collectionscanada.gc.cacollectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape10/PQDD_0002/MQ43149.pdfORGANIZATIONAL...
Transcript of collectionscanada.gc.cacollectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape10/PQDD_0002/MQ43149.pdfORGANIZATIONAL...
INFORMATION TO USERS
This rnanuscfîpt has been reprioduœd from the microfilm master- UMI films the
text direcüy from the odgïmi or copy submiued. Thw, wme lhesis and dissertation copies am in typwriter fa-, whib mers may be from any type of cornputer printer-
The quality of thb mploducdion b dependmt ugm the quility of the copy
submW. Broken or indistiMX print, cdorcid or poor q w i i i illustrations and photographs, pnnt bbed(hrough. substandard margins. and imprioger aïiiment
can adversely aff8Ct repmâucüm.
ln the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a amplete muscripf and
them am missi- pages, thew will be noted. Also, if unsuthofizd copyright
material had to be rernoved, a note will indicate the de(etiocr.
Ovenue materials (e-g-, mapst dMngs, cham) am reproduced by sectiming
the original, beginning at oie upper M-hand corner and continuing from left Éo
right in equal sections with small overfaps.
Photographs induded in the original r n a n ~ ~ p t have been reproduced
xerographically in mis copy. Higher quality 6* x Q blsa and white photogrophic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in îhis copy fw
an additional charge. Conîact UMI directly to order-
Bell 8 Houml Infonnaian and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbot, MI 481-1346 USA
ORGANlZATIONAL CHANGE INITIATIVES AS PREDICTORS OF
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Graduate S tudies
of
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Arts
August 4, 1999
O Anuradha S. Chawla, 1999
National Library Bibiïottièque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Senrices senrices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OîtawaON K I A W OctawaON K 1 A W Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- exclusive licence dowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distnbute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.
The author retauis ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèqpe nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
L'auteur consewe la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation,
ORGANIZATIONAL CEFANGE INJTIATLVES AS PREDICTORS OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Anuradha Chawla University of Guelph, 1999
Advisor: Professor E, K. KeUoway
The current study developed and tested a model of the emergence of resistance to
change during an organizationai merger. Resistance to change was defined as any
attitude or behaviour that thwarts organizational goals. Based on a sample of 164
ernployees surveyed fkom two merged organizations (University of Guelph and the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)) a paaiaily
mediated and a fdiy mediated model were compared with the former providing the best
fit to the data Communication and job security predicted openness and tmst ditectly and
indirectly, via justice. Participation predicted tmst both directly and indirectly but
predicted openness to change only indirectiy (via justice). Turnover intentions was
predicted by openness and trust. Finaliy, turnover intentions predicted neglect. These
results have impiications for future conceptualizations of resistance to change and its
development. Practical implications are discussed as weii as are the potential limitations
of the study.
A C K N O ~ E M E N T S
My sincere gratitude and thaoks go out to ML Beattk, Dr. Le Maguer and Dr.
Pettit who supported and expressed enthusiasm for the project. Without thek input, the
and encouragement, the project would not have been feasible. As weU, I would aiso Wce
to extend my appreciation to the employees whose participation and b d c responses on
this project helped maintain my excitement for my research.
Of course, none of this process codd have seen a beghnhg or an end without the
support and encouragement of my advisor Dr. Keiloway. He made the transition fiom
statistics in the classroom to application in the field so much easier (and yes, fuo!). His
cmdour always oEered a new perspective and his intellect chalienged me to challenge
mine. Not to mention, the challenge of his sense of humour - there was aiways the h o p
that one day, we (his students) would have the last word on a joke and yet, never the
doubt that we would not! Tt shail be a loss for the students, the department and our wits
to see Kevin leave.
As for my cornmittee members - Dean Nightingale was an invaluable mernber.
His cornmitment to this project out of respect for the academic process was infectious.
My sincere thanks to him. My thanks as well to Dr. Eam and Dr. Matthews for their
input on my thesis. The discussion each of them stimulated during the defence simply
served to spark a greater interest in me to continue in this field of work.
1 would also like to express my sincere respect for Dr. Cronshaw for his interest in
us as students, in seeing our potential and in creating an environment conducive to the
pursuit of knowledge.
My cohoa has to be credited for Iaughing both at me and with me during the
craziest of thes. Without Greg, Aaron, Micheue and Ancireas, this degree would not
have the signincance it has today. Each of you has become a special fnend to me,
offering me mernories of support and Iaughter, memories of one of the most inteilectuaiiy
stimdating and collaborative environmentsi ever expenenced but also memories of the
most ridiculous extrapo1ations of VO notions into everyday He.
My cherished fnends (Leslie, Karm, Trish, Majan and Ruth), though a vast
expanse of land away, have k e n compfetely present at this most critical inteLiectual and
persond juncture- 1 thank them fiom the bottom of my hem for taking every three-hour
crisis phone call with ulrimate grace and the best jokes! 1 feel very fortunate to have
expenenced their fkiendships in such abundance. One has never laughed with their whole
being as with a tme fiend!
A very special acknowledgement to my brother - his effortless intelligence and
creativity has aiways been a source of admiration for me. He has taught me much about
living life under duress but without complaining. Finaily, my deepest respect, regard and
gratitude to my parents who cuitivated the love and curiosity for knowledge within me-
Thank you for giving me your courage when 1 had none of mine lefi. You are my
mentors.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...................................................... i ... ...................................................... TableofCouten B . iir
ListofTables ........................................................... v
ListofFigures ......................................................... vi
Introduction ............................................................ 1
TheNatureofChange .............................................. 4
Diagnosing Resistance ............................................. - 5
...................................... The Nature of Resistmce 5
.......................... The Two-Component Conceptuakation 6
...................... Attitudhal Opemess to Change and Justice - 8
TurnoverIntentions .......................................... 9
................................................... Neglect 11
........................................................... Trust 13
......................................... TheNatureofTrust 14
........................................... TrustandJustice 16
.................... Exogenous Variables Predicting Resistance to Change 17
.................................................. Communication 18
............................ The Nature of Open Communication 19
................................... CommunicationandJustice 20
..................................................... Participation 22
............................. The Nature of Participative Conaol 22
... lll
ParticipationandJustice ..................................... 24
Jobinsecurity .................................................... 26
The Nature of Job hsecunty ..................... .. .......... -27
Job Insecurity and Justice ..... ,. ............................ -28
TheCurrentStudy ................................................ 30
TheMerger ................................................ 30
Method ............................................................... 34
Participants ................................................ 34
Procedures ................................................ 35
Measures ................................................. 38
.................................... Method of Data Analysis - 4 3
Results ............................................................... 48
Assumptions ............................................. -49
ModelEstimation ........................................... 50
Parameter Estimates ......................................... 51
Discussion ............................................................ 54
Potential Limitations of the Study ............................. -65
Implications ............................................... 70
FutureDirections ........................................... 72
................................... Summary and ConcIusions -75
References ............................................................ 77
Appendix ............................................................. 88
LIST OF TABLES
....................................... Table 1: Descriptive statistics for of ail study variables 39
........................ Table 2: Reliabilities and inter-correlations of ail study variables 40
Table 3: Frequency and descriptive statistics for management's
................................................... Perception of the degree of EPP change 49
Tabie 4: Fit Indices for Nested Sequence of Hypthesized Models ..................... 51
LIST OF FIGURES
.......................................... Figure 1: Hypothesized My-mediated path mode1 (1) 3
................ ................ Figure 2: Altemate partiaiIy-mediated path mode1 (2) .... 45
Figure 3 : Finai partially-mediated path mode1 (3) ........................ ... ................ 52
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE l M ï l A " S
AS PREDICTORS OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Introduction
Economic and politicai changes are occurring at an exponentially increasing and
unmanageable pace (Kahn, 1999; Tuliy, 1999). At Ieast five types of environmentai
factors seem to be the main cataiysts of change: diversity, globalization, consumer need,
economic health and information technology ( C o ~ o r & Lake, 1994). In order to survive,
organizations are adopting one of two major strategies. The first is to try to invade
aiternate markets and expand their customer base in order to maximize profit and
minimize hancial vulnerabiLity. This has contributed to the resurgence of expansion
through mergers and acquisitions (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994). An altemate strategy
involves the "downsizing" rather than the expansion of Company operations (Schmidt &
F i g a n , 1992). This latter strategy has k e n provoked by changing business
environments, market share distributions and govemment regdations that are
decelerathg financial performance.
Change management consultants are hopeful that proper planning and
implementation of these strategies will advance the organization to a desirable state of
equilibrium (Antonioni, 1994). Instead, these change strategies more often create
disequilibrium. Though change initiatives are not always complete failures, it is apparent
that many large-scale change efforts are either doomed for fdure or far fiom unquaWied
successes. This is often a result of a complex chah of events and perceptions that
culminate in resistance to change.
Therefore, the current study reviewed the literature on change management in
order to understand the precise nature and process of resistance in the context of
organizational change. Unfominately, p r o p s s in tbîs field has been W t e d by vague
conceptualizations of resistance to change. h respome, a more precise conceptualization
of resistance to change was proposed hem. According to this model, resistance was better
viewed in two components - an attitudinal response and behavioural reactions.
Attitudinal resistance precedes and predicts behaviourai resistance. Both are
characterized by their dysfunctional impact on the organization Le., the components were
manifestations of resistance in so far as they thwarted organizational goals. On the ba is
of this definition of resistance to change, a rnodel that illusmtes the developmental
process of resistance was tested (see Figure 1). The model considered change
management strategies such as communication and participation as weil as employee
perceptions of job insecurity, and the effect these factors may have on the attitudes and
behaviours of the employees in response to change. Additionaily, the mode1 attempted to
bridge the theoretical gaps evidenced in the Iiterature by investigating the mediating role
of organizational justice in predicting resistance to change. The model was tested on a
sample of employees who recently experienced a merger. Issues pertaining to job
insecurity, trust, justice, and perceptions of the specifiç change management strategy
undertaken were particularly salient for these employees.
At the outset, the rationale for the inclusion of the antecedents, the mediator and
the specific reactive resistance responses is presented. The review shall work backwards
in this process. First, the two-component nature of resistance is discussed. Next, it is
Fieure 1. Hypothesized fully-mediated path mode1 (1) - Influence of communication, participation and job security on predicting trust and attitudinal and behavioral resistance to change.
proposed that ûust develops out of the same pmcess as resistance, sharing the same
antecedents. Throughout, the pivotal mediating role of justice in the appeasement of
resistance and the development of trust is argued. Fiiaily, the review examines the
original antecedents of resistance that is, ineffective communication, ineffective
participation and job insecurity. Owing to its intrïcate relationship with these variables,
the role of procedural justice is discussed interchangeably throughout. FoiIowing the
review, an empirical test of the resistance to change mode1 is presented, based on an
organizational merger.
The Nature of Change
The importance of resistance to change can only be realized once the all-
encompassing nature of an organization7s change efforts is understood. There are various
conceptualizations of "organizational change". Two of the most common
conceptualizations are that of planned vs. unplanned change and that of large-scale
change. Typically, planned change is the nom, implying intentional change efforts on
the part of the organization (Porras & Robertson, 1990). In contrast, unplanned change is
the adaptive response to environmentai changes designed to focus on a clearly defined
and narrow segment of the organization (Porras & Robertson, 1990).
An altemate and more encompassing term that elucidates the scope of the change
is that of cclarge-systerns change" (Fiorelii & Margolis, 1993). Large-systerns change is "a
long-term, comprehensive intervention focussed on the realignment of multiple
subsystems to enable the organization to actively adapt to its extemal environment"
(Fiorelli & Margolis, 1993, p-1). It is such large-scaie and planned changes that affect
fundamental aspects of the culture and the design of the entire organization.
In many instances, resistance and conflict have become natural counterparts to
organizational change efforts. UnfortunateIy, in the case of large-scaie change,
resistance maaifats itself across ail organizational subsystems, undennining
orgaaizational goais and preventing the implementation of the change.
In spite of resistance k ing identined as the key culprit of the probiems
encountered by changhg organizations (Kotter & Schelsinger, 1979), it is largely
misconceived and poorly understood. It is a tenn that is often used fkivolously to describe
a cornucopia of attitudes and behaviours.
Diagnosing Resistance
The Nature of Resistance
One of the seminal articles on resistance to change fails to offer a
conceptualization of resistance (Coch & French, 1948). Iustead, the article cites only
behavioural examples of resistance. The article suggests that resistance is typicaliy
expressed in the form of grievances, higher turnover, low efficiency, restriction of output
and marked aggression against management (Coch & French, 1948). Others have
differentiated between passive resistance (e.g., not foilowing change initiatives, shirking
cornmitment to the change) and aggressive resistance (e.g., taking action to undemine
change initiatives) (Kotter & Schelsinger, 1979). Stili others have simply stated
resistance to be "willfùl opposition" (Goldstein, 1989).
