Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2013) 22:11–19
DOI 10.1007/s40299-012-0019-z
Transformational Leadership, Change Management,
and Commitment to Change: A Comparison of Academic
and Business Organizations
Regina M. Hechanova • Raquel Cementina-Olpoc
Published online: 2 December 2012
Ó De La Salle University 2012
Abstract This study examined the differences in trans-
formational leadership and commitment to change among
academic and business organizations that had undergone
organization transformation in the past 5 years. Surveys
were administered to 305 employees from eight higher
education academe institutions and 267 employees from
eight business organizations in the services industry. As
hypothesized, there were significant differences in trans-
formational leadership between academic and business
organizations. Academic respondents rated their leaders
higher in terms of challenging the status quo, inspiring a
shared vision, modeling the way, and encouraging the
heart. Academic organizations also reported greater lead-
ership support for changes than respondents from business
organizations. In addition, the study found differences on
the nature of influence of leadership and change manage-
ment on employee commitment to change.
Keywords Organization transformation

Change management
Transformational leadership

Organization culture
Academic institutions
Introduction
Globalization and technology have put tremendous pres-
sure on both academic and business organizations to
change. Business organizations are competing with foreign
organizations and are entering new markets themselves.
Technology has revolutionized the way organizations are
run creating greater efficiency, streamlining systems,
R. M. Hechanova (&)
R. Cementina-Olpoc
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines
e-mail: rhechanova@ateneo.edu
processes, and structures. It has also led to the outsourcing
of labor across the globe.
The academe has been confronted with many changes as
well. Technological innovations have created parental
expectations on operational efficiency and services. Stu-
dents’ exposure to technological innovations has influenced
their learning styles and expectations on the facilities that
should be made available to them. Globalization has
internationalized instruction especially in higher education.
Quality assurance mechanisms, accreditation, and world
rankings prod academic institutions to continue evaluating
and improving themselves. Thus, according to Siegel and
Smoley (1989), ‘‘leaders from both worlds confront the
same fundamental issues, namely: rethinking mission,
doing more with less, and doing things better’’ (p. 6).
Because organizations are human systems, the success
of any transformation effort lies in the people who are
tasked to implement changes. Unfortunately, the experi-
ence of organizational transformation can be difficult for its
members. They may feel lost, have doubts about the future,
or feel unable to handle new tasks (Coch and French 1948).
Hence, researchers have stressed the value of getting the
employees committed to the change (Herold et al. 2007;
Herscovitch and Meyer 2002). Herold et al. (2007) defined
commitment to change as a positive and proactive behav-
ior. These behaviors may be in the form of aligning oneself
to the change, intentionally showing support for a change
and/or being able to help and ensure successful imple-
mentation of the change.
Studies show that there are different factors that influ-
ence the employees’ commitment to organizational change.
For example, managerial practices such as organizational
support, transformational leadership, shared values, and
communication have been found to be antecedents to
commitment to change (Ghazali et al. 2008).There is also
123
12
evidence that change management influence commitment
to organizational change (Devos et al. 2002).
However, these studies have mostly emanated from
studies of business organizations and there is a dearth of
research about change in academic organizations. Such
contrast is important because leadership behaviors and
practices do not occur in a vacuum. Schein’s theory of
organization culture (2004) describes the symbiotic rela-
tionship between leadership and culture. At the onset,
founders of an organization create its culture. Once the
founders’ beliefs and values are adopted, they become tacit
assumptions that are shared and passed on. Such culture
determines who become leaders as well as what is appro-
priate behavior among leaders. Because organization
cultures differ, so does leadership behavior—what is
acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another.
We use Schein’s theory as a frame and suggest that given
the differences in the culture of academic and business
organizations, there will be differences in leadership
behaviors and change management practices. We also
examine the relationship of these factors on commitment to
change among academic and business organizations.
Transformational Leadership
Change has often been associated with leadership.
According to Kotter (1996, p. 25), ‘‘leadership defines what
the future should look like, aligns people with that vision,
and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles.’’
Other theorists have labeled this type of leadership as
transformational leadership. As opposed to transactional
leaders who get people to perform by providing them
rewards, transformational leaders motivate their followers
to achieve and exceed their performance levels by trans-
forming the employees’ attitudes, beliefs, and values
(Burns 1978).
Kouzes and Posner (1995) conceptualized transforma-
tional leadership in terms of five sets of behaviors. These
are challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision,
enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging
the heart. ‘‘Challenging the process’’ is apparent in lead-
ership behaviors that focus on finding innovative ways to
help the organization and its people change, grow, and
improve; the willingness to experiment and take risks; and
the openness to learn from mistakes. ‘‘Inspiring a shared
vision’’ marks a leader who facilitates the creation of a
vision that is exciting and full of possibilities, and solicit-
ing followers to support this vision. ‘‘Enabling others to
act’’ are leadership behaviors that encourage followers to
take action by fostering collaboration and providing them
opportunities to make decisions. ‘‘Modeling the way’’
implies that leaders articulate their values and principles as
123
R. M. Hechanova, R. Cementina-Olpoc
well as align their behaviors with these values. ‘‘Encourage
the heart’’ behaviors are exhibited when leaders recognize
individual contributions and find ways to celebrate their
victories.
Differences in Leadership in Academe and Business
Organizations
As Schein (2004) suggests, leadership behaviors are shaped
by culture. In this section, we present differences in the
culture of academic and business organizations and suggest
why transformational leadership behaviors may differ.
One facet of transformational leadership is the ability to
inspire a shared vision. However, the vision and mission of
academic organizations are quite different from that of
business organizations. In contrast with business organi-
zations that set very specific targets, the goals of academic
institutions tend to be somewhat intangible. In terms of
