Dissertation Report On IMPACT OF LOCUS OF CONTROL ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN IT SECTOR

By

SHIVANGI JOSHI A0101908638 MBA Class of 2010

Under the Supervision of

Prof .Subbha Rao

Professor Amity Business School

In Partial Fulfillment of Award of Master of Business Administration

AMITY BUSINESS SCHOOL AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH SECTOR 125, NOIDA - 201303, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

Page 1 of 47

Acknowledgement
It is with the deepest sense of gratitude that I wish to thank all the people who have helped me during the course of this project. I am indebted to Dr. Yasmeen Rizvi and Prof. Subbha Rao for the valuable time and effort they invested in my project.

Shivangi Joshi MBA(G) Amity Business School

Page 2 of 47

Declaration
I, Shivangi Joshi, student of Master of Business Administration (G) in academic year 2008-10, Amity Business School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh; herby declare that I have completed the project titled To analyse impact of locus of control on organizational change in IT sector as part of the course requirements of MBA of Amity University. I further declare that the information presented in this project is true and & original to the best of my knowledge. Date Place Shivangi Joshi A0101908638

Page 3 of 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

SNO. 1.

CONTENTS
Introduction
Abstract Current Scenario

PAGE NO. 5

2.

Literature review
Variables Defined Review of Research Papers Gap Analysis

Objective and Hypothesis

19

4.

Research Methodology

20

5.

Data Analysis
Analysis of PartI Analysis of Part II Corelation Between Organization Change and Locus of Control CrossTabulation Between Type of Change and Reaction to Change

22

6. 7. 8.

Conclusion Annexure Bibliography

41 42 46

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Abstract
Page 4 of 47

The study aimed to find a relationship between locus of control and organizational change and how this can in turn be manipulated to increase organizational effectiveness. Rationale behind conducting the study was to study the micro level variables in particular locus of control that effect organization control. Organizational change literature lacks research on such variables especially in IT sector. According to the findings of the study locus of control and resistance or readiness to change are not related. However it was found that locus of control could change according to certain work settings and situations.

1.2 Current Scenario

Dynamic business environment has made change mandatory for organizations. They need to constantly revamp themselves in order to realign their strategy time and again to suit their business needs. Nonetheless the impact of such change on an organizations most valuable resource cant be ignored. Organizations operate in dynamic environments--- rapidly changing government regulations affecting their business, new competitors, difficulties in acquiring raw materials, continually changing product preferences by customers and so on. Static environments create significantly less uncertainty for managers than do dynamic ones. And because uncertainty is a threat to an organizations effectiveness, management try to minimize it. One way to reduce environmental uncertainty is through organizational change. Organizational change is an empirical observation in an organizational entity of variations in shape, quality or state over time, after the deliberate introduction of new ways of thinking, acting and operating (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Schalk et al, 1998). Rapid globalization processes, technological development and the constant change of surroundings have made changes an inseparable part of the existence of contemporary organizations. The general aim of organizational change is an adaptation to the environment or an improvement in performance (Leana and Barry, 2000; Keck and Tushman, 1993). However the purpose of such change initiatives can only be fulfilled when stakeholders are taken care of. One of most important stakeholders in this exercise of increasing organizational effectiveness is an employee. A concrete change is perceived and then it leads to some kind of emotions and later there comes a decision to react to the change. (Dunham et al, 1989; Piderit, 2000). Different authors (Bearley and Johnes, 1995; Vakota et al, 2003; Bovey and Hede, 2001; Nadler, 1998) present various reactions to change typology, however, having generalized them; it is possible to single out the main two types: resistance to change and their support. Realizing changes, it is usual to seek employees support and approval as well as to look for the ways to escape or reduce opposition to them. Page 5 of 47

A number of factors effect an employees response to change. These may be self esteem, self efficacy, self monitoring, need for achievement, risk propensity etc. One of the most important personality traits is locus of control. Locus of control determines how an individual reacts to change in his/her environment. Several studies have proved the correlation between organizational change and locus of control. High internal locus of control tends to make transition easy for an employee and this in turn increases the effectiveness of the change interventions.

Chapter2:Literature Review
2.1 Organizational Change

Page 6 of 47

Change is generally viewed negatively by employees and engenders a feeling of insecurity and at times guilt among employees. Change in power, influence, autonomy, status, enhanced duties is few of the drawbacks that an employee may experience as a result of change. Few look at change from a broader perspective and as a chance to initiate improvements in self and organization. Change is the continuous adoption of corporate strategies and structures to changing external conditions. Today, change is not the exception but a steady ongoing process. On contrast business as usual will become the exception from phases of turbulence. In order to make change effective, organizations need to factor in individual behaviour and understand its impact on the process Jones, Gareth R (2004) defines Organisation Change as the process by which organisations move from the present state to some desired future state in order to increase their effectiveness. Singh (2005) defines it as the coping process of an organisation, of moving from the present state to a desired state that individuals, groups and organisations undertake in response to dynamic internal and external factors that alter current realities. Hence, there are two types of changes: 1. Organizational Development. This is the more gradual and evolutionary approach to change. It bases on the assumption that it is possible to align corporate objectives with the individual employees objectives. In practice, however, this will rarely be possible. 2.Reengineering. This is known as corporate transformation or business transformation. It is the more radical form of change management, since it challenges all elements of processes or structures that have evolved over time. 2.1.1 Phases in Change Processes In order to successfully manage change processes, it is necessary to analyze the phases of this process. Managers need to know in which phase they have to expect what types of situations and problems. Most successful organizations are those that are able to adjust themselves to new conditions quickly. This requires planned learning processes that lead to improved organizational effectiveness. Ideally, employees are able to reflect their own behaviour in relation to the organizational context (e.g. processes, products, resources, customers). Normally, people perceive change processes in seven typical stages