Because resistance to change has not been contrasted against any altemate
organizationai change outcomes, greater ambiguity is introduced to the concept To
compound the problem, resistance to change has often ken used interchangeably with
terms such as a lack of change readiness (Armenakis et al., 1993). Fominately,
Armenakis et. al (1993) did attempt to differentiate between the two concepts of change
readiness and resistance to change. The researchers define 'thange readiness" as the
cosmîtive precursor to the behaviow of resistance. Although these researchers did not
address the exact nature of resistance, they do speciQ that change readiness is composed
of the attitudes, intentions, and beliefs regarding the extent to which the impending
changes are needed and the organization's capacity to successfully înstitute those changes
(Armenakis, et al., 1993). Thus, change readiness is akin to an intellectual openness to
change.
If attitudinal resistance towards change can be conceptualized as the precursor to
behavioural resistance, it follows that prescriptions to reduce resistance will be effective
to the extent that they fïrst create change readiness. In essence, acceptance of the change
wîil curtail behaviourai resistance (Armenakis, et al., 1993). In fact, in spite of
clifferences across change process models, the literature does concur that it is cntical for
organizations to persuade stakeholders of the need for change early in the process (e.g.,
Antonioni, 1994; Carson & Griffeth, 1990).
The Two-Comwnent Conce~tualization
It is important to note that change readiness is an attitude that is malleable during
the early, "preparation" stages of the change process (Armenakis, et al., 1993). However,
this study proposes that once change h a already occurred, it might be more beneficiai to
conceptualize a lack of attitudinai opemess to change as a component of resistance itseIf
and not as a precursor to resistance. Once change has taken place, maintaining attitudes
that do not accept the need for change are essentially, a fonn of resistance. Within this
framework, behaviourai resistance as weii as attitudinal resistance would be components
of resistance and not distinct principles as suggested by Armenakis, et- ai. (1993)-
Attitudes as a component of resistance wouid measure acceptance of the changed
organization. Opemess to change wouid entail a recognition of the need for the change, a
willingness to make improvements in behaviour as weU as a cornmitment to see the
organization through any resulting tumultuous times. As with Armenakis's model,
attitudes wouid remain as the antecedents of behavioural resistance. Thus, acceptance
would predict fewer behavioural manifestations of resistance like inefficient work
behaviours, turnover, hostility and lack of involvement in the organization (Coch &
French, 1948). In accordance with this interpretation, the current study defines resistance
as an adherence to attitudes or behaviours that thwart organizational goals.
The two-component nature of resistance is suppoaed by clinical research in the
area of resistant behaviours during alcohol abuse treamient. This research identifies
resistance to change during therapy in terms of its cognitive and behavioural facets
(Goodyear, 1990). Resistance to change is descnbed as 'cnon-compliance or non-
adherence to = directive" (Goodyear, 1990).
The rationale for the predictive nature of attitudes on behaviour is also in h e with
suggestions that organizational change wi l l lead to cognitive changes which, in tum. will
predict behaviow change and performance development (Porras & Robertson, 1990).
Accordingly, the Theory of Reasoned Action posits that an individuai's intention to
perform a behaviour will be the best predictor of behaviour and that attitudes will affect
behaviour through their more immediate innuence on behaviourd intentions. This theory
has demonstrated parsimony and a greater ability to account for variance when compared
to other theoretical h e w o r k s (Hinsz & Nelson, 1990)- For instance, research on
employee turnover indicates that thoughts of quitting are antecedents to intentions to quit
which, in him, directly predict turnover (Hom, et al., 1992). AccordlngIy, the Theory of
Reasoned Action befits the proposed twocomponent structure of resistance to change in
which behavioural resistance is predicted by behaviourai intentions to resist which are
predicted by attitudinal resistance.
Attitudinal O~enness to Channe and Justice
It seems that because researchers have often presurned that change WU be fairly
implemented they have failed to target justice perceptions for study during organizatiooal
change. One exception is the study by Kilboume, O'Leary-Keliy & Williams (1996)
which found that employees do make fairness judgements about the new system and
about the change itself. Particularly, employees judge the fairness of the procedures used
to implement the change (e.g., faimess of ailocation procedures of rewards, of layoff
procedures, of bias-suppression). These fairness judgements are affixted by the amount
of information shared by the organization, the degree of employee participation and
control ailowed or by employee sense of the need for change (Kilboume et al., 1996)-
Consequently, when employers wimhold information and do not offer oppornuiities to
participate, they violate employees' sense of psychological ownership (Kilboume et al.,
1996). Individuals whose sense of psychological ownership has been violated have been
postulated to perceive the change as unf& and to consequently, e s t change (Kilbourne
et al,, 1996).
However, even under conditions of adversity and Ioss (e-g., during an adjudication
process), as long as employees do see themselves as king treated fairly they will comply
voluntarily to davourable decisions ( Tyler & Lind, 1992)- For examplle, if employees
challenge the relevancy of change efforts, resolving the resulting conflict through fair
grîevance procedures cm boost cooperation and openness to the new decisions.
Unfortunately, the above mentioned researchen tested outcornes of unfaUnas
other than resistance, and instead only offered postdations that openness to change would
be the an altemate logical outcome of f a h e s s during change. So, the present study
attempted to fïll this gap and built upon their inferences by investigating the impact of
justice perceptions on openness to change. The current study hypothesized that opemess
to change would be positively predicted by perceptions of procedural justice. In this case,
justice mediated the effect of communication, participation and job security on openness
to change (see Figure 1).
Turnover Intentions
Because it is critical for organizations in transition to imbue long-term
commitment in their employees in order to hie1 organizational success, the concept of
turnover deserves special attention.
Employees who believe that they have a stake in organizational success and those
who believe that the organizational change will deal with existing problems are more
likely to be committed to and supportive of the organization in the long nui. In contrast,
resistant or dissatisfied employees will often express an increased detachment h m the
organization and higher turnover (Coch & French, 1948; Leck & Saunders, 1992).
Following this logic, a lack of commitment to endure through the change (Le, high
tumover intentions) would appear to demonstrate resistance - it indicates an employee's
willingness withdraw from the organization. a behaviour that could have potentiaüy
disruptive effects on the organization (Leck & Saunders, 1992). Turnover intentions that
are indicative of resistance to change are differentiated ftom similar intentions that are
predicted by low organizational morale or dissatisfaction. In the h t instance, turnover
intentions may arise in reaction to, during or after change implementation whereas in the
second instance, turnover intentions are a reaction to the general state of an organization
that is not experiencing a large-scale change. In both cases though, turnover intentions
are a destructive and active response to dissatisfaction (Leck & Saunders, 1992).
The proposed model taps a long-term commitment towards the changed
organization by measuring turnover intentions. This parallels research on the role of
tumover in resistance to change (Coch & French, 1948) and is line with the behavioural
component of our componential model of resistance. More specincaiiy, it is
hypothesized that, in accordance with the Theory of Reasoned Action, attitudinal
openness to change and the development of trust (to be discussed shortly) wiU directly
precede and predict tumover intentions (see Figure 1).
Neglect
Because performance decrements and unproductive behaviours are part of
resistance to change (Coch & F ~ n c h , 1948). the role of neglect is examined as a
behavioural outcome that can disable the progress of successful change irnplementation.
Early theorists disthguished between the causes and symptoms of resistance to
change. Specificaily, Zander (1950, cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999) defined resistance
to change as a behaviour that was intended to protect individuais fiom the effects of the
change- According to Zander's perspective, neglect is identined as the behaviourai
symptom of resistance. However, early theonsts always blamed the causes of resistance
upon the subordinates instead of at the system at large (eg , Zander,l950, as cited in Dent
& Goldberg, 1999). In contrast, Lewin's "systems concept" identified the organization as
a system and suggested that resistance would result fiom any one of these systems
(Lewin, 1947, as cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999). More in line with Lewin's "systems
concept", ineffective communication and participation are two of the three systems-based
causes of resistance identified in this modd. The de-motivating effect of working in an
unstable employment context is also Wrely to lead to inefficient work or performance
decrements. Thus, job insecunty is the third systems-based initiative likey to accelerate
the rise of neglecthil behaviours.
For the purposes of the current study, negligence was defined as the "a lack of
proper care and attention" to ones duties COxford Modem Enelish Diction-, 1992). The
definition incorporates dimensions such as ineniciency, restriction of output or disregard
of ones duties. A process that leads to neglect is proposed by this study. It is posnilated
that once employees reso1ve to leave their jobs, they are exhibiting a lack of commitment
to or identification with the organization (Meyer & AUen, 1990). Once tbis
psychological distance is created, employees may be neglectful on their job since they
anticipate withdrawal in any case.
Although there is currently a lack of research evidence to ground this assertion,
there is theoretical backing for it. The prediction is in h e with the Theory of Reasoned
Action which anticipates that intentions predict behaviour (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). As
well, Coch & French (1948) identified sloppy performance as an indicator of resistance;
Leck & Saunders (1992) found that turnover and neglect were related as were a lack of
loyaLty to the organization and neglect; Zanter (1950, as cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999)
specified behaviour as the ulthnate symptom of resistance. Fhaliy, by fiading that
neglect is a viable organizationai change outcorne, ihis study cm provide a long overdue
evidence to back up the behaviour-based and individual versus systems-based tenets that
have engrossed much of the theorizing on resistance to chauge but paralysed actuai
investigation.
Now that the nature of resistance has k e n discussed, the fundamentai ingredients
that contribute to its alleviation shall be postulateci. Early in the change implementation
process, cooperation to the change must be eniïsted by (1) ensuring psychological safety,
(2) by communicating effectively and, (3) by encouraging participation. These are the
three most commody cited keys to successful change initiatives (Antonioni, 1994;
Carson & Griffeth, 1990). A key link between these factors and behavioural resistance to
change, and a critical partner to attitudinai opemess to change, is the psychologicai
constmct of trust. h fact, this study postdates that trust is part of the same procas that
leads to the attitudinal acceptance of change and is hypothesized to be the immediate
precursor of the behavîoural intent to resist change (see Figure 1).
Trust
Trust can be a cntical component for the acceptance of change and in obviating
deaimental organizational resistance outcomes. Yet, few organizations can boast high
levels of trust between management and employees. 1t seems that distrust is pervasive,
seething under the surface and brought to the fore in the form of misunderstandings and
resis tance.
FioreIli & Margolis (1993) have suggested that resistance is reduced, and that
receptivity and cornmitment to the change are enhanced under conditions of trust. When
there is little or no trust towards management, employees display the strongest resistance
to change (Coch & French, 1948). Trust is particularly critical for large-scale change
because such a change effort is relatively hi@ in risk It necessitates a radical shift in the
noms of the orgaaization, and thus requires the support of everyone to ensure a smooth
transition (Armenakis, e t ai, 1993). Some researchers suggest that the need for trust only
arises in a risky situation (Mayer, et ai., 1995).
A lack of underlying trust is likely to undermine efforts to enlist participation and
to breed perceptions of injustice if combined with threats to job securïty (Daly & Geyer,
1994). An erosion of trust is found to negatively impact positive work initiatives such as
organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson Br Momson, 1995), just the type of extra-
role behavior imperative for a successful change imperative. Also, trust is supplanted by
suspicion when employees report receiving decreasing amounts of information once
change occurs (Napier, 1989). Unless the organization can be entnisted to communicate
honestiy and consistentiy, attitudes towards change are Wcely to be antagonistic (Mayer et
ai., 1995).
Along the same lines, the tnistwoahlness of the change agent is one of the key
components of a change readiness program (Armenakis, et. ai, 1993; Sachs, 1994). Trust
is established by cleady denaing and comrnunicating the process and parameters of
participation (Sachs, 1994). Clear Limits need to be established so that fdse expectations
are not created. If expectations are shattered, employees experience feelings of betrayai
and leam to mistrust the process (Sachs, 1994).
The Nature of Trust
The study of trust in organizations has remained problematic because of the
prevalence of vague definitions of trust and because trust is often confused with its
antecedents and coasequences (Mayer, et ai., 1995). For example, trust is often used
interchangeably with concepts such as cooperative or risk taking behaviours (Mayer, et
ai., 1995). In other instances, these concepts have been suggested as beiog the
consequences of trust. Such research would suggest that trust is predictive of a
wihgness to cooperate or a wiilingness to take a nsk (Mayer, et ai., 1995).
The assertion of the current study is that "tnist" is not any -of these concepts.
