To what extent do change management practices influence

employee attitudes to technological change within the

Accounting Profession?

Rebecca Robinson: 607253

Project Supervisor
Francis Muir

Word Count
19,979
(including title page, contents, references, and appendices)

MSc Management and Digital Business

Module
7002LBSDB-201920-SUM

September 2020
Declaration
No portion of the work referred to in the project has been submitted in support of
an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or
other learning institute. Further, all work in this project is entirely my own, unless
referenced in the text as a specific source and included in the bibliography

Acknowledgement
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my project supervisor Francis
Muir who has been an outstanding source of support and guidance throughout
the duration of the project.

I would like to thank my friends and family who all took the time to contribute to
this research and help me in distributing surveys. I greatly appreciate your
contribution to the data collection and the overall completion of this project.

Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Philip Kelly and the rest of the teaching staff at
LJMU’s faculty of business for what has truly been an insightful year of study.

Page 1 of 92
Contents
1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 6
1.1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 6
1.2: Background and Justification ................................................................... 6
1.3: Problem Statement .................................................................................. 8
1.4: Research Question .................................................................................. 8
1.5: Research objectives ................................................................................. 8
1.6: Potential contribution ............................................................................... 9
1.7: Summary ................................................................................................. 9
2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 10
2.1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 10
2.2: Introduction to technological change ...................................................... 10
2.2.1: Defining technological change...................................................... 10
2.2.2: Impact on the workplace .............................................................. 12
2.3: Understanding employee attitudes towards change and technology ....... 13
2.3.1: Change resistance ....................................................................... 13
2.3.2: Change acceptance ..................................................................... 14
2.3.3: The change curve ........................................................................ 16
2.3.4: Demographic influence................................................................. 17
2.4: Change management practices ............................................................. 18
2.4.1: Theoretical framework .................................................................. 18
2.4.2: Information-based practices ......................................................... 19
2.4.3: Participation-based practices ....................................................... 21
2.4.4: Learning-based practices ............................................................. 22
2.5: Summary ............................................................................................... 23
3: Methodology ................................................................................................ 25
3.1: Introduction to methodology ................................................................... 25
3.2: Methodology .......................................................................................... 25
3.2.1: The quantitative approach ............................................................ 25
3.2.2: Rationale for method .................................................................... 26
3.3: Method................................................................................................... 27
3.3.1: Sample strategy and method........................................................ 27
3.3.2: Design of research instrument...................................................... 27

Page 2 of 92
 3.4: Distribution ............................................................................................ 29
3.4.1: Data management and analysis .................................................. 29
3.4.2: Data reliability ............................................................................. 30
3.4.3: Data coding ................................................................................. 30
3.4.4: Research hypothesis ................................................................... 32
3.4.5: Ethical issues .............................................................................. 33
3.5: Summary .............................................................................................. 33
4: Findings ....................................................................................................... 34
4.1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 34
4.2: Demographics ........................................................................................ 34
4.3: Tests for Normality ................................................................................. 36
4.4: Attitudes to technological change ............................................................ 36
4.4.1: Employee responses to technological change............................... 36
4.4.2: Attitudes towards using ................................................................. 38
4.5: Accessing the relationship between change management practices and
attitudes towards using ...................................................................................... 39
4.5.1: Information ................................................................................... 39
4.5.2: Participation ................................................................................. 41
4.5.3: Learning ....................................................................................... 43
4.5.4: Satisfaction .................................................................................. 45
4.6: Analysis of demographic variables ......................................................... 46
4.6.1: Correlation ................................................................................... 46
4.6.2: Kruskal-Wallis .............................................................................. 47
4.6.3: Post-hoc analysis ......................................................................... 49
4.6.3: Comparing means between groups .............................................. 50
4.7: Results of hypothesis ............................................................................. 50
4.8.: Summary .............................................................................................. 51
5: Discussion ................................................................................................... 53
5.1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 53
5.2: Employee attitudes to technological change .......................................... 53
5.3: The impact of change management practices ........................................ 55
5.3.1: Information-based practices ........................................................ 55
5.3.2: Participation-based practices ...................................................... 55

Page 3 of 92
 5.3.3: Learning-based practices ............................................................. 56
5.4: Identification of the relationship between employee demographics and
attitudes ............................................................................................................. 57
5.4.1: Age and employment grade .......................................................... 57
5.4.2: Change timeframe and type of technological change .................... 58
5.5: Summary ............................................................................................... 60
6: Conclusion ................................................................................................... 62
6.1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 62
6.2: Research objectives ............................................................................... 62
6.2.1: To analyse attitudes towards technological change within the
accounting industry. ........................................................................................... 62
6.2.2: To identify the impact of change practices on employee attitudes
towards technological change ............................................................................ 62
6.2.3: To identify the relationship between employee demographics and
attitudes towards technological change ............................................................. 63
6.3: Research implications ........................................................................... 63
6.3.1: What the researcher has learnt ................................................... 63
6.3.2: Insights emerged from the research ............................................ 64
6.3.3: Implications for the accounting industry ....................................... 64
6.4: Limitations of research .......................................................................... 65
6.5: Recommendations for future research .................................................. 65
6.6: Summary .............................................................................................. 66
7: References ................................................................................................... 67
8: Appendices .................................................................................................. 79
1. Research questionnaire ................................................................................... 79
2. Participant information sheet ........................................................................... 81
3. Survey invites ......................................................................................... 81
4. List of written responses to “Please indicate your attitude in general
towards technological change” .......................................................................... 83
5. Reliability test ..................................................................................................... 84
6. Missing value analysis............................................................................ 85
7. Normality tests ................................................................................................... 86
8. Cross tabulation................................................................................................. 86
9. Correlation analysis of demographics with information, participation, and
learning-based practices ...................................................................................... 88

Page 4 of 92
 10. Post-hoc tests .................................................................................................... 89
11. Compare means for demographics ........................................................ 92

Figure 1 – Theoretical framework ...................................................................... 19

Figure 2 – Table displaying coding for variables on SPSS ................................ 30
Figure 3 – Table displaying research hypothesis............................................... 32
Figure 4 – Tables displaying demographic frequencies ..................................... 35
Figure 5 – Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for factor age group to determine normal
distribution ........................................................................................................ 36
Figure 6 – Pie chart displaying participant attitudes to technological change .. 37
Figure 7 - Bar chart displaying other participant responses to technological
change .............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 8 – Descriptive statistics for ATU_c ........................................................ 38
Figure 9 – Descriptive statistics for attitudes towards using .............................. 39
Figure 10 – Descriptive statistics for information ............................................... 40
Figure 11 – Bar chart displaying results for information-based questions .......... 40
Figure 12 – Pearson’s correlation of IB_c and ATU_c ....................................... 41
Figure 13 - Descriptive statistics for participation .............................................. 42
Figure 14 - Bar chart displaying results for participation .................................... 42
Figure 15 – Pearson’s correlation of PB_c and ATU_c...................................... 43
Figure 16 – Descriptive statistics for learning .................................................... 44
Figure 17 - Bar chart displaying results for learning .......................................... 44
Figure 18 – Pearson’s correlation of LB_c and ATU_c ...................................... 44
Figure 19 – Experience satisfaction .................................................................. 44
Figure 20 - Overall satisfaction.......................................................................... 46
Figure 21 – Correlation analysis for demographics ........................................... 46
Figure 22 – Kruskal-Wallis test for Age ............................................................. 47
Figure 23 – Kruskal-Wallis test for Employment grade ...................................... 48
Figure 24 – Kruskal-Wallis test for Change timeframe ...................................... 48
Figure 25 – Kruskal-Wallis test for type of technological change ....................... 49
Figure 26 - Table displaying results of Mann-Whitney U Tests to determine
statistical differences between groups ............................................................... 50
Figure 27 – Table displaying results for research hypothesis ............................ 51

Page 5 of 92
1.0 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1: Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research context, providing an
overview of background and justification for carrying out the research. The
problem statement will provide a clear explanation as to why the research is
important and the focus it will take. A research question will then be provided,
and the research objectives outlined, providing clarity on what the research aims
to achieve. Finally, potential contribution will provide a concise explanation of the
insights that the research aims to discover as an outcome of this project.

1.2: Background and justification

Change is one of the most researched topics in management and leadership
(Nadim and Singh, 2019). Considered necessary for organisational survival,
change can be categorised as developmental, a form of minor change, or
transformational, a more complex form that requires a shift in existing structures
and organisational policies (Corrigan and Kleiner, 1989). According to Cole and
Kelly (2015, pp.285) some organisations change mainly in response to external
circumstances (reactive change), while others change principally because they
have decided to (proactive change). However, modern research on change
management recognises that continuous change is now the new norm (Wee and
Taylor, 2018), and in the face of economic uncertainty organisations are having
to adapt faster (Edmonds, 2011).

This research project will focus specifically on planned change and the steps
taken by an organisation to implement this change. While organisational change
can occur in a number of forms, this particular research will address technological
change or digital transformation. As Accenture (2018) reports, ‘we are working
and living in a time of unparalleled technology innovation and invention.’
Workplace automation is just one example of a current digital trend dominating
discussion of organisational change. Its growth has emerged as a means of
increasing efficiency, productivity and lowering costs (Uzialko, 2019), and it is
predicted that 30% of jobs will be fully automated by 2030 (PWC, 2018a).
Research conducted by Ernst and Young (2017) confirms the scale of impact,
reporting that digital disruption is the ‘fourth industrial revolution reshaping the
business world, demonstrated by a 49% global internet penetration in 2016, an
increase of 725% compared with 2000’.

Page 6 of 92
Despite change being such a common feature of organisational development, it is
not always successful. In fact, recent research has noted how up to 70% of
change programmes fail (Beer and Nohiraga, 2000; McKinsey & Company,
2015). Furthermore, according to Gale (2019) only 28% of major corporations
succeed in their digital transformation efforts. In the existing literature, change
failure often comes down to two hypotheses; one being employee resistance to
the proposed change (Hamidianpour, Esmaeilpour and Zarei, 2016; Matthias and
Ingo, 2018), the other being poor change management practices (Kotter, 1996;
Bartunek et al., 2006; Oreg, 2006; Ford, Ford and D’Amelio, 2008). Interestingly,
the success of change initiatives is less explored in the research than that of the
change itself (O’Connor, Jimmieson and White, 2017). Law (2009) also reports
that the role of the employee in influencing organisational readiness for change is
often downplayed. Therefore, this research project aims to explore technological
change management using the employee perspective, addressing employee
involvement, communication, and training. Specifically, it aims to examine
whether these practices have any influence on employee attitudes towards using
new workplace technology.

The chosen context for this research will focus on the accounting industry in
Northern Ireland. According to Financial Times (2016), this industry is amongst
those at highest risk of increased workplace automation, along with travel agents
and small component manufacturers and distributors. This evidence is supported
by research conducted by PWC (2018a) revealing that financial services will be
impacted more in the next decade, peaking at 30% in the early 2030s, however,
the manufacturing industry will be impacted more in the long term, with up to 45%
of manufacturing jobs in the UK at risk. The type of worker will also play a role. It
is predicted that less well-educated employees will be impacted the most,
‘emphasising the importance of increased investment in lifelong learning and
retraining’, and male workers will be impacted more in the long term than female
employees (34% compared to 26%) (PWC, 2018a).

While the evidence does therefore suggest that employees in accounting are at
less risk than other industries in the long term, this does not confirm that the
impact will be significantly felt any less. Studies have found that accountants are
especially having to adapt quickly to a diverse new way of working, as 86% of all
accounting tasks can now be automated using technology that exists today,

Page 7 of 92
including cloud software (Jewers, 2020). It is predicted that in this particular
industry technology may also create more jobs than it will replace. According to
Gass (2018), the elimination of mundane tasks will allow for staff to focus on
more important data analysis and business advisory services. Yet, Arnold (2016)
also reports how certain systems may actually reduce the decision-making
responsibilities of employees, with an increase in decision aid technology, as well
as reduce the use of face to face interaction by making financial services more
accessible online.

The research will therefore aim to understand how employees in the accounting
industry perceive the emergence of new workplace technology by addressing a
large population from different organisations.

1.3: Problem statement

When reviewing the background of the research, it is clear that a majority of
change initiatives fail as a consequence of issues surrounding employee
resistance and/or poor change practices. Successful technology implementation,
therefore, largely depends on an employee’s willingness to accept change, and
how that change is implemented may have a significant influence on this. The
purpose of this research is to gain deeper insight into the change process and
the practices involved, centring on accountancy firms within NI and addressing a
large population of employees ranging in age and employment grade, and
technological change differing in scale and impact. Specifically, the research will
aim to discover if there is a connection between the practices involved and
employee attitudes towards using new technology. It will also attempt to
determine whether certain practices are more beneficial for increasing
acceptance, for example, participation over communication, or training over
participation.

1.4: Research question

➢ To what extent do change management practices influence employee
attitudes to technological change within the accounting profession?

1.5: Research objectives

➢ To analyse employee attitudes towards technological change within the
accounting industry.

Page 8 of 92
 ➢ To identify whether change management practices have a significant
impact on attitudes towards using new workplace technology.
➢ To identify the relationship between demographics and employee
attitudes towards using new technology, such as participant age and
experience with technological change.

1.6: Potential contribution

The focus of this research will be to gain deeper insight into employee’s attitudes
towards using new technology and identify any relationship based on the types of
organisational practices experienced. For this research, employees will come
from different organisations, will be ranging in age and employment level, and will
have had different experiences with technological change. The scale of change
will be addressed to identify if employees experienced a more transformational
change such as the instalment of a new system, or a less complex software
upgrade. Furthermore, the research will also seek to provide clarity on how timing
may impact perceptions towards the change process, determining whether more
recent changes will influence more negative responses than changes that
occurred over a year ago. Therefore, this research will take a reflective viewpoint
and ask employees to explain their attitudes based on previous experience of
technological change management.