mission, academic institutions focus on knowledge crea-
tion, knowledge diffusion, and formation of values.
Schools typically formulate their goals according to how
they envision their graduates to be and these goals are often
difficult to measure concretely (Schmuck and Runkel
1985). The business sector, on the other hand, tends to
focus on innovation, market leadership, and increase in its
shareholders’ value (Walton and Galea 2005).
Unlike the goals of the academe that are only attainable
after several years, business organizations can fulfil their
goals in a much shorter time. In addition, the dynamics of
the business environment require a constant revisiting and
possibly a rethinking of the company’s direction (Schmuck
and Runkel 1985). Hence, given the more enduring quality
of the vision of schools, we hypothesize that members of
academic organizations would be more cognizant of their
shared vision compared to those in business organizations
and thus rate their leaders higher in terms of inspiring a
shared vision.
Transformational leadership entails challenging the
status quo. Academic and business organizations differ in
terms of hierarchies. Job levels and roles in the school
sector are less differentiated compared to business orga-
nizations. There is an absence of middle-level managers
and of status levels among the support staff in the academe
(Schmuck and Runkel 1985). In addition, scientific com-
munities engage in peer review. Knowledge creation is
typically directed toward academic colleagues who will
value and evaluate research contributions (Hellström
2004). Given such culture, we suggest that challenging the
status quo would be more acceptable in academic organi-
zations compared to business organizations.
Similarly, transformational leadership involves
empowering others. Unlike business organizations where
Predictors of Commitment to Change
major decisions usually come from top management,
Hellström (2004) describes the academic culture as one of
collegiality. Academic departments are typically expected
to shape their programs and activities (Walton and Galea
2005). According to Keung (2009), these collegial norms
engage organization members and enhance the capacity of
the school for change. We thus suggest that the transforma-
tional leadership behavior of ‘‘enabling others to act’’ will be
more evident in schools compared to business corporations.
According to Kouzes and Posner (1995), transformational
leaders set an example for others. Although this is certainly
important for both types of organizations, it may be even
more salient in academic organizations. In business orga-
nizations, leadership is generally a permanent role. Thus,
business leaders may rely on legitimate or even coercive
power to influence others. However, in the academe, lead-
ership roles are also more fluid—faculty members take on
administrative positions for a number of years and go back to
teaching roles after (Schmuck and Runkel 1985). Because
they are leading their peers (and even mentors), it is more
likely that academic leaders will use referent and relational
power as their main basis for influence. Two case studies
done in higher educational institutions both reveal that
academic leaders have to be credible and approachable
in order to gain the respect and support of their staff,
colleagues, and supervisors (Cementina-Olpoc 2012;
Hechanova 2012).We thus expect academic leaders to be
rated higher than business leaders in the dimension of
‘‘models the way’’ and ‘‘encourage the heart.’’
To summarize, we predict that there would be differ-
ences in the levels of perceived transformational leadership
behaviors between employees working academic institu-
tions and business entities. Specifically, academic leaders
are expected to display transformational leadership
behaviors more than business leaders (Hypothesis 1).
Change Management Practices
An important element of organizational transformation is
the process in which change is managed. Caldwell et al.
(2004) suggest that when people perceive the implemen-
tation of change is handled fairly, their reactions to the
change and the organization are more favorable. Such
perception appears to be a function of the ability of leaders
to implement procedures consistently, supply accurate
information, engage employees in the change, demonstrate
commitment to the change, and provide resources needed
to make the change succeed.
Given this, Cummings and Worley’s (2005) suggest that
effective change management includes motivating change,
creating a vision for the change, developing political sup-
port, managing the transition, and sustaining the momen-
tum. Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) also defined effective
13
change management as a function of the quality of change
communication, participation, attitude of top management
toward organizational change, and support by supervisors.
Although there has been no study comparing change
management in business and academic organizations, Gioia
and Thomas (1996) acknowledge that change may be
harder to effect in schools. They contend that unlike
business organizations that are used to responding to
dynamic conditions, academic institutions have historically
been more comfortable with slower and incremental
change.
Although business organizations may have the advan-
tage in terms of speed of change, the culture of the aca-
deme may be more conducive to a change management
process. Kezar and Eckel (2002, p. 439) describe a colle-
gial culture as one that manifests the importance of
‘‘scholarly engagement, shared governance and decision
making, and rationality.’’ Thus, participation and commu-
nication of change may be given more emphasis in aca-
demic organizations compared to business organizations.
Given this, we hypothesize that there will be differences in
change management between academic and business
organizations (Hypothesis 2).
Transformational Leadership, Change Management,
and Commitment to Change
There is evidence of the relationship of transformational
leaders with attitudes toward change. However, there are
mixed findings on whether this relationship is direct or
indirect. A longitudinal study by Bommer et al. (2005)
showed that transformational leadership can actually
reduce cynicism toward change. Bouckenooghe et al.
(2009) reported that employees’ perceptions of the ability
of change leaders are positively correlated with greater
readiness for change. Herold et al. (2007) likewise found
that transformational leadership, along with good change
management practices, are associated with higher levels of
change commitment. Another study found that between the
two, a study reveals that change management has greater
influence compared to transformational leadership on
commitment to change (Hechanova and Teng-Calleja
2011). In the academe, a study by Leng (2008) revealed
that transformational leadership had a positive influence on
school’s ability to integrate information communication
technology (ICT) into teaching. However, Yu et al. (2002)
found that the relationship of transformational leadership
and commitment to change is indirect and is mediated by
school culture, strategies for change, school structure, and
the school.
One way to view the conflicting findings is to note that
transformational leadership behaviors are not hinged on a
123
14 R. M. Hechanova, R. Cementina-Olpoc