Instead, it is al1 encompassing. According to Mayer et, al. (1995), tmst requires
cooperation and confidence in the words and actions of others. However, it is
distinguishable fiom these two concepts because it requires one additionai and key
dimension - trust recognizes and assumes a degree ofrïsk and vuinetability (Mayer, et al.,
1995). For the purposes of the current study, a single definition has been chosen. Trust is
defïned as "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party
based on the expectation that the other wilI perfonn a particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party" (Mayer, et al.,
1995, p. 712). This definition is panicdarly appropriate since there are often minimal
measures in place for the average employee to monitor or control management As weil,
the definition impIies that the trustee is wïihg to take a risk by making oneself
vulnerable (Mayer, et al., 1995) paaicularly in the face of the uncertainty that is inherent
d&g change,
The wilhgness of employees to be tnisting of management in the face of
potentially negative and risky changes parallels openness to change which accepts the
rationale and promises offered by management. Though the two concepts are not
synonymous they do both assume an implicit faith in management and both exude a
willingness to accept potentially n s Q ventures- However, whereas trust considers the
intent of the party in question, openness examines the legitimacy and rationale of the
specific changes. Unlike trust, openness to change does not make interpersonai
inferences about motives.
Trust, as conceived of here, is simplly a willinmess to assume risk but not to take
the risk per se. Thus, trust is an attitude and not a behaviour. However, it is postulated to
predict risk taking in a relationship (Mayer, et ai., 1995). More specifically, the current
study hypothesizes that employees might be willing to risk comrnitting themselves to the
organhation by not quitkg (i-e., low turnover intentions) because they have faith that
management wilI look out for their best interests.
Trust and Justice
Another weakness in the fiterature on trust is that its role during change
management has not been systematically investigated. The exception seerns to be a study
that inferred the positive impact of trust based on their hdings on perceptions of fairness
during the change process (Day & Geyer, 1994). Aithough this research fded to conhrm
the mediational effects of fainiess between participation and cornmitment to change, it
postdated that a lack of trust might be an interactional variable to consider (Day Br
Geyer, 1994). Unfortunately, in the Daly & Geyer study, trust was used interchangeably
with definitions of fairness @aIy & Geyer, 1994) confiising interpretation of the results.
This lack of clarity is not musual. Aithough some researchers do propowd that
trust could interact with variables such as the quality of communication to undermine
resistance (Greenhalgh, 1983), by far the most systematic research has confirmed that
trust is a consequence of various factors. For instance, investigators hypothesize mistrust
to be an outcome of perceptions of the violation of psychological contracts (Robinson Br
Morrison, 1995). According to this logic, when an employer reneges on a promise, trust
deches because the violation signais that the employer's original motives to build a
relationship were false or have changed (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
Similarly, trust is theorized to be an outcome of concepts such as integrity*
htegrïty is the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to an acceptable set of
principles (Mayer, et al., 1995). This approach to integrity is closely aligned with a sense
of procedural justice which relies on perceptions that the tmstee has k e n fair during a
decision making process. Both integrity and justice are conditions necessary for the
establishment of trust. As such, trust is an outcome (Mayer et al., 1995; Tyler & Lind,
1992). Once trust has been undennined, employees increasingly consider Ieaving the
organization because the bond between the organization and the employee has been
broken (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994) and the sense of justice and integrïty has been
shattered (Mayer et al., 1995).
Vague conceptualizations and inconclusive hdings point towards the need for
change management researchers to draft explicit models delineating the role of trust in the
acceptance and success of change. To date, the precise postulations and tests of Robinson
& Rousseau (1994) provide the most encouraging directions for research on change
management and resistance to change. Using their approach and Mayer e t aL's (1995)
conceptuaiization of trust as a guide, the present research mode1 hypothesizes that trust
wiii be directly and positively predicted by perceptions of procedural justice and wiU
negatively predict the risk-taking intention of leaving the organization. As outlined
earlier, turnover intentions will then predict negleçt. As can be seen in Figure 1, this
process is identical to the process that predicts openness to change.
Exogenous Variables Predicting Resistance to Change
The popular literature suggests that resistance is virtuaiiy inevitable if employees
begin with misconceptions about the nature and implications of change (Kotter &
Schelsinger, 1979). Because of such miscommunicated or misunderstood information,
employees often beiieve that the change is unnecessary (Kotter & Schelsinger, 1979).
Resistance in the form of behaviourai inertia is said to be the direct outcome of a lack of
recognition for the need for change (ComeIi & Hermann, 1989). Aiso, employees are
often anaid that they are goùig to lose something of value (e.g., autonomy. job) (Kotter &
Schelsinger, 1979). Such reasons represent the conventional belief about why people
resist change m e r & Schelsinger, 1979).
Unfominately, these suggestions are tainted by a lack of grounding in empincai
data. The dearth of academic literanite does not increase confidence in assertions about
successful change strategies. A study by De Meuse & McDaris (1994) is one exception.
Their swey results indicated that successful change was characterized by fkequent
communication and the early involvement of employees in the process (De Meuse &
McDaris, 1994). These two factors will be examined in turn. As weU, job security wiil
be postulated to play an equaliy strategic role in the acceptance of change.
Communication
It has been argued that organizationai change is characterized by uncertainty about
the future (Schweiger & Walsh, 1990). Any uncertainty is exacerbated when the primary
source of information is the rumor mill or the media (Rentsch & Schneider, 199 1) rather
than management. As a solution, Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) found that the use of a
"redistic merger preview" was very effective in enhancing cornmitment and job
satisfaction during a merger changeover.
The Nature of ODen Communication
In order for such systems of open communication to be effective, issues pertaining
to discrepancies between desired and current organizational States and confidence that
change c m be achieved need to be addressed by the organization's communication
strategy (henak i s , et al., 1993). Employees must aiso M y comprehend the nature
and purpose of the change in order to M y commit themselves to it (Armenakis, et al,,
1993). They must be provided with compeliing reasons for the change. The
communication message must allay fears and ambiguity about the new state of the
organization and employees' role in it (Young & Post, 1993), equipping them with a
sense of seIf-efficacy. Also, top management's support for the change must be
cornmunicated. Most importandy, the communication must address employee needs by
enumerating direct fiiture benefits of the organizationd change (Armenakis, et ai., 1993).
Aside fiom the quality of comtnunication, the delivery of the communication is
also of concern. Communication must be fiequent, consistent, and delivered face to face
by management as ofien as possible (Young & Post, 1993).
The premise is that communication that educates employees enhances
cornmitment to the change (Daly, 1995). Consider that ifresistance is motivated by an
attempt to maintain old organizational structures, it might be because employees are
unconvinced by the message that communicates the need for change. In particular, when
higher order cognitive structures are chailenged, they strîke at the heart of the experience
of continuity. Higher order cognitive structures are core organizing principles that
provide continuity and coherence to experience (Goodyear, 1990). They may either
represent personal identity or role-relationship schemas and are quite resistant to change
unless convincing evidence is presented (Goodyear, 1990). In such situations, it is open
and reiïable communication that will estabiish sufficient credibility to change attitudes.
When communication messages aiiay fears and convey a party's expertise and
cornpetence in making the change happen, attitude change is more likely (Mayer et al.,
1995).
Communication and Justice
Although the curent iiterature suggests a direct relationship between effective
communication and the acceptance of change, other research has suggested that the
positive effects of communication on acceptance of change and attenuation of turnover
are mediated by perceptions of faimess (Daly & Geyer, 1994). Justice theones state that
it is critical for organizational procedures to be based on conveying accurate information
and on identifying decision-making power in order to attain justice (Greenberg. 1987).
Extrapolating fkom these theories, the communication of accurate information will predict
positive perceptions of justice, which in turn would attenuate resistance. Not only WU
the communication have to be accurate, it wiil aiso have to provide sound justification if
it is to influence the affected party's judgements (Daiy, 1995) or to enhance perceptions
of procedural justice (Beugre, 1998)-
Note that justification has k e n tied to perceptions of procedural justice. Since
procedural justice pertains to judgements about the faimess of the process used in
decision making, it cm account for employee conclusions of the decision makers'
faimess (Daiy, 1995). If the decision maken are deemed to have been p r o c e d d y fair,
there will be greater trust in management (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). This is because
the employee can now tmst that management took their needs into account.
Other research has gone so far as to suggest that open communication cannot be
suggested as the panacea for positive outcomes of change. The blanket emphasis on
increased open communication has f d e d to account for idiosyncrasies of an
organization's subsystem needs Wogan & Over-Meyer Day, 1994). Because
communication varies in importance to meren t rnembers within an organization, those
closer to the centre of control require more information than those members in the
perïphery (Katz & Kahn, 1978, cited in Hogan & Over-Meyer Day, 1994). The results of
some investigations in merger activity even suggest a negative relationship between open
communication and degree of organizational integration (Hogan & Over-Meyer Day,
1994). This research suggests that when high-integration, large-scaie change occurs
between two merging organizations, workers undergo a great deal of anxiety and
uncertainty. In such a case, too much dissemination of information ~ C N ~ Y exacerbates
undesirable work attitudes and behaviours (Hogan & Over-Meyer Day, 1994)-
Such contradictions raise the question of whether these findings are simply the
outcome of more refined investigations or are a matter of the type of change king
investigated. For instance, the effectiveness of open communication might differ across
large scale versus small-scale change, in changes involving mergers venus downsizing or
depending on the content of the information king conveyed. Even if it is assumed that
open communication systems do deviate resistance to change and engender trust, the
function of justice still remains equivocai.
Drawing on previous research, the current study tested the assumption that
effective communication wÏii help empfoyees adapt to the change because the absence of
an explmation will be regarded as unfair? and thus will engender distrust and resentment
towards the change decision. An open communication strategy was postulated to have a
positive relationship with openness to change and development of trust This relationship
was believed to be fuiiy mediated by perceptions of justice. As weii, openness and trust
was hypothesized to be negatively related to turnover intentions. Turnover intentions was
hypothesized to be positively associated with negiect (see Figure 1).
Participation
The change management literature unanimously declares that employee
involvement during change is critical for success. If employees are encouraged to
partîcipate and their input is consistentiy and genuinely enlisted, it is supposed to reduce
resistance and increase cornmitment and performance (Comell & Hermann, 1989; Fiorelli
& Margolis, 1993). In fact, procedures aiiowing employees control of the change process
tend to enhance the acceptance of even unfavourable decisions (Greenberg, 1987). This
positive outcome is because involvement is a means of iafusing organizational members
with a sense of ownership of the change (Bronson, 199 1)-
The Nature o f Partici~ative Control
Research on the benefits of participation abound in the fiterature on participative
leadership styles and participative performance appraisal systems. For example, results
indicate that there is a strong relationship between participation during a performance
appraisal and subordhates' affective reactions (e.g., acceptance of the penormance
appraisal system, perceived fairness, perceived utility of the system) (Cawley et al.,
1998) - I
This literature makes the distinction between decision- versus process-control
(Tyler, 1987). Decision-controi is the control over actual decisions made whereas
process-control is the opportunity to simply state one's case (Tyler, 1987). This
distinction is critical because researchers disagree about which type of participation
results in more positive outcornes. According to an instrumental perspective, employees
prefer to maximize instnunentality by increasing decision control (Tyler, 1987). In
contrast, a more valueexpressive view of participation States that process-control is more
important because people value having the chance to state their case irrespective of
whether their statement influences decisions (Tyler, 1987). As yet, it remains unclear as
to why process-control would develop a heightened sense of justice even when what an
employee says has linle to do with what authonties might decide (Tyler, 1987). In fact,
these findings nui counter to common sense or to the literature on the role of trust in the
participation process.
This debate is mirrored in the organizational change literature on participative
change processes. The literature is unclear as to the nature or extent of participation
necessary to enlist employee support. Some researchers suggest that employees must
have active control in the formulation of strategic planning activities in the change
process (Armenakis, e t al, 1993). This is analogous to the desire to maximize decision
contr01 in jobs according to the job characteristics model. Employees who perceive
themselves to have high control will be more satidied, committed, involved and have
fewer intentions to quit (Spector, 1986). Non-significant findings in the participation
literature are often attributed to just this that is, a lack of control in the participative
process (Spector, 1986). Others suggest that psychoiogical participation is more critical
(Farell, 1983). Having the opportunity to articulate tactical concerns is suggested as
being sufficient for averthg unfavourable job situations such as turnover or poor
performance (Fareil, 1983).
A focus on tacticai versus strategic decision participation is another approach to
understanding participation. Tactical decisions concem what and how to change whereas
strategic decisions contemplate the initial decision of whether to even change at all (Sagie
& KoslowsIq, 1996). Involvement in making tactical decisions has k e n found to bring
employees closer to accepting change even when there is no guarantee that the decision
will advance their interests (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996). Again, there is an obvious
paralle1 between this view and that of a process-control view. Uafortunately, the debate
Partici~ation and Justice
Discussions on the benefits of participation assume that employee participation
engenders cornmitment to the change process. However, researchers lack an
understanding of why participation is likely to increase cornmitment. Emerging research
suggests that the key link lies in the 'faimess intespretation". According to this model.
when organizations change, they create certain expectations in their employees @aly &
Geyer, 1994). Employees f e l that they are entitled to certain outcomes fkom change
initiatives. This entitlement in the workplace is referred to as ccorganizational justice"
@aly & Geyer, 1994). Procedurai justice in particular is said to augment the effects of
participation on commitment and acceptance of change (Korsgaard, et al., 1995), because
it gives the participant process-control (Greenberg, 1987; Korsgaard, et ai., 1995). It is
because people simply value the opportunity to infiuence critical decisions (Le., process-
control) that their sense of pnxedural fairness is fortified (Beugre, 1998).