1.7: Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to outline the research background and focus. It
has been identified that organisations are having to adapt faster to change so to
maintain organisational sustainability and competitiveness. However, often
change initiatives fail as a result of how employees receive the change and how
change is implemented by those leading it. As employee perceptions of the
change process is less understood, this research will aim to bridge the gaps in
the existing literature with the aim of developing further insight as to which
change practices may help alleviate problems of resistance.

As technological change is recognised as one of the more transformational

business trends to watch in coming years, successful implementation will require
the full support of an organisation’s employees. Therefore, the research will aim
to provide clarity as to whether the change strategy can successfully encourage
change supportive attitudes, using the employee perspective within the
accounting industry as an example.

Page 9 of 92
2.0 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1: Introduction
This chapter will provide an in-depth review of the existing literature surrounding
the research topic. Three key concepts will be examined; first of all, an
introduction to technological change will provide a clear definition, as well as
discusses its impact on the new workplace, with reference to the accounting
industry. Following on from this will be an analysis of employee perceptions to
change, based off previous literature on resistance and change acceptance.
Finally, an overview of change management will hypothesise a theoretical
framework, designed with the purpose of helping an organisation manage
technological change, and attempt to increase understanding of how common
change management practices influence change outcomes by addressing
information, participation and learning-based practices specifically. To conclude,
gaps in the literature will be summarised to provide clarity on the basis of this
research.

2.2: Introduction to technological change

2.2.1: Defining technological change

Much of the academic research uses the words change and innovation
synonymously to describe the introduction of new technology (Dewett, Whittier
and Williams, 2007). Technological change has gained global awareness for its
part in accelerating organisational growth and competitive advantage (Sood and
Tellis, 2005). Early research generally defines technological innovation as a
change in function or existing technique as a consequence of a change in the
economy (Brozen, 1953), or the replacement of human labour with a more
efficient system (Helfgott, 1965). Yet, in today’s current economic environment of
rapid digital transformation, such a definition appears too simple. More
appropriate definitions of technological change shift the focus from replacement
to re-organisation. This is supported by both Anderson (2018) and Teece (2010)
who refer to technological change as the total re-organisation of work processes
and business models. Teece (2010) goes further to explain that technological
innovation is not just about improving workflows and productivity, but also
essential to customer value capture, providing more accessible and efficient
services that cannot be offered by human labour.

Page 10 of 92
Perhaps a more recognised term for this type of change is disruptive technology.
Coined in 1995, the term refers to the introduction of a new ground-breaking
technology that creates almost an entirely new industry (Bower and Christensen,
1995). Yet, the term disruptive can also be problematic, as some researchers
have noted how this form of change can be competence-destroying, requiring
new skills, abilities, and a significant shift in organisational structure (Tushman
and Anderson, 1986). This can be disadvantageous to employees within the
accounting industry, as Arnold (2016) suggests, the development of new audit
systems sets in motion the movement towards ‘more restrictive audit support
systems’, providing less flexibility to employees in terms of what they do and
‘removing judgement and decision‐making from the audit environment as much
as possible’.

On the other hand, innovation is also recognised as costly, risky and ‘path
dependent’ (Fu, Pietrobelli and Soete, 2011). Lewis (2019) agrees, explaining
that technological change is an ‘external force that can jolt an institutionalized
field into a state of flux or destabilization’. Furthermore, researchers recognise
that perceived usefulness and importance will vary depending on the size of the
organisation. Janvrin, Bierstaker and Lowe (2008) reveal that as Big 4 firms
possess the funds that allow for the purchase of superior IT, they are more likely
to rate the importance of new tech applications higher than auditors from non-Big
4 firms. Nonetheless, it is clear that organisations which do not respond to new
technologies are open to competitive disadvantage, as their competitors take
opportunity in digital advancement (Tellis, 2006).

One noticeable gap in the research on technological change is that often the
employee benefits are overlooked (Montargot and Ben Lahouel, 2018). This is
unusual given the increasing level of research on the dependence of an
organisation’s skilled labour for technological innovation to succeed (Antonelli
and Feder, 2020). Montargot and Ben Lahouel (2018) agree, stating that
successful implementation is largely dependent on front-line employees’
readiness to change. Furthermore, it is widely recognised that as employees play
the main role in accomplishing technological tasks, they need to possess the
skills related to those new technologies (Pawar and Meymandpour, 2020). This is
supported by Law (2009) who argues that technological change, ‘like any
organizational change, can only be successful in an organizational culture of

Page 11 of 92
trust, loyalty, ongoing learning, enthusiasm and productivity.’ This emphasis on
the employee’s role is significant, as it suggests that an engaged workforce leads
to an increase in knowledge sharing and change receptive attitudes. This
research will therefore aim to examine the ways in which change practices can
increase employee knowledge.

2.2.2: Impact on the workplace

Today, organisations everywhere are preparing for the introduction of new
transformative technology. In the modern economy, technological change is no
longer concerned with the introduction of new I.T. hardware, but rather system
upgrades or application installations (Morris, Venkatesh and Ackerman, 2005).
Arnold (2016) lists several current technologies set to make considerable impact
on managerial accounting, including business intelligence, big data, and artificial
intelligence.

The consequential impact digital transformation will have on labour has been
widely speculated as early as the 1930s, where discussion centred on the
displacement of skilled workers with the invention of new machines or processes,
and the resulting effect this will have upon the general level of employment
(Lonigan, 1939; Backman, 1962). However, while the replacement of labour is
still debated, the focus has shifted to how new technology will force employees to
adapt to completely new methods of working (Deloitte, 2016; Lin, 2018). This is
supported by recent research; McKinsey and Company (2017), for example,
report that such advancements will ‘raise difficult questions about the broader
impact of automation on jobs, skills, wages, and the nature of work itself’.
Therefore, research surrounding digital transformation has often been linked to
studies of employee wellbeing, stress, job satisfaction and work engagement
(Gallivan, 2004; Voet and Vermeeren, 2016; Montargot and Ben Lahouel, 2018).
Furthermore, there is much discussion surrounding the theory of Technology
Dominance, including an increased risk in the ‘deskilling effect’, implying that the
next generation of knowledgeable auditors may not emerge ‘because they are
too reliant on the system and do not develop the expertise needed to further the
field’ (Arnold, 2016). In addition to this, Korunka and Vitouch (1999) suggest that
job control may be significantly impacted depending on the scale of change, i.e.
the extent to which the employee can influence what happens in his/her work
environment, as well as increase or decrease job demand and work pressure.

Page 12 of 92
Despite discussion of employee deskilling and job replacement, at the same time
technology will also create new opportunities, allowing employees to upskill
through learning new technical capabilities. The concept of employee upskilling
refers to the creation of new organisational knowledge enforced by the
organisation’s learning-system (Nair, Kaushik and Dhoot, 2019). Although there
is very little academic research on how management can enforce the upskilling of
employees in periods of technological change, Brands (2020) places emphasis
on the creation of an organisational learning culture within the accounting
industry, through continuously developing employees, identifying and eliminating
skills gaps, rewarding employees for learning new skills, fostering collaboration
and developing training programs.

The research therefore hypothesises (H1): that the type of technological

change/scale of impact on work will influence employee attitudes to technological
change.

2.3: Understanding employee attitudes towards change and technology

2.3.1: Change resistance

Research often addresses how technological change is easily met with
resistance. Davis (1993) explains that resistance is particularly problematic as
successful implementation largely depends on the employees’ willingness to
accept it.

There is no single interpretation of resistance. An earlier analysis of resistance to

change is provided by Diamond (1986) who describes it as being deeply rooted in
human behaviour, yet, other research will often address how resistance comes to
down to a number of underlying factors that are dependent on the individual’s
sense-making, i.e. how an individual perceives a situation, affecting a different
outcome. (Will and Pies, 2018). This is evident in research linking resistance to
technological change. It is has been observed how employees have a tendency
to react naturally with a sense of worry and uncertainty because of the perceived
risk associated with this change, and the direct impact this may have on their role
in the organisation (Bagrationi and Thurner, 2020). This is highlighted by recent
research conducted by PWC (2018b), which revealed that 37% of ten thousand
members of the general population surveyed in China, Germany, India, the UK
and the US expressed worry over automation putting their jobs at risk.

Page 13 of 92
Cullen et al. (2013) explains how employees’ perceptions and attitudes are
heavily influenced by their understanding of the situation; therefore, any
ambiguity or lack of information will lead employees to experience a greater
sense of uncertainty, confusion, or doubt regarding what the change means for
them. This would therefore explain why often research on technological change is
linked to constructs of employee well-being (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2016).
Aladwani (2001), however, presents another factor of resistance besides
perceived risk – perceived habit. This means that an individual may resist change
simply out of preference for the current practices that one is routinely doing.
Similarly, Oreg (2003) suggests that behavioural resistance comes down to two
factors: the Positive Self-Concept factor, ‘which comprises locus of control,
generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positive affectivity’, and the ‘Risk
Tolerance factor’, which comprises of openness to experience, tolerance, and
risk aversion.

Too often, however, research on organisational change assumes resistance to be

an automatic response without providing further analysis on why it may occur.
Diamond’s (1986) previously mentioned definition of resistance is, therefore, not
wholly persuasive in the context of modern change management. Ford, Ford and
D’Amico (2008) argue that research on resistance places too much emphasis on
employee sensemaking as opposed to the ‘product of rationally coherent
strategies and objectives.’ This view is supported by Bartunek et al. (2006) who
argue that change research focuses too much on the response of employees,
which is often cast as resistance, without further probing. In addition to this, Oreg
(2006) maintains that simply assuming employees will resist change hinders an
organisations' chances of understanding and dealing with ‘real problems’. These
arguments are particularly insightful and relevant to this research, as they
suggest that is not enough to recognise employees may not wish to change, it
also essential that organisations understand how procedural change efforts may
alleviate factors that can lead to resistance.

2.3.2: Change acceptance

There are several factors underlying change acceptance in the existing research,
from self-efficacy (Montargot and Ben Lahouel, 2018), to how satisfied an
employee is in their job and will proactively want to see the organisation succeed
(Cullen et al., 2013). O’Connor, Jimmieson and White (2017) discuss the theory

Page 14 of 92
of Planned Behaviour, providing ample evidence that positive attitudes about
supporting change will result when employees believe they have the capacity and
freedom to engage in supportive behaviour. The authors relate this analysis to
information and participation-based practices, which are found to be effective in
influencing such attitudes. Yet, these findings are directed more at an employee’s
intention to support change. Therefore, attention turns to another construct:
attitudes towards using new technology. This construct is defined as an
employee’s affective evaluation of the costs and benefits of using the new
technology (Morris, Venkatesh and Ackerman, 2005) and is more closely related
to the theories surrounding change acceptance.

Jiao and Zhao (2013) address technology acceptance in their discussion of

perceived fairness as a trigger for perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use. Here they observe that when employees notice any inconsistencies, such as
‘poor usefulness, difficulty of use, or autocratic implementation’, it becomes more
difficult to form a coherent interpretation of the change, which in turn leads to
perceptions of unfairness. These findings are in line with the Technology
Acceptance Model Theory (TAM), in which an employees’ ability to accept
change is directly influenced by the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use of the new product (Boot and Charness, 2016). Common characterisations of
perceived usefulness include an increase in productivity, job performance,
enhanced quality of work and easing of workload (Wallace and Sheetz, 2014).
Although this framework is often used in research to understand acceptance,
Elrod and Tippett (2002) note that determining whether employees who report
positive attitudes have actually accepted change can on occasion be challenging.
This is because as people mature and become more familiar with organisational
change, they increasingly associate change as natural progression,
accommodating it if not necessarily welcoming it. Nonetheless, what these
studies reveal is similar to the research on employee resistance, implying that
employees will first attempt to understand coherently how new technology
impacts them in their role rather than simply resist or accept it.

Whatever the reason employees may resist or accept change, it is clear from the
research that in order to increase change receptive behaviour the organisation
must be clear on why the change is needed and what this will mean for the
employees’ future in the organisation. This view is supported by Jiao and Zhao

Page 15 of 92
(2013), who deduce that implementation should be designed to encourage
organisational members to use an innovation, i.e. actively change their
behaviours.

2.3.3: The change curve

Another noticeable limitation of the research on employee reactions to change is
that analysis was conducted at the time the new system in question was only just
being introduced into the organisation. Longitudinal research has revealed that
employees’ reflective sensemaking is likely to differ from the raw responses
perceived at the time of change; therefore, acceptance may take longer than
organisations hope for (Vakola, 2016; Gover and Duxbury, 2017). This discussion
of time introduces the concept of employee emotions moving through cycles or
stages. Perhaps the most well-known visualisation of this shift in behavioural
patterns is demonstrated in the Kubler-Ross change curve, which begins with
feelings of anger and denial, and gradually moves into the final stage of
acceptance (Jones and Recardo, 2013, pp.3). This support by Jiao and Zhao
(2013) who note that outcome fairness when accessing employee acceptance of
new technology generally unfolds itself as a result of using the technology over a
period of time.

While the change curve is not a complete generalisation of all employees’

reactions to change, nor is it a completely reliable construct, as not all individuals
may reach that level of total acceptance (Williams and Braddock, 2019), it is,
nonetheless, an interesting analysis of how response to change may transition
through cycles rather than remain definite. This may in turn impact the results of
a study aiming to understand employee attitudes to change. Cascio and
Montealegre’s (2016) support this hypothesis, explaining that, in the context of
technological change, ambiguity will naturally create an initial response of pain or
shock, but as workers adjust their skills and opportunities based off new
technologies are created, attitudes will shift as the benefits reveal themselves
over a period of time.

This research therefore hypothesises (H2): that attitudes towards technological

change will be influenced by the timeframe the change has occurred in.