particular change effort. On the other hand, change man- Table 1 Nature of changes (%)
agement practices and, subsequently, one’s commitment to Acad Business
the changes are more specific to transformation efforts.
Transformational leadership can thus be considered a Automation 67 67
contextual variable and change management as a process- Process improvement 45 58
related variable. Given this, we test the mediating role of Expansion 54 56
change management on transformational leadership and New vision, mission 56 52
commitment to change and whether there would be dif- Change in strategy 61 52
ferences in this relationship among academic and business Restructuring 50 45
organizations (Hypothesis 3). Renovation 65 45
Culture building 25 35
Downsizing 20 32
Methodology Merger/acquisition 10 25

Participants
Participants of the study were 305 employees from eight
higher education academe institutions and 267 employees
from eight business organizations. The following criteria
were used in sampling: organization must have gone through
organizational transformation (defined as changes in at least
two of the following aspects of the organization—vision,
mission and/or values, strategy, structure, systems, process,
technology, business acquisition/merger, or downsizing)
within the past 5 years. To make the comparison between
academic and business organizations parallel, we selected
business organizations in the services industry—hospitality,
hospitals, entertainment services, and banking.
Initially, letters were sent to the President/HR manager
of the organizations explaining the purpose of the study.
When requested, we met with organization leaders to
introduce the study and assure them confidentiality as well
as a copy of the findings. Of the 85 organizations, we
tapped, 16 responded. The changes implemented by
respondent organizations were quite similar—with the
most common change being automation. Other common
changes involved in revisiting of organization directions
and expansion. However, process improvement, culture
building, downsizing, and mergers were more frequent in
business organizations, whereas a greater percentage of
academic organizations reported change in strategy and
renovations (Table 1).
The age of academic organizations ranged from 4 to
83 years with an average of 32 years. The age of the
business organizations ranged from 4 to 53 years with an
average of 27 years.
Once organizations agreed to participate, we requested
that the paper and pencil surveys be sent to a random
sample of their members with a tenure of at least 3 years.
In terms of job level, the academic sample was comprised
of faculty (57 %), staff (33 %), and leaders (10 %). The
business sample was comprised of rank and file (67 %),
professionals (15 %), and leaders (21 %). In both academic
(58 %) and business organizations (51 %), majority of
respondents were married. Majority of the sample of aca-
demic respondents were female (75 %). The distribution by
gender was more equal in business organizations (males,
49 %; females, 51 %). The average age of respondents was
35 years old in the academe and 27 years old in business
organizations. Likewise average tenure was higher
(11 years) in the academe compared to business organi-
zations (6 years).
Measures
Commitment to Organizational Change
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) defined commitment to
change as ‘‘a force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a
course of action deemed necessary for the successful
implementation of a change initiative’’ (p. 186). Although
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) identified three types of
commitment to change (affective, normative, and contin-
uance), this study focused only on affective commitment to
change because research has revealed that it is affective
commitment to change that is associated with higher levels
of behavioral support such as cooperation, exerting extra
effort, and championing (Herscovitch and Meyer 2002).
Six items from Herscovitch and Meyer’s Commitment to
Change Scales were used to assess affective commitment
to change (e.g., ‘‘I believed in the value of the change/s.’’)
Responses were made using a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal
consistency reliability of the scale was a = .85.
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership traits were measured using the
Leadership Practices Inventory of Kouzes and Posner
(1995). The inventory consisted of five subscales

123
Predictors of Commitment to Change 15

describing a transformational leadership behavior: chal- Table 2 Differences in transformational leadership behaviors of
lenge the status quo (a = .88), inspire a shared vision academic and business organizations