Some studies have found that the effects of employee involvement during change
on perceptions of faimess are contingent on expectations that the organization will
provide opportunities for training and wiU create a supportive atmosphere @aly & Geyer.
1994). Unless stakeholders are provided with the training to support change and unless
total involvement is eniïsted, participation is not Iikely to be constructive and
organization efforts to solicit participation are iikeiy to be interpreted as disingenuous
pronson, 1991). Korsgaard et al., (1995) do indeed suggest that perfunctory solicitation
of participation will not encourage acceptance of change or the development of a sense of
investrnent and commitment (Korsgaard, et al., 1995). As well, in accordance with the
communication literature, the need for employee training for purposes of participation
during change suggests that organkations must inculcate it's members with a sense of
self-efficacy if change is to be accepted.
In spite of the tremendous amount of research on employee participation outside
the context of organizational change, in actuality, there is minimal empirical research
determinhg the successful role that participation plays during change. In cases where it
has been investigated, the findings are ambiguous. Covin & Kilmann (1991) found that
increased organizational participation Ied to greater success as reported by the change
consultants and management. Coch and French (1948) also found that both total
participation and representative participation were inversely proportionai to behavioural
resistance. Yet, there are numerous change initiatives that are not successfbi despite
wide scale employee participation. Research needs to cl- and confkm this
relationship. Also, the fiterature fails to clarify whether participation alleviates
behavioural resistance, attitudinai resistance or both, or whether thk distinction is even
necessary. FinaiIy, the implications of process-control on the development of trust is an
unexplored arena The proposed mode1 aims to confirm the negative relationship
between proçess-control participation and both attitudinal and behavioural resistance to
change. In accordance with much of the research, perceptions of procedurai justice are
hypothesized to be directly and positively predicted by perceptions higher employee
process-control. Higher justice perceptions wiü positively predict trust and openness
which will negatively predict turnover intentions. In tuni, turnover intentions wiU
positively predict neglect (see Figure 1).
Job insecurity
The nature and role of job insecurity must be understood in the context of change.
Its detrimental effects on employee feehgs of justice and on organizationai outcomes
must be investigated.
Job insecurity has become almost synonymous with the fears awakened by
change. Traditional organizations have k e n founded on the premise of stability and
control. They were never designed for renewal or change (Fiorelli & Margolis, 1993).
hcreasingly though, downsizhg initiatives are resuiting in both job loss and changes to
the composition of people's jobs. Even when Iayoffs are not a factor, changing stmctures
within the Company threaten employee prestige, power, autonomy and careers (Kotter &
Schlesinger, 1979; Renstch & Schnieder, l99 1).
The Nature of Job Iiisecuritv
Issues pertaining to job security are the most powerful issues for employees.
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) have narned large-scale change as the major source of
threat to an employees' sense of control in their jobs. It is notable that issues of job
security are relevant whether or not an objective threat to the job exists (Rosenblatt &
Ruvio, 1996). Job insecurity can be caused by the erosion of any employrnent condition,
not just the loss of a job. It can seethe in agencies high in stability (no recent layoffs) or
low in stability (O'quin & Lotempio, 1998). The subjective nature of job insecurity points
to the fact that it is grounded in perceptions of a discrepancy between the level of security
a person experiences and the level he or she might prefer (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991 as
cited in Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Specincally, job insecurity is defmed as "a
powerlessness to maintain desired conrinuity in a threatened job situation" (Ashford et. al,
1989, p.438). The 'Weatened job situation" pertains to various valued features on the
job and the dimensions of the total job. The extent of insecurity experienced is a product
of the importance and likelihood of losing features on the job, of losing dimensions of the
total job and powerlessness in counteracting those changes (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,
1984). Such threats to work flow, work roles, organizational structure and power
relationships WU increase resistance (Fiorefi & Margolis, 1993). Change initiatives that
increase power are Wrely to encounter less resistance than those that decrease power,
threatening the structure and influence of employee jobs (Rorefi & Margolis, 1993).
Job insecurity typicdy results in an increase in withdrawal behaviom (e-g.,
reduced commitment, engaging in negative work behaviours, higher turnover intentions),
threatens organizational stability, engenders mistrust and inhibits communication (O'quin
& Lntempio, 1998; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). When employees perceive an
organization to be undependable in its commitment to employees, they in tum become
less coxnmitted to the organization (AsMord et. al, 1989). These behaviourai and
attitudinal consequences of job insecurity are al I in line with our current twocomponent
definition of resistance to change.
Job Insecuritv and Justice
Responses to job insecurity are posited to be incited by perceptions of abrogation
of the informal psychological contract. An implicit psychological contract is fomed
when the employees perceive that their contributions to the job obligate the organization
to reciprocate (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Violation of the psychological contract is also
related to degradation in perceptions of justice (Robinson & Rousseau. 1994) because
expectations regarding career aspirations are shattered (Greenhalgh b Rosenblatt, 1984).
Deterioration in the quality of unbiased and consistent treatment fosters perceptions of
procedural injustice (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). This process-focussed view of
procedural justice makes the case that the procedures used to make decisions WU have a
profound innuence on the public's acceptance of those decisions, such as the acceptance
of the changes to job structures and roles (Greenberg, 1987). Recali that this rationale is
in line with the iiterature citing the link between process-control participation and
procedural justice.
It is evident that resistance as a reaction to loss of job security is considered to be
a result of the violation of the p ~ c i p l e s of justice (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Fried et.
al (1996) found a duect relationship between job insecurïty and perceptions of injustice
which, in tum, directly predicted the lack of belief in the benefits of the change (low
openness to change ) and an increase in turnover intentions. In turn Davy, et al., (1997)
found that attitudes such as cornmitment and satisfaction mediated the relationship
between perceptions of job security and withdrawal intentions.
Researchers caution against puttuig too much stock in postulations of a direct
relationship between justice and resistance to change. hstead, some contrary arguments
suggest a direct and negative relationship between job insecurity and resistance in the
form of unproductive job behaviours (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984)- Apparently, it is
believed that job security and complacency are related. Therefore, an employer might
fmd it more advantageous to have insecure employees who would, in tum, be motivated
to work harder in order to enhance their securïty. Aside fiom the inherent ethical violation
of such a suggestion, it makes p a t e r practical sense that change initiatives undermining
job securiiy are likely to meet with b t h attitudinal and behaviourai resistance
(Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984) because they undermine personal concems.
Though some research has failed to find any link between job insecurity and
supervisory ratings of job performance (AsMord et al., 1989), fiutber research could be
vital in Uustrating the conditions under which other forms of resistance would result
fkom job insecurity. To address this need the mode1 proposes the investigation of the
role of multiple mediators (justice, trust and aaitudùial openness to change) in capauing
the link between job security and behavioural resistance. More specificaily, perceptions
of job security will positively predict perceptions of justice (see Figure 1). In tum, justice
will enhance openness and trust both of which WU be ultimately, negatively related to the
intent to leave. Turnover intentions will then be positively related to the propensity to
neglect one's job.
The Current Study
A major weakness of the resistance to change liierature is that it is not Mced to
any particular theory of organizational resistance. Consequently, practitioners and
researchers are left with a peminctory understanding of the nature or causes of resistance.
Therefore, the current study proposed the utilization of a two-component
conceptualization of resistance to understand why and how people oppose change. Aiso,
the key assumption tested here is that organizational system factors are the champions of
successful organizational change, and that these infZuence employee attitudes and
behaviours that ultimately herald success or failure in the change endeavour.
The Merger
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) used to
be responsible for the delivery of agriculture and food research, education and laboratory
services. These responsibilities were met in partnership with the University of Guelph
and through OMAFRA-run colleges and research institutes. Effective April 1, 1997,
these programs and senices were consolidated, enhanced and delivered as one overd
program to be offered by the University of Gueiph. This new partnership has k e n cded
the Enhanced Partuership Project (EPP). OMAFRA continues to be responsible for
determining the program needs of their clients and for directing fiincihg to the University.
The University has, in tum, become responsïble for al l program management, operation
and administration. As OMAFRA provides transfer payment fûnduig for costs incurred
by the University in delivering its prescribed programs, the revenues generated by the
University will be re-invested in the same programs and services.
The impeais for the amalgamation was the imminent funclhg cut of 18% ($1 1.7
million) to OMAFRA's budget which wouid have resulted in the closure of several of
OMAFRA's research and educational programs (e-g., the Education, Research and
Laboratones Division (ERLD)) and reduced transfer payments to the University.
Oreanizational Characteristics. The plan for the EPP required a restructuring of
governance structures, management services, program strategies, physical and
information technology facilities and human resources and labour relations. The new
EPP's objective has been to centralize administration and adopt more aggressive
marketing strategies, thereby improving revenue generations. Though ultimately both
partners are meant to concur on al1 major issues to make the agreement work effectively,
OMAFRA and University side decisions are to be made independentiy, each by their
respective governing and research bodies.
Staffme. - Reductions in OMAFRA's budget and in transfer payments to the
University necessitated job losses at the University and at the ERLD institutions. Efforts
were made to offer contuiued employment to employees affected by the EPP. However,
staff were not informed of their "surplus status" until notices were issued. Information
and counselling were provided by OMAFRA at the time of the delivery of the notice. At
the same instance that surplus notices were issued, the University made offers of
employment but to only those OMAFRA members it wished to retain,
In blending stafnng arrangements, certain considerations and compromises had to
be made regarding job specificatioas, benefits, seniority Ievels, compensation, pension
arrangements and collective bargainhg arrangements. For example. in the transition,
many employees lost their tenure-track positions. As well, aü revised employment
benefits, compensation and job classifications were based on the University's existing
system.
Communication and oarticioation. To support the implementation of the EPP, a
communication plan was outlined whereby special interest groups were established to
invite input and cornments. Ongoing communication via staff meetings, memorandums,
newsletters and intra-net systems was meant to offer timeiy sharing of information. Top
management support was highly visible at pianned promotional events. The strategic
approach to communications intended to involve stakeholders "wherever possible" that
is, by asking them to attend meetings, to provide input or to comment on work by the
subcornmittees (depending on the stage of the work).
Ultimately, the success of the enhanced partnership is meant to depend both on
performance delivery and in large measure on relatiooships established with the many
individuals and groups at ERLD, the University and stakeholders. The key objectives of
the partnership have k e n to establish a beneficial working relationship in an environment
of open communication, trust, integrity aud cooperation. As is apparent, almost ail of the
key variables of interest during change management (e-g., communication, pedormance.
trust) were key elements during the EPP's implementation, attesting to the
appropriateness of the data site.
Thus, the current study developed and empiricdy evaIuated a mode1 of openness
to change. In doing so, it relied on data fiom a field setting thereby enhancing the
ecological vaiidity of the findings. By surveying the network of rdationships, the study
also provides more precise insight into the effects of employee perceptions of
organizational change initiatives while simultaneously fùrthe~g conceptual clarification
of resistance to change and offering a suitable way of measuring individual adjustment to
change.
Method
Partici~ants
541 surveys were distri'buted to employees from the Ontario Agriculture CoUege
(OAC) (Guelph, A k d , Kemphrille and Ridgetown locations), Laboratory S e ~ c e s
Division &SD) of the University of Guelph, the University of Guelph Animai Health
Services. and from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and RuraI Affairs
(OMAFRA). Each of these units has undergone a large-scale change in the past two
years as a resuIt of their amalgamation into the University umbrella of research and
operations. The merger has k e n c d e d the Enhanced Partnership Pmject (EPP).
188 completed questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 34.75%.
Individuals choosing not to participate were asked to stiü retum their surveys to the
researcher by simply complethg Question 10 of the demographics questions (see
Appendix for cornplete survey package). This question asked them to disclose the reason
for their non-response. Responses on this question were meant to offer a means of
gauging the reasons for survey non-response because of the prospect that survey
nonresponse could be a means of expressing resistance. Usable information regarding
reasons for non-response could be secured from o d y 18 respondents (3%). These non-
respondents offered three common motivational reasons for non-participation. Some
people (n = 2) felt that the demographic information requested did not guarantee
confidentiality whereas others cited heavy workloads for their inability to participate (n =
4). The majority of these people (n = 12) had to terminate their participation because
they reaüsed that they had been employed elsewhere at the t h e of the merger thus, did
not meet the inclusion criteria specsed earlier.