Page 16 of 92
2.3.4: Demographic influence
Lavrakas (2008) states that demographics in quantitative study are essential for
identifying key respondent characteristics that might influence opinion and/or are
correlated with behaviours and experiences. Much of the previous research on
change addresses how individual employee demographics can act as a control
variable, having identified key differences in certain factors such as employee
age. Therefore, employee demographics can be explored for comparative studies
to provide further insight on attitudes towards technology (Morris, Venkatesh and
Ackerman, 2005).

Elias, Smith and Barney (2012) present age as a moderating variable in their
analysis of attitudes towards technology in the workplace, revealing that older
employees who possess more negative attitudes will also possess lower
motivation and job satisfaction as a result of this change. Morris, Venkatesh and
Ackerman (2005) agree that age is an important variable in measuring attitudes
towards using, going further to suggest that gender-based attitudes may be more
salient for older individuals; however, those differences disappear in younger
employees below the age of 50. Furthermore, the authors deduce that job needs
tend to change with age, explaining that younger employees may prioritise
opportunity for career progression over other factors that older female
employees, for example, might identify with, such as taking on family
responsibilities (Morris, Venkatesh and Ackerman, 2005). This analysis is
particularly useful, as it suggests that younger workers will likely be more
adaptive to the emergence of new technologies than their older colleagues,
which will in turn influence their attitudes towards using new technology.

While it has been established how age might affect studies on technological
change, there is little research that addresses the employee’s workload on top of
change management. An example of how the employees’ role itself can influence
attitudes during a change process is presented by O’Connor, Jimmieson and
White (2017), who observe that change management practices are effective at
low and moderate levels of job demands, but ineffective when job demands are
rated as high by employees. This research, therefore, aims to address this gap,
exploring different employment grades within the accounting industry to examine
whether employees in more demanding senior-level roles, and possessing

Page 17 of 92
greater ties with the organisation, will express more concern with how change is
managed than those in more junior roles.

This research therefore hypothesises (H3): that individual employee

demographics will also have some influence on attitudes towards technological
change.

2.4: Change management practices

2.4.1: Theoretical framework

Much of the research notes that organisational change will often take a structured
approach. More recent conceptualizations of organizational change involve
approaches that are participatory and incremental in nature, switching the focus
from how change is implemented to changing mindsets (Voet and Vermeeren,
2016). Change management expert Kotter (1996) argues that change is only
successful when there is a majority buy-in. Therefore, for this research a
theoretical framework will take a more employee-focused approach. One of the
most well-known frameworks that addresses the more psychological aspect of
change is that of Kurt Lewin’s three-step model (May and Stahl, 2016). Founded
in 1946, the model consists of the idea of unfreezing, changing and re-freezing
behaviours to change (Holt et al., 2007). Cole & Kelly (2015, pp.291) explain that
this process involves ensuring people see that change is not only necessary but
desirable, identifying what needs to be changed in people’s attitudes, and
reinforcing the changed behaviour using various support mechanisms (e.g.
encouragement or participative management style).

Certainly, as a means of organising change, Lewin’s approach does highlight that

leader-subordinate communication remains a predominant factor throughout the
change process. Yet, Rosenbaum, More and Steane (2018) argue that approach
is one-dimensional and simply fails to recognise the remaining integrated
components necessary in understanding all the elements of change. Hussain et
al. (2018) disagree, however, asserting that this model could be developed
further if change leaders consider the use of co-ordination, knowledge building
practices and employee feedback during each of the three steps. This
theorization echoes earlier research provided by Huy (1999), who highlights three
critical processual challenges related to the realization of change: receptivity
(willingness to change), mobilization (collaboration) and learning. This therefore

Page 18 of 92
provides an interesting analysis of modern change management, steering away
from the common notion that change relies heavily on those who lead it, and
instead sets forth the view that change is also largely a collaborative, bottom-up
effort. Yet, there is little research to test this hypothesis from the perspective of
employees to confirm its effectiveness.

This research will aim to examine the impact of a structured change management
approach, taking inspiration from Hussain et al. (2018) in their reimagination of
Lewin’s three-step model. Practices will be grouped into three types: (1)
information-based, (2) participation-based, and (3) learning-based practices.
Employee demographics will also be considered alongside these (see figure 1).

Figure 1 – Theoretical framework

2.4.2: Information-based practices

The first factor of change management to consider is that of creating change
awareness through communication. Communication is often the first step seen in
any studied change management model and almost all research on change
management will emphasise that practicing regular communication is critical to
change success (Kotter, 1996). Jones (2017) argues that good communication
between employees is required for knowledge sharing to take place within the

Page 19 of 92
organisation, while open communication leads to increased trust between
management and their subordinates. This is supported by Vakola (2016), who
goes further to note that communication is related to the theory of reasoned
action and the theory of planned behaviour, in which people make decisions
rationally and systematically through information available to them. Furthermore,
change leadership and communication are often found to be closely linked in the
majority of the research, as the leader’s ability to successfully communicate
change clearly to employees is key for inspiring change-supportive behaviour
(Jimmieson, Peach and White, 2005), as well as easing uncertainty (Elving,
2005). Analysis provided by Oreg (2006) also reveals that change communication
is linked to perceptions of justice, or in the degree in which the change recipient
perceives the change process as fair.

Many scholars assert that failure to communicate change is one of the main
causes for resistance amongst employees (Kotter, 1996; Caniëls, Homan and
Pieterse, 2012). Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis (2011), however, offer a different
insight, suggesting that revealing more about change can have the adverse effect
of giving change recipients more reason to resist. Their hypothesis is based off
findings by Oreg (2006), who reports that if employees recognise that they have
something to lose from the change they are more likely to actively resist. A similar
view is held by Eriksson (2004), who maintains that even if employees receive
change positively off the information they are presented, if the change
programme differs significantly from what is initially promised, this can potentially
hinder an employee’s ability to be open to future change. With this in mind, Oreg
(2006) presents particularly useful insight into change communication, revealing
that is not only the amount of information received that determines how
employees perceive change, but also the content of this information and the
manner in which it is communicated. This view is supported by Goodman and
Truss (2004), reporting that employees tend to value face-to-face communication
through meetings or focus groups over online communication means, as this
allows more opportunity for employees to engage in open communication,
therefore increasing involvement and supportive behaviour.

2.4.3: Participation-based practices

Employee participation has become an increasing area of interest. Participation is
often defined as the involvement of employees in the change process, giving

Page 20 of 92
them a greater sense of control and empowerment (Amiot et al., 2006). Kotter
(1996) in his writings on change management empathises that employee
involvement is the most effective tool to sustainable organisational change.
Bartunek et al. (2006) argue that as employees play ‘active roles in organizational
change processes’, it makes sense for employees to have some level of
involvement in change management. The majority of research on participation
has founded that involving employees in the change process is more likely to
increase the adoption of change receptive attitudes (Bartunek et al., 2006),
including an increase in trust (Sharif and Scandura, 2013), and lower levels of
change related stress (Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis, 2011).

When reviewing the literature, it is clear that employees can participate through a
number of ways, including discussions (Goodman and Truss, 2004), feedback
(Law, 2009), and decision-making (Wanberg and Banas, 2000). Furst and Cable
(2008) also discuss the adoption influence tactics, such as using consultation
tactics to invite employees to provide suggestions or assistance in carrying out a
change. This introduces the construct of participative leadership, which Jones
(2017) refers to as the ‘shared decision-making and influence between managers
and subordinates’. Lam, Huang and Chan (2015) assert that this approach gives
employees greater discretion, extra attention and support, as well as involvement
in making decisions. Findings presented by Sharif and Scandura (2013) and
Beckert, Koch and Schulz-Knappe (2019) also support the benefits of
participative leadership, reporting that organisations involving employees in
discussions regarding change are more likely to succeed in their change efforts.
Similarly, Eriksson (2004) reports that employees are more likely to mobilize and
act if they feel their participation is valued, which in turn creates a more positive
change experience and increases openness to change in the future.

Coyle-Shapiro (1999), however, challenges the popular hypothesis that

employees will want to participate in the change process, having observed that
employees are likely to participate only if they see their involvement as beneficial.
Similar findings are presented by O’Connor, Jimmieson and White (2017), who
reveal that not all employees will seek to participate, as employees who are
preoccupied with more demanding roles may associate participation with
unnecessary additional stress compared to those employed in less demanding
job roles. Conversely, it could also be argued that if participation is not an option,

Page 21 of 92
employees are unlikely to seek it out. As Groen, Wouters and Wilderom (2017)
note, participation-based practices can be time-consuming or cause conflict of
interest, and therefore organisations may wish to avoid them altogether.

2.4.4: Learning-based practices

The final set of change management practices to consider are the learning-based
practices. For employees to gain the ability to operate new technology, training is
required. Schillewaerta et al. (2005) simply describe training as a method of
instructing employees in using a tool in terms of quality and quantity. Yet, in the
context of modern change-management, the process of training is often referred
to as part of the broader learning-climate, where workforce upskilling and
knowledge sharing occurs (Kim and Park, 2020). This is supported by Eldor and
Harpaz (2016), who refer to the learning-climate as the activities utilised by the
organisation in helping employees ‘create, acquire, and transfer knowledge’. Park
et al. (2014) argue that knowledge creation is significantly linked to employee
openness to change. A similar view is held by Aladwani (2001), who goes further
to emphasise that knowledge building through learning and training is crucial
during the implementation of new technology, as it allows for management to
increase understanding of what the system can deliver to the organisation and its
workers, therefore increasing change readiness.

In addition to increasing ability, Sarin et al. (2010) argue that supervisors can
improve employees’ ability to cope with the stress of change by providing them
with the correct resources, such as skill development and training, to aid their
ability to manage change. By creating a supportive culture during change,
change recipients ‘can express fears or frustrations, obtain support from peers
and maintain motivation’, therefore helping employees become more acceptive of
change (Kavanagh and Ashkanasy, 2006). This view is supported by Montargot
and Ben Lahouel (2018) who argue that management support through formal and
informal training may increase employees’ sense making regarding job
relevance, output quality and results, which in turn influences an employee’s
sense of perceived usefulness and ease of use.

Anderson (2018), however, offers a differing view, suggesting that while it is

management’s duty to distribute the required learning resources, new technology
demands the employee to engage in their own learning and administer their
ascribed resources in a way that contributes to the success of change,

Page 22 of 92
‘developing new and integrated practices’. Furthermore, while it is usually
expected that employees will value formal training as essential for learning, there
is no one size fits all approach. Age is again presented as a variable in research
conducted by Sarin et al. (2010) on the effectiveness of training during the
process of technological change. This study is particular useful as not only does it
reveal that perceived effectiveness of training is positively related to perceived
ability to manage new technology, but it also further demonstrates that opinions
may differ as a result of individual employee preferences. The author deduces
that older employees are more likely to value the timing of the training than their
younger colleagues and respond more favourably when given greater flexibility in
the decision to participate in change related training.

The research therefore hypothesises (H4): that information, participation, and

learning-based practices will all influence employee attitudes to technological
change.

2.5: Summary
When reviewing the existing literature, it is clear that understanding employee
sensemaking of change is often a complex matter, as individual experiences or
even demographics may influence attitudes. It can be problematic to assume that
technological change fails mainly because of issues surrounding employee
resistance, and it therefore may be more beneficial for organisations to observe
how employees respond to change initiatives alongside the change itself. As
Cullen et al. (2013) note the employee perspective provides an alternate view to
management-focused implementation research and may offer insights for
improving implementations and creating positive change experiences for
employees. Measuring employees’ attitudes towards using new technology
based on experience may provide some useful implications for management as
to how change processes can be designed to encourage technological change
acceptance.

It is clear that information, participation, and learning-based practices generally

lead to more accepting change attitudes, however, the research linking these
initiatives to technological change specifically is limited. Given the rapid pace of
technological change in the accounting industry, and the transformative impact it
may have on an employees’ role in the organisation, this begs the questions as
to whether employees will feel a stronger sense of needing to be involved and

Page 23 of 92
engaged in the change process. Furthermore, as employee ability and skill are
known factors for ensuring implementation success, this places greater emphasis
on technological change management becoming a matter of human resource
management. Therefore, the research will aim to understand if enforcing an
approach to change management that changes mindsets will increase the
employees’ perceived organisational benefit and perceived usefulness of new
technology.

Page 24 of 92
3.0 Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1: Introduction
The previous literature explored in chapter 2 clearly identified that understanding
the employee perspective may lead to useful insights on how management can
design a structured change management approach to increase receptive
attitudes. Therefore, having outlined a justification for the research and identified
a gap in the research, this chapter will introduce the next stage of the research:
the research methodology.

This chapter will provide an understanding of quantitative research, as well as a

clear rationale as to why this approach is suitable for the research. Following on
from this will be a detailed explanation of the research method, including a
discussion of survey design, distribution and the variables that will be included to
measure and compare results during statistical analysis.

3.2: Methodology

3.2.1: The quantitative approach

Quantitative analysis is composed of a research question, hypotheses, and data
(Scherbaum and Shockley, 2015). Sheard (2018) explains that this method, in
contrast to qualitative research, deals with descriptive data that can be converted
into numbers. Muijs (2011) also explains that this approach involves the
collection of numerical data to explain a particular phenomenon, including
questions related to attitudes and beliefs, which would indicate that this approach
is suited to a study aiming to explore employee attitudes to technological change.
Using multiple questions and scales of numerical measurement is the most
common form of measuring such concepts (Scherbaum and Shockley, 2015).

Quantitative research is also further characterized as descriptive data that

involves more than one variable. In other words, it is used to test ‘theorized
causal relationships between constructs, or variables; in other words, how does
one construct—or variable— bring about change in another’ (Cai, 2015). This
further suggests that the approach is suited to this particular research project, as
it aims to examine the relationship between change management practices,
employee demographics, and attitudes towards using new technology.

Page 25 of 92
3.2.2: Rationale for method
For this approach, data will be collected through an anonymous questionnaire,
therefore gathering written queries grouped together in a single document (Allen,
2017). According to Edmonds and Kennedy (2017) questionnaires are used ‘to
observe trends, attitudes, or opinions of the population of interest’, with the goal
of obtaining findings that answer a research question. The quantitative approach
is therefore suited to this research project, as the aim is to reach out to a large
number of participants within the accounting industry, obtaining a variety of views
and opinions on change management and technological change.