(a = .90), enable others to act (a = .91), model the way Academic Business
(a = .92), and encourage the heart (a = .93). The 30-item Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F Sig
instrument utilized a five-point scale ranging from 1
Challenge the heart 3.52 (.76) 3.38 (.67) 6.00 .02
(rarely) to 5 (almost always).
Shared vision 3.59 (.76) 3.42 (.72) 6.79 .01
Enable others to act 3.48 (.85) 3.41 (.75) 1.15 .28
Change Management Practices
Model the way 3.57 (.88) 3.40 (.73) 6.79 .01
Encourage the heart 3.47 (.89) 3.27 (.85) 7.66 .01
This referred to participants’ perceptions of the nature of
the change practices. Because we wanted to make sure the Note * p \ .01
scale captured actual practice, interviews with change
leaders from eight organizations in the sample were con- Table 3 Differences in change management practices of academic
ducted. The interviews asked them to describe their change and business organizations
management process and practices. The statements derived Academic Business
from these interviews described the extent to which the Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F Sig
changes were planned, executed, and monitored effectively
Leadership support 3.45 (.70) 3.35 (.61) 14.42 .00
(See Appendix). These items were assessed using a 5-point
Change team 3.53 (.83) 3.45 (.67) 1.48 .22
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
Participation/communication 3.32 (.96) 3.29 (.76) .09 .78
agree). There were four subscales. Leadership Support
Management of change 3.52 (.77) 3.31 (.87) 1.25 .27
consisted of six items that described the extent to which
leadership supported and role modeled the change, were Note * p \ .01
transparent about the changes and sensitive to employee
reactions and had the trust of employees. The internal (Table 2). As seen in Table 2, differences were significant
consistency reliability of this scale was a = .84. The sub- in four of the five subscales. Specifically, respondents from
scale Change Team consisted of three items that described academic organizations reported higher scores for chal-
the extent to which there was a dedicated change team, lenging the status quo, inspiring a shared vision, modeling
whether it represented different units and whether it was the way and encouraging the heart.
perceived as credible. The internal consistency reliability Follow-up analysis of the items in each of the four
of this scale was a = .89. The subscale Management of subscales was conducted to better understand where the
Change was comprised of five items: the goals of change differences lay. Results reveal that in terms of challenging
were clear, the change was well planned and organized, the the status quo, respondents from academic organizations
change was adequately funded, progress toward goals was rated their leaders higher in terms of challenging people to
monitored, and change efforts were rewarded. The internal try out new and innovative approaches to their work, ask-
consistency reliability of this scale was a = .90. The sub- ing ‘‘What can we learn?’’ when things did not go as
scale Communication of Change consisted of three items expected, and experimenting and taking risks.
measuring the extent to which people were consulted on For the facet inspiring a shared vision, there were three
the change, the change was explained and whether progress items where the leaders in academic organizations were
toward goals were publicized. The internal consistency rated higher: ‘‘Talked about future trends that will influ-
reliability of this scale was a = .88. ence how our work gets done,’’ ‘‘Described a compelling
In order to test for common method variance, Harman’s image of what our future could be like,’’ ‘‘Showed others
(Podsakoff and Organ 1986) single-factor test was con- how their long-term interests can be realized by enlisting in
ducted. All items were entered into exploratory factor a common vision.’’
analysis. The items did not load into a single factor nor did In terms of modeling the way, the differences were in
the first factor account for the majority of variance. the items: ‘‘Spent time and energy on making certain that
the people he or she worked with adhered to the principles
and standards that have been agreed upon,’’ ‘‘Was clear
Results about his or her philosophy of leadership’, ‘Made progress
toward goals one step at a time.’’
Differences in Transformational Leadership Behaviors In the subscale encouraging the heart, significant dif-
ferences were in the items: ‘‘Praised people for a job well
We hypothesized that transformational leadership behav- done,’’ ‘‘Made sure that people were creatively rewarded
iors would be more evident in academic organizations for their contributions to the success of the projects,’’ and

