Assessing What Factors Affect a Federal Employees’ Perception that Change Is Possible at Work

1. Assessing What Factors Affect a Federal Employees’ Perception that Change Is Possible at Work Ali Hemyeri Soc 680

2. Research Question • What factors lead to federal employees feeling change is possible at work?

3. Importance of Workers Believing that Change is Possible at Work • Private vs. Federal level • The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978

4. Literature Review • 12 broad categories as to why people resist and/or think change is unlikely to occur at work. • The questionnaire I used had questions pertaining to only 7 of these categories, so I focused on only 7 of the categories found in the literature review.

5. 18 IVs Relative to 7 Categories • Benefits and Rewards: • v4 (employees loose when changes are made), v14 (supervisors get few rewards for good work) • Trust: • v15 (can’t trust the organization), v33 (people do things behind your back) • Being Consulted: • v21 (employees have little influence), v55 (supervisors solicit input on procedures) • Demographics: • AGY (agency work for), Sex, Race, AGYYEARS (number of years work for agency), JOBYEARS (number of years in present job),

6. 18 IVs Relative to 7 Categories (Cont.) • Job Satisfaction: • v1 (I like working here), v25 (I often think about quitting) • Authority: • v5 (supervisors take action against poor performance), v7 (not clear who has decision making authority) • Competence: • v16 (new employees well qualified), v17 (promotions linked to performance), v42 (have confidence in coworkers)

7. DV • v9 (whether change is possible at work).

8. Sample • The dataset I used was ICPSR 7804. Click Here • It was conducted by United States (U.S.) Office of Personnel Management (OPM). • OPM is an independent agency of the U.S. that manages the civil service of the federal government. • For the very first time in 1979, OPM mailed out a letter and hard copy questionnaire to federal employees to gather information on U.S. federal employee attitudes and perceptions of working conditions. • The survey was distributed to a stratified random sample of 20,000 federal civilian employees from over 20 federal departments and agencies. • Completion of the survey was highly encouraged, but not mandatory. • Confidentiality was promised.

9. Sample (Cont.) • The survey had a sample size of 13,862 respondents. • To get a better sense of the sample frame, I ran the following variables in SPSS: sex, race, ethnicity, education, age, fedyears (number of years worked for federal government), privsect (number of years worked in private sector), super (position and length of time in the position), workschd (part-time versus full-time employment), and agy (agency work for).

10. Hypotheses • Benefits & Rewards • H11: The belief that employees loose when changes are made (v4) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H01: The belief that employees loose when changes are made (v4) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H12: The belief that supervisors get few rewards for good work (v14) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H02: The belief that supervisors get few rewards for good work (v14) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9).

11. Hypotheses (Cont.) • Trust • H13: The belief that the organization can’t be trusted (v15) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H03: The belief that the organization can’t be trusted (v15) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H14: The belief that people do things behind your back (v33) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H04: The belief that people do things behind your back (v33) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9).

12. Hypotheses (Cont.) • Being Consulted • H15: The belief that employees have little influence (v21) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H05: The belief that employees have little influence (v21) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H16: The belief that supervisors solicit input on procedures (v55) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H06: The belief that supervisors solicit input on procedures (v55) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9).

13. Hypotheses (Cont.) • Demographic • H17: The agency a federal employee works for (AGY) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H07: The agency a federal employee works for (AGY) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H18: The sex of a federal employee (SEX) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H08: The sex of a federal employee (SEX) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H19: The race of a federal employee (RACE) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H09: The race of a federal employee (RACE) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9).

14. Hypotheses (Cont.) • Demographic (cont) • H110: The number of years work for agency (AGYYEARS) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H010: The number of years work for agency (AGYYEARS) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H111: The number of years in present job (JOBYEARS) will affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9). • H011: The number of years in present job (JOBYEARS) will not affect whether a federal employee believes change is possible (v9).

15. Hypotheses (Cont.) • Job satisfaction • H112: Whether a federal employee likes working at job (v1) will affect whether he/she believes change is possible (v9). • H012: Whether a federal employee likes working at job (v1) will not affect whether he/she believes change is possible (v9). • H113: Whether a federal employee often thinks about quitting (v25) will affect whether he/she believes change is possible (v9). • H013: Whether a federal employee often thinks about quitting (v25) will not affect whether he/she believes change is possible (v9).

16. Hypotheses (Cont.) • Authority • H114: Federal employees that believe that supervisors take action against poor performance (v5) will affect his/her belief that change is possible (v9). • H014: Federal employees that believe that supervisors take action against poor performance (v5) will not affect his/her belief that change is possible (v9). • H115: Federal employees that believe that it is unclear who has decision making authority (v7) will affect his/her belief that change is possible (v9). • H015: Federal employees that believe that it is unclear who has decision making authority (v7) will not affect his/her belief that change is possible (v9).

17. Hypotheses (Cont.) • Competence • H116: The belief that new employees are well qualified (v16) will affect a federal employees belief that change is possible (v9). • H016: The belief that new employees are well qualified (v16) will not affect a federal employees belief that change is possible (v9). • H117: The belief that promotions are linked to performance (v17) will affect a federal employees belief that change is possible (v9). • H017: The belief that promotions are linked to performance (v17) will not affect a federal employees belief that change is possible (v9). • H118: The belief that coworkers are competent (v42) will affect a federal employees belief that change is possible (v9). • H018: The belief that coworkers are competent (v42) will not affect a federal employees belief that change is possible (v9).