With quantitative research the investigator is able to freely determine the sample
size of participants best suited for the study (Astroth and Chung, 2018), whereas
with the qualitative approach ‘the focus is narrowed down to data derived from
specific participants and their personal viewpoints and opinions’ (McCusker and
Gunaydin, 2014). The literature review in chapter 2 identified that previous
research found significant differences in the answers of old and young
employees, and that an employee’s job demand may also influence attitudes.
Furthermore, this research also theorizes that different scales of change and
change timeframes may influence results. Therefore, in order to attain a
representative view of technological change management within this context, the
inclusion of just a few participant opinions would not be as insightful compared to
larger sample that varies in age, employment grade and experience.

However, it is important to recognise the limitations associated with this research

method. The qualitative approach may provide advantages to the research that
quantitative cannot. More specifically, surveys cannot ask complex questions
(Williamson, 2018), nor does this approach capture expressive information about
‘beliefs, values, feelings, and motivations that underlie behaviours’ (Berkwits and
Inui, 1998) compared to the qualitative approach, which aims to understand and
represent the ‘experiences and actions of people as they encounter, engage, and
live through situations’ (Goodman, 2011). However, while the qualitative
approach was initially considered for this research, it was eventually decided
against on the basis of sample size. A mixed approach would also provide
noticeable advantages for this research; combined qualitative data could provide
further understanding of survey responses and statistical analysis could provide
detailed assessment of patterns of interview responses (McCusker and

Page 26 of 92
Gunaydin, 2014). However, again this approach was decided against on the
basis of time constraint.

3.3: Method

3.3.1: Sample strategy and method

Quantitative research requires results that are both reliable and valid. As
Newman and Benz (1998, pp. 32) assert, ‘research outcomes are of no value if
the methods from which they are derived have no legitimacy’. Validity refers to
how accurately measured a concept is, whereas reliability means that the
research is accurate (Heale and Twycross, 2015). Therefore, purposive sampling
was utilized. As Allen (2017) explains, sampling is used to generate similar
information across a subset of individuals ‘so that data from the sample can be
generalized to the population from which the participants were selected’. As there
were around 613,100 employees employed in the UK accountancy profession in
2017 (CCAB, 2018), this was narrowed down to Big 4 firms based in Belfast,
Northern Ireland. As no exact number could be identified, the researcher
estimated that this roughly equates to a population of 5000 employees.

If probability sampling is applied - using a statistically correct formula involving a

confidence level of 95% with a 5% margin for error - the ideal sample size would
be 357 respondents. A sample this size is certainly advantageous for providing
accurate representation (Saunders, 2016), yet, due to time constraints and lack
of resources, purposive sampling was applied instead. This means the
researcher has prior knowledge of the study and can judge which participants are
eligible for contributing to the research question (Saunders, 2016). Having
obtained contacts within the Big 4 industry from previous work experience, a
survey was collected from 108 participants via email and social media (see
Appendix 3).

For distribution, an anonymous survey was created using Jisc Online Surveys. To
mitigate the issue of non-responsiveness, a survey link was created, making the
survey more accessible to potential participants through social media platforms
such as Facebook and LinkedIn.

3.3.2: Design of research instrument

The survey design, which includes both systematic observation and asking
participant questions, takes inspiration from similar research conducted by Jiao

Page 27 of 92
and Zhao (2013), Voet and Vermeeren (2016) and O’Connor, Jimmieson and
White (2017), all of which directly address the employee perspective of change
management.

Initially this survey was tested by 8 participants, all of whom were in full-time
employment and had regular experience with technological change. Participants
were contacted via email and asked to confirm that each question was easily
understood, and that the survey was short enough to ensure a successful
response rate. As Edmonds and Kennedy (2017) note, the quality of the
response rate can greatly affect the validity of results. Therefore, participants
were required to confirm that the survey took no longer than 3 minutes to
complete (see Appendix 1 for full questionnaire).

The demographic variables are presented first, before asking participants to

provide some insight on their attitudes in general to technological change. As
Lavrakas (2008) explains attitudes are generally formed either on a person’s
‘cognitions about an object, their affective reactions to an object or be based
primarily on past behaviors’. Therefore, understanding how participants respond
to technological change is largely useful for management in predicting what their
expectations might be during change management. Example answers for this
question included:

• Cognitive: “I don’t understand how it will benefit me in my work”

• Emotional: “I am worried about the potential impact on my role”
• Behavioral: “I enjoy learning new skills”

Participants were asked to clarify how recent this change was, as the literature in
chapter 2 noted that attitudes may vary depending on the timeframe the change
has occurred in (Vakola, 2016). Following on from this, participants were then
asked to describe in one sentence what the new technology was, e.g. a system
upgrade or application installation, and confirm whether this had impacted their
work significantly.

The final two sections then took the form a 5-point Likert-scale for participant
questions. First, participants were asked questions regarded change
management practices, requiring them to rate each statement from ‘strongly
agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Examples include:

Page 28 of 92
 • I received regular communication which I found helpful for increasing my
knowledge of the change.
• I felt that management/supervisors fairly took into consideration all
employee feedback on the change process.
• I received additional resources (besides training) to help me develop my
skills in using the new technology.

The final set of questions were related to participant attitudes towards new
technology as an outcome of their change experience, addressing ideas of
perceived usefulness and ease of use, including the benefits to the employee
and to the organisation. Again, participants were required to rate answers using
the same scale from the previous section. Examples include:

• I believe this change was worthwhile.

• I believe I can confidently use this new technology to meet my work goals.

The final two questions required participants to clarify how satisfied they were
with the overall change experience, including a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to
confirm whether they believed their organisation could improve how technological
change is implemented in the future.

3.4: Distribution

3.4.1: Data management and analysis

SPSS Version 26 software was used as a means of evaluating the data from the
questionnaire. Data from Jisc was converted into a SPSS file and transferred
over. Certain questions were removed, such as question 5 and 8, as it was
decided that these was not required for confirming the hypothesis presented by
the research. Employee response to technological change (Q. 6) was taken
directly from Jisc and converted into a pie chart and graph using Excel.
Furthermore, as question 8 required participants to write a description of the type
of technological change they had experienced, data was also pulled directly from
Jisc and grouped into 5 categories: ‘new app installation’, ‘software upgrade’,
‘new software implementation’, ‘hardware upgrade’ and ‘hardware and software
upgrade’. This data was then installed into SPSS manually.

In order to make data more manageable, questions related to demographics

were set as a nominable measure and questions related to change management

Page 29 of 92
practices and attitudes were set to scale measure. Missing value analysis was
then carried out to identify if any missing data had occurred randomly or if there
was a systematic pattern (Pallant, 2010). Analysis revealed that 3 questions had
been left unanswered randomly, including one question related to attitudes
towards using (see Appendix 6). As no pattern was identified, and no more than
0.9% of data is missing for each variable affected, the data does not need to be
excluded. This is supported by Schafer (1999), who asserts that an MVA of 5% or
less will have minor impact on results.

3.4.2: Data reliability

A reliability test was conducted using the Cronbach alpha approach (see
Appendix 5). As data achieved an overall score of 0.908, this confirms that the
data is completely reliable and internally consistent (Bonett and Wright, 2015).
This is confirmed by Moss et al. (1998) who report that any alpha value over 0.6
is considered reliable.

3.4.3: Data coding

To ensure that data was easy to read on SPSS, appropriate labels were given
and each variable coded. For analysis, questions related to each variable were
collapsed and computed into one single variable, as outlined in the table below.

Page 30 of 92
Figure 2 – Table displaying coding for variables on SPSS

Page 31 of 92
3.4.4: Research hypothesis
The research hypothesis is as follows:

Figure 3 – Table displaying research hypothesis

Page 32 of 92
3.4.5: Ethical issues
This research was approved by the board of ethics on the basis of ensuring
confidentiality and integrity. According to Wilson and Joye (2017), part of
receiving informed consent is ensuring that participants understand the purpose
of the research, including a summary of what participants will do in the study,
how much time is required, and a promise that data will be kept confidential and
how confidentiality will be maintained. This information was outlined to
participants at the beginning of the survey, while also informing that (1) all
answers will be treated with strict confidentiality and used for research purposes
only, and (2) their participation is voluntary. Participants were then asked to
confirm they had read and understood the information before going forward.

Furthermore, respondents were ensured of anonymity on the first page. This was
extremely important, as only respondents should know of their participation in the
survey and cannot be identified (Lavrakas, 2008). The outline of the research aim
was also presented on the first page so that participants fully understood that the
survey was being used for a university research project and any data collected
will not be published elsewhere (see Appendix 2 for information sheet).

3.5: Summary
The aim of this chapter was to outline the proposed methodology approach for
this research project. It has been identified that the quantitative approach is a
suitable method for obtaining a representative population, and for ensuring
results that are both valid and reliable. The research sample strategy was also
outlined, confirming that purposive sampling will be utilised. This chapter also
clarified that the research has been ethically approved for ensuring anonymity
and confidentiality. Finally, SPSS software has confirmed that the results from the
survey are reliable and the researcher is therefore able to continue on with
conducting tests to identify key findings. The key findings of this research will be
analysed and discussed in the next two chapters.

Page 33 of 92
4.0 Chapter 4: Findings

4.1: Introduction
Having gathered enough responses from the questionnaire, the next stage in the
research is to analyse findings. Data was analysed using SPSS software,
conducting several non-parametric tests to determine the relationship between
variables, including Pearson’s correlation, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U.
This chapter will outline all findings alongside visual demonstrations of graphs,
tables, and bar charts to assist understanding and highlight key trends.

This chapter is split into five key sections. The first section will address
demographic frequencies, demonstrating the representative sample that has
been collected for this research. Following on from this will be an outline of
descriptive statistics for attitudes to technological change. Further descriptive
statistics and correlation tests will then be discussed to identify the relationship
between change management practices and attitudes towards using. The
penultimate section will address the key differences between demographic
groups and evaluate their impact on attitudes towards using. Finally, the research
hypothesis will be revisited to provide clarity on whether findings prove or reject
the null hypothesis outlined in chapter 3.

4.2: Demographics
The following table displays the frequencies of participant demographics. Results
show that a higher percentage of participants were female (53.7%) compared to
male (43.6%). Furthermore, the majority of participants fell under the age group
18-30 years (45.4%). Participants were also mainly in senior level employment
(49.1%), a much higher proportion than graduates (19.4%) or junior employees
(5.6%). Participants that fell under the ‘other’ category (4.6%) also reported
senior-level employment.

In terms of experience with technological change, 39.8 % of participants reported

that the change only occurred less than six months ago, while 38.9% reported
than it had occurred 6 months to a year ago. The data between these two groups
is therefore remarkably close in comparison to changes that occurred over a year
ago (21.3%). New application installation (54.6%) and software upgrade (28.7%)
were the two most common types of change that had been implemented. What is
also noteworthy about these results is that a much larger proportion of

Page 34 of 92
 participants reported a significant impact on their job (73.1%) compared to those
that did not (23.6%). This is interesting as an upgrade is expected to have less
impact than a more complex application installation or completely new software
implementation.

Demographic variables Measures Frequency Percentage %

Gender Female 58 53.7
Male 50 43.6
18-30 years 49 45.4
Age group 31-40 years 28 25.9
41-50 years 18 16.7
50 + years 13 12
Employement grade Graduate 21 19.4
Junior/Entry 6 5.6
Associate 23 21.3
Senior 53 49.1
Other 5 4.6

How recent Less than 6 months ago 43 39.8

was the change? 6 months to a year 42 38.9
over a year ago 23 21.3
New application installation 59 54.6
Type of Software upgrade 31 28.7
technological change New software implementation 11 10.2
Hardware upgrade 4 3.7
Hardware and software upgrade 3 2.8
Work has been Yes 79 73.1
significantly impacted No 29 26.9
Figure 4 – Table displaying demographics frequencies

Cross tabulation analysis of these variables (see Appendix 8) confirms that more
employees aged 18-30 experienced the installation of a new application (24/49)
and experienced change less than 6 months ago (26/49), whereas more
employees over 40 experienced change 6 months to a year ago, as did more
senior level employees. More graduate employees experienced change less than
6 months ago (14/21) and reported that their work had been significantly
impacted (18/21). Similarly, most senior-level employees reported that their work
had been significantly impacted (36/53) and experienced a new app installation
(29/53).

Page 35 of 92
4.3: Tests for Normality
Before findings can be analysed, a data normality test was carried out to
determine whether data was normally distributed. In order to do this, the
dependant variable was tested against the key demographic variables using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. If the data is normally distributed the significance level
will be >0.05 (Pallant, 2010).

Results for employee age against ATU_c (see figure 5) showed that the
significance level was <0.05, suggesting that the data is not normally distributed.
Similar results showed for other factors employment grade and change timeframe
(see Appendix 7). It is therefore safe to confirm that data is not normally
distributed. Parametric tests will not be suitable for this research as the
assumptions required to carry out these tests have not been met (Pallant, 2010).

Figure 5 - Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for factor age group to determine normal

distribution

4.4: Attitudes towards technological change

4.4.1: Employee responses to technological change

Employees were asked to indicate their attitudes in general to technological
change as a whole. Answers are presented in the following pie chart (figure 6).
Results show that the majority of participants view technological change as ‘a
good thing’ (25.2%). In fact, most participants reported a lower percentage of
negative perceptions (29 % overall) than positive attitudes (57% overall). This is
significant as it indicates that not all employees are automatically resistant to the
idea of new workplace technology within this particular industry. A further 19 out
of 108 participants (7.9%) also provided written responses for further analysis
(see figure 7). Of these 19 responses, participants expressed concerns mainly
surrounding stress caused by time-consumption (6/19), poor

Page 36 of 92
management/organisation (6/19) and making services seem more ‘faceless’
(3/19). Such insights are significant, as they reveal that concerns relating to new
technology are influenced more by the change process, and the additional
workload accompanying that change, than with the form of technology itself (see
Appendix 4 for full list of responses).