123
16 R. M. Hechanova, R. Cementina-Olpoc

‘‘Publicly recognized people who exemplified commitment
to shared values.’’
Differences in Change Management
We found partial support for our hypothesis that there
would be differences in change management practices
between academic and business organizations (Table 3).
Academic organizations reported greater leadership sup-
port for changes than respondents from business organi-
zations. However, no differences were found in terms of
change team, amount of participation and communication,
and management of change.
Differences in Predictors of Commitment to Change
Our hypothesis that there would be differences in the
predictors of commitment of change depending on the type
of organization was supported. Sobel test for organizations
indicated that change management significantly mediated
the relationship between transformational leadership and
commitment to change. Using Baron and Kenny (1986)
suggested steps, mediation analysis showed that among
academic organizations, change management fully medi-
ated the relationship of transformational leadership and
commitment to change (see Table 4). However, among
business organization, the mediation was only partial.
Transformational leadership also had a direct influence on
commitment to change (see Table 5).
Discussion
We hypothesized and found differences in transformational
leadership between academic and business organizations.
Specifically, we found that academic respondents rated
their leaders higher in terms of challenging the status quo,
inspiring a shared vision, modeling the way, and encour-
aging the heart. As Walton and Galea (2005) suggest, the
vision of academic institutions tends to be more long-term
compared to that of business organizations that tend to be
more dynamic. Given the differences in time-orientation,
leaders in academic organizations would have more
opportunities to socialize their stakeholders on the vision of

Table 4 Test of mediation

Transformational leadership (IV) ? Change management (MV) ? Commitment to change (DV)
hypothesis in academic
organizations B SEB b T F R2

Step 1 .32 .05 .38 7.07* 50.07* .14

IV ? DV
Step 2 .67 .04 .73 18.51* 342.78* .53
IV ? MV
Step 3 .07 .06 .09 1.16 41.92* .22
IV ? MV ? DV
Leadership
Change management .37 .07 .40 5.41*
Sobel test = 9.05, p \ .01
Note * p \ .01

Table 5 Test of mediation

Transformational leadership (IV) ? Change management (MV) ? Commitment to change (DV)
hypothesis in business
organizations B SEB b T F R2

Step 1 .39 .05 .47 8.76* 76.75* .22

IV ? DV
Step 2 .51 .04 .62 12.73 * 161.20* .38
IV ? MV
Step 3 IV .21 .06 .25 3.85* 53.92* .29
IV ? MV ? DV
Leadership
Value of change .34 .07 .34 5.23*
Sobel test = 7.86, p \ .01
N = 267, * p \ .01