Of the final participants, 58.8095 of respondents were part of the staff association
and 41.20% were either part of the professionaUmanagement group, facdty association,
or College Academic Research Group (CARG), With regards to their specific
employment positions, 26.6û% occupied professionaVmaaagerial positions, 1.90% were
in senior administration positions, 10.80% were coilege instructors, 5.70% were faculty
members. 22.20% were laboratory technicians and 16.50% were ofncelsupport staff.
Regarding the pemanency of their employment, 93 -20 % of the employees held full-the,
permanent positions, 1.9 % held part-time permanent positions and 4.90 % held
sessionaUcontract-based positions. These sampling ciifferences in employee groups,
employee positions and in employment permanency are fairly representative of the
employees at OMAFRA and the University and offers a heterogenous sample.
After elimination of missing data, the final sample size equalled 164. The sample
displayed a relatively equal gender-split (47.70 % males; 52.30 % fernales); the age range
of the respondents was between 18 - 65 years = 43.93; Se = 8.66).
Procedures
It is worthy of mention that initiaily, two merged organizations were solicited for
participation. In addition to surveying employees who were part of the OMAFRA and
University merger, surveys were also distributed to employees fiom two additional
divisions within the University of Guelph that had merged their academic and fiuiding
resources to f o m a new academic division called the Coilege of Social and Applied
Huma. Sciences (CSAHS), However, due to an hadequate sample size (N = 42)-
responses fiom thîs sample couid not be included The fact that the CSAHS merger was
a qualitatively different merger h m the merger between OMAFRA and the University
precluded the poohg of resuits. The former was an intemal merger between divisions
within the University. The latter was an extemal merger, between two separate entities.
AU potential participants were fïrst notined about the study through an e-mail
circulated by their division heads. This e-mail iterated the same information outIined in
the cover Ietter they wouId receive with their sunreys (see Appendix for compIete survey
package). A week later, the survey packages were mailed to employees directly via the
University's intemal mail system. The cover letter informed the participants that the
study was an investigation of their current attitudes and reactions towards the changes
that had occurred as a consequence of the EPP. They were asked to cornplete a package
of questionnaires.
The final questionnaire package contained the actual surveys, a cover letter
(signed by the principal investigators and by Senior Administration) (see Appendix for
cornplete s w e y package) and a self-addressed retum envelope. The cover letter
introduced them to the objectives and benefits of the study for the evaluation and
rehement of the change process at their respective divisions. The letter also indicated
management support for the project. It was anticipated that the letter wouid encourage
participation in the study and result in a higher response rate. As well, this letter provided
them with the instructions for the completion of the surveys, informing hem as
to the measures taken to parantee their anonymity and providing them with contact
names and addresses of the investigators.
Participants were given one and a half weeks to complete the surveys prior to
receivîng a foliow-up reminder notice in the mail. Demographic information about
employees' length of organizational tenure, gender, age, union/ernployee group
=iffiliation, department/division of employment and occupational position were colIected-
Any information specZying the identity of the participant was kept separate nom the
completed surveys to maintain conndentiality. For this purpose, surveys were identined
by subject number ody.
Participants who completed a questionnaire had to have been employed in a
position by one of the administrative divisions involved in the merger for at least one year
prior to the organizational change. Both managers and empIoyees were part of the sample
since resistance to change is theorized to impact both equdy (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).
Permanent full-tirne and
part-time employees and sessionals/contract-based employees were included due to the
salience of job security issues for al l their positions.
As part of the protocol, an interview was conducted with three directors, one each
fi-orn the OAC, LSD and OMAFRA. This interview was conducted to understand the
specifics of the change process and to corroborate intended implementation strategies
presented in the documentation on the merger.
Survey respondents who held management positions were also asked to ver@ that
the changes in their division did, in fact, qualify as a large-scale change. Only
management were asked to report their perceptions on scope of the change because, it has
k e n found that employee reports of specinc organizational characteristics are more emr
prone compared to top management reports Çromaskovic-Devey et al.. 1994). Managers
(n = 41) matched their perception of the scope of changes of the EPP to the foiiowing
operationakation of large-scale change (Fioreiii & Margolis, 1993):
The Esihanced Partnership Project can be described as a "long-term,
comprehensive intervention focussed on the realignment of multiple
subsystems (e.g., rewards, management style, structure, strategy, etc.) to
enable the organization to actively adapt to its extemal environment".
(Yes/No)
Mesures
The final survey package contained eight measuses and a demographics page.
These eight scales are described below and are presented in the Appendix (see Appendix
for complete survey package). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 and alpha-
reliabilities are presented in Table 2. Note that with the exception of the neglect and
turnover intentions scales, the wording of some of the questions in ail the scales has k e n
slightly modi£ied to better accommodate the context of the merger and to capture attitudes
towards the University and its management,
Demographic information was coilected on some general variables such as age
and gender. As weil, more specifk work status questions were assessed in order to be
able compile a summary report at the end of the project for the university. Questions
pertaining to current position, work location and employee group membership were
Table 1
Descri~tive Statistics of Ali Studv Variables
Variable - M - SD Range
Age 43 ,93 8,66
Tenure 4,lO 3.63
Turnover Intentions
Neglect
Openness to Change
Trust
Procedural Justice
Job Security
Participai ion
Communication
Table 2
Reliabilities and Inter-correlations of Al1 Studv Variables
Variable oc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Turnover intentions ,93 --
2 Neglect .68 ,15 - - 3 Openness to Change ,83 -.39** -* 12 -- 4 Trust ,87 - S I * * -+18* ,47** -- 5 Procedural Justice ,95 -,40** -,15 .39** .69** -- 6 Job Security ,81 -.16 -,O9 *45** .36** ,33** -- 7 Participation 8 2 -.14 -,20** ,25** ,44** ,38** *25** _- 8 Communication ,95 -.27** -,24** ,38** S2** ,47** .25** S 1**
Note. * = Cronbach's index of intemal consistency -
posed As weii, one question asked them to verify that they had k e n part of the
University or OMAFRA at the the of the merger.
Effectiveness of communication was measured using a 12-item seIfIfreport
instrument devised for the purposes of this study. The response format was a 7-point
Likert scale ranging h m strongiy disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Inclusion criteria for
items during the design of the instrument were based on the eariier findings reported on
the components of effective communîcation (Annenakis, et al., 1993; Young & Post,
1993). Also, some items were adapted fiom a communication scaie devised by Daly and
Geyer (1994). The scale was highly reliable (a = -99, with greater scores indicating
more effective communication.
Partîcioation in the form of process-control was measured using a 4-item self-
report instrument devised for the purposes of this study- The response format was a 7-
point Likert scaie ranging Iiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Items were
adapted from participation scales devised by Daly and Geyer (1994) and Vroom (1959).
Inclusion criteria for items had to meet the following process-control definition of
participation: "process-control is the opportunity to state one's case" (Tyler, 1987). This
scale was reliable (a = .82) with higher scores indicating greater participation.
Job security was measured using a 16-item scale combining Lahey and Kuhnert's
(1973) 13-item self-report instrument and the 3 items fkom Ashford, et al's (1989) Job
Insecurity sub-scale of Powerlessness. The response format was a 5-point Likert scale
ranging fiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This sixteen item scale was
diable (a = .8 l), with higher scores indicating greater job security.
Procedural iustice was measured using Moorrnan's (199 1) 7-item Procedurai
justice sub-scale. The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging h m
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The scale demonstrated high reliability (= =
-95). Higher scores on this scaie indicated stmnger perceptions of procedural justice.
Trust in management was measured usîng Cook and Wail's (1980) 6Item trust in
management sub-scale. The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging fiom
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The scale was diable (a = .87). Higher
scores on the scale indicated greater trust in management.
Susskuid et.al's (1 998) %item h e m e s s to change scaie was used to assess
attitudinai acceptance and cornmitment to the merger. The response format was a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging fiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This eight item
scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability (= = 33) and higher scores indicated greater
openness to the change.
Two measures of behavioural resistance to change (i.e., turnover intent and
neglect) were examined. Turnover intentions was used as a proxy to resistance. It was
rneasured using a 7-item scaie with items fiom the Michigan Organizational Assessmeat
Questionnaire (Seashore, et al., 1982) and items fiom Barling et. al. (1999) scaie. The
response format was a 7-point Likert scaie ranging fiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (7). Higher scores on this scale were refiective of a higher intent to leave the
organization. This scale also demonstrated high reiïabiIity (a = -93).
Finaily, neylect was measured by using a 12-item scale with items from Withey &
Cooper's (1989) neglect scale, items fiom Hepburn & Barhg's (1996) partiai
absenteeism scaie and items fiom Barhg e t al. (in press) scale. The response format
was a 5-point Likert scaIe ranging from never considered this action (1) to engaged in
action frequentiy (5). Higher scores on this scale represented a greater tendency to be
neglecüüi on the job. This scale had a mhhaiiy acceptable alpha-reliabiiity of -68.
Method of Data Analvsis
Of the 188 retumed questionnaires, 24 (12.76%) had to be dropped due to
randomly distributed missing data Note that missing data were given special
consideration. As opposed to employing List-wise deletion, respondent scores were
included as long as they missed oniy one item on their scale. The exception was the Job
Security scaie. Owing to the large number of items on this scale, participant responses
were included as long as only two items per case had missing data This technique was
employed because it was noted that missing data was largely due to nonresponse on just a
single item on a scaie which was resultuig in large amounts of missing data if Est-wise
deletion was employed. To circumvent problems associated with mem estimation
(Tabachnick & Fideii, 1996), the curent strategy was preferred. The comparabfity of the
scores obtained through this alternate strategy for managing missing data was
corroborated by correlating them with scores obtalned via list-wise deletion. The
correlations ranged h m 1: = -99, E c .00 1 to = 1.00, E c .ûû 1.
Observed variable path analysis was used to assess the fit of the theoreticdy
derived model and to obtain parameter estirnates- However, obtaining an acceptable fit
for the proposed model is no assurance that the best model has k e n found The strongest
test of a proposed model is to iden- and evaluate cornpethg models (Hair, et al., 1992;
Kelloway, 1998). So, an altemate model was evaluated, As was apparent in the earlier
review, much of the fiterature on resistance to change has been vague and overly
simplistic, implying direct effects of communication, participation and job secwity on
resistance to change as opposed to a process-oriented approach. For instance. Mayer et
al., (1995) suggest that the credibility and content of the communication message wiil
initiate attitude change and engender trust. Similady, the seminal study on resistance to
change (Coch & French, 1948) found that total and representative participation deviated
behavioural resistance. FinaUy, research that tested only direct effects f o n d that job
insecurity predicted mistrust and inhibited communication (O'quin & Lotempio, 1998).
In line with these findings a paaiaUy mediated model is proposed (Mode1 2) (see Figure
2) whereby communication, participation and job security wîil predict opemess to change
and trust directly as well as indirectly, through procedural justice. Note that the
hypothesized model (Model 1) (see Figure 1) was identified by omitting parameters nom
an altemate, less parsimonious model (Model 2) as per the recommendations of Kelloway
(1998)- As such, Model 1 is nested within Mode1 2.
A nested model is one that can be considered to be a more specialized subset of
another model, differing only in the deletion of certain paths but composed of identical
constnicts. Thus, the model with fewer estimated relationships (Model 1) is "nested"
within the more general model (Mode1 2). A Chi-square (x2 ) ciifference test was used to
determine whether the additional relationships of Model2 are providing a better fit
relative to Model 1. A x2 Merence test provides a basis for comparing these competing
models, testing the nuIi hypothesis that both models are equivalent in spite of the
additional parameters king tested in the altemate model @entier & B o ~ e t t , 1980). If
the null hypothesis is rejected, it implies that the additional parameters in the aitemate
mode1 are accounting for crucial statistical idonnation and must be retained.
EquaUy important, however, is the evduation of the specific resulis of each
model. As suggested by academic consensus (Hair et al., 1992; Kelloway, 1988;
Tabachnkk & Fideil, 1996) several indices of model fit are utilized in the current study.
Consistency across measures verïfies the acceptability of the model. Two classes of fit
indices are assessed (a) absolute fit indices and (b) incrementai fit indices. Absolute fït
assess the degree of replication of the implied covariance matrix to the actual covariance
matrix (Kelloway, 1998). Absolute fit indices consist of the x2 signincance test, the
standardized root mean square residual @Mi&), the root mean square error of
approximation (EWSEA), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted Goodness of
Fit index (AGFI). The x2 significance test assesses whether the covariance matrix has
been reproduced. A non-significant iindiog is desirable, suggesting that there is no
difference between the actual and the implied matrices (Kelioway, 1998). The
standardized-RMR also identifies discrepancies between the implied and actual
covariance matrix. Values less than .OS are desirable. For the RMSEA, values less than
-10 indicate a good fit and values less than -05 indicate a very good Et to the data
(KeIioway, 1998). Both the GFI and the AGFL have a normed maximum of 1 with values
greater than -90 indicating good fit to the data A notable discrepancy between the GFI
and the AGFI, would indicate that trivial parameters were king assessed (KeIioway,
1998).