18. Statistical Procedure: Binary Logistic Regression • My dependent variable, possibility of change (v9), was coded with a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.” • I recoded my dependent variable by grouping respondents who selected 1 though 2 into one group, group 1 (change is not possible), and respondents who selected 4 through 5 into another group, group 2 (change is possible). • My dependent variable was categorical. My independent variables (click here1, click here2) were mostly categorical (with the exception of AGYYEARS and JOBYEARS, which were both quantitative). • Since the assumptions for logistical regressions are more relaxed, it is fine if one’s independent variables are categorical, quantitative, or mixed.

19. Statistical Procedure: Binary Logistic Regression (Cont.) • What is important to look at in a logistic regression is the distributions of the two categories of the dependent variables for they shouldn’t be too skewed. Looking at the classification table, 82.5% of respondents were in group 1 and 74.1% were in group 2, which shows that the distributions aren’t too skewed and thus we can proceed with the analysis.

20. Results • By examining the classification table, the independent variables correctly predict 78.9% of group membership in the categories of the dependent variable.

21. Results (Cont.) • According to the variables in the equation table (see Figure 1), the following independent variables are significant because their values are less than .05: • v4 (employees loose when changes are made) (.000 < .05) • v14 (supervisors get few rewards for good work) (.000 < .05) • v15 (can’t trust the organization) (.000 < .05) • v33 (people do things behind your back) (.000 < .05) • v21 (employees have little influence) (.000 < .05) • v55 (supervisors solicit input on procedures) (.000 < .05)

22. Results (Cont.) • Significant variables continued: • sex (.000 < .05) • AGYYEARS (number of years work for agency) (.000 < .05) • JOBYEARS (number of years in present job) (.000 < .05) • v1 (i like working here) (.000 < .05) • v25 (I often think about quitting) (.000 < .05) • v5 (supervisors take action against poor performance) (.001 < .05) • v7 (not clear who has decision making authority) (.000 < .05) • v17 (promotions linked to performance) (.000 < .05)

23. Results (Cont.) • Still looking at the variables in the equation table (see Figure 1), the following variables were not significant because their values were above .05: • AGY (number of years work for agency) (.497 > .05) • Race (.333 > .05) • v16 (new employees well qualified) (.579 > .05) • v42 (viewing coworkers as competent) (.352 > .05)

24. Results (Cont.) • Also in the variables in the equation table (see Figure 1) is the Exp (B) values for each independent variable. • The Exp (B) column tells us the odds ratio and thus from this value we can assess how strong the given independent variable is in affecting the dependent variable. • v21 (employees have little influence), 1.928, and v4 (employees loose when changes are made), 1.370, have the highest betas and thus are the strongest independent variables in effecting our dependent variable (v9, whether change is possible).

25. Figure 1 (Variables in the Equation Table)

26. Discussion • Since AGY, Race, v16 (new employees well qualified) and v42 (confidence in coworkers) are not significant, we fail to reject their respective null hypothesis, see below: • To see null hypothesis click on corresponding variable: AGY, RACE, v16, v42

27. Discussion (Cont.) • Since the following variables were significant, we reject their respective null hypothesis (To see each variable’s null hypothesis click corresponding link): • v4 (employees loose when changes are made) Click Here • v14 (supervisors get few rewards for good work) Click Here • v15 (can’t trust the organization) Click Here • v33 (people do things behind your back) Click Here • v21 (employees have little influence) Click Here • v55 (supervisors solicit input on procedures) Click Here

28. Discussion (Cont.) • Since the following variables were significant, we reject their respective null hypothesis (To see each variable’s null hypothesis click corresponding link): • AGYYEARS Click Here • JOBYEARS Click Here • Sex Click Here • v1 (I like working here) Click Here • v25 (I often think about quitting) Click Here • v5 (supervisors take action against poor performance) Click Here • v7 (not clear who has decision making authority) Click Here • v17 (promotions linked to performance) Click Here

29. Future Improvements • I would have liked to have seen more questions asked that are tied to other categories found in the literature. • Specifically, there were a lack of questions that had to do with the following categories: open communication, understanding the need for change, fear of unknown, and temporary fad. • I would also like to see other subcategories of job satisfaction to be asked in the questionnaire. • How does the degree of autonomy of the worker-- on a scale from micromanaged to self-reliant -- affect a worker’s perception of whether change is possible?

30. Future Improvements • The survey should also be paired down so that respondents don’t get fatigued. The survey already takes an estimated fifty minutes to complete and by shortening the survey’s length. It may be easier to have several smaller surveys administers as opposed to one long one. • Internet as opposed to mail survey.

31. Future Improvements • Tracker • longitudinal versus cross sectional • More Robust Analysis • Cluster Analysis (inductive) vs. logistic regression (deductive)

32. References • Armenakis, Achilles and Arthur G. Bedeian. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of management, 25(3), 293-315. • Dent, Eric and Susan G. Goldberg. 1999. Challenging “resistance to change”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41. • Ingraham, Patricia W. and Carolyn Ban. 1984. Legislating bureaucratic change: The civil service reform act of 1978. SUNY Press.

33. References (Cont.) • Lewis, Amy and Mark Grosser. 2012. The Change Game An Experiential Exercise Demonstrating Barriers to Change. Journal of Management Education, 36(5), 669-697. • Mertler, Craig A. and Rachel A. Vannatta. 2002. Advanced and multivariate statistical methods. Los Angeles: Pyrczak. • Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1995. Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Harvard Business Press.

34. 3 Questions • 1) What was the dependent variable? • 2) What was the statistical test I ran? • 3) What was one of the recommendations I give for future research?