123
Predictors of Commitment to Change
the organization. In addition, the participatory nature of the
academe allows for greater engagement in a shared vision
unlike corporate organizations that tend to do take a top-
down approach to visioning (Hechanova and Franco 2012).
Modeling the way and encouraging the heart is reported
to be higher in the academe than in business organizations.
This is understandable given the nature of the academe
where leadership is less differentiated and more fluid
(Schmuck and Runkel 1985). Unlike business organiza-
tions where authority tends to be vested in the position,
such fluidity of roles requires a collegial leadership. A case
study of a university through its transformation reinforces
the leaders in the academe cannot really dictate but need to
be build buy-in and consensus (Hechanova 2012). As Ke-
ung (2009) suggests, collegial norms engages organization
members and enhances the capacity of the school for
change.
‘‘Encouraging the heart’’ was significantly predictive of
commitment to change in the academe, whereas manage-
ment of change was the strongest predictor in business
organizations. Again, this may reflect the collegial and
relational environment of the academe (Hellström 2004;
Keung 2009).
Academic organizations reported greater leadership
support for changes than respondents from business orga-
nizations. This validates the observation that academic
leaders are less likely to base their influence on formal
authority and rely on their credibility and relationship with
their peers (Hechanova 2012). Thus, role modeling and
encouragement may be all the more critical in academic
institutions.
We hypothesized and found differences in the relation-
ship of transformational leadership, change management,
and commitment to change. Among academic organiza-
tions, change management fully mediated the relationship
of transformational leadership and commitment to change.
In business organizations, however, the mediation was only
partial and transformational leadership also had a direct
relationship with commitment to change. Why would
transformational leadership directly predict commitment to
change in business organizations but not academic orga-
nizations? One possible explanation is that because trans-
formational leadership appears to be already present in
academic institutions, it is manifested in the way change is
managed. On the other hand, because business organiza-
tions tend to be more hierarchical, the presence of trans-
formation leadership behaviors has a direct impact because
it is not typical of business leaders.
From a theoretical perspective, the study highlights the
importance of recognizing the role of culture in transfor-
mation efforts. The study validates Schein’s theory of
culture and organization and at the same time builds on it
by showing how. As the results suggest, although
17
transformational leadership and change management are
both important in building commitment to change, their
influence varies depending on context.
The study presents several interesting findings that may
be useful to academic institutions that wish to transform.
However, the results also need to be viewed in the context
of design limitations. The study also used a cross-sectional
design using self-reports. Future researchers may wish to
use other more objective indicators as indicators of suc-
cessful change or longitudinal studies to see how com-
mitment to change varied over time.
Both transformational leadership and change manage-
ment accounted for only about 30 % in the variance of
commitment to change. This suggests that there may be
other variables that may be pertinent to understanding
employee attitudes to change. Some possibilities for future
researches would be to examine the nature of change,
organization culture, and other contextual factors such as
ownership, size of organization, etc.
Finally, the sample represented higher education and
service organizations. A broader sampling may necessary
to generalize the results across the various types of aca-
demic and business organizations. It is also important to
note that the study was conducted in the Philippines where
social and familial relations are important and where
leadership style may still be more hierarchical. It is thus
important to validate the results in other culture and per-
haps other types of organizations such as multinational
companies.
Limitations notwithstanding, there are several key ideas
that change leaders in both academic institutions and
business organizations can take away from this study. The
results point to the importance of leadership in influencing
employee commitment to change. This highlights the
importance of developing transformational leaders who can
inspire and empower others toward a shared vision.
The findings also highlight the importance of systematic
change management. The results suggest that leadership
support, forming change management teams, engaging
employees, and communicating change are important
especially when implementing organization transforma-
tion. Change leaders should be trained to manage change in
order to sustain and enhance commitment of employees.
Part of change management also implies implementing a
monitoring system in order to be able to assess the align-
ment of change management strategies. Progress toward
goals can then be disseminated to keep the employees in
the loop. As seen in the study, positive perceptions of
management of change lead to greater commitment.
However, differences in leadership and change man-
agement among academic and business organizations
suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach may not work.
Because the culture and predictors of commitment to
123
18
change appear to vary by type of organization, it is
important to understand what the unique drivers of com-
mitment to change are. Our results suggest that what
appears important in academic institutions is that the
change management process in nuanced on a sensitivity of
the culture of the organization. Although managing the
change process is likewise critical in business organiza-
tions, our results also highlight the importance of devel-