In addition to overail mode1 fit, incremental and parsimonious fit indices compare
the model to a baseline (null) model- The nuli model is the most simple mode1 without
any relationships between the variables and thus, fits the data poorly (Keiloway, 1998).
Of the incremental fit indices, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) and the Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) are quite idonnative. The former index can be interpreted as the percentage of
covariance explained by the given structurai model (compared to the null model)
(Kelloway, 1998). For both the NFI and the CFI, values greater than .90 indicate good
model fit (Keiloway, 1998). The parsimonious fit indices take the comparison one step
further by considering whether the additional parameters of the structural model justify
the loss of parsimony. Parsimonious indices such as the Parsimonious Normed Fit Index
(PNFI) adjust for the effects of estimating more parameters (Kelloway, 1998). Because
parsimonious indices do not have a standard for indicating ided parsimonious fit, it is
customary to compare the PNFI values of two cornpethg models and to choose the one
with the highest level of parsimonious fit (KeUoway, 1998).
Results
Based on the question asking managers to rate their perception of the scope of the
EPP change, 70.30% of managers did feel that the EPP was representative of a large scale
change. Further confirmation and details were achieved by inquiring about the extent to
which the following four elements of the organization were altered by the merger:
organizational strategy, organizationd structure, organizationai processes, organizational
culture. On a scde of 1 - 5, a ratkg of 3,4 and, 5 represents a moderate degree of
change, high degree of change, or a complete change, respectively. Using a cut-off of 3
and above, results indicated that management felt that organizational strategy experienced
the greatest amount of change (80.90%), organizational processes and structure were
perceived to have changed to an equal extent (73.10% and 73.80% respectively) and
organizational culture was impacted the least (63.30%). The mean rathg for aU the four
elernents varied around a rating of 3.0. Table 3 presents the fiequencies and descriptive
statistics for all levels of the perceived degree oforganizational change. Interestingly,
these statistics are in h e with the aim of EPP change-implementation strategy as cited in
the University's documentation.
Table 3
Freauencv and Descn~tive Statistics for Manaeement's Percention of the De- of EPP
Amt. of Change Stratew Culture Processes S tmcture
No change 0.00% 12.20% 7.30% 2.40%
S m d degree of change 19.0% 24.40% 19.50% 23,80%
Moderate degree of change 21.40% 17.10% 26.80% 26.20%
High degcee of change 38.10% 22.00% 26.80% 28,60%
Completely changed 21.40% 24.40% 19.50% 19.00%
SD - 1.04 1.39 1.21 1-13 Note. N =41
Assum~tions
Prior to model estimation, assumptions of multivariate analyses were analysed.
One multivariate outlier was detected and deleted @ < -001). No univariate outliers were
detected. Analyses confirmed multivariate normality, hearity and multicollinearity, with
one exception. There was a tendency for neglect to demonstrate multivariate non-
normality. In order to address this non-normality, Generalized Least Squares (GLS)
estimation has been selected for model estimation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).
AU evaluations of this data were satisfactory with the exception of the Neglect
scale. This scde demonstrated range restriction, thereby limihg its linear associations
with other variables in the study and Wting its intemal consistency. However, four
49
considerations encouraged the retention of this scale. Firstly, the indispensable nature of
Neglect to the concept of "resistance to change" suggested its retention for M e r
analysis. Secondly, it was considered unlikely that negiectful behaviours would be
normally distributed in any working population. Thircüy, the GLS estimator
accommodates for evidence of non-norniality (Tabachakk & FideU, 1996). Finally. the
reliability of the scale was so close to the desirable cut-off of a = .70 that it was retained
for investigation,
Model Estimation
An obse~ed variable path analysis was conducted using LJSERL Wïï (Joreskog
& Sorbom, 1989) using GLS estimation and based on the covariance matrix. Descriptive
statistics, intercorrelations and interna1 consistency values for a i l study variables were
presented in Table 1 & Table 2.
Table 4 presents the fit indices for the two models under consideration. The
original model (Model 1) provides an adequate but not ideal fit to the data [x2 (17) =
55.75, 1; GFI = -91; AGFI = -82; RMSEA = -12; Standardized RMR = -09; NF1 =
-94; PNFI = -58; CF1 = -951. However, the, partially-mediated Model 2 provides a better
fit to the data [x~,,,, (6) = 36.49, g<.ûOl; x2 (1 1) = 19.26. g >.OS, n.~.; GFI = -97;
AGFI = -90; RMSEA = -07; S tandardized RMR = .06; NFï = -98; PNFI = .39; Cm = -991
As well, the standardized residuals for the partiaiiy-mediated model were centred around
zero and symmetricaily distributed, M e r veefying the adequacy of the fit to the data.
This suggests that most of the direct Links from communication, participation, and job
security to opemess to change and trust are necessary components of the model.
Table 4
Fit Indices for Nested Seauence of Hmthesized Models
Mode1 X' df GFI AGFI RMSEA Std. PNFI NFL CFï
RMR
Full y- 55.75* 17 -91 -82 -12 -09 5 8 -92 -95
mediated
mediated Note. GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; NF1 = normed - fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation; Std. RMR = standardized mot mean square residuai;
PNFI = parsimonious normed fit index.
*g<.m1.
Parameter Estimates
S tandardized parameter es timates for the partially-mediated model (Model 2) are
presented in Figure 3. One-tded sigaificance tests were used because the direction of the
relationship were predicted a prion (i.e., t = 1.65, < .OS, one-tailed). As hypothesized,
neglect was predicted by turnover intentions (P = .N, g c .OS). AIso, as hypothesized,
turnover intentions were predicted by both, opemess to change (P = -0.20, g < -05) and
trust (p = -0.42, g ç -05). In tum, tmst was predicted by the presence of procedural
justice (p = .53, g < -05) and directly by communication (P = .20, < .Os), by
51
participation (P = -13, g c .os) and by job security (P = -10, E <-OS). Similady, opemess
to change was predicted by procedural justice (P = -17, g < -05) and directly predicted by
communication (p = -24, p < .OS) and by job security (P = .35, E < -05). Contrary to our
hypothesis, openness to change was not directly predicted by participation (P = -.01, p >
-05, n.s.). Fially, procedurd justice was predicted by a i i three exogenous variables
[communication (p = .34, g < -05); participation (P = -18, g c .OS); job security (P = .22, p
< .OS)]-
The partially-mediated Mode1 2 explained 4% of the variance in neglect, 29% of
the variance in hlmover intentions, 33% of the variance in openness to change, 58% of
the variance in trust and 3 1% of the variance in procedural justice.
Discussion
The primary intent of this study was to develop and test a mode1 of the emergence
of resistance to change during an organizationai nerger. In order to aid this investigation,
the study also offered an operationalization of resistance to change composed of
attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. Specfically, this study identified communication,
participation, and job security as the antecedents of trust and attitudind and behaviourai
resistance to change, and identidied perceptions of procedurai justice as a crucial mediator
in the process,
As hypothesized in Mode1 2, the iïndings of this study point towards substantial
and multiple organizational outcomes of resistance to change. VirtuaiLy a l l hypothesized
paths were confirmed. Consistent with the partiafly-mediated modei, communication,
participation and job security ai I predict trust by two charnels (a) directly and (b)
indirectly via procedural justice. SimilarIy, communication and job security predicted
openness to change both directly and indirectiy, through the mediator, procedurai justice.
However, contrary to the hypothesis, participation ody predicted openness indirectly,
through justice. Direct prediction between participation and openness was d i s c o ~ e d .
Finally, as hypothesized, openness and trust directly predicted turnover intentions which,
in hini, directly predicted neglect.
The fïnding that openness and trust were directly predicted by communication is
consistent with research affiîrming communication's capacity to enhance the credibility of
management (Mayer et al., 1995)- If management is wiiling to be open, employees are
also likely to be receptive (Armenakis, et al., 1993; Young & Post, 1993). The direct link
between communication and opemess is also supported by previous researçh kdings
that the favourability of attitudes towards new innovations and an understanding of
innovations introduced to organizations account for significant amounts of variance in
employee coping responses (kw-s & Siebold, 1996). Once the communication message
succeeds at providing compelling justification for the change, at enhancing efficacy, and
at c1-g the chanps to the employee's role (Young & Post, 1993), employees will
understand the need for change and will shed reluctance that may be boni out of fear or a
lack of understanding.
The potency of communication in promoting multiple positive outcornes is
explained by its ability to simuitaneously address several concems of employees' - it
addresses their performance concems, their normative concems, and their uncertauity
concems (Lewis & Seibold, 1996). Even though each of these concems may be more or
less salient for different employees, the content of effective communication cm
eventually target each of their issues, By addressing these concems, communication
essentially clarifies the ambiguity and pacifies the fear that is inherent to change. An
excellent communication strategy may even circumvent the need for participation in
select situations. For example, it has k e n suggested that when the basic fallness of an
authority (e-g., management) is made very clear or when an authority figure makes
concessions in spite of king opposed to the interests of the other Party, the beneficial
effects of process-control disappear (Tyler & Linci, 1992). Evidence of such
tmstworthiness of an authority figure (i.e., their credibiiity, motivation, and intentions), is
precisely what detennines the fairness in a procedure (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Tndeed, as
the literature suggests (Mayer et ai., 1995; Young & Post, 1993) and this study contïrms,
the most highly effective communication strategies are those that estabiish expertise and
cl- intent.
Consistent with the hypothesis, participation had a mediated impact on opemess
to change via procedural justice. The rationale for the effect of process-control on
perceptions of justice has presented to be a bit of an anomaly for researchers. Recd that
process-control simply offers a voice to employees to air their standpoint This defies
logic which suggests that people should not consider a process that solicits yet ultimately
disregards their opinion as fair. Yet, reviews of the Literanire on process- vs. decisional-
control (e.g., Tyler & Lin& 1992) have dernonstrated the resilience of the iïnding that
processcontrol issues are associated with prediction of enhauced procedural justice. As
long as people are aliowed to express themselves, the effect isn't diminished even when
the decision-maker is seen as biased or when the outcome is of key importance (Tyler &
Lind, 1992). It appears that justice perceptions rest less on the legitimacy of the decision
per se and rely more on the judgements of the procedures, the process, and the quality of
interactions. In support, Tyler & Lind (1992) suggest that group-value concerns dominate
faimess judgements - these explain the value of selfexpression through process-control
on procedural justice perceptions.
The group-value mode1 suggests that people evaluate the process faimess of
procedures for its significance for their value to the group (e.g., the organization, their
department), their relations with authority (e.g., management), and their belief that the
group is functioning properly and fairly flyler & Lind 1992). There are three aspects in
particular that are evaluated as important in justice perceptions - standing, neutrality and
trust (Tyler & Lind, 1992)- Concems about standing Iead people to examine whether they
are king treated with dignity and politeness and whether their rïghts are respected in their
exc hanges with authority. The authority figure's tnistworthiness is assessed by looking
for signs of benevolence, ethical behaviour, and fair intentions- This information Uows a
person to assess the reliability of the authority figure. Finally, people are concerned with
the neuWty of authority figures that is, evidence of bias, dishonesty or incornpetence.
Evidence contradicting the neutrality of the party negates assumptions of trust It appears
then that it is not control over the decision outcome that is of primary value as much as
the message that expression of one's opinion conveys about stanis withio a group. These
three issues are prominent because they communicate information about the faùness of
the procedure and fairness in turn, conveys a person's value (Tyler & Lind, 1992). A fair
encounter (i.e., process-contro1) promotes feelings of f h e s s and self-worth. This group-
value belief, in tum, is a potent reinforcer of acceptance of the legitimacy of decisions,
obedience to authority and a shaper of attitudes (Tyler & Lind, 1992) (e-g., trust,
opemess). By extension, this suggests that any strategy that is unbiased, that makes an
employee feel valued and that establishes the tmstworthiness of authorïty and procedures
will encourage justice. Considering that communication and job security appear to
address similar needs, the group-value mode1 then, is quite effective at explainhg why ai l
three factors (participation, communication and job secUnty) are associated with fairness
perceptions.
Unfortunately, conirary to hypotheses, there was no direct effect of participation
on openness. This lack of effect can be attributed to both theoretical and methodological
reasons. Firstly, relative to the other scaies in the study, the smder number of items
comprising the participation scale could present an unfair cornparison (Cooper &
Richardson, 1986). Also, the scale had to be created for purposes of this study and thus,
did not have the advantage of king previously validated. At the same the, it would not
be fair to suggest that participation was not weil operationaiized at ail, A degree of
content validity can be inferred because the items on the participation scale are
constructed on the basis of theory and previous research. As weil, the current scaie
represents an advancement from previous process-control scaies that measure the de-
of participation using only a single item and a dichotomous response-option (e-g., Tyler,
1987).