Figure 6 – Pie chart displaying participant attitudes to technological change

Page 37 of 92
Figure 7 – Pie chart displaying other participant responses to technological
change

4.4.2: Attitudes towards using

Descriptive statistics for ATU_c showed that it had a mean of 3.2167 (see figure
8). When broken down into the 5 individual survey questions, statistics reveal that
on average participants responded with ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, as the mean value
falls between 2.97 and 3.35. This confirms that most participants were generally
in favour of new technology, perceiving it as useful, recognising positive changes
to their job, and seeing an improvement in organisational performance. However,
it appears that most participants were indifferent to the question, ‘I personally
enjoy using this new technology’. This highlighted by the fact that mean value is
2.97. Therefore, while participants recognise positive changes, they do not
necessarily find the new technology enjoyable to use as part of their work.

Figure 8 – Descriptive statistics for ATU_c

Page 38 of 92
Figure 9 – Descriptive statistics for attitudes towards using questions

4.5: Accessing the relationship between change practices and attitudes

towards using

4.5.1: Information
The variables IB_c, PB_c and LB_c were all broken down into the 3 questions
that make up each construct to identify individual means. As the mean value fell
between 3 and 3.33 for information-based practices (see figure 10), this indicates
that participants fall between the ‘undecided’ and ‘agree’ categories for these
questions. However, the chart seen in figure 11 demonstrates that ‘agree’ was
the most commonly selected answer and ‘disagree’ second, which would explain
why the mean value is close to neutral. Therefore, it can be confirmed that
participants either received satisfactory communication or they did not.

Most participants reported that they had experienced regular communication,

however, less participants responded with agree when asked about
communication content (IB 2 and IB 3). This indicates that while participants did
receive regular communication updates, the communication content did not

Page 39 of 92
necessarily clarify how the change will be structured, why it is happening, and
what the benefits will be.

Figure 10 – Descriptive statistics for Information

Figure 11 – Bar chart displaying survey results for information

Page 40 of 92
Pearson’s Correlation analysis was used to examine the strength of the
relationship between variables. For this analysis, the closer to 1 the R-value is,
the higher the correlation between two variables, and therefore the stronger the
relationship, while a result of r=<0 would indicate a negative association
(Franzese and Luliano, 2019). Findings revealed information-based practices is
highly correlated with positive attitudes to using new technology, with an R-value
of 0.669 (see Figure 12). Correlation analysis also showed a negative
relationship with information-based practices and employee demographics, in
particular age (see Appendix 9), implying that as one variable increases the other
decreases (Franzese and Luliano, 2019). In this case, it is assumed that as age
increases, responses to information-based practices become more negative.

Figure 12 - Pearson’s
correlation of IB_c and ATU_c

4.5.2: Participation
Descriptive statistics reveal that the mean value for participation-based questions
fell between 2 and 2.4 (see figure 13). The graph seen in figure 14 confirms that
most participants responded with ‘disagree’ to questions related to participation,
particularly to questions PB 2 (52.8%) and PB 3 (53.7%) which were related to
concepts regarding employee input in decision- making and feedback. More
participants responded with ‘agree’ when asked ‘As an employee I had plenty of
opportunity to participate in the change’ (26.2%), indicating that these employees
had some level of involvement, most likely in the earlier stages of planning.

Page 41 of 92
Figure 13 - Descriptive statistics for participation

Figure 14 – Bar chart displaying survey results for participation

Page 42 of 92
Participation-based practices also displayed a moderate correlation with attitudes
towards using, at an R-value of 0.548 (see figure 15); less than both values for
information and learning. This suggests that participation-based practices had
less impact on influencing positive attitudes. Furthermore, there was no
correlation found between participation and employee demographics (see
Appendix 9), suggesting that participants showed no preferences for employee
participation based on age or employment grade.

Figure 15 - Pearson’s
correlation of PB_c and ATU_c

4.5.3: Learning
When asked about training and learning resources, most participants responded
favourably. This highlighted by the fact that mean value for each question falls
between 2.99 and 3.26. Furthermore the bar chart seen in figure 17 clarifies that
more participants responded with ‘agree’ than ‘disagree’ when asked ‘I believe
training was appropriately organised and helped to improve my colleagues and
I's ability to operate the new technology’. In contrast, more participants
responded with ‘disagree’ when asked about additional resources, suggesting
that these were not widely available. Management support also received more
‘strongly disagree’ responses, implying that while employees may have received
appropriate learning, management support was less satisfactory.

Page 43 of 92
Figure 16 - Descriptive statistics for learning

Figure 17 – Bar chart displaying survey results for learning

Page 44 of 92
Further correlation analysis revealed that learning-based practices are highly
correlated with ATU, having an R-value of 0.678. Therefore, both information and
learning-based practices have a significant impact on attitudes towards using
new technology. Employee age and employment grade were also negatively
correlated with learning, demonstrating that, again, as age increases, attitudes
towards learning become more negative. (see Appendix ).

Figure 18 - Pearson’s
correlation of LB_c and ATU_c

4.5.4: Satisfaction
Descriptive statistics reveal that an overwhelming majority of participants
responded with ‘yes’ when asked whether they believe the organisation could
improve how technology is implemented (see figure 20), despite the number of
participants who responded with ‘agree’ for experience satisfaction (see figure
19), implying that while participants may have had an agreeable experience,
overall they agree that their organisation’s change management could be
significantly improved.

Figure 19 – Experience satisfaction

Page 45 of 92
Figure 20 – Overall satisfaction

4.6: Analysis of demographic variables

4.6.1: Correlation
Employee demographics were first analysed using Pearson’s correlation to
determine if a relationship exists with attitudes towards using (see figure 21).
Findings revealed that a negative association exists for each variable. Age was
most negatively correlated with ATU, with an R-value of -0.440, indicating that as
age increases, attitudes towards using decrease. Employment grade and change
timeframe also showed a moderate relationship. Type of technological change,
however, showed no relationship with significance level of 0.292.

Overall, demographics showed a weaker correlation with ATU than any of the
change practices analysed previously. These findings, therefore, suggest that
while age has a significant influence on attitudes towards using, information,
participation and learning all have a stronger influence.

Figure 21 – Correlation analysis for demographics

Page 46 of 92
4.6.2: Kruskal-Wallis
The Kruskal Wallis test was used to determine whether there were any
statistically significant differences between the means of two or more groups. If
the significance level is <0.5, then it can be confirmed that there is statistically
significant difference between groups (Pallant, 2010). By using the Kruskal-Wallis
test, the researcher is able to confirm if the null hypothesis can be rejected.

Results show that the p-value for age is significantly lower than the alpha value at
0.000 (see figure 22). Therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis, confirming
that participant age is seen to have some influence on attitudes towards using.
Similarly, employment grade had a p-value of 0.002 (see figure 23) and is
therefore also seen to have some influence, as did change timeframe, which had
a p-value of 0.16 (see figure 24).

In contrast, the type of technological change had a much higher p-value at 0.655
(see figure 25). The null hypothesis is therefore retained for this factor. This is
surprising, as it expected that technological change of a larger scale would have
more influence on results than a simple software or hardware upgrade.

Figure 22 – Kruskal Wallis

test for Age

Page 47 of 92
Figure 23 – Kruskal Wallis test for
Employment grade

Figure 24 – Kruskal-Wallis test

for Change timeframe

Page 48 of 92
 Figure 25 – Kruskal-Wallis test
for Type of technological
change

However, while differences have been identified, the Kruskal-Wallis test does not
reveal exactly which groups are significantly different from each other (Pallant,
2010). As the previous literature had discussed key differences between older
and younger employees, a follow up post-hoc analysis is required to determine
whether the research follows the same pattern discussed in the previous
literature.

4.6.3: Post-hoc analysis

The Mann Whitney U test was used to compare two populations. As the Kruskal-
Wallis test revealed that there were statistically significant differences between
groups for age, employment grade and change timeframe, follow up Mann-
Whitney U tests were used to determine exactly which groups are significantly
different from one another (see Appendix 10). To do this, the Bonferroni
adjustment was applied, meaning the original alpha value of 0.5 was divided by
the number of tests carried out to determine the new criteria for measuring
significance (Pallant, 2010). For each factor, 3 tests were carried out, therefore
the significance level needed to = <0.17 to confirm a difference between groups.

Page 49 of 92
Results in the table below show that there is significant difference between most
age groups, yet only graduate and senior level under employment grade showed
statistical difference. Interestingly, tests for change timeframe showed that only
two groups were statistically different from each other. These were changes that
had occurred ‘less than 6 months ago’ and changes that had occurred ‘6 months
to a year ago’.

Figure 26 – Table displaying results of Mann Whitney U tests to determine

statistical differences amongst groups

4.6.4: Comparing means between groups

For further clarification, we can compare the means of each group to determine
which groups reacted more positively to the construct ATU (see Appendix 11).
Analysis reveals that participants who reported changes that occurred ‘less than
6 months ago’ responded more favourably to change than those who
experienced change ‘6 months to a year ago’. These results are surprising, as it
is expected that participants would react most negatively when the change is only
recent. Less surprising results revealed that participants aged 18-30 responded
most favourably to ATU than any other age group with a mean value of 3.7469.
Participants who were of senior level can also be seen to respond more
negatively to ATU than any other group, with a mean value of 2.8151.

4.7: Results of Hypothesis

The following table confirms the results of the research hypothesis outlined in
chapter 3.

Page 50 of 92
Figure 27 – Table displaying results for research hypothesis

4.8: Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to analyse results from the survey using SPSS
software. Frequency analysis revealed that most participants fell under the 18-30
age category, were of senior level employment, had experienced change less
than 6 months ago, and had mostly experienced the installation of a new
application or a software upgrade.

Tests were used to determine if there were any significant relationships between
variables. Correlation analysis confirmed that information-based and learning-
based practices had a significant impact on participants attitudes towards using
new technology. This was further highlighted by descriptive statistics, which
revealed that most participants had selected either ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ for each
question. Participation-based practices, on the other hand, were only moderately
correlated with attitudes towards using. These questions had also received a
higher number of ‘undecided’ responses than any other question in the survey
and received a higher number of ‘disagree’ responses compared to information-
based and learning-based questions, further confirming that employee
participation has less significant influence on participant attitudes.

Page 51 of 92
Demographics were also revealed to have some impact on attitudes towards
technological change. Kruskal-Wallis tests confirmed that statistically there are
significant differences between groups in age, employment grade and the change
timeframe, but different types of technological change had no significant impact
on results. Through further post-hoc analysis it was identified which groups were
statistically different from one another, confirming that there are statistical
differences between graduate, associate, and senior employees under
employment grade. Under age, there were differences between employees aged
over 40 and employees aged under 30. There were only significant differences
between participants who experienced change less than 6 months ago and those
who had experienced change 6 months to a year ago under change timeframe.

Having analysed these findings, the researcher can now determine whether the
research objectives and question can be answered in the next chapter, and
whether the results of this survey analysis agrees or conflicts with the findings
presented by the previous literature explored in chapter 2.

Page 52 of 92
5.0 Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1: Introduction
Previous Literature has confirmed that implementing new technology requires the
full support of the organisations’ employees, who in turn will need to possess the
ability, skills, and knowledge to help make the change successful. While it is
understood that organised change management will lead to an increase in
change receptive behavior, it is uncertain the extent which change practices are
beneficial for increasing employee attitudes to technological change specifically.
This chapter will therefore discuss key findings in relation to the arguments
presented from by literature review.

This chapter is divided into three sections: the first section will outline the
understanding of employee attitudes to technological change gathered from the
questionnaire. Following on from this will be an in-depth discussion of what the
findings have revealed about information, participation and learning-based
practices, and their impact on employee attitudes. The final section will address
differences in employee demographics and their preferences to technological
change management. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn on the research
question and objectives, while also addressing the limitations of this research.

5.2: Employee attitudes to technological change

When exploring employee attitudes to technological change in general, most
participants responded favorably. This was highlighted by the fact that ‘I see
technological change as a good thing’ was the most selected answer, followed by
‘I enjoy learning new technical skills’ and ‘I am excited about the opportunities it
might bring’. In contrast, only 6.1% of participants expressed worry about the
future impact on work. These findings are not entirely surprising, as recent
research has highlighted how the introduction of new technology can lead to
increased opportunities, including employee upskilling. This was highlighted by
Brands (2020) when discussing the positive impact of developing an
organizational learning culture, leading to employee development.

A possible explanation for the large number of positive responses is that these
employees are not experiencing the same issues of job threat compared to other
industries. As noted by Gass (2018) in the research introduction, technology
allows for repetitive tasks to be eliminated, enabling accountants to focus on

Page 53 of 92
more advisory tasks. This was highlighted in the survey, as when asked ‘I believe
the new system has led to positive changes in my job (e.g. allows me to focus on
more important tasks, increased productivity etc.)’, the majority of participants
responded with ‘agree’, therefore implying that they recognize the benefits
associated with the new system.

On the other hand, 12.6% of participants reported that they preferred not to
change, and a further 10.3% reported that they did not understand how change
will benefit them, implying that employees within this industry may resist change
out of perceived habit rather than perceived risk; therefore, these findings can be
related back to the literature presented by Aladwani (2001) and Oreg (2003),
deducing how employees will not necessarily resist change out of concern, but
for preference of routine or simply not understanding why the change is required.

