A Study on Employee Conviction to Change – With Special Reference to Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

 

A. Durga Sree*

Research Scholar, Faculty of Management,  University College of Commerce and Business Management, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

 

ABSTRACT:

Organisational change process begins with the organisational learning process. Organisational learning is a process which involves confronting own employee behaviour openly. The learning process fills the gaps between doubt and conviction which reduce the resistances. Employee an individually convicted to change means strongly accepted to change. The present paper focused on how change conviction related to change resistance and change acceptance at Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). It is concluded that employee conviction to change negatively related with employee resistance to change and positively related to employee acceptance to change.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

A conviction can be defined as once strong belief about change that brings good for them. It is a psychological state of mind. Conviction and doubt both are familiar to each but the conviction is an own doubt about what is right vs. wrong is not mere personal preference.

 

The organisational change process starts with creating awareness about the change. The individual’s awareness process will initiate the change process in the organisation from getting a doubt about change. Doubt allows the learning process, and the conviction allows doubt to continue as an active experimentation. Lack of conviction it may result as fear and paralysis, and too much conviction eliminates uncertainty and energy for exploring the alternatives.

In the initial stage of change introduction employees strongly resist the change introduction lack of awareness and knowledge about change, then learning process creates awareness and doubts about change to make them convicted about change. And in the conviction stage employees get clarity about all doubts and strongly belief the change that will be benefited them. This enhances their acceptance towards the change.

 

 

Source: Author’s Compilation

Fig.1 Change Process

 

LITERATURE REVIEW:

Review of literature is taking insights from topic related studies which have been published by many researchers.

 

Huber (1991) points out that organizational learning is often defined as common interpretation, which may overlook the variety of interpretations that may exist in an organization at a given point in time.

 

Argyris, (1982, 1985), One of the central challenges facing the field of organizational learning is the enhancement of the capacity of its scholars and practitioners to diagnose and effectively break down barriers to organizational learning.

 

Friere, (1990), clearly, there are models of change that recognize the need to organize and empower those who are oppressed so they might influence the systems they inhabit.

 

Block, 1987, Senge et al., (1994): Most models of employee involvement, employee empowerment and even some models of intervention into organizational learning, include elements of this strategy.

 

Neumann, (1989), while revolutionary models of building conviction for learning are becoming more popular, they continue to carry risks associated with failure to impress those in power with the need for change. Employee empowerment may be permitted where change is “safe” but not in areas that are critical to the success of the business.

 

Kuhl (1985), suggested that a personality variable, action versus state orientation, may account for individual differences in bringing about desired change. Conviction to learn in areas that are “unsafe” requires individual willingness to take action, even in the face of significant sanctions for failure.

 

Bandura’s (1977), concept of self-efficacy can also be invoked to explain individual differences in the ability to cope with or respond to new learning; individuals with higher self-efficacy appear to engage in the venturesome behaviour, a process which can facilitate the exploratory behaviours that support a learning-oriented environment.

 

Weick, (1979), Important tests of new behaviours will be avoided, causing the organization to fall increasingly out of alignment with its external environment.

 

OBJECTIVES:

1.      To study the relationship between employee resistance and employee conviction to the change in Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC).

2.      To study the relationship between employee conviction and employee acceptance to the change in Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC).

 

 

HYPOTHESIS:

H01: There is no significant correlation between Employee Conviction and Employee Resistance towards the Changes in TSRTC.

 

H02: There is no significant correlation between Employee conviction and Employee Acceptance towards the Change.

 

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The Present study covers emphasis on Employee conviction to the change in Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). This study would make the management to understand about how Employee conviction during the change is related to the employee change resistances and employee change acceptance to facilitate the change.

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The nature of the study was descriptive and non-random sampling technique convenient sampling method was used for selecting a sample from the population. The sample size for the study was 310. The sources of data to conduct the study were primary and secondary data. The primary data was collected through structured questionnaire framed as six factors with 5 point rating (5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Neutral, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree) Likert scale of closed-ended type and were tested reliability by a conducted pilot study on 80 employees and six factors found to be highly measurable. SPSS was used to analyze the data.

 

DATA ANALYSIS and INTERPRETATION:

Cronbach’s Alpha Test:

Table.1 Reliability Statistics

Source: Author’s Compilation

 

The reliability test for Questionnaire shows a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.810 which reveals Good reliability rating of the questionnaire.

 

H01: There is no significant relationship between the Employee Conviction and Employee Resistance towards the Changes in TSRTC.

 

The hypothesis has been tested with the help of Pearson correlation coefficient.

 

The above table indicates the descriptive statistics of employee conviction and employee resistance to change. It is observed that mean of the both dependent variables are close to each other, and standard deviation of the employee resistance factors are low compared to employee conviction.

Table.2 Descriptive Statistics

Source: Author’s Compilation

 

The above graph indicates the mean and standard deviation of the employee Conviction and resistance to change.

