassion, values, and learning skills are all important facets in the capabilities to lead others to embrace change and redesign. The leader who prompts change within a firm is often subject to approximate thought (Nadler & Nadler, 1998). It is the leadership’s behavior that makes the change situations more effective (Higgs & Rowland, 2005).

Conceptual Framework

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

Figure   Conceptual Framework

Source: Author, 2016

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. According to the AfDB human resource profile, there were 100 employees at different levels: top level managers, middle level managers and general staff.

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. Greener (2008) notes that, data collection methods for primary data include: semi-structured and structured questionnaires, mailed questionnaires, semi-structured and structured interviews (telephone and personal interviews), observation and focus group discussions. 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. The questionnaire was divided into four sections. Section A profiled all the managers at AfDB in Kenya.  Section B looked at Change Leadership at AfBD in Kenya. Thirdly, the Section C scrutinized employees’ commitment to change at AfDB and lastly, the Section D linked change leadership and employees’ commitment to change at AfDB in Kenya. The questionnaire was administered to top management level, middle management level and lower level management levels. This was because the managers were in a good position to provide the required information on the strategic position of the bank. The questionnaire was sent through the internet to the respondents and in some cases, the ‘drop and pick’ mode of questionnaire was used.  According to Glicken (2008) the use of the Drop-off/Pick-Up (DOPU) method results in significantly high response rates. The researcher administered the questionnaire.

Pilot Testing

Validity refers to the degree that an instrument actually measures what it is designed or intended to measure (Bollingert and Inam, 2012).  Zikmund et al., (2010) posits that it is the accuracy of measure or the extent to which a score truthfully measures a concept.  It is concerned with the meaningfulness of research components (Drost, 2011). Normally, validity is classified in three major categories: content validity; construct validity and criterion-related validity. Reliability is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same result on repeated trials (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).  It is a measure of the consistency of variable measurements. A pre-testing was conducted prior to data collection for testing of the questionnaire on a small sample of respondents to identify and eliminate potential problems with the questionnaire (Churchill, 2002). The aim of the pilot test was to test the validity and reliability of the research instrument.  In addition, it was a means which ensured that all intended dimensions of research were covered and also that all questions were clear and unambiguous. According to Glicken (2008), this is arrived at when the instruments that are to be used in the research are pre-tested in a bid to realize and change questions that may offend the respondents, or those questions that may seem ambiguous or awkward to the respondents. Opinions from experts in the field under study were sought in order to establish the validity of the instruments used in the research. To achieve reliability of the research instrument, the questionnaire was pre-tested against a group of 10 employees. The Cronbsch’s Alpha technique will be 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). However, the data obtained from the pilot test was not be included in the actual 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.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Response Rate

The researcher issued out 100 questionnaires out of which 73 were received back.  Three questionnaires were disqualified due to incompleteness, while twenty seven questionnaires were not returned.  Thus 70 questionnaires were considered as suitable for the analysis.  This translated to 70% of the targeted total of 100 questionnaires.  According to Saunders et al., (2009), a response rate of 50percent is adequate, 60 percent is good, and a response rate of 70 percent and above is considered very good.  Therefore, the response rate of 70% achieved was adequate for drawing conclusions on the study objectives.

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.

Strategic Change Envisioning

The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the elements of strategic change envisioning used by the leadership effect change at AfDB.  The results were analyzed and tabulated as per table 4.5 below.

Table   Strategic Change Envisioning

Source:  Survey Data, 2016

From the analysis, a mean score of 4.2286 and Std. Dev. of .76464 indicate that majority of the respondents agreed that making strategic choices played the most important role in effecting change leadership, while developing monitoring and evaluation framework (with indicators and means of verification) did not play a major role in effecting change leadership at the bank with a mean score of 3.6571 and Std. Dev. of .93073.

Stakeholders’ Engagement in the change process

The respondents were asked to indicate which group (s) was engaged in the change process.  The results indicates that 30% indicated that corporate headquarters or parent organization were engaged in the change process, 23% of the respondents indicated that top management/executive team were engaged in the change process, 13% indicated that middle level management or departmental/program heads were involved in change process; 15% indicated the funding/donor agencies and 10% indicated consultants were engaged in change process; whilst only 9% indicated that the general staff were engaged in the change process. This shows little engagement among the general staff in change process yet they are the members of staff that are involved in implementing the changes.