Several participants provided written responses to technology implementation;

these were mainly around time consumption and poor organisation (see
Appendix 4). The literature in chapter 2 also addressed such issues, specifically
O’Connor, Jimmieson and White’s (2017) research on workplace stress as a
result of high job demand during periods of organizational change, going as far to
suggest that organisations should consider reducing employee workload during
such times. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of participants (80.6%
compared to 19.4%), reported that they believed their organisation could improve
on how it implements technology in the future, even though most had reported
positive attitudes towards technological change. These findings are significant;
while only a small sample size the research does indicate that concerns around
technological change within this industry are mainly related to how management
organises the implementation process rather than how it is received by
employees. Therefore, these findings agree with the arguments presented by
Ford, Ford and D’Amelio (2008) and Bartunek et al. (2006) that organisations
should attempt to understand further the impact of change initiatives on the
employee rather than assuming employee resistance will be the main contribution
to implementation failure.

Page 54 of 92
5.3: The impact of change management practices on employee attitudes

5.3.1: Information-based practices

As predicted, participants who received regular communication reported higher
levels of positive attitudes. This was confirmed by the fact that correlation
analysis showed information-based practices to have the second most positive
relationship with attitudes towards using after learning-based. This supports the
findings presented by the previous research in chapter 2, specifically the
arguments presented by Vakola (2016), in their discussion of how employees
make decisions through the information available to them, and Jones (2017), who
championed communication as key for knowledge sharing to occur within the
organisation. As expected, participants who had reported that they had received
poor communication content responded more negatively to question regarding
attitudes, even if they received communication regularly. This was highlighted by
the number of participants who responded with ‘disagree’ when asked ‘I fully
understood how the new system was going to work, what the benefits were, and
what was required of me to help make the implementation successful’. These
findings are therefore in line with the argument presented by Oreg (2006) that the
content of communication is every bit as essential as the level of communication
received. Therefore, the research strongly implies that it is not enough to know
that the change is happening, but to also ensure that employees understand how
this process will be structured and what the outcome will mean for their role
(Oreg, 2006).

5.3.2: Participation-based practices

Of all the practices, participation-based appeared to have the least impact on
positive attitudes to technological change. Most participants responded with
‘disagree’ when asked about participation but did not necessarily report negative
attitudes towards new technology. This was confirmed by using correlation
analysis, revealing that participation had only a moderate relationship with
attitudes towards using compared to information and learning, as shown in figure
15.

A potential contribution to these findings is that the opportunity to participate may

not have been available to respondents. This was further suggested by the fact
that participation questions received the greatest level of ‘undecided’ responses
compared to any other question. This could, therefore, be related to Groen,

Page 55 of 92
Wouters and Wilderom’s (2017) suggestion that often organisations will avoid
employee participation activities, due to concerns surrounding conflict of interest
or time constraint. Another potential explanation for these findings is that
respondents are indifferent to the idea of change participation, relating back to
the argument presented by Coyle-Shapiro (1999) that employees will only
participate if they regard their involvement as beneficial. Both explanations would
certainly explain why participation is less correlated with employee attitudes
towards using.

While it may appear that these findings disagree with the previous literature on
the benefits of employee participation, it is not possible to confirm this without
further analysis. The use of scale questions is also somewhat limiting for
gathering this information as it does not allow for employees to expand on their
answers. Using follow-up interviews with a selected sample may provide better
understanding. This is supported by Edmonds and Kennedy (2017) who note that
the mixed approach ‘allows researchers to further examine constructs at a
“deeper” level’, as the qualitative strand reveals what was not observed by the
quantitative strand.

5.3.3: Learning-based practices

Learning-based practices received similar results to information-based, as the
most positively correlated variable with attitudes towards using. Participants that
responded with ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ when asked about training and
support mainly reported negative attitudes as a result. These findings relate back
to the discussion of the importance of the learning-climate and employee
upskilling. Specifically, Eldor and Harpaz (2016) discussed the creation of an
organizational learning-climate as essential for acquiring knowledge, skill, and
ability. Montargot and Ben Lahouel (2018) also highlighted the importance of
training in influencing positive perceptions of technology adoption, going as far to
suggest that it may help reduce anxiety. As expected, more older employees
responded negatively to questions regarding training, as age was negatively
correlated with learning. This therefore agrees with the findings presented by
Sarin et al. (2010) when discussing the effectiveness of training on an
employee’s perceived ability to manage technological change, revealing that
older employees will have stricter preferences for training than younger
colleagues.

Page 56 of 92
Interestingly, job demand was found to have a significant influence on learning.
When asked to specify their attitudes towards technological change, several
employees reported concerns around training, specifically the organisation and
the timing of training. As seen in Appendix 4, one employee reported that change
can be time consuming, and if the process involves formal training on top of a full
workload this can create additional stress. Another employee reported how
training is often poorly organised. Again, these responses relate to the argument
presented by O’Connor, Jimmieson and White (2017) that employees may
respond negatively to change procedures when they feel like it only adds to their
workload.

Furthermore, the mention of organisation and timing can be related to the

observation presented by Sarin et al. (2010) that other factors can contribute to
the perceived effectiveness of training, such as the nature of training (formal or
informal) and timeliness. Furthermore, while previous literature suggests that
management support through training can help increase employee acceptance
(Montargot and Ben Lahouel, 2018), there is little evidence in these findings to
support this given the restrictions of scale questions, yet, the level of ‘strongly
disagree’ responses confirms that employees were not as satisfied with
management support as they were with training. Therefore, the researcher
recognizes that the research instrument may be limited in capturing why
employees value most about the learning-culture, as the survey only addressed
the effectiveness of training for increasing knowledge This provides an
opportunity for future research to explore this construct further.

5.4: Identification of relationship between employee demographics and

attitudes towards using

5.4.1: Age and employment grade

Of all the demographics, age was found to have the strongest negative
association with attitudes towards using. Comparing means revealed that
employees aged between 18-30 years generally reacted more positively to
change management practices. These findings were not surprising, as the
previous literature had discussed that younger employees will be more familiar
with technical skills and knowledge; therefore, they be more motivated to support
technological implementation (Elias, Smith and Barney, 2012). Furthermore,

Page 57 of 92
Morris, Venkatesh and Ackerman (2005) also noted that younger employees are
more likely to associate technological change with opportunity than older
employees, which was confirmed by the fact that most employees under 40
responded to question 9 with ‘I see technological change as a good thing’ and ‘I
am excited about the opportunities it might bring’.

As predicted, employees over the age of 40 responded more negatively to

questions regarding change management. This. combined with the fact that many
of these participants reported that they prefer not to change, suggests that older
employees place greater value on change management than their younger
colleagues. This was highlighted by the fact that when asked ‘I am fully satisfied
with the overall change experience, from how the change was implemented to
the outcome’, most participants over 40 responded with either ‘disagree’ or
‘strongly disagree.’

Previous research by O’Connor, Jimmieson and White (2017) posited the view
that the employee’s job role may also act as a contributor to employee attitudes
during change, with specific focus on how change is managed; therefore,
employment grade was used as a variable for this research. Tests confirmed that
the null hypothesis was rejected, as it was revealed that there was significant
difference between graduates and senior-level employees. Closer observation of
means also showed that senior-level employees responded more negatively to
attitudes towards using, and correlation analysis revealed a negative association
between employment grade and change management practices. These findings
therefore support the argument presented by O’Connor, Jimmieson and White
(2017) that employees in more high pressure roles, experiencing higher levels of
workload than graduate or junior employees, will respond more negatively to
change, potentially associating organizational change with additional workload.

5.4.2: Change timeframe and type of technological change

Findings revealed interesting results surrounding employees’ experience with
change. Firstly, it was revealed how the change timeframe had a significant
impact on employee attitudes. Of the participants that reported negative attitudes
towards using, 48.4% had reported that this change had occurred 6 months to a
year ago. When referring to the change curve, this would suggest that these
participants are currently in the stage of frustration and confusion (Jones and
Recardo, 2013). This is particularly interesting when compared to the results

Page 58 of 92
provided by participants who had reported mainly positive attitudes. Of these
participants, 56.4 % had reported that the change had occurred less than 6
months ago. The research provided by Jones and Recardo (2013) and Cascio
and Montealegre (2016) highlighted that attitudes towards change adjust over
time, implying that generally employees will react with feelings of shock and
denial within the first few months of implementation. Therefore, these things are
surprising as it is expected that participants who had experienced more recent
change would react most negatively towards new technology.

A potential contribution to these findings is the fact that the change curve is not a
totally reliable model for assessing attitudes towards change. As Williams and
Braddock (2019) note, the model assumes that all employees will completely
adapt to change over time, overlooking other factors that may contribute to an
individuals’ optimism and pessimism, such as personal motivation and objectivity.
Furthermore, closer observation using cross tabulation revealed that participants
who had experienced change less than 6 months ago were mainly aged under
30, and only 11.6% were aged over 40. In contrast, there was a greater number
of respondents aged over 40 who had experienced change 6 months to a year
ago. Certainly, this provides a plausible explanation for these unusual findings,
as discussion around age addressed that fact that younger employees will adapt
faster to new technology than older employees (Elias, Smith and Barney, 2012).
Therefore, upon further analysis these findings are not entirely surprising, and
once again places greater emphasis on how age will influence attitudes towards
technological change.

The type of technological change experienced was revealed to have no

significant difference between groups. Even though participants responded with
‘yes’ when asked whether the change had significantly impacted their work, there
was still a larger number of participants reporting mostly positive attitudes
towards using new technology. The findings are, again, surprising as previous
research suggests the opposite. Korunka and Vitouch (1999), for example,
posited the view that employees experiencing larger scale change might express
greater complaints as consequence of losing job control.

However, it is also worth noting that employees within this industry are likely to be
of a higher education level. This may explain the statistical insignificance
between groups when conducting the Kruskal Wallis test. Østergaard,

Page 59 of 92
Timmermans and Kristinsson (2011) in their analysis of organizational innovation
and employee diversity reveal that employees with a higher education level
generally leads to better innovation performance, as such employees hold a
variety of knowledge, skills and abilities that allows the organisation to
demonstrate greater absorptive capacity. This would therefore provide a
reasonable explanation as to why participant attitudes were not influenced by the
scale of change.

5.5: Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to address the research objectives, using the
key findings that emerged from the data collection, and revisit the previous
literature to determine whether findings support or disagree with the existing
arguments on the research topic.

The research confirms that employees within this context are generally more
receptive towards new workplace technology, with the majority reporting positive
attitudes. Any negative responses to change were mostly associated with the
management of implementation. Several employees reported concerns around
organisation, and stress related to additional work and pressure caused by the
implementation of new technology. Therefore, it became clear that change
management does indeed have a strong relationship with attitudes towards
using. Correlation tests supported this, revealing that each practice was the most
significant contributor to attitudes towards using, as participants who reported
lower levels of communication and learning also responded mainly with ‘disagree’
to questions regarding perceived usefulness, ease of use and satisfaction,
compared to those who had received a more agreeable change experience. The
findings from this research are also found to be mainly in agreement with the
previous literature on information and learning-based practices. Participation-
based practices, on the other hand, proved to be less significant for influencing
attitudes; however, it was noted that further analysis is needed to determine
whether this was because employees did not have the option to participate, or
whether they generally value participation less than communication and training.

An assessment based on employee demographics also took place. Findings

confirmed that older employees responded more negatively to workplace
technological change, as did employees at senior-level employment. In terms of
experience, employees responded more negatively towards change that had

Page 60 of 92
been implemented 6 months to a year ago, indicating that such participants may
be in a stage of frustration and had not yet reached a level of acceptance. This
was also highlighted by the fact that the same participants were older and had
responded mainly with ‘disagree’ to questions related to change practices, again
confirming that change management has a significant impact on attitudes.
Surprisingly, however, participants who had experience change most recently
responded more favorably to questions regarding attitudes, yet the same
participants were mainly of a younger demographic. Therefore, the research
hypothesis that attitudes to change will be influenced by how recently the change
has occurred was essentially proven to be incorrect.

Page 61 of 92
6.0 Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1: Introduction
The final chapter of this research project is split into 3 sections. Firstly, the
research objectives will be revisited to provide clarity on whether they are
supported by the research findings. Following on from this will be a discussion of
research implications, identifying what insights have emerged from the research
and what the potential implications are for the accounting industry in Northern
Ireland. The research limitations will then be outlined, highlighting the constraints
that may have a significant impact on research results. Finally, recommendations
for further research will be outlined before providing a final summary to conclude
this project.

6.2: Research objectives

6.2.1: To analyse attitudes towards technological change within the accounting

industry.
Key findings revealed that generally employees within this industry identify
technological change as positive. Few employees expressed concerns in relation
to the future of work, however, a number of employees did report that they
preferred not to change. This information, therefore, implies that employees
within this industry may respond negatively towards change more out of
perceived habit than risk. Furthermore, a number of employees expressed
frustration at how change in their organisation is managed, strongly suggesting
that the process of implementation is largely responsible for how employees
perceive the introduction of new technologies.

6.2.2: To identify whether change management practices have a significant

impact on attitudes towards using new workplace technology, within the context
of the accounting industry.
Tests revealed that change management practices had a strong association with
attitudes towards using new technology. Therefore, the research confirms that
the use of communication, participation and learning are all beneficial in allowing
employees to understand change and manage it. As predicted from having
reviewed the existing literature, participants that reported lower levels of
communication and learning all reported higher levels of negative attitudes
towards using. These participants also reported greater dissatisfaction with the

Page 62 of 92
change process and clarified that they believed the organisation could improve
how technological change is implemented in the future. Participation-based
practices were less influential on attitudes towards using, however, this could be
largely due to the possibility that respondents were not given the option to
participate.

While change management practices do have an influence on attitudes, this was

strongest amongst older employees. Employees under the age of 30 responded
more favourably to change practices, yet these findings are not surprising given
the discussion on how age may influence preferences during change.

6.2.3: To identify the relationship between demographics with employee attitudes

towards using new technology, such as participant age, employment level and
experience with technological change.
Results from the survey provided some interesting key findings with regards to
the relationships between demographics and attitudes towards using. Age in
particular demonstrated a strong relationship with attitudes towards using, with
employees aged under 30 responding more positively than older employees.
Senior-level employees also demonstrated more negative attitudes to
technological change than junior-level employees, who are in less demanding
roles. In contrast, the research does not entirely support the hypothesis that the
change timeframe will have an influence on attitudes. It does, however, confirm
that employee attitudes are not impacted by the scale of technological change.