Theoreticdiy, it is possible that the type of decision (tactical versus strategic) may
interact with the type of participation (process- versus decisional-control) in explainhg
direct and indirect effects of openness to change. Recali that decisional-control requires
employees to perceive that they c m actualiy control the outcome of decisions (Tyler,
1987). Process-control only aliows an employee self-expression (Tyler, 1987). Studies
on dispute resolution have repeatedly demonstrated that the benefits of process-control
have been largely independent of the impact of decision-control and often, the former was
the only type of control linked to judgements of faimess and satisfaction (Tyler, 1987).
But, perhaps because none of these studies demonstrated the impact of process-control on
openness to change, the £hdings have limited generalizabilitty in the change management
domain. It is possible that decision- and process-control mether are indispensable for
acceptance of change. Decisional-control may be relevant for job-based decisions
whereas process-control rnay be more relevant for strategy-based decisions. When
decisional-control is offered for issues pertaining to an employee's job, it wu have a
more direct impact on opemess because employees probably feeI more prepared to offer
infomed input - employees have more information about their jobs than their
supervisors. Also. there is less ambiguity in such tactical decisions (i.e., those that
involve working methods. processes etc.) than in strategic decisions (Le., those requuing
initiation of changes) (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994). Indeed, Sagie & Koslowsky (1994)
found that the positive effects of participation were dependent upon whether tactical or
strategic decisions had to be made. Greater involvement and cornmitment ensued during
the tactical decision making process. Also, participation was found to be beneficial when
subordinates were able to bring useN information to the task's strategy development
(Scuily, et ai., 1995).
In contrast, during strategic decision making, more directive leadership may be
desirable and appropriate (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994) because employees might feel U-
prepared to take total control or accountability in such decisions. As such, when
employees are offered process-control in such decisions, they would accede to the change
even if they are not guaranteed a favourable outcome because by acknowledging their
opinion in spite of their lack of expertise, management probably conveys an implicit
message about their importance to the Company (recall the group-value theory). hcreased
opportunity to voice one's opinions then increases the perceived fairness of the process
(Tyler & Lind, 1992) and then increases openness ( ' e r & Monge, 1986) and tmst in
management.
As with communication, a direct and indirect relationship has been confirmed
between job security and trust and openness. The Iink confirms that empioyees are
concerned about their security when they are immersed in an environment of job and
positionai insecuity. The direct relationship between job security and tmst and openness
is aiso informative. 1t could imply thaî assurauces of job security c d visceral reactions
of resistance that c m ensue in the presence of the fear of a loss of power or secmity. An
interesting and logical proposition about resistance to change has k e n put forth by
Dubrin & kland (1993) and can be extended to job security. Dubrin & lreland (1993)
suggest that "fear" is the common denominator behind resistance. They suggest that
employees are feamil of poor outcornes, feamil of the unknown and fearfbl of resulting
problerns. Each of these feus is raised in the event of job insecurity. 1t is not difncult
then to infer that job insecurity alarms employees which then arouses multiple reactions
dysfunctional for the organization. On a positive note though, the assumption appean to
be that strategies and attitudes that can aliay fears will be effective at overcoming
resistance. It is no wonder then that because effective communication addresses people's
uncertainty and performance concems and job secwity maintains equilibrium around
these issues, resistance is forestalled.
The process that leads job security towards withdrawal cognitions has support in
previous research. h Iine with research canied out by Davy et. ai. (1997) and congruent
with the Reasoned Action Theory (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975), job security has been found
to £irst predict work-related expectations (justice) and attitudes. which in tum predict
withdrawal intentions. The most Wrelyrationale for this process is that, during perïods of
organizationai change, employees are prompted to reassess their rofe in the organization,
to re-examine their psychological contracts, and to understand the organization in tenns
of its relational signincance for them (Le., the extent of loyalty and support felt for the
organization) (Davy, et al., 1997; Rousseau, 1989). With the abrogation of the
psychological contract due to employment insecwity, employees wilX retreat fkom their
relationship with the organization (e-g., become mistmstful) and will withdraw their
commitment to its welfare (i.e. adopt attitudinal resistance) (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). It is
such attitudes that are found to be the antecedents of withdrawal cognitions (Davy et al.,
1997)-
Indeed, just as hypothesized, trust and opemess to change did predict employee
intentions to withdraw from the job. In the absence of faith in or commitment to the new
organization. both psychological and physical withdrawal WU ensue (Shore & Tetrick,
1994). Such reactions are probably representative of the more extreme end of a
continuum of evaiuations of violation of the psychological contract. Shore & Tetrick
(1994) suggest that evaluation of the psychological contract may begin on a continuum
extending from relational to transactional. It is only when the psychological contract is
persistently broken that employees move fiom graduai emotional withdrawal (e.g.,
dissatisfaction and lack of commitment) towards complete renunciation of faith in the
organization and intentions to exit. Such an interpretation would suggest that in fact, the
mistrust, lack of openness and withdrawal intentions apparent in the current study are
ref3ective ofemployee perceptions of serious encroachments upon their rïghts.
On the surface, the construct of the psychologicai c'ontract might seem outdated-
The changing organizational environment c m obviously no longer promise the traditional
career or Iong-term guarantees. However, the survival of this constmct rests on the fact
that it is composed of issues other than job securîty or career trajectories (Guest, 1998).
The content of the psychological contract is composed of relational issues (e.g., social
exchange, faimess and interdependence) and transactional issues (e.g., benefits, work
conditions, job characteristics). As welI, the notion of the psychologicai contract has
sunrived because the construct is based on an interaction between an individuai and the
orcranization - rather in either party alone (Guest, 1998). In spite of changing market
conditions, employees and employers wili aiways be engaged in some form of an
exchange,
The interaction-based nature of psychological contracts ties the construct to
communication and participation (Guest, 1998). For instance, communication and
participation cm engage in an information exchange by conveying information about the
preservation of employee interests. Job secwity issues comprise another item in the
cluster of items that figure prominently into psychological contract issues. FinaIly, since
perceptions of good working conditions and fairness are key to the psychological contract
construct (Guest, 1998). it is no wonder that openness to changes to one's job m d trust
would be salient outcornes of preservation of the terms of the contract.
The current mode1 confimis the hypothesis that attitudes towards change and
towards management are associated with turnover intentions- In turn, turnover intentions
predict a reduction in work effort, an altemate form of withdrawal (Davy et al., 1997).
The confirmation that neglect is an outcome in the resistance process does not augur weil
for organizations in transition, Most change models now concede that organizational
outcornes are contingent upon the organizational mernbers' behaviour and that change
will only endure if members alter theïr dysfunctional or now-dehioct behaviours (e-g.,
Porras & Silver, 199 1). If the employees do indeed cease to perform desirable actions
and instead partake in dysfunctional behaviom, organizational performance WU suffer
immensely.
Most troublesome is that fact that these disaffected employees are no longer
committed to staying with the organization. So now, the organization has a group of poor
performers who want to leave and yet are not leaving. Instead, they are aeglecting their
jobs. McEvoy and Cascio (1987) have suggested that although there might not be a
relationship between performance and turnover before an employee decides to leave, once
the will to leave occurs, performance may decline. Previous research suggests that it is
the poor pedormers that are more likely to want to leave the organization (McEvoy &
Cascio, 1987). But, if these poor performers do not leave the organization imniediately
(e.g., because of a lack of options), they are not contributing to high performance either.
By extension, because poor performers are more dissatisfied with their jobs and with
management (McEvoy & Cascio, 1987), they are likely to be afÎaid of changes that might
disrupt their position, dernanding more of them. As a result, they are likely to be less
open to changes to their job role and will be less receptive towards management (Le., lack
of trust in management).
An alternate explanation can be extrapolated nom research by Bcockner et al.
(1992). The researchers found that job security and productivity have an inverted-U
relationship such that high threat of job insecmîty combined with low ability to
counteract negative consequences (i.e., low control) were associated with demotivation
and learned helplessness amongst the employees, which in hun promoted complacency in
work effort. By extrapolation, if employees perceive a threat to theû jobs but realise that
the threat is inevitable, they wiil Wrely assume that they lack the control necessary to
rectm their demise even though they do want to leave (hi& turnover intentions).
Decreased motivation and higher Ieamed helplessness will then reduce work effort (Le.,
neglect).
The mode1 explahed only 4% of the variance in neglect. Though this figure may
appear trivial, its consequences for a changing organization that requires employees to
perform at their peak during a risky period of its Life may be substantial. Even minuscule
performance decrements are Likely to have long-term consequences for financial and
individual outputs.
At the same tirne, it is not entirely surprishg that neglect accounts for relatively
iittle variance. There were a number of constraints that could be potentialiy attenuating
the importance of neglect. Fiirstly, the organizational literature to date suggests that
relations between work characteristics and attitudinal outcomes are generaliy higher than
relations to behaviourai outcomes because behaviour cm, to a large part, be constrained
by numerous orgaaizatioaal factors that do not seem to constrain attitudes (Spector,
1992). For instance, orgaLzizationai systems such as performance checks and individuai
accountability are likely to constrain display of sloppy w o k Extreme dereliction of duty
might result in suspension or other consequences. It is possible that such negligent
employees were simply not retained d u h g the rnerger process.
Arguably, it is also conceivable that neglect is better conceptualized as an index,
As such, an employee would only carry out select negligent behaviours from a range of
possible behaviours instead of endorsing ail behaviours to varying degrees. In any case, if
negligence is not normaily distributed in the population and if it is indeed better captured
as an index, there will be range restriction. This range restriction will, in turn attenuate
the correlations and reliability of the scale. The implication is that, if anything, the
prediction of negligence is underestimated in the current sample and actualiy plays a more
serious and weighty role in the change process than appears to be the case here.
Potential Limitations of the Studv
In spite of discussing the importance of neglect, due to &air cornparisons (Le.,
distributional nonequivalence and some procedurail non-equivalence) (Cooper &
Richardson, 1986), precise answers about the relative magnitude of the effects of the
variables in this study would be misieading and erroneous. Still, with this caution in
mind, the study does present some interesthg trends about the comparative strengths of
the variables. Amongst the three change initiatives, co~~llllunication was better at
predicting procedural justice relative to participation and job security (see Figure 3).
Similady, communication had the strongest direct affect on trust. Job securïty and
participation were virtudy equivdent in their success at engende~g trust. h contrast,
relative to communication, job security had the strongest impact on predicting openness
to change directiy. Participation did not p ~ d i c t openness to change duectly at aU, as
discussed previously. Looking M e r dong the process, the strongest relationships
appeared between procedurai justice and trust and then, between trust and turnover
intentions. It appears then that communication might be of primary importance in
instigating resistance. In turn, the role of fairness and trust are of importance if people are
to eventuaüy support the organizations goals- Still, a l i the other factors also add
legitimacy to the concept of resistance and suggest that there is a iink between
organizational change strategy and attitudinal and behavioural outcornes that thwart
strategic goals. Nonetheless, in the interests of encouraging faim comparisons, strong
conclusions must be forestalied.
Ali measures in this study are seIfIfreport scdes of organizational attitudes and
perceptions. The self-report method was appropriate for studying organizational
resistance to change because it is ultimately the percevtions of the organizationai change
that would weigh heavily on the attitudes held and behavioun conducted by employees.
As well, our fiadings converge with research from organizational as weli as social theory
(Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Lewin, 1947, as cited in Dent Br Goldberg, 1999; Sagie &
KoslowsS., 1996; Tyler, 1987; Tyler & Lind, 1992) lending support to the current
hdings. At the same time, future research might consider borrowing ideas of social
psychology's laboratory analogue experiments to simulate conditions of organizational
change to invoke resistance.
Of course, at no point c m causality be inferred because alternate explmations for
the relationships between variables and altemate models of resistance to change are
plausible with structural equation modehg (Kelloway, 1998). For instance, it is
possible that the direction of inferences to be reversed or shifted. It is also feasible that
trust interacts with any of the varïabIes in predicting procedural justice. As weli the
finding that the original fully-mediated mode1 did not fit as well as the alternative
partially-mediated does suggest that, if future theoreticai advances are made, other
models rnight offer a better fit.
Considering that survey research is inevitably plagued with method variance,
concems regarding its potentiai impact were contemplated. A source of method bias, the
influence of preceding questions, was not considered to be a source of method bias
because the attitudes king tapped are chronically accessible, and thus, context-
independent and stable (Schwarz, 1999). Though negative affectivity has been implicated
in the distortion of perceptions of the job, it is not a source of method bias. Rather, it
aHects the traits of the respondents (Spector & Brannick, 1995).