Empowering Change Agents

The respondents were asked to indicate which group (s) was offered any training or capacity building to implement a change process at the AfDB.  From the analysis, 50% of the respondents indicated that senior/top level management were offered training/capacity building, 26% indicated other employees; 15 indicated middle level management got training while only 10% indicated that lower level management were offered any training or capacity building to implement a change process at the AfDB.

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). The study’s reliability was 0.790 thus good reliability.

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).

Source: Survey Data, 2016

From the table 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.  The findings are presented in  appendix III.

Table  : 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:

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.

Coefficient Table

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

Source:  Survey Data, 2016

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Strategic Change Envisioning

The third objective was to investigate the relationship between strategic change envisioning and employees’ commitment at AfDB. The study achieved its objective by the majority of the respondents (mean score of 4.2286 and Std. Dev. of 0.76464) portraying that making strategic choices played the most important role in effecting change leadership which enhanced employees’ commitment to the organization. At AfDB it is important for leaders to envision the project elements such as the scope, objectives, business solution and organizational structure that will be used to achieve the set vision. If leaders cannot address the people dimension of change at AfDB in their envisioning, then there will be projects’ failures.  Further findings on strategic change envisioning used by the leadership to effect change at AfDB, indicated that developing monitoring and evaluation framework did not play a major role in effecting change leadership at the bank. These findings contradict earlier findings that showed that monitoring and evaluation framework play a role in effecting change leadership and prompting employees’ commitment to the organization.  Therefore, the study achieved the third objective as the findings portrayed that making strategic choices played the most important role in effecting change leadership which enhanced employees’ commitment to the organization.

Engaging Stakeholders in the Change Process

The fourth objective was to establish whether engaging stakeholders in the change process has an effect on employees’ commitment to change. Majority of the respondents were of the opinion that corporate headquarters or parent organization, top management/executive team and middle level management or departmental/program heads were involved in change process. Furthermore, only a minority of the employees indicated that the general staff were engaged in the change process. This is of concern when it comes to execution of changes at AfDB and the employees’ get committed to change process. It implies that implementing changes at AfDB are faced with resistance due to low involvement of general staff. The bank needs to have change leaders adopt participatory leadership style that involve all stakeholders in change processes that prompt commitment from the employees. This involves an integration phase that entails consolidating and stabilizing change and reinforcing new behaviours among the staff.  AfDB change leaders ought to create and design change processes within the bank.  The bank leaders should be responsible for joining the gap between strategy decisions and the reality of executing the changes within the organizational structure and staff of the bank for the employees to be committed to change taking place in the bank. Furthermore, leaders at AfDB should be in the business of organizing and maintaining a climate for change among the stakeholders that prompt employees’ commitment to the organization. Therefore, the study achieved the fourth objective as the findings stipulated that stakeholders’ involvement has an effect on change process in organizations.

Empowering Change Agents

On the final objective, the study sought to determine the effects of empowering change agents on employees’ commitment to change. From the analyzed data, majority indicated that senior/middle/lower level employees were offered training/capacity building. For AfDB the change agent is the top management who act as the facilitator of change process that trigger commitment to change process.  The top management ought to have specialist skills that will be necessary to manage the different types of change. In addition, the bank faces constant demands to change especially widening of the business scope to cover the new initiatives to be implemented by the bank also known as  the High 5s, which are 1) Light Up & Power Africa, 2) Feed Africa, 3) Industrialize Africa, 4) Integrate Africa, and 5) Improve the quality of life for the people of Afica, thus the change agents need to create a culture of approaching change as part of ‘business as usual’ to enhance employees’ commitment to these initiatives. Therefore, the study achieved the fifth objective that empowering change agents, mainly the management team plays a key role in spurring employees’ commitment to the organization.

CONCLUSION

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.

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 Teamwork. 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). Interprofessional 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^th ed. 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. Senge, M, P. (1990). The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations. 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.