6.3: Research implications

6.3.1: What the researcher has learnt

In addition to the information provided by the research findings, the researcher
has also gained valuable insight from the method of data collection. While
distributing questionnaires was beneficial for acquiring a representative sample,
which was both reliable and valid, changing some of the questions to be more
open-ended would have been advantageous for gaining deeper insight to
employee attitudes. For example, question 9, which asked participants to specify
their attitudes towards technological change, could be changed to a free text
answer, rather than provide options for respondents to choose from. This would
have provided the opportunity for participants to expand on their opinions

Page 63 of 92
towards the topic of technological change and the process of implementation,
potentially providing greater depth to the study and clarity on findings.

6.3.2: Insights emerged from the research

The key insights that have emerged from the research clarify that change
management can be a more complex process than simply communicating
change or providing employee training. Communicating the change itself is not
effective enough for increasing employee awareness, instead management must
pay attention to the communication content. Participants agreed that training is
also key to successful implementation, however, the organisation of training can
equally play an important role in its effectiveness, as employees may become
overwhelmed by training on top of a busy workload. Therefore, as communication
and learning are needed to clarify what the benefits will be, both should be
carefully considered during any change process.

6.3.3: Implications for the accounting industry

Findings revealed that an overwhelming majority of participants agreed that their
organisation could improve how technology is implemented in the future. The
research therefore strongly implies that management within the accounting
industry should develop a clear change strategy that views technological
implementation as not only a financial investment, but also as a matter of human
resource management.

Different organisations will apply different models for change and therefore the
model proposed by this research is not a definite representation of the best
method for implementing technological change. The research does, however,
suggest that communication and learning are both essential steps in the process
for freezing and changing behaviours, increasing employee understanding of the
benefits of the new technology and increasing ability to operate them. It is not
enough for employees to be told the change is happening, they must also be
informed why. Training should also be organised appropriately so employees do
not become overwhelmed during the process of change. Furthermore, while the
research implies that employee participation is less essential, management may
benefit from implementing employee feedback as part of the process, allowing
them to control expectations during future change processes.

Page 64 of 92
6.4: Limitations of research
This research has several noteworthy limitations. First, the study of technology
adoption is limited in that it does not address a board range of factors contributing
to user acceptance. There are several other factors that may influence employee
acceptance of new workplace technology, such as constructs related to
subjective norm, behavioural control, and intention to use (Morris, Venkatesh and
Ackerman, 2005). Furthermore, the research participants in this study are of a
higher education level, and therefore the emergence of technological change
may be less strenuous on employees who already possess a degree of technical
ability (Østergaard, Timmermans and Kristinsson, 2011), which would explain
why results were mostly in favour of technological change.

The research method also presents limitations to this research. The research was
based on a sample of 108 participants employed in Northern Ireland only, and is
therefore a relatively restricted sample size. The majority of respondents were
also of a younger demographic; therefore, a higher number of older employees
would have provided a stronger representation. Furthermore, while the survey
approach was decided on the basis of retrieving a variety of respondents,
quantitative analysis limits the ability to present potential explanations for the
findings of this study. It is clear that additional methods of qualitative study,
specifically in-depth interviews, could provide deeper insight on the impact of
certain change management practices on employee attitudes towards new
technology.

6.5: Recommendations for future research

Two suggestions for future research have been identified. First, qualitive research
could be used determine why certain practices had an impact on employee
attitudes. This would allow for the researcher to gain deeper understanding of
employee attitudes towards technological change as a whole. Furthermore, as
interviews are used to understand an experience or event from a personal
perspective (Hammarberg, Kirkman and de Lacey, 2016), this method would
allow for the researcher to gain more insight on individual experiences with
innovation management, for example, the type of communication and training
used by the organisation, and exactly why employees found these helpful.

Furthermore, it was mentioned previously that several participants expressed

concerns related to time, organisation, and stress; therefore, this could be

Page 65 of 92
explored further in future research, using change-related stress and job
satisfaction as additional variables when examining the influence of change
management practices on attitudes towards using new technology. This could
potentially provide even more interesting insight on the overall impact that such a
change takes on the general population within the accounting industry,
highlighting further key areas for improvement.

6.6: Summary
The research confirms that change management practices do have an influence
on employee attitudes to technological change in the accounting industry,
particularly detailed communication, and organised learning. It was also revealed
that employees within this particular industry generally react positively to
technological change, implying that poor change management will likely arise
feelings of resistance.

Finally, the research limitations were addressed, recognising that the majority of
participants were of a younger demographic, and therefore older employees are
slightly under-represented in these findings. The limitations of the research
instrument were also addressed, specifically using more open-ended questions
on the survey to capture more in-depth opinions. Follow up qualitative analysis
could also be used to reveal more about the constructs present in this study,
providing an opportunity for future research, as interviews may capture further
insight on the value of change practices in increasing employee knowledge,
ability, and satisfaction.

As the research objectives have been met, and the research question answered,
the researcher hope that these findings present an encouraging picture for
management within the accounting industry in understanding employee
expectations and requirements during the implementation of new workplace
technology.

Word count: 15845

Page 66 of 92
7.0: References
Accenture (2018). Accenture Technology Vision 2018 – Tech Trends Report.
[online] Accenture.com. Available at:
https://www.accenture.com/t20180208T172438Z__w__/us-
en/_acnmedia/Accenture/next-gen-7/tech-vision-2018/pdf/Accenture-TechVision-
2018-Tech-Trends-Report.pdf [Accessed 2 Jun. 2020].

Aladwani, A.M. (2001). Change management strategies for successful ERP

implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), pp.266–275.

Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods.

(Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Amiot, C.E., Terry, D.J., Jimmieson, N.L. and Callan, V.J. (2006). A Longitudinal
Investigation of Coping Processes During a Merger: Implications for Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Identification. Journal of Management, 32(4),
pp.552–574.

Andersen, T.K. (2018). Understanding the Success or Failure of Organizational

ICT Integration: The Criticality of Managerial Involvement. Journal of Change
Management, 18(4), pp.327–343.

Antonelli, C. and Feder, C. (2020). The new direction of technological change in

the global economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52(0), pp.1–12.

Appelbaum, S.H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. and Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future:
revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development,
31(8), pp.764–782.

Arnold, V. (2016). The changing technological environment and the future of

behavioural research in accounting. Accounting & Finance, 58(2), pp.315–339.

Astroth, K. and Chung, S. (2018). Focusing on the Fundamentals: Reading

Qualitative Research with a Critical Eye. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(4),
p.381.

Backman, J. (1962). Cushioning the Impact of Technological Change. Labor Law

Journal, 13(9), p.731.

Bagrationi, K. and Thurner, T. (2020). Using the future time perspective to

analyse resistance to, and readiness for, change. Employee Relations: The
International Journal, 42(1), pp.262–279.

Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D.M., Rudolph, J.W. and DePalma, J.A. (2006). On
the Receiving End: Sensemaking, Emotion, and Assessments of an
Organizational Change Initiated by Others. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 42(2), pp.182–206.

Page 67 of 92
Beckert, J., Koch, T. and Schulz-Knappe, C. (2019). The importance of
communicating change: Identifying predictors for support and resistance toward
organizational change processes. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 24(4).

Beer, M. and Nohira, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business
Review, 78(3), pp.133–139.

Berkwits, M. and Inui, T.S. (1998). Making use of qualitative research

techniques. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13(3), pp.195–199.

Bonett, D.G. and Wright, T.A. (2015). Cronbach’s alpha reliability: Interval
estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 36(1), pp.3–15.

Boot, W. and Charness, N. (2016). Technology, Gaming, and Social Networking.

In: K. Schaie and S.L. Willis, eds., Handbook of the Psychology of Aging.
London: Elsevier Inc, pp.308–347.

Bower, J. and Christensen, C. (1995). Disruptive technologies: catching the

wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), p.43(11).

Brands, K. (2020). Upskilling Management Accountants. Strategic Finance,

101(10), pp.60–61.

Brightman, B.K. and Moran, J.W. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal
of Workplace Learning, 12(2), pp.66–74.

Brozen, Y. (1953). Determinants of the direction of technological

change. American Economic Review, 43(2), p.288.

Cai, D. (2015). Quantitative research methods. In: J. Bennett, ed., The SAGE
encyclopedia of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, pp.703–706.

Caniëls, M.C.J., Homan, T. and Pieterse, J.H. (2012). Professional discourses

and resistance to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(6),
pp.798–818.

Cascio, W.F. and Montealegre, R. (2016). How Technology is Changing Work

and Organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 3(0), pp.349–375.

CCAB (2018). The Accountancy Profession in The UK and Ireland: A Report for
The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. [online] CCAB. Available at:
https://www.ccab.org.uk/documents/20181122CCABEconomicreport2018Web.pd
f [Accessed 24 May. 2020].

Page 68 of 92
Cole, G.A. and Kelly, P. (2015). Reorganizing: Managing Change.
In: Management Theory and Practice. UK: Cengage Learning, pp.284–296.

Corrigan, W.A. and Kleiner, B.H. (1989). Understanding Organisational

Change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 10(3), pp.25–31.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M. (1999). Employee Participation and Assessment of an

Organizational Change Intervention. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
35(4), pp.439–456.

Cullen, K.L., Edwards, B.D., Casper, W.C. and Gue, K.R. (2013). Employees’
Adaptability and Perceptions of Change-Related Uncertainty: Implications for
Perceived Organizational Support, Job Satisfaction, and Performance. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 29(2), pp.269–280.

Davis, F.D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system

characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of
Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), pp.475–487.

Deloitte (2016). The Future of the Workforce | Critical drivers and challenges.
[online] www2.deloitte.com, UK: Deloitte, pp.1–16. Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/human-capital/articles/future-of-the-
workforce.html [Accessed 27 Apr. 2020].

Dewett, T., Whittier, N.C. and Williams, S.D. (2007). Internal diffusion: the
conceptualizing innovation implementation. Competitiveness Review, 17(1/2),
pp.8–25.

Diamond, M.A. (1986). Resistance to Change: A Psychoanalytic Critique of

Argyris and Schon’s Contributions to Organization Theory and
Intervention. Journal of Management Studies, 23(5), pp.543–562.

Edmonds, J. (2011). Managing successful change. Industrial and Commercial

Training, 43(6), pp.349–353.

Edmonds, W.A. and Kennedy, T.D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs:
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Eldor, L. and Harpaz, I. (2016). Retracted: The Indirect Relationship Between

Learning Climate and Employees’ Creativity and Adaptivity: The Role of
Employee Engagement. Personnel Psychology, 69(3), pp.1–44.

Elias, S.M., Smith, W.L. and Barney, C.E. (2012). Age as a moderator of attitude
towards technology in the workplace: work motivation and overall job satisfaction.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5), pp.453–467.

Page 69 of 92
Elrod, P.D. and Tippett, D.D. (2002). The “Death Valley” of change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 15(3), pp.273–291.

Elving, W.J.L. (2005). The role of communication in organisational

change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), pp.129–
138.

Eriksson, C.B. (2004). The effects of change programs on employees’

emotions. Personnel Review, 33(1), pp.110–126.

Ernst & Young (2017). The Future of Work is Changing. Will your workforce be
ready? [online] ey.com. Available at:
https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/The_future_of_work_is_changing/$
FILE/ey-the-future-of-work-is-changing-will-your-workforce-be-ready.pdf
[Accessed 28 Apr. 2020].

Financial Times (2016). Five industries under threat from technology. [online]
FT.com. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/b25e0e62-c6ca-11e6-9043-
7e34c07b46ef [Accessed 16 Jun. 2020].

Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to Change: The Rest
of the Story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), pp.362–377.

Franzese, M. and Luliano, A. (2019). Correlation Analysis. In: S. Ranganathan,

ed., Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier Inc, pp.706–721.

Fu, X., Pietrobelli, C. and Soete, L. (2011). The Role of Foreign Technology and
Indigenous Innovation in the Emerging Economies: Technological Change and
Catching up. World Development, 39(7), pp.1204–1212.

Furst, S.A. and Cable, D.M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational

change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(2), pp.453–462.

Gale, M. (2019). Think Going to The Moon Was Tough 50 Years Ago, Try
Digitally Transforming A Corporation Because 72% Of Us Are Failing at It.
[online] Forbes.com. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2019/07/20/think-going-to-the-moon-
was-tough-50-years-ago-try-digitally-transforming-a-corporation-because-72-of-
us-are-failing-at-it/#5a5bd1ba6933 [Accessed 12 Jul. 2020].

Gallivan, M.J. (2004). Examining IT professionals’ adaptation to technological

change. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(3), pp.28–49.

Page 70 of 92
Gass, J. (2018). Council Post: AI’s Impact on Accounting and Finance. [online]
Forbes.com. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2018/09/10/ais-
impact-on-accounting-and-finance/#e8e2075e8559 [Accessed 1 May 2020].

Given, L.M. (2008). Active Listening. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative
Research Methods. California: SAGE Publications.

Goodman, J. and Truss, C. (2004). The Medium and the Message:

communicating effectively during a major change initiative. Journal of Change
Management, 4(3), pp.217–228.

Goodman, V.D. (2011). A brief overview of qualitative research. In: Qualitative

Research and the Modern Library. Oxford: Woodhead Publishing Limited.

Gover, L. and Duxbury, L. (2017). Making Sense of Organizational Change: Is

hindsight really 20/20? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(1), pp.39–51.

Groen, B.A.C., Wouters, M.J.F. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2017). Employee

participation, performance metrics, and job performance: A survey study based
on self-determination theory. Management Accounting Research, 36(0), pp.51–
66.