oping transformational leadership especially among
business leaders.
In conclusion, our results highlight similarities and dif-
ferences in academic and business organizations in terms
of transformational leadership and change management
practices. Interestingly, although business organizations are
typically seen as more progressive compared to academic
organizations, our results suggest that business leaders can
learn a thing or two from academic leaders especially in
terms of inspiring a shared vision, role modeling, and
encouraging others. These are important attributes that
appear essential to enabling employee commitment to
change.
Appendix
Change Management Scale Items
1. Key executives clearly supported the change.
2. Leaders had political will to implement the change/s.
3. Leaders were sensitive to the employees’ reactions.
4. Leaders were transparent about the change/s.
5. Employees trusted the leaders who drove the change.
6. Leaders role modeled the change/s.
7. There was a dedicated change team.
8. The change team was capable.
9. The change team represented different units.
10. The goals of the change were clear.
11. The change was well planned and organized.
12. The change effort was adequately funded.
13. Progress toward goals was monitored.
14. Change efforts were rewarded.
15. People were consulted on the change.
16. The change was explained to everyone.
17. Progress toward goals was publicized.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bommer, W., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing atti-
tudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational
123
R. M. Hechanova, R. Cementina-Olpoc
leadership behavior on employee cynicism about organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2009).
Organizational change questionnaire—Climate of change, pro-
cesses and readiness: Development of a new instrument. The
Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 559–599.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an
understanding of the relationships among organizational change,
individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A
cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868–
882.
Cementina-Olpoc, R. (2012). ABCs of Change: The Journey of
Miriam College. In M.R. Hechanova and E.P. Franco (Eds).
Reinvention and Rebirth: Transforming Philippine Organiza-
tions. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University.
Coch, L., & French, J. J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change.
Human Relations, 1, 512–532.
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2005). Organization development and
change. St. Paul: West Publishing.
Devos, G., Vanderheyden, K., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2002). A
framework for assessing commitment to change: Process and
context variables of organizational change. Unpublished
research paper, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School,
Germany.
Ghazali, R., Ahmad, A., Uli, J., Suandi, T., & Hassan, S. A. (2008).
Commitment to change among managers in a selected service
organization in Malaysia. The International Journal of the
Humanities, 6, 123–134.
Gioia, D., & Thomas, J. (1996). Identity, image and issue interpre-
tation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 03–370.
Hechanova, M. R. (2012). Transforming the academe: The ateneo
way. In M. R. Hechanova & E. P. Franco (Eds.), Reinvention and
rebirth: Transforming Philippine organizations. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University.
Hechanova, M. R., & Teng-Calleja, M. (2011). Predicting commit-
ment towards organizational change. Journal of Social Trans-
formation, 1(1), 31–50.
Hellström, T. (2004). Between a rock and a hard place: Academic
institutional change and the problem of collective action. Higher
Education, 48(4), 511–528.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond
change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual
and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 942–951.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organiza-
tional change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487.
Keung, C. C. (2009). Revitalizing teacher leadership via bureau-
cractic-professional practices: A structural equation model. The
Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 283–295.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on
change strategies in higher education: Universal principles on
culturally irresponsive concepts. The Journal of Higher Educa-
tion, 73(4), 435–460.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leng, N. W. (2008). Transformational leadership and the integration
of information and communications technology into teaching.
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(1), 1–14.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organiza-
tional research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Manage-
ment, 12(4), 531–544.
Predictors of Commitment to Change
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational climate and culture. In G.
R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson, & J. M. Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of leadership (Vol. 3, pp. 1112–1117). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Reference.
Schmuck, R. A., & Runkel, P. J. (1985). The handbook of
organization development in schools. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Siegel, P., & Smoley, E. (1989). Reaching common ground:
Advancing business participation in restructuring education:
Supporting leaders for tomorrow. Institution for Educational
19
Leadership. Washington, DC: Institution for Educational Lead-
ership, Inc.
Walton, S. V., & Galea, C. E. (2005). Some considerations for
applying sustainability practices to campus environmental chal-
lenges. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Edu-
cation, 6(1), 147–160.
Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The effects of
transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change
in Hongkong. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4),
368–389.
123