 

Resistance and conviction:

Chart.1 Descriptive Statistics of Employee

 

Table.3 Correlations

	Employee Resistance	Employee Conviction
Employee Resistance	Pearson Correlation	1	-.495**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.000
	N	310	310
Employee Conviction	Pearson Correlation	-.495**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000
	N	310	310

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Source: Author’s Compilation

 

The above table indicates the Pearsons correlation between the Employee Resistance and employee conviction to change. It is observed that there is a less negative correlation (r= -0.495) between both the variables. The sig. Value (P=0.000) is less than 0.05; it

can conclude that there is significant correlation exist between employee resistance and conviction. Hence null hypothesis is rejected, and alternative hypothesis accepted.

 

Scatter Diagram.1 Correlation between Employee Resistance and Conviction

 

Source: Author’s Compilation

The scatter diagram above reveals the information about the two variable responses is located around the

linear line and these are in the negative direction showing that negative correlation between employee resistance and conviction of change.

 

There is a significant relationship between Employee Conviction and Employee Resistance towards the Changes in TSRTC:

 

H02: There is no significant correlation between Employee conviction and Employee Acceptance towards the Change:

The hypothesis has been tested with the help of Pearson correlation coefficient between employee conviction and acceptance to change.

 

Table.4 Descriptive Statistics

	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Employee Conviction	3.740	.8325	310
Employee Acceptance	3.652799585	.6108939434	310

Source: Author’s Compilation

 

The above table indicates the descriptive statistics of employee conviction and employee acceptance to change. It is observed that mean of the both dependent variables are close to each other, and standard deviation of the employee acceptance factors are low compared to employee conviction.

 

 

Source: Author’s Compilation

Graph.2 Descriptive Statistics

 

The above graph indicates the mean and standard deviation of the employee Conviction and acceptance to change.

 

Table.5 Correlations

		Employee Conviction	Employee Acceptance
Employee Conviction	Pearson Correlation	1	.815**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.000
	N	310	310
Employee Acceptance	Pearson Correlation	.815**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000
	N	310	310

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Source: Author’s Compilation

The above table indicates the Pearsons correlation between the Employee conviction and employee acceptance to change. It is observed that there is a positive correlation (r=0.815) between both the variables. The sig. Value (P=0.000) is less than 0.05; it can conclude that there is significant correlation exist between employee conviction and employee acceptance to change. Hence null hypothesis is rejected, and alternative hypothesis accepted.

 

 

Scatter Diagram.2 Correlation between Employee Conviction and Acceptance

Source: Author’s Compilation

 

The scatter diagram above reveals the information about the two variable responses is located around the linear line, and these are in the positive direction showing that positive correlation between employee conviction and employee acceptance towards change.

 

There is a significant relationship between level of Employee Conviction and Employee Acceptance towards the Changes in TSRTC

Findings:

H01: It is observed that there is a less negative correlation (r= -0.495) between both the variables. The sig. Value (P=0.000) is less than 0.05; it can conclude that there is significant correlation exist between employee resistance and conviction. Hence null hypothesis is rejected, and alternative hypothesis accepted.

 

H02: It is observed that there is a positive correlation (r=0.815) between both the variables. The sig. Value (P=0.000) is less than 0.05; it can conclude that there is significant correlation exist between employee conviction and employee acceptance to change. Hence null hypothesis is rejected, and alternative hypothesis accepted.

CONCLUSION:

It is concluded that the relation between the employee resistance to change and employee conviction are inversely proportioned to one another, i.e., if resistance decreases conviction increases among the employees about change. The relation between employee conviction and change acceptance are a positive correlation. The both variables significantly correlated with the employee conviction to change. \

 

REFERENCES:

1.       Argyris, C., Reasoning, Learning and Action: Individual and Organizational, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1982.

2.       Argyris, C., Strategy Change and Defensive Routines, Pitman, Boston, MA. 1985.

3.       Param Srikantia William Pasmore, Conviction and doubt in Organizational  learning, Journal of Organizational, Change Management, 1996, Vol. 9 Iss 1 pp. 42 – 53.

4.       Block, P., The Empowered Manager, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 1987.

5.       Huber, G., Organizational learning; the contributing processes and the literatures, Organizational Science, 1991, Vol. 2,  No. 1, February.

6.       Friere, P., Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum, New York, NY. 1990.

7.       Kuhl, J., Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: toward a comprehensive theory of action control, in Maher, B.A. (Ed.) Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 1985, Vol. 13, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 99-171.

8.       Neumann, J., Why people don’t participate in organizational change, in Pasmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1989, Vol. 3, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT, pp. 181-212.

9.       Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline; The Art and Practice of the Learning organization, Double Day/Currency, New York, NY. 1990.

10.     Senge, P., Roberts, C., Rous, R., Smith, B. and Kleiner, A., The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook; Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Currency, New York, NY. 1994.

11.     Weick, K., the Social Psychology of Organizing, Random House, New York, NY. 1979.

12.     Experimental Theology: The Psychology Of Belief, Part 3 ... (n.d.). Retrieved from http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/05/psychology-of-belief-part-3-mor.

 

 

 

 

Accepted on 19.12.2017       © A&V Publications All right reserved