Hamidianpour, F., Esmaeilpour, M. and Zarei, R. (2016). The Effects of Cultural

Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style of Managers on Employee
Resistance to Change. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 14(4), pp.22–
29.

Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M. and de Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative Research

Methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3),
pp.498–501.

Heale, R. and Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and Reliability in Quantitative

Studies. Evidence-based nursing, 18(3), pp.66–67.

Heckmann, N., Steger, T. and Dowling, M. (2016). Organizational capacity for

change, change experience, and change project performance. Journal of
Business Research, 69(2), pp.777–784.

Helfgott, R. (1965). Easing the impact of technological change on employees: a

conspectus of United States experience. International Labour Review, 91(6),
p.503.

Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for
Organizational Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2),
pp.232–255.

Hung, S.C., and Tu, M.F. (2014). Is Small Actually Big? The Chaos of
Technological Change. Research Policy, 43(7), pp.1227–1238.

Page 71 of 92
Hussain, S.T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M.J., Hussain, S.H. and Ali, M. (2018).
Kurt Lewin’s Change Model: A critical review of the role of leadership and
employee involvement in organizational change. Journal of Innovation &
Knowledge, 3(3), pp.123–127.

Huy, Q.N. (1999). Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence, and Radical

Change. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), pp.325–345.

IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26). [Software]. [Accessed July 2020].

Janvrin, D., Bierstaker, J. and Lowe, D.J. (2008). An Examination of Audit

Information Technology Use and Perceived Importance. Accounting Horizons,
22(1), pp.1–21.

Jewers, C. (2020). Tech changes accountants’ skillset. [online] Accountancy

Age.com. Available at: https://www.accountancyage.com/2020/02/28/tech-
changes-accountants-skillset/ [Accessed 30 Apr. 2020].

Jiao, H. and Zhao, G. (2013). When Will Employees Embrace Managers’

Technological Innovations? The Mediating Effects of Employees’ Perceptions of
Fairness on Their Willingness to Accept Change and its Legitimacy. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(4), pp.780–798.

Jimmieson, N.L., Peach, M. and White, K.M. (2005). Beliefs Underlying

Employee Readiness To support a building Relocation: A Theory of Planned
Behavior perspective. Organization Development Journal, 23(3), pp.9–22.

Jisc (2019). Online surveys. [online] Onlinesurveys.ac.uk. Available at:

https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/ [Accessed Jun. 2020].

Jones, D.G.E. (2017). Knowledge sharing and technological innovation: The

Effectiveness of Trust, Training, and Good Communication. Cogent Business &
Management, 4(1).

Jones, D.J. and Recardo, R.J. (2013). Leading and Implementing Business
Change Management : Making Change Stick in the Contemporary Organization.
1st ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Joseph Galli, B. (2018). Change Management Models: A Comparative Analysis

and Concerns. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(3), pp.124–132.

Kavanagh, M.H. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2006). The Impact of Leadership and
Change Management Strategy on Organizational Culture and Individual
Acceptance of Change during a Merger. British Journal of Management, 17(S1),
pp.81–103.

Page 72 of 92
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., Sidhu, J. and Oshri, I. (2013). Management
Innovation and Adoption of Emerging Technologies: The Case of Cloud
Computing. European Management Review, 10(1), pp.51–67.

Kim, E.J. and Park, S. (2020). Transformational Leadership, Knowledge Sharing,

Organizational Climate and Learning: an empirical study. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 41(6), pp.761–775.

Kirby, D. (2019). Changing the nature of organizational change. Strategic HR

Review, 18(4), pp.155–160.

Klein, S.M. (1996). A Management Communication Strategy for Change. Journal

of Organizational Change Management, 9(2), pp.32–46.

Korunka, C. and Vitouch, O. (1999). Effects of the Implementation of Information

Technology on Employees’ Strain and Job Satisfaction: A context-dependent
approach. Work & Stress, 13(4), pp.341–363.

Kuntz, J.R.C. and Gomes, J.F.S. (2012). Transformational Change in

Organisations: a self‐regulation approach. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 25(1), pp.143–162.

Lam, C.K., Huang, X. and Chan, S.C.H. (2015). The Threshold Effect of
Participative Leadership and the Role of Leader Information Sharing. Academy of
Management Journal, 58(3), pp.836–855.

Lavrakas, P.J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. 1st ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Law, S. (2009). Learning from Employee Communication During Technological

Change. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), pp.384–397.

Lewis, M.S. (2019). Technology Change or Resistance to Changing Institutional

Logics: The Rise and Fall of Digital Equipment Corporation. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 55(2), pp.141–160.

Lin, P. (2018). Adapting to the New Business Environment: The Rise of Software
Robots in the Workplace. The CPA Journal, 88(12), pp.60–63.

Lonigan, E. (1939). The Effect of Modern technological Conditions Upon the

Employment of Labor. American Economic Review, 29(2), pp.246–259.

Matthias, G.W. and Ingo, P. (2018). Sensemaking and Sensegiving. Journal of

Accounting & Organizational Change, 14(3), pp.291–313.

May, G. and Stahl, B. (2016). The Significance of Organizational Change

Management for Sustainable Competitiveness in Manufacturing: exploring the

Page 73 of 92
firm archetypes. International Journal of Production Research, 55(15), pp.4450–
4465.

McCusker, K. and Gunaydin, S. (2014). Research using Qualitative, Quantitative

or Mixed Methods and Choice Based on the Research. Perfusion, 30(7), pp.537–
542.

McKinsey & Company (2015). Changing change management. [online] McKinsey

& Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/leadership/changing-change-management [Accessed 30 May 2020].

McKinsey and Company (2017). Technology, jobs, and the future of work.
[online] McKinsey & Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/employment-and-growth/technology-jobs-and-the-future-of-work
[Accessed 25 Jun. 2020].

Montargot, N. and Ben Lahouel, B. (2018). The acceptance of technological

change in the hospitality industry from the perspective of front-line
employees. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(3), pp.637–655.

Morris, M.G., Venkatesh, V. and Ackerman, P.L. (2005). Gender and Age
Differences in Employee Decisions About New Technology: An Extension to the
Theory of Planned Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
52(1), pp.69–84.

Moss, S. , Prosser, H. , Costello, H. , Simpson, N. , Patel, P. , Rowe, S. , Turner,

S. and Hatton, C. (1998) Reliability and validity of the PAS‐ADD Checklist for
detecting psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disability, Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 42(2), pp 173-183

Muijs, D. (2011). Introduction to Quantitative Research. In: Doing Quantitative

Research in Education with SPSS. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Nadim, A. and Singh, P. (2019). Leading Change for Success: Embracing

Resistance. European Business Review, 94(1), pp.00–00.

Nagarajah, E. (2016). Hi, Robot | What does automation mean for the accounting
profession? [online] PWC.com. Available at:
https://www.pwc.com/my/en/assets/press/1608-accountants-today-automation-
impact-on-accounting-profession.pdf [Accessed 30 Mar. 2020].

Nair, S., Kaushik, A. and Dhoot, H. (2019). Conceptual framework of a skill-based

interactive employee engaging system: In the Context of Upskilling the present IT
organization. Applied Computing and Informatics, 15(2).

Page 74 of 92
Newman, I. and Benz, C.R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research
methodology : exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale and Edwardsville:
Southern Illinois University Press.

O’Connor, P.J., Jimmieson, N.L. and White, K.M. (2017). Too Busy to Change:
High Job Demands Reduce the Beneficial Effects of Information and Participation
on Employee Support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(5), pp.629–643.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences

measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), pp.680–693.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational

change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), pp.73–
101.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M. and Armenakis, A. (2011). Change Recipients’ Reactions to

Organizational Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4),
pp.461–524.

Østergaard, C.R., Timmermans, B. and Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different

view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation.
Research Policy, 40(3), pp.500–509.

Park, C.H., Song, J.H., Lim, D.H. and Kim, J.W. (2014). The influences of
openness to change, knowledge sharing intention and knowledge creation
practice on employees’ creativity in the Korean public sector context. Human
Resource Development International, 17(2), pp.203–221.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual : a step by step guide to data analysis
using SPSS for windows. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.

Pawar, P. and Meymandpour, R. (2020). An Exploration of Enhancing Adoption

and Agility in Technological change. Journal of Organisation and Human
Behaviour, 6(3), pp.15–20.

PWC (2018a). Will robots steal our jobs? | An international analysis of the
potential long-term impact of automation. [online] PWC.com. Available at:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-
automation-feb-2018.pdf [Accessed 30 Jun. 2020].

PWC (2018b). Workforce of the future | The competing forces shaping 2030.
[online] pwc.com. Available at: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/people-
organisation/workforce-of-the-future/workforce-of-the-future-the-competing-
forces-shaping-2030-pwc.pdf [Accessed 28 Apr. 2020].

Page 75 of 92
PWC (2020). Financial Services Technology 2020 and Beyond: Embracing
disruption. [online] pwc.com. Available at: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-
services/assets/pdf/technology2020-and-beyond.pdf [Accessed 25 Jun. 2020].

Rafferty, A.E. and Jimmieson, N.L. (2016). Subjective Perceptions of

Organizational Change and Employee Resistance to Change: Direct and
Mediated Relationships with Employee Well-being. British Journal of
Management, 28(2), pp.248–264.

Rosenbaum, D., More, E. and Steane, P. (2018). Planned organisational change

management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), pp.286–
303.

Sarin, S., Sego, T., Kohli, A.K. and Challagalla, G. (2010). Characteristics that
Enhance Training Effectiveness in Implementing Technological Change in Sales
Strategy: A Field-Based Exploratory Study. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 30(2), pp.143–156.

Saunders, M. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students. 6th ed. Harlow:
Pearson.

Saunders, M.N.K. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Organisational justice, trust and the
management of change. Personnel Review, 32(3), pp.360–375.

Schabenberger, O. (2020). Digital transformation projects don’t fail because of a

shortage of ‘tech.’ [online] Growth Quarters | The Next Web. Available at:
https://thenextweb.com/growth-quarters/2020/02/24/digital-transformation-
projects-dont-fail-because-of-a-shortage-of-tech/ [Accessed 12 Jul. 2020].

Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple Imputation: a primer. Statistical Methods in Medical

Research, 8(1), pp 3-15

Scherbaum, C.A. and Shockley, K.M. (2015). Analysing quantitative data: for
business and management students. London ; Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

Schillewaert, N. , Ahearne, M.J. , Frambach, R.T. and Moenaert, R.K. (2005) The
adoption of information technology in the sales force, Industrial Marketing
Management , 34(4), pp. 323-336.

Sharif, M.M. and Scandura, T.A. (2013). Do Perceptions of Ethical Conduct

Matter During Organizational Change? Ethical Leadership and Employee
Involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), pp.185–196.

Sheard, J. (2018). Quantitative data analysis. In: G. Johanson and K. Williamson,

eds., Research Methods | Information, Systems, and Contexts. UK: Elsevier Ltd.

Page 76 of 92
Sigal, L. (2019). Council Post: Defeating Technology Change Management
Issues in Small Businesses. [online] Forbes.com. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2019/12/17/defeating-
technology-change-management-issues-in-small-businesses/#19bb741e4e48
[Accessed 29 May 2020].

Sood, A. and Tellis, G.J. (2005). Technological Evolution and Radical

Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), pp.152–168.

Teece, D.J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long
Range Planning, [online] 43(2–3), pp.172–194.

Tellis, G.J. (2006). Disruptive Technology or Visionary Leadership? Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 23(1), pp.34–38.

Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and

Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), p.439.

Uzialko, A.C. (2019). Workplace Automation is Everywhere, and It’s Not Just
About Robots. [online] Business News Daily. Available at:
https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/9835-automation-tech-workforce.html
[Accessed 29 Apr. 2020].

Vakola, M. (2016). The reasons behind change recipients’ behavioral reactions: a

longitudinal investigation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), pp.202–215.

Voet, J.V.D and Vermeeren, B. (2016). Change Management in Hard Times. The
American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), pp.230–252.

Wallace, L.G. and Sheetz, S.D. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A
technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information & Management,
51(2), pp.249–259.

Wanberg, C.R. and Banas, J.T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1),
pp.132–142.

Wee, E.X.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2018). Attention to change: A multilevel theory on
the process of emergent continuous organizational change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 103(1), pp.1–13.

Will, M.G. and Pies, I. (2018). Sensemaking and Sensegiving: A concept for
successful change management that brings together moral foundations theory
and the ordonomic approach. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change,
14(3), pp.291–313.

Williams, M. and Braddock, M. (2019). AI Case Studies: Potential for Human

Health, Space Exploration and Colonisation and a Proposed Superimposition of

Page 77 of 92
the Kubler-Ross Change Curve on the Hype Cycle. Studia Humana, 8(1), pp.3–
18.

Williamson, K. (2018). Questionnaires, individual interviews and focus group

interviews. In: G. Johanson and K. Williamson, eds., Research Methods. UK:
Elsevier Ltd.

Wilson, J.H. and Joye, S.W. (2017). Ethical Research. In: Research Methods and
Statistics: An Integrated Approach. California: Sage Publications .

Page 78 of 92
8.0: Appendix

Appendix 1 – Research questionnaire

Page 79 of 92
Page 80 of 92
Appendix 2 – Participant information sheet

Appendix 3 – Survey invites

Page 81 of 92
Page 82 of 92
Appendix 4 – List of written responses to “Please indicate your attitude in general
towards technological change”

Page 83 of 92
Appendix 5 – Reliability test

Page 84 of 92
Appendix 6 – Missing value analysis

Page 85 of 92
Appendix 7 – Normality tests

Appendix 8 – Cross tabulation

Page 86 of 92
Page 87 of 92
Appendix 9 – Correlation analysis of demographics with information, participation,
and learning-based practices

Page 88 of 92
Appendix 10 – Post-hoc tests

Page 89 of 92
Page 90 of 92
Page 91 of 92
Appendix 11 - Compare means for groups under factors age, employment grade
and change timeframe

Page 92 of 92