Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
An Empirical Evaluation of the Relationship Between Human Relations Climate and Readiness for Change Cover

An Empirical Evaluation of the Relationship Between Human Relations Climate and Readiness for Change

Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Volume 5 (2020): Issue 1
By: ,  ,  ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Feb 2020
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

The four climate types of the competing value framework (after Goodman, Zammuto & Gifford, 2001: 60).

Table 1

Goodness of fit statistics for confirmatory factor analyses of measurement models.

Scaleχ2dfCFIRMSEA [90% CI]SRMRBICComments
Readiness for change
   Original model79.00***9.942.093 [.075, .112].047160.640
   Modified model22.29***5.984.062 [.037, .089].02290.325Item 4 removed
Perceived organisational support
   Original model365.56***20.911.139 [.126, .151].054474.417
   Modified model 1287.49***14.922.147 [.133, .162].051382.783Item 7 removed
   Modified model 247.83***9.987.069 [.051, .089].021129.476Item 7 removed, item 5 and 6 parcelled
Human relations climate
   Original model60.99***9.979.080 [.062, .100].025142.632
   Modified model15.45**  5.995.048 [.022, .076].01583.482Item 2 and 3 parcelled

[i] Note: N = 901; χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square; CI = Confidence Interval; BIC = Bayesian Information Criteria.

** p < .01; *** p < .001; Modified model, see comments.

Table 2

Goodness of fit statistics for confirmatory factor analyses of full measurement models.

Measurement modelχ2dfCFIRMSEA [90% CI]SRMRBIC
1-factor model2479.98***104.626.159 [.054, .165].1352697.695
2-factor uncorrelated model1685.45***104.751.130 [.125, .135].1411903.160
2-factor correlated model1600.07***103.764.127 [.122, .133].1021824.582
3-factor uncorrelated model602.21***104.922.073 [.067, .079].174819.925
3-factor correlated model308.53***101.967.048 [.042, .054].044546.649

[i] Note: N = 901; χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square; CI = confidence interval; BIC = Bayesian Information Criteria.

*** p < .001.

Table 3

Descriptive statistics, reliability and bivariate correlations between main indices.

ConstructMeanSDα1.2.
1. Perceived organizational support3.4340.718.895
2. Human relations climate4.0370.606.879.505***
3. Readiness for change¤3.9340.563.764.312***.231***

[i] Note: N = 901; α = Cronbach’s alpha; ¤ Item four removed. *** p < .001.

Table 4

Goodness of fit statistics for structural models with and without modified measurement models.

Modelχ2dfCFIRMSEA [90% CI]SRMRBIC
Original measurement models
   Partially mediated model848.84***167.916.067 [.063, .072].0621141.385
   Fully mediated model850.42***168.916.067 [.063, .072].0621136.171
   Non-mediated model1055.17***168.890.077 [.072, .081].1481340.916
Modified measurement models
   Partially mediated model308.53***101.967.048 [.042, .054].044546.649
   Fully mediated model312.51***102.967.048 [.042, .054].046543.825
   Non-mediated model517.72***102.935.067 [.062, .073].149749.042

[i] Note: N = 901; χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square; CI = confidence interval. BIC = Bayesian Information Criteria.

*** p < .001

Table 5

Estimates of the direct and indirect effects between latent variables of the fully mediated model based on the original and modified measurement models respectively.

Path estimatebSE95% CIβ
Original measurement model
   HR ➔ POS.72***.053[.625, .832].51***
   POS ➔ RC.18***.023[.135, .225].34***
   HR ➔ POS ➔ RC.13***.020[.095, .172].17***
Modified measurement model
   HR ➔ POS.75***.054[.652, .861].56***
   POS ➔ RC.17***.021[.133, .217].35***
   HR ➔ POS ➔ RC.13***.019[.097, .172].18***

[i] Note: HR = human relations climate, POS = perceived organisational support, RC = readiness for change, b = unstandardized path coefficient, SE = standard error, CI = bias-corrected confidence interval (Unstandardized), β = standardized path coefficient.

*** p < .001.

Figure 2

The final fully mediated model depicting structural relationships between the exogenous predictor variable, endogenous predictor variable, and criterion variable. Both original and modified measurement models are displayed.

Notes:

  1. Exogenous predictor variable: HR = human relations climate; Endogenous predictor variable: POS = perceived organisational support, Criterion variable: RC = readiness for change.

  2. Dotted arrows = Paths and items only present in the modified model. Greyed out arrows/items = Paths and items only present in the original model.

  3. Numbers shown as standardized estimates. Estimates from the original model in parenthesis.

  4. Paths constrained to zero and error terms are omitted to enhance readability.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.74 | Journal eISSN: 2002-2867
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 1
Submitted on: Oct 18, 2018
Accepted on: Jan 21, 2020
Published on: Feb 21, 2020
Published by: Stockholm University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Competing Values Framework,
Human Relations Climate,
Readiness for Change,
Perceived Organisational Support,
Police Organisation

© 2020 Trond Myklebust, Karoline Motland, Alexander Garnås, Roald Bjørklund, Cato Bjørkli, Knut Inge Fostervold, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 5 (2020): Issue 1
Previous article
Next article