It is possible that social desirability is a source of method variance in this study
because the study investigated interpersonally sensitive information. With regards to
responses on the neglect scale, it is essential to acknowledge the probability that
respondents did underplay the hequency with which they are negligent. In order to lessen
the possible effects of social desirability, participants were assured of their anonymity and
confidentiality. Despite these assurances, the interpersonai sensitivity of some questions
(e-g., neglect) may have elicited inaccurate and edited behavioural reports. At the same
t h e , method variance in at least some instances of social desireability is as much a
function of the trait of the respondents as of the rnethod. It is difficuit to contrd for the
traits of the respondents. Spector and Brannick (1995) also report hdings from studies
suggesting that partialling social desireability nom correlations between self-report
rneasures have little effect on the magnitude of correlations. Generaiiy speaking, though
common method variance is ubiquitous in survey research, the degree of inflation of
correlation between variables is generdy quite s d (Spector & Brannick, 1995).
Because it is not the ovemding cause of observed relations, method variance, in itself,
cannot account for the consistency of the present hdings.
Some of the scales of reference and the range of possible scores varied across
measures. These clifferences were maintained to facilitate comparability across studies.
This comparability is paaicularly salient when frequency scales are used as referents
because variation in frequency scales cm greatly influence the reporting of behavioural
responses, degrading comparability across studies (Schwarz, 1999). At the same tirne,
the differences in response scales within the study are not expected to introduce rnethod
bias. The use of varied scales of reference is justined since the innuence of response
alternatives is more pronounced ody when respondents are asked to recaIi behaviours
that are poorly represented in their memory (Schwarz, 1999). That was not the case for
any of the measures utilized in this study.
Finally, a potentiai limitation to the generalizability of the present findings is the
low retum rate (34.75%). As is common with survey studies, without concrete
knowledge of reason for the low response rate, survey non-respondents could potentially
differ fÎom respondents in non-trivial ways, limitiag generalizability. Some clues as to
the demographics of the non-respondents and respondents are present that ailow
inferences about the extemal validity of the current study. hcomplete s w e y s that were
returned (3%) indicated that the primary reasons for non-response were either a lack of
eligibility to the inclusion criteria, heavy workloads that precluded completion of surveys
or doubts regarding confidentiality of the surveys. These findings of s w e y non-response
are in line with research that suggests that organizationai members are often skepticai of
academic promises of confidentiality (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 1994) or that employees
working in downsized environments might be feeiing disempowered and thus, are less
rnotivated to perfonn beyond their job descriptions maskovic-Devey et al., 1994).
Score distributions for the variables were also examined to detennine the characteristics
of participating employees. Typicaliy, very few participants perceived extreme threats to
their job securit., extremely high solicitation of participation or extreme breaches of
procedural faimess. As weii. none of the employees reported being very negligent. At
the same t h e , distributions spanned the range of possible scores for all the variables
(except neglect). Although it is diEcult to acquire knowledge of the distribution of these
organizational characteristics, there appears to be adequate representation at ail levels of
the variables under study, diminishing the possibility of a severe threat to extemai
validity. As weU, by virtue of the fact that survey research does measure change
outcomes as they actuaily exist in the field (i.e. perceptions), the current study has tested
exactly what it wants to generalize to.
Irn~Iications
The current study does not propose any new strategies for overcoming resistance
to change that generations of change strategists have not already postulated and practised.
Instead, this study lends credence to their theorizing by virtue of presenting one of the
b t direct empirîcal studies on resistance to change. As well, it advances the state of
current research by filüng in the gaps as to the precise process by which resistance can
rise and the specific organizationai outcomes that result.
The results of this study have implications for organizationai theory. The shidy
links resistance as a psychologicai concept that resides within the individuai to resistance
as a systems-based concept. On the surface, the current study appears to imply that it is
the employees who react with resistance to certain organizational change initiatives. At
f i t , this stance might appear to mn contrary to Lewin's force-field aoalysis (Lewin,
1947, as cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999) which suggests that it is systems-based forces
that raise barriers to change and that resistance resides within these systems and not
within the individual. However, similar to individuais, systems are essentiaIly orgaaized
sets of social roles and patterns of attitudes and behaviourai nomis. Nso, systems and
individuals share a common need for equilibrium and a desire to reinstate order in the
face of disequilibrium (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). With such overlap, perhaps systems-
based and psychologicaUy-based theories are not far removed fiom each other hplying
that resistance could corne fiom both employees and the system.
It is interesthg to recognize that employees in the current sample were harboring
sentiments that are counter-productive even one year after the merger has taken place.
Additionally, these sentiments are related to eady change initiatives. Such evidence
points organizations towards the importance of change preparation at the early stages and
cautions organizations agauist becoming lackadaisical af'ter "go-iive" festivities. During
the preparation stage, it must become customary to include employees (not just
management) in a stakeholder anaiysis to detennine where and why resistance is
onginating. If the nse of resistance can be stemmed in its formative stages of
development, post-implementation resistance c m be curtaiied. Carson and Gnffeth
(1990) have pointed out that the pst-implementation stage of change is the most strongly
associated with success. Therefore, cons ide~g that resistance can s u ~ v e for a long
time, follow-up evaluation strategies must also be planned to apprise institutions of
unresolved issues.
The current mode1 offers the possibility that there are actions that can curtail
resistance. An organization in transition could intemene at any one of the links in the
mode1 for instance, by initiating participative management, enhancing its trustworthiness
or dealing openly with job loss issues. Intervention though, must enhance efficacy of its
employees. For instance, organkations might need to prepare their employees to
participate in job-relevant decisions if employees are to make both process and
decisional-control. Furthemore, if a systems-based approach is embraced, employers
would need to scmtiuize their organkation for potential barriers to change acceptance
(e-g., prevalence of contradictory standards). By weakening these barriers equilibrÎum is
returned and resistance overcome.
This study also demonstrated the importance of procedural justice concerns in the
evaluation of various change initiatives and strategies. If the group-value theory is to be
accepted, there are implications for practice. This theory propounds that employers can
secure acceptance of change by king more considerate and fair. Tt has also been
suggested that procedurd concems supercede individual outcome concerns possibly
because they remain constant across repeated encounters (Tyler & Luid, 1992). However,
some encounters do not require repeated interactions, and yet procedural fairness of such
interactions have been shown to make a clifference in the voluntary acceptance of
decisions (Tyler & Lind, 1992). 1t would be worth investigating the role of procedural
justice concems in single-shot encounters.
As outlined eariier, the concept of resistance is tightly linked to organizational
goals. Any outcornes that thwart organizational goais can be interpreted as resistance.
Consequently, the specific indicaton of resistance are Iikely to Vary depending on the
specific goals of each change initiative. For example, in the absence of trust, an
organization might find its employees rallying for unionization in reaction to an
organizational change. This would be strong indicator of resistance. Research must take
care to select indicators of resistance that are tailored to the change king studied.
Future Directions
By its very nature, resistance is dehed as a latent construct with multiple
manifestations (e-g-, a lack of attitudinal openness, withdrawal cognitions, few extra-de
behaviours, turnover or negligence). As such, the multifaceted and two-component
nature of resistance would be ideai for future latent variable modelling. The use of latent
variables with multiple indicators wodd help iden@ dimensions of resistance and would
allow a powerfid and more accurate test of the relations among the antecedents,
consequences, and moderators of resistance. More information about the measurement
structure of resistance could contribute to an understanding of the process. Perhaps
different dimensions of resistance have different antecedents and consequences.
Research on resistance must ensure that altemate expressions of resistance are
investigated. For instance, the antithesis of negligence is prosociaüy motivated,
organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Obviously, OCB is the ideal expression of
dedication that would help organizations meet their objectives. It has been linked to the
enhancement of trust (Robinson & Momson, 1995) and organizational cornmitment
(Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Participation in decision makuig has also been Iinked to the
emergence of OCB (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Incorporation of O C ' into the definition
of resistance could greatly advance research and identification of its antecedents would
benefit organizational effectiveness,
With one exception, the modification indices generdy failed to suggest any major
mode1 respecifications, implying that the current mode1 was successfd in capniring most
of the relationships in the variables being examined. The exception was the suggestion
that communication should directly predict neglect. The fact that simple efforts to
maintain forthnght and ongoing communication could alleviate productivity problems is
promising and must be investigated fuaher. If this relationship is corroborated, it would
imply that organizations must invest in efforts more impactfid than quarterly newsletter-
type publications to keep employees informed of changes in their environment because
the results are tangible enough to affect the output of the organization.
Another positive step in the advancement ofresearch on resistance wouid be to
compare and contrast the current mode1 across groups such as management and
employees. As Dent & Goldberg (1999) suggest, both managers and employees are going
to be impacted equaily by organizational change. Yet, even if the resistance process
remains identicai for the two groups, the relative importance of the organizational
systems has been known to m e r across interest groups (Covin & Kilmann, 1990)
because of differential fiames of reference. Divergent interests might have implications -
management might stand to lose more power whereas employees might feel the effects of
a lack of leadership or training more strongly. Management might not be as cognizant of
the need for participation whereas participation may be primary on employee agendas.
Even investigations of the comparative effectiveness of change management strategies in
general would be very Uuminating. However, in order to ensure clear interpretation
regarding magnitude effects, such studies would have to ensure that procedural and
distributional equivalence are maintained (Cooper & Richardson, 1986).
Longitudinal saidies could be initiated for stage-based investigations of the
process of resistance to change. It has been suggested, for instance, that resistance should
be perceived as a positive reaction to change because it stimulates critical thinking and
innovation, thereby increasing chances that unwise endeavours will be flagged and
terminated prior to implementation (Merron, 1993). However, perhaps the positive
effects of resistance are only relevant during the initial "dieezing" stages of a change
when key sbategic decisions need to be made. In such a context, questioning the need for
change (aka, 6cresistance'') could lead to idea generation. Once the "refteezing" stage is
set in motion though, a lack of acceptance of the change is more subversive, as seen in the
current study.
A simiiar interpretation could apply to decisional- versus process-control. In the
eady stages, when large strategic decisions need to be made, employees might feel ill-
equipped to participate, prefe- to simply offer an opinion and instead to get more
directive feedback fiom its leadership (Le., psocesscontrol). However, once decisions
relatuig to their jobs corne to the forefiont in later stages of a large-scale change,
employees could justifiably want to have greater control (i-e., decisional-controI). This is
where differences in participative style and resistance could be notable. A longitudinal
study would be ideal for tackhg such stage-based questions.
Sumrnarv and Conclusions
There has never been a better tirne to corroborate the harsh effects of resistance to
change. Each week, merger announcements abound. The European economy is itching
to form collaborative economic relationships even as the North American economy forges
towards new industrial agreements. However, if history is a good forecaster, only a
fraction of these mergers will be successful. As well, analysts have noted that the
harmonization of worldwide accounting standards is going to Limit the retum on equity
gained fkom mergers (Tully, 1999).
Perhaps the reason success has remained elusive for changing organizations is
because of their exclusive concentration on economic, financial or strategic factors.
Instead, companies should reaiise that their change strategies have perpetuated huge
changes in stakeholder perspectives; that, in the context of fundamental and involuntary
change, employees are also changing theIr beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. By
increasing spending on employee-focussed initiatives, an organization cm gain great
competitive strength. Indeed, an organization such as Wd-Mart îs spending more on best
practices and democratic employee initiatives as it invades the European market (Fortune,
1999)- It is such accommodations that are accomting for its success more than the
acquisition of big chahs. Despite market skepticism about such tactics, competitive
advmtage is ofien gained through productivity gains (Kahn, 1999)-
References
Men, N.J. & Meyer, IP- (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment in the organization. Journal of Occu~ational
Psvcholow. 63, 1-1 8.
Antonioni. D. (1994). A new mode1 for organizational change. Oreankation -
Develo~ment Journal. 12 (32 17-22,
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creatuig readiness
for organizational change. Human Relations. 46 (a, 68 1-703.
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of
job insecurity: a theory-based measure and substantive test. Academv of Management
Journal. 32 (42 803-829.
Barling, J., Roger, A.G. & Kelloway, EX. (manuscript submitted for
publication). Behind closed doors: organizational and personal consequences of sexual
harassrnent and workplace violence for in-home workers.
Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Signincance tests and goodness of fit in
the analysis of covariance structures. Psvcholo~cal Bulletin. 88 (32 588-606.
Beugre, CD- (1998). Irnplementing business process re-engineering: the role of
organizational justice. Journal of A ~ d i e d Behavioural Science. 34 (3), 347-360.
Brief, A.P. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviours.
Academv of Management Review. 1 1 (4), 7 10-725.
Brocher, J., Grover, S., Reed, T E & &Witt, RL. (1992). Layoffs, job
insecurity, and survivors' work effort: evidence of an inverted-U relationship. The
Academv of Management JoumaI. 35 (21,413425.
Bronson, L. (199 1). S trategic change management. Organization Deveiooment
Journal. 9 (3),61-67.
Carson, KD. & GGriffeth, R.W. (1990). Changing a management information
system: Managing resistance by attending to the rights and responsibilities of employees.
Emalovee Reswnsibilities and Riehts JournaI. 3( 1 ), 47-58.
Cartwright, S. & Cooper, CL. (1994). The human effects of mergers and
acquisitions. Io C L