Page 7 of 47

2.1.2 Types of Change-

Figure Four types of Change

Planned versus emergent change Sometimes change is deliberate, a product of conscious reasoning and actions. This type of change is called planned change. In contrast, change sometimes unfolds in an apparently spontaneous and unplanned way. This type of change is known as emergent change. Change can be emergent rather than planned in two ways. Managers make a number of decisions apparently unrelated to the change that emerges. The change is therefore not planned. However, these decisions may be based on unspoken, and sometimes unconscious, assumptions about the organisation, its environment and the future (Mintzberg, 1989) and are, therefore, not as unrelated as they first seem. Such implicit assumptions dictate the direction of the seemingly Page 8 of 47

disparate and unrelated decisions, thereby shaping the change process by drift rather than by design. External factors (such as the economy, competitors behaviour, and political climate) or internal features (such as the relative power of different interest groups, distribution of knowledge, and uncertainty) influence the change in directions outside the control of managers. Even the most carefully planned and executed change programme will have some emergent impacts. This highlights two important aspects of managing change. The need to identify, explore and if necessary challenge the assumptions that underlie managerial decisions. Understanding that organisational change is a process that can be facilitated by perceptive and insightful planning and analysis and well crafted, sensitive implementation phases, while acknowledging that it can never be fully isolated from the effects of serendipity, uncertainty and chance (Dawson, 1996). An important (arguably the central) message of recent management of change literature is that organisation-level change is not fixed or linear in nature but contains an important emergent element. Episodic versus Continuous Change Another distinction is between episodic and continuous change. Episodic change, according to Weick and Quinn (1999), is infrequent, discontinuous and intentional. Sometimes termed radical or second order change, episodic change often involves replacement of one strategy or programme with another. Continuous change, in contrast, is ongoing, evolving and cumulative. Also referred to as first order or incremental change, continuous change is characterised by people constantly adapting and editing ideas they acquire from different sources. At a collective level these continuous adjustments made simultaneously across units can create substantial change. The distinction between episodic and continuous change helps clarify thinking about an organisations future development and evolution in relation to its long-term goals. Few organisations are in a position to decide unilaterally that they will adopt an exclusively continuous change approach. They can, however, capitalise upon many of the principles of continuous change by engendering the flexibility to accommodate and experiment with everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities and unintended consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski, 1996). 2.1.3 Change and Approaches The broad relationship is indicated in the following table
Type Possible approach

Page 9 of 47

Incremental

TQM Parallel learning structures and Quality circles Organisational development

Step-change

Project management BPR

Organic

TQM Parallel learning structures and Quality circles The Learning Organisation Benchmarking Action research

Directive

BPR Project management Organisational development

Planned

Project management Organisational development

Emergent

TQM Action research The Learning Organisation

Episodic

BPR Project management

Continuous

Parallel learning structures and Quality circles

2.1.4 Reaction to Organizational Change Any person is apt to react to changes. This attitude influences the reaction to any change in the organization. This attitude usually includes cognitive, emotional and behavioural components. The reaction to change also embraces these three components. Any change raises the same chain reaction: the person perceives the change, emotions and decides to react to the change in one way or another (Dunham et al, 1989; Piderit, 2000). Bearley and Johnes (1995) conducted the research that showed that organizations are in constant change, therefore employees react to change. They single out three types of Page 10 of 47

reaction: supportive (moving toward change), neutral (moving away from change), and resistant (moving against change). Bovey and Hede (2001) present a unified model of reaction to change. This model includes only two types of reaction: supportive and resistant. In this case reaction to changes is analysed in the aspect of an intended behaviour. Behaviour could be between active-passive and open-closed. Figure below presents behaviour types.

Passive overt behaviour: Changes are supported by accepting them and agreeing. Resistance to changes is passive: changes are observed, some kind accepted, however, nothing else is done to support them. Passive covert behaviour: Changes are supported passively and even with a negative attitude, trying to give in, complain. Changes are met with resistance; they are ignored trying to avoid them. Active overt behaviour: Change support includes initiative and care of changes. Resistance to change is expressed by the intention to resist and disagree with them, to argue or even to hinder. Active covert behaviour: In this case, support of changes most often means cooperation. Changes are opposed through procrastination Page 11 of 47

2.2 Locus of Control

Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behavior, tend to exhibit more political behaviors, and are more likely to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external locus of control; they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation. Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of personality. Lefcourt (1976) defined perceived locus of control as follows: "Perceived control is defined as a generalized expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements" (Lefcourt 1976, p27). Locus of Control was derived from the Social Learning Theory developed by Rotter in 1966. The Social Learning Theory states that an individual learns on the basis of his of her history of reinforcement. The individual will develop general and specific expectancies. Through a learning process individuals will develop the belief that certain outcomes are a result of their action (internals) or a result of other forces independent of themselves (externals). From the social learning theory Rotter developed the Locus of Control Construct, consisting of an Internal External rating scale. 2.2.1 Locus of control personality orientations It should not be thought however, that internality is linked exclusively with attribution to effort and externality with attribution to luck, as Weiner's work makes clear. This has obvious implications for differences between internals and externals in terms of their achievement motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of N-ach. Due to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have less control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more stressed and prone to clinical depression (Benassi, Sweeney & Dufour, 1988; cited in Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007). Internals were believed by Rotter (1966) to exhibit two essential characteristics - high achievement motivation and low outer-directedness. This was the basis of the locus of control scale proposed by Rotter in 1966, although this was actually based on Rotter's belief that locus of control is a unidimensional construct. Since 1970, Rotter's assumption of unidimensionality has been challenged, with Levenson, for example, arguing that different dimensions of locus of control, such as belief that events in one's life are self-determined, are organized by powerful others and are chance-based, must be separated.

Page 12 of 47

Weiner's early work in the 1970s, suggested that, more-or-less orthogonal to the internality-externality dimension, we should also consider differences between those who attribute to stable causes, and those who attribute to unstable causes. This meant that attributions could be to ability (an internal stable cause), effort (an internal unstable cause), task difficulty (an external stable cause) or luck (an external, unstable cause). Such at least were how the early Weiner saw these four causes, although he has been challenged as to whether people do see luck, for example, as an external cause, whether ability is always perceived as stable and whether effort is always seen as changing. Indeed, in more recent publications (e.g. Weiner, 1980) Weiner uses different terms for these four causes - such as "objective task characteristics" in place of task difficulty and "chance" in place of luck. It has also been notable how psychologists since Weiner have distinguished between stable effort and unstable effort - knowing that, in some circumstances, effort could be seen as a stable cause, especially given the presence of certain words such as "industrious" in the English language. 2.2.2 Attribution style Attribution style, or explanatory style, is a concept that was introduced by Lyn Yvonne Abramson, Martin Seligman and John D. Teasdale. This concept goes a stage further than Weiner, saying that in addition to the concepts of internality-externality and stability a dimension of globality-specificity is also needed. Abramson et al. therefore believed that how people explained successes and failures in their lives related to whether they attributed these to internal or external factors, to factors that were short-term or long-term and to factors that affected all situations in their situations. The topic of attribution theory, introduced to psychology by Fritz Heider, has had an influence on locus of control theory, but it is important to appreciate the differences between the histories of these two theoretical models in psychology. Attribution theorists have been, largely speaking, social psychologists, concerned with the general processes characterizing how and why people in general make the attributions do, whereas locus of control theorists have been more concerned with individual differences. Significant to the history of both approaches were the contributions made by Bernard Weiner, in the 1970s. Prior to this time, attribution theorists and locus of control theorists had been largely concerned with divisions into external and internal loci of causality. Weiner added the dimension of stability-instability, and somewhat later, controllability, indicating how a cause could be perceived as been internal to a person yet still beyond the person's control. The stability dimension added to our understanding of why people success or failure after such outcomes. Although not part of Weiner's model, a further dimension of attribution was added by Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale, that of globality-specificity 2.2.3 Locus of control and age

Page 13 of 47

It is sometimes assumed that as people age, they will become less internal and more external, but data here have been ambiguous. Longitudinal data collected by Gatz and Karel (cited in Johnson et al., 2004 imply that internality may increase up to middle age, and thereafter decrease. Noting the ambiguity of data in this area, Aldwin and Gilmer (2004) cite Lachman's claim that locus of control is ambiguous. Indeed, there is evidence here that changes in locus of control in later life relate more visibly to increased externality, rather than reduced internality, if the two concepts are taken to be orthogonal. Evidence cited by Schultz and Schultz (2005), for example Heckhausen and Schulz (1995) or Ryckman and Malikosi, 1975 (cited in Schultz & Schultz, 2005), suggests that locus of control increases in internality up until middle age. These authors also note that attempts to control the environment become more pronounced between the age of eight and fourteen. 2.2.4 Gender-based differences in locus of control However, these authors also note that there may be specific sex-based differences for specific categories of item to assess locus of control - for example, they cite evidence that men may have a greater internal locus for questions related to academic achievement (Strickland & Haley, 1980; cited in Schultz & Schultz, 2005). 2.2.5 Scales to measure locus of control The most famous questionnaire to measure locus of control is the 13-item forced choice scale of Rotter (1966), but this is not the only questionnaire - indeed, predating Rotter's work by five years is Bialer's (1961) 23-item scale for children. Also of relevance to locus of control scale are the Crandall Intellectual Ascription of Responsibility Scale (Crandall, 1965), and the Nowicki-Strickland Scale. One of the earliest psychometric scales to assess locus of control, using a Likert-type scale in contrast to the forced-choice alternative measure which can be found in Rotter's scale, was that devised by W.H. James, for his unpublished doctoral dissertation, supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University, although this remained an unpublished scale Many measures of locus of control have appeared since Rotter's scale, both those,. such as The Duttweiler Control Index (Duttweiler, 1984), which uses a five-point scale, and those which are related to specific areas, such as health. 2.2.5.1 The Internal Control Index of Duttweiler A scale with reasonably good psychometric properties has been the Internal Control Index (ICI) of Duttweiler (1984). In her paper on this scale, Duttweiler notes many problems with Rotter's I-E Scale, including problems with its forced choice format, its susceptibility to social desirability and her observation that studies which have subjected the scale to factor analysis suggest it is not assessing an entirely homogeneous concept. She also notes that, while other scales existed in 1984 to measure locus of control, "they appear to be subject to many of the same problems" (Duttweiler, 1984, p211).

Page 14 of 47

She developed the ICI to assess several variables especially pertinent to internal locus cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to social influence, self-confidence and delay of gratification. Unlike the forced-choice format used on Rotter's scale, Duttweiler's 28-item ICI uses a Likert-type scale, in which people have to state whether they would rarely, occasionally, sometimes, frequently or usually behave as specified by each of 28 statements. 2.2.5.2 Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory Questioning the idea of locus of control as a unidimensional construct Dr. Hanna Levenson argued that understanding and prediction could be improved by studying fate and chance expectations separately from external control b powerful others. Of the six externally worded items on the original health locus of control scale. Only one ["I can do only what my doctor tells me to do"] was related to the dimension of powerful others externally. Wallston and Wallston saw that new items tapping into this dimension were necessary. According to Levenson powerful others should not be internal or external and beliefs about people in general should have less predictive power than beliefs about one's own control. Realizing the utility and supporting evidence of the multidimensionality, the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale was developed. The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale was developed to create equivalent forms of the scale so researchers could repeat the measurements. It is believed that equivalent forms of this instrument would decrease the possibility of subjects remembering previous responses and increase the sensitivity of the instrument to belief changes over time. 2.2.5.3 Brief Description of Theory Health Locus of Control (HLC) is the degree to which individuals believe that their health is controlled by internal or external Factors. Whether a person is internal or external is based on a series of statements. The statements are scored and summed to determine whether the individual has internal or external health beliefs. This is called the unidimensional HLC Scale that was developed by Wallston. Wallston. Kaplan and Maides. The IILC Scale consists of II items with a six point Likert response format. Those scoring above the median are labelled "health-externals" and those scoring below the median are labelled "health-internals." External refers to the belief that one's outcome is under the control of powerful others (i.e., doctors) or is determined by fate. luck or chance. Internal refers to the belief that ones outcome is directly the result of ones behaviour. Dr. Hanna Levenson questioned the conceptualization of the locus of control as a unidimensional construct. She predicted that the construct could be better understood by studying fate and chance expectations separately from external control by powerful others. For this reason. Levenson developed the 3 eight item Likert scale termed the IPC Scale which was used to measure generalized locus of control beliefs. I - Internal P - Powerful Others C - Chance Page 15 of 47

Wallston and Wallston combined their unidimensional HLC Scale and Levenson's IPC Scale and developed the Multidimensional HLC (MHLC) Scale. The MHLC Scale consists of 3 six- item scales also using the Likert format. 1. Internal HLC (IHLC) is the extent to which one believes that internal factors are responsible for health/illness. 2. Powerful Others HLC (PHLC) is the belief that one's health is determined by powerful others. 3. Chance HLC (CHLC) measures the extent to which one believes that health illness is a matter of fate. luck or chance. Although the scale is used to judge the degree to which an individual believes that s/he can control his/her health, it can be effectively used to understand an employees locus of control. The scale gives a better picture as compared to Rotters uni- dimensional construct. 2.2.6 Effectiveness of Organizational Change a function of Locus of Control Lau and Woodman (1995) argued that reactions to organizational change are affected by the individual's change schemata, which they defined as "mental map[s] representing knowledge structures of change attributes, and relationships among different change events" (p. 538). Through qualitative and quantitative methods, these researchers noted significant relationships between such schemata and the reactions of individuals to change, and further found such schemata to be significantly affected by personality.

2.3 Review of Research Papers

2.3.1 Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Review of the Locus of Control Construct -Martin B. Kormanik1 and Tonettes. One aspect of personality, perceptions of internal versus external control of reinforcement, shifts under conditions of change. The study examines the relationship between planned organizational change and locus of control. The research reiterates the result of previous studies that organizational change is effected by an individuals locus of control. Internal locus of control elicits positive reaction to change. 2.3.2 Managerial Coping With Organizational Change: A Dispositional Perspective -Timothy A. Judge and Carl J. Thoresen University of Iowa Vladimir Pucik and Theresa M. Welbourne The study tries to identify how organizational change gets effected by certain personality variables. The study essentially tends to focus on how individual behaviour effects the change process. That is the study focuses on micro level factors rather than micro level factors effecting the change process. The seven traits studied were- locus of Page 16 of 47

control, generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive affectivity (PA), openness to experience, tolerance for ambiguity, and risk aversion The study further relates acceptance to change with commitment and job satisfaction. Moreover, successful coping has been linked to transformation of organizations. The study also emphasizes on the mechanism adopted by individuals for adapting to change Levensons (1981) Internality scale was used to measure locus of control. It reduced some of the shortcomings of Rotters scale and had comparatively high reliability 2.3.3 CEOs Entrepreneurship in Relation to Reaction to Organizational Change -Asta Pundzien1, Jurga Duobien The study analyses CEOs entrepreneurship behaviour with high need for achievement, risk propensity and locus of control. No correlation was found between the three personality traits. However locus of control and reaction to change was interrelated. Higher internal locus of control ensured positive reaction to change The result hold a lot of relevance for the present study as it also tries to co-relate an individuals locus of control and the reaction i.e resistance or readiness to change. According to the results it is only through locus of control that reactions to change can be judged. ANOVA was used separately for two dependent variables, i.e. intentions to resist changes and propensity to support changes 2.3.4 A framework for assessing commitment to change. Process and context variables of organizational change -Geert devos, Karlien Vanderheyden. Herman van den broeck The study analyses different variables that effect commitment to change. The variables have been classified in three categories viz organizational, departmental level and individual level. In the context of the study that is being conducted individual level variables have a lot of relevance. Locus of control is one of most influential variables in this context. The research paper has the hypothesis- Internal locus of control is positively related to emotional involvement and commitment to change. 2.3.5 Locus of control and the three components of commitment to change Jingqiu Chen and Lei Wang( Department of Psychology, Peking University) The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of locus of control on psychological reactions to change. It examines the relationship between locus of control and the three components of commitment to a change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) that have been found to exhibit different behavioural implications.

Page 17 of 47

The results show that locus of control can significantly predict participants commitment to a specific change. In particular, the relationship between locus of control and the three different components of commitment to change are differentiative: participants with more internal locus of control were more likely to have high affective and normative commitment to change, whereas participants with more external locus of control were more likely to have high continuance commitment to change. The implications for theoretical research and organizational practice are also discussed. 2.3.6 Individual and organizational facets of change in the public and private sector: a comparative study- Dave bouckenooghe Geert devos This study compares individual (i.e., readiness to change and locus of control) and organizational aspects of change (i.e., participation in decision making and risk-taking reward orientation) The hypotheses tested were that; in the public sector people report (a) a lower level of readiness to change (i.e., emotional involvement and commitment to change); (b) a lower level of internal locus of control; (c) a lower risk-taking reward orientation; and (d) a higher level of participation in decision-making in comparison to the private sector. 2.3.7 Internal-external locus of control and response to influence attempts- John Biondo 1 A. P. MacDonald, Jr. West Virginia University It was hypothesized that subjects having external locus of control orientations (would conform to both subtle and overt influence attempts, whereas internals would react against such attempts Results showed that Externals conformed to both levels of influence and Internals reacted against high influence. Internals were not responsive to low influence

2.4 Gap Analysis

Although a lot of research has been done on the topic of study. Little work has been done in Indias context and the exploratory research done on the topic failed to find any research done specifically on IT sector. Given the fact that IT sector had been at the forefront of Indias exemplary economic growth and has led the transformation to a knowledge economy, warrants the need to conduct some research in the area. Moreover, most of the research conducted on the organizational change has focused on macro level factors and has failed to take individual behaviour in consideration.

Chapter 3
Page 18 of 47

3.1 Rationale of the research

To understand how locus of control can effect the change process within an organization and if employee behaviour can be manipulated and controlled wrt to locus of control. In case it can be, how should the change agent go about it.

3.2 Objective
To understand and study the relationship between locus of control and organizational change 1. To learn the link between readiness or resistance to change and locus of control To study if the locus of control changes according to situations and work settings and under what conditions can it be influenced to increase organizational effectiveness. To study whether the reaction to organization change process changes according to type of change being implemented and the manner in which it is implemented.

3.3 Hypothesis
Internal locus of control supports acceptance of organizational change

Page 19 of 47

Chapter 4:Research Methodology

4.1 Research Methodology
Quantitative research has been employed in the research paper 4.1.1 Research Design Type The researcher made use of two categories of research design. In the initial stages of the project, exploratory research was employed in order to properly define the problem and gather as much information on organizational change, locus of control and the research conducted on these variables. After sufficient progress had been made on this front, descriptive research was used. 4.1.2 Sample Design Data was collected from employees working in IT sector. Organizations such as TCS, Birla Soft, Capgemini, Kanbay, Accenture were covered. The sample size was 40. Data was collected informally through e-mail by forming a network of acquaintances. 4.1.3 Data Collection Questionnaire was used to ascertain if individual with internal locus of control readily accepted organizational change or resisted it. Levenson scale was used to measure employees locus of control. Moreover to measure the reaction towards organizational change, an attitude survey was conducted wherein the employees reaction was identified using certain statements with respect to the change process initiated in the organization. Likert scale was employed to know the degree to which change effected the employee. 4.1.4 Sources of Data Secondary sources- Internet and journals were explored to collect preliminary information about organizational change and locus of control. Different websites and research papers acted as a base for the exploratory research. Data from secondary sources was used to get a fair idea about the theoretical construct of the two variables and the nexus between the two. Primary sources- Data was collected by administering questionnaires to the employees who responded to 24 point Levenson scale to identify locus of control and then responded to an attitude survey which attempted to gauge their reaction towards change process. Data from these questionnaires was in turn used for further analysis and finally prove the hypothesis.

4.1.5 Objective of the questionnaire Page 20 of 47

The questionnaire was divided in two parts. The first part, it attempts to identify the locus of control of the respondent. The second part of the questionnaire attempts to identify the following issues Respondents reaction towards organizational change. That is, did the respondent resist it or readily accepted it and changed his mind set accordingly. The kind of OD interventions that were used by the organization and if they helped in manipulating the locus of control of the respondent. To know the kind of change that was implemented and did it effect the reaction to change.

Chapter 5 :Data Analysis

Page 21 of 47

5.1. Analysis of Part I

The first part of the questionnaire measures the locus of control of the respondent. Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory was used for the same. The individual score of each respondent have been shown below.
Respondent Aparna Arjun Arun Devesh Ekta Mudgha Pankaj Pooja Neha J Neha M Shweta Shilpa Shivani Subhash Piyush Mansi Amit Santosh Samuya Anita Priya Surubhi Aaarti Archana Aditya Hitentra Saurabh Rajat Siya Ankita Yash Anil Amrita Shraddha Internal Scale 10 39 40 37 40 30 33 42 41 36 34 24 41 21 30 43 32 33 10 16 31 27 36 31 29 25 27 33 23 29 36 30 42 17 Powerful Others 36 23 35 16 32 21 25 9 5 16 10 30 13 31 6 14 26 27 35 36 12 20 10 5 15 10 30 14 31 8 14 26 27 35 Chance scale 39 32 32 20 31 23 26 17 16 18 18 40 12 37 5 5 24 26 41 40 22 22 18 18 19 15 39 13 38 7 5 24 26 41 Locus of control High External High Internal High Internal High Internal High Internal Medium Internal High Internal High Internal High Internal High Internal High Internal High External High Internal High External High Internal High Internal Medium Internal High Internal High External High External Medium Internal Medium Internal High Internal Medium Internal Medium Internal Medium Internal High External High Internal High External Medium Internal High Internal Medium Internal High Internal High External

Page 22 of 47

The inference from the locus of control some of the respondents is given belowR1- Respondent has low locus of control or external locus of control and believes that her life is controlled by her superiors and leaves the outcome of events of work life to fate and luck. R2- Respondent has internal locus of control. Although he believes in chance or luck, he doesnt believe in being controlled by others R3- Repondent has very high internal locus of control. However he also believes that his work life can be controlled by those in power R4- Respondent doesnt believe in luck and doesnt think that his destiny is in control of those in authority R9- He follows a balanced approach with respect to the three scales Scale used to determine individual locus of control
Scale Low Internal LOC 0-16 Low Powerful Others 0-16 Low Chance 0-16 Medium Internal LOC 16-32 Medium Powerful Others 16-32 Medium Chance 16-32 High Internal LOC 32-47 High Powerful Others 32-47 High Chance 32-47

The following graph show that fifty percent of the respondents had internal locus of control whereas twenty for had external locus of control. The rest had medium according to the range defined in the scale described above.

5.2 Analysis of Part II

Page 23 of 47

The second part of the questionnaire analysis the employees resistance or readiness to change process carried out in an organization. The questionnaire had 16 statements which measured the employees attitude on likert scale. Following are the results and interpretation of each of the statements. 5.2.1 Tenure of the Employee
Options Less then 1 year 1-3 3-6 6-9 More than 9 years Responses 6 10 20 4 0 40 Percentage 15 25 50 10 0 100

Inference- Fitfty percent of respondents had an experience of 3-6 years. The data was mainly collected from from team leads or module leads who have an experience of 3-6 years. Project leads have an experience of more than 6 years which comprised 10 percent of the sample. The designation mentioned may differ from organization to organization 5.2.2 Witnessed Changes
Options Yes No Not aware of nay such changes Responses 36 2 2 40 Percentage 90 5 5 100

Page 24 of 47

Inference- Ninty percent of the respondents had experienced some sort of change during their tenure. This emphasizes the fact that organizations operating in dynamic environment have to continuously rejuvinate themselves. This is especially relevant in the case of IT sector which has an extremely volatile business envirnment. The result supports the research conducted by Bearley and Johnes (1995) that showed that organizations are in constant change, therefore employees react to change. 5.2.3 Classify Change
Options Radical and Planned Continuous and Emergent Continuous and Planned Only Emergent ( Not planned, in bits and pieces, nobody is aware of it ) Responses 4 12 16 8 40 Percentage 10 30 40 20 100

Inference- Forty percent of the respondents said that they experienced Continuous and Planned Change, whereas thirty percent said that they went through Continuous and Emergent Change. This emphasis the fact that most IT companies have some kind of change process at some point or other in their organizations. However, it may also be Page 25 of 47

a concerted effort to rejuvinate or an unconscious effort i.e radical change which ten percent of the respondents experienced

Attitude Survey
5.2.4 The Employee Felt Enthusiastic but Sceptical
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Responses 10 6 14 Percentage 25 15 35

8 2 40

20 5 100

Inference- Thirty five percent of the respondents didnt feel much enthusiasm for the change process. Moreover about twenty five percent didnt feel any enthusiasm for the same. That is about sixty percent of the respondents were not very keen on accepting change in their work styles, environment or culture. The data shows that most employees may resist change. 5.2.5 The Employee Felt Uncomfortable about Change
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Responses 6 16 8 10 0 40 Percentage 15 40 20 25 0 100

Page 26 of 47

Inference- The above data reinforces the fact that people might not accept change very readily and be uncomfortable with it. Here forty percent of the respondents agreed that they felt uncomfortable with the changes that they have to go through in their work settings. Fifteen percent strongly agreed with the statement. 5.2.6 Felt in Control When Experienced One Type of Change Over Other
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Responses 0 14 18 Percentage 0 35 45

6 2 40

15 5 100

Inference- Forty five percent of the respondents gave a nuetral response for the statement. However thirty five percent agreed.

Page 27 of 47

The rationale of the statement was to access whether different type of change had some effect on an employees locus of control. The question was asked in reference to the categories of change mentioned in the previous question. Different kinds of change would entail an diffenent work setting and circumstances under which he would resist or adapt to change. Therefore if an employee experiences planned change, he may feel in control of his environment. 5.2.6 Effect of Change on Employees Performance
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Responses 2 10 4 24 0 40 Percentage 5 25 10 60 0 100

Inference-Twenty percent agreed to the statement that change effected their performance adversely. Five percent strongly agreed to it. The data proves that change effects an employees productivity and performance and hence it is extremely important to manage change well. One of the ways this can be done isto have planned change rather than emergent change 5.2.7 Change Demoralized the Employee
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Responses 2 20 4 12 Percentage 5 50 10 30

Page 28 of 47

Strongly Disagree

2 40

5 100

Inference- Fifty percent of the respondents agreed that change demoralized them. Five percent strongly agreed. The data once again reiterates the fact that people find it hard to accept change and will demoralize them. This may have an adverse effect on organizational effectiveness. 5.2.8 The Employee Felt Like Switching Job
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Responses 2 12 12 14 40 Percentage 5 30 30 35 0 100

Inference- Thirty percent of the employees disagreed to the statement that they felt like switching jobs. This could be attributed to recession and the adverse effect it had on IT sector However a high proportion of respondents even agreed to the statement. An employee may agree to this statement because he wanted to display passive covert behaviour to change. This shows resistance. (Bearley and Heade (1995) ) Page 29 of 47

5.2.9 Increased Particpation in the Change Process Helped Control Environment

Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Responses 4 26 6 Percentage 10 65 15

2 2 40

5 5 100

Inference- Sixty five percent agreed and ten percent strongly agreed that increased participation helped my take control of their environment. They were able to handle issues and contingencies beacuase of change, better. Particpative descision making has also been used as OD intervention in the organizations in which the repsondents were employed. The subsequesnt questions will deal with the impact of internventions. 5.2.10 Employee Resisted Change When it Effected Status
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Responses 8 30 2 Percentage 20 75 5

0 0

0 0

Page 30 of 47

40

100

5.2.11 OD Interventions Used

Options Mentoring Program Counseling session Participative decision making Others None

Responses 6 12 8

Percentage 15 30 20

12 2 40

30 5 100

Inference- Thirty percent of the respondents went through counseling sessions to reduce their resistance to change. Organizations also used particpative decision making in order to involve the employees in the change process.

5.2.12 Interventions Helped Employee Control Environment Better Page 31 of 47

Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Responses 4 26 4 2 2 38

Percentage 10.25641026 66.66666667 10.25641026 5.128205128 5.128205128 100

Inference- Sixty six percent of respondents felt that OD interventions helped them better control their environment better. This means that the employees felt that could control their work related activities despite the change. Ten percent strongly agreed to the statement. When an employee feels that s/he is able to control his/her environment and is also able to decide how his/her professional life gets impacted through change, s/he has internal locus of control. Here majority of repondents agreed with the statement. Hence, it can be said that locus of control can be manipulated and is effected by work settings and situations. Here change in work setting and situation refers to increased particpation . 5.2.13 Change In Perception
Options Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Responses 2 16 20 0 Percentage 5.263157895 42.10526316 52.63157895 0

Page 32 of 47

Strongly Disagree

0 38

0 100

5.2.14 Change In Stance

Options Yes No Didnt experience interventions Responses 26 10 2 38 Percentage 68.42105263 26.31578947 5.263157895 100

Inference- Sixty eight percent said that they changed their stance towards change and hence reduced their resistance towards it. 5.2.15 Reasons for Changing Stance
Options Good change mgmt Responses 26 Percentage 65

Page 33 of 47

Fear of Job Loss Others

0 14 40

0 35 100

Inference- Majority of the respondents attributed good change management by the employer as the reason for changing their stance as far as resistance to change was concerned. Respondents who chose the third option said that they still could not accept change and hence their stance has not change. It also included two respondents whose organization didnt go for any OD interventions.

5.3 Correlation Between Locus of Control and Organization Change

This section attempts to test the hypothesis that locus of control impacts organizational change. That is to what extent an employee would resist or accept change if s/he has internal locus of control. Here specific questions from Part II of the questionnaire have been linked to the eight statements of the Internal Scale of Levensons Standard Locus of Control Inventory SPSS Software was used to calculate correlation. 5.3.1 Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change Process * Whether Or Not I Get Into A Car Accident Depends On How Good A Driver I am
I felt enthusiastic but skeptical about the change process? I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about the Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) 1 . Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. -.251 .119

Page 34 of 47

change process? Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am.

N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

40 -.251 .119 40

40 1 . 40

Karl Pearsons Coefficient is -.251. The relation between the two variables is weak. Hence it can be said that the statements are not related. 5.3.2 Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change Process * When I make Plans I am almost Certain to Make Them Work
I felt enthusiastic but skeptical about the change process? I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about the change process? When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 40 -.038 .815 40 When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.

-.038 .815 40 1 . 40

Karl Pearson Coefficient is -.038. The variables are correlated to some extent but have have a weak relationship 5.3.3 Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change Process * * I Am Usually Able To Protect My Personal Interests
I felt enthusiastic but skeptical about the change process? I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about the change process? I am usually able to protect my personal interests. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 40 .131 .421 40 I am usually able to protect my personal interests.

.131 .421 40 1 . 40

Page 35 of 47

Karl Pearson Coefficient for the above statements is .131. Although the statements are related, it can not be said that they are very strongly correlated. 5.3.4 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process That Took Place In My Organization * I Am Usually Able To Protect My Personal Interests
I am usually able to protect my personal interests. I felt uncomfortable about the change that took place in the organization -.151 .352 40 1 . 40

I am usually able to protect my personal interests. I felt uncomfortable about the change that took place in the organization

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

1 . 40 -.151 .352 40

Even for the above two statements a weak correlation of -.151 was found. 5.3.5 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process That Took Place In My Organization *How Many Friends I Have Depends On How Nice Person I Am
I felt uncomfortabl e about the change that took place in the organization I felt uncomfortable about the change that took place in the organization How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 40 -.390(*) .014 39 How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.

-.390(*) .014 39 1 . 39

The correlation coefficient in this case was only - .390. Hence the variables are related to some extent but a complete relationship can not be established.

Page 36 of 47

5.3.6 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process That Took Place In My Organization *When I make Plans I Am Almost Certain to Make Them Work
I felt uncomfortabl e about the change that took place in the organization I felt uncomfortable about the change that took place in the organization When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 40 -.107 .511 40 When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.

-.107 .511 40 1 . 40

Karl Pearson coefficient for the two statements is -.107. The relationship can not be established and hence the statements can not be said to be related. 5.3.7 Correlation Between The Change Effected My Performance Adversely *When I make Plans I am almost Certain to Make Them Work
When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N The change effected my performance adversely Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 40 -.313(*) .049 40 The change effected my performance adversely -.313(*) .049 40 1 . 40

Even for the above two statements a weak correlation of -.313 was found.

5.3.8 Correlation between The Change Effected my Performance Adversely * I am Usually Able to Protect My Personal Interests

Page 37 of 47

The change effected my performance adversely The change effected my performance adversely I am usually able to protect my personal interests. Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 40 -.301 .059 40

I am usually able to protect my personal interests. -.301 .059 40 1 . 40

The correlation coefficient in this case also was only - .310. Hence the variables are related to some extent but a complete relationship can not be established. 5.3.9 Correlation between At Times I Felt Demoralized During The Exercise * I am Usually Able to Protect My Personal Interests

I am usually able to protect my personal interests. I am usually able to protect my personal interests. At times I felt demoralized during the exercise Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 40 .021 .896 40

At times I felt demoralized during the exercise .021 .896 40 1 . 40

Although they are related to some extent, here the relationship between the two statements is weak. The coefficient is only .021. 5.3.10. Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change Process* When I Make Plans I am Almost Certain To Make Them Work
I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about the change process? I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about the Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) 1 . When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.

-.038 .815

Page 38 of 47

change process? When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.

N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

40 -.038 .815 40

40 1 . 40

The result in this case is also same as the other nine sets of statements considered for correlation. Karl Pearson coefficient is -.038. hence the statements can not be said to be related.

5.4.Relation Between Type of Change and Reaction to Change

In order to identify whether the type change experienced by employees has any effect on their reaction to change and inturn their locus of control, crosstabs have been calculated for two questions asked in the second part of the questionnaire. Crosstabs Between If yes, how will you classify the change? * I felt enthusiastic but skeptical about the change process? Cross tabulation
I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about the change process? 1 If yes, how will you classify the change? Continuous and Emergent Continuous and Planned Only emergent Radical and planned Total 0 0 2 0 2 3 4 8 4 2 4 5 6 4 12 18 Total

2 0 2

2 2 6

2 0 14

0 0 6

2 0 12

8 2 40

Fifty percent of the respondents experienced planned change during their tenure with their present organization. If these fifty percent of the respondents were enthusiastic about the change process we can say that reaction to organization change process changes according to type of change being implemented. Here according to the above table, the respondents who experienced planned change and were also enthusiastic about change are 16 in number. That makes it forty percent of the respondents. However employees who experienced emergent change and are also enthusiastic were 12 in number. That is less as compared to the former type. Therefore, it can be said that reaction to change may different for different types of changes.

Page 39 of 47

Chapter 6:Conclusion
The following inferences were drawn from the research1. There is no relation between resistance or readiness to organizational change and locus of control.

Page 40 of 47

The reason for this can be that information seeked by locus of control questionnaire is a personal matter and employees may not have been willing to divulge all the details. Hence the scale could have been manipulated and as a result didnt reflect the true picture. 2. Locus of control is situation specific and can be manipulated It was found that manipulating work settings and situations increased acceptance to change. Increased participation in the change process made employees control their environment better and inturn increase readiness to change. Moreover, it was established that OD interventions can play a crucial role in changing the attitude towards change and can be even considered as a tool for effective change management. 3. Reaction of employees may vary for different kinds of change.

Chapter 7:Annexure
7.1 Questionnaire Part I
Directions Page 41 of 47

Following is a series of attitude statements. Each represents a commonly held opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some items and disagree with others. We are interested in the extent to which you agree or disagree with such matters of opinion. Read each statement carefully. Then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree using the following responses: If you agree strongly, respond +3 If you agree somewhat, respond +2 If you agree slightly, respond +1 If you disagree slightly, respond 1 If you disagree somewhat, respond 2 If you disagree strongly, respond 3 First impressions are usually best. Read each statement, decide if you agree or disagree and the strength of your opinion, and then respond accordingly. Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory 1. (I) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability. 2. (C) To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings. 3. (P) I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people. 4. (I) Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. 5. (I) When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. 6. (C) Of ten there is no chance of protecting my personal interests form bad luck happenings. 7. (C) When I get what I want, it is usually because Im lucky. 8. (P) Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those positions of power. 9. (I) How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am. 10. (C) I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. 11. (P) My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others. 12. (C) Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck. 13. (P) People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups. Page 42 of 47

14. (C) Its not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune. 15. (P) Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me. 16. (C) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether Im lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. 17. (P) If important people were to decide they didnt like me, I probably wouldnt make many friends. 18. (I) I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. 19. (I) I am usually able to protect my personal interests. 20. (P) Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver. 21. (I) When I get what I want, its usually because I worked hard for it. 22. (P) In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people who have power over me. 23. (I) My life is determined by my own actions. 24. (C) Its chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends.

Part II
1. For how long have you been employed in your present organization? Less than 1 year 1-3 3-5 5-7 2. Have you witnessed any significant change during your tenure ? Yes No Not aware of any changes 3. If yes, how will you classify the change? Radical and Planned Continuous and Emergent Continuous and Planned Only Emergent ( Not planned, in bits and pieces, nobody is aware of it )

Page 43 of 47

If answer for the second question is No , respond to the questions from the perspective of an employee who might have experienced change in the organization. For instance: The morale of the concerned employee decreased significantly instead of My morale decreased significantly 4. I felt enthusiastic but also sceptical about the change process that took place in my organization Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 5. I felt uncomfortable about the change that took place in the organization Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. I felt in control of the environment when I experienced one type of change rather than the other (With reference to the categories of change mentioned above) Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 7. The change effected my performance adversely Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 8. At times I felt demoralized during the exercise Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 9.At times I felt like changing the job during the exercise Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Page 44 of 47

Disagree Strongly Disagree

10.Increased participation in the change initiatives helped me control and decide as to how my professional life got effected. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 11. Resistance to change was more when it adversely effected my position, status or security Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 12. The change interventions used by the organization were : 13. After experiencing these interventions I felt that I could control my environment better Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 14. The interventions changed my perception about the change process Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 15.I changed my stance during the change process Yes No 16. The reason for changing the stance was Good change management Fear of job loss If other, please specify

Page 45 of 47

Chapter 8:Bibliography
http://www.karis.biz/storage/crew_cv/types%20of%20change.pdf http://www.themanager.org/strategy/change_phases.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control http://cart.rmcdenver.com/instruments/multidimensional_locus.p Page 46 of 47

http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/51/5000830.pdf

Page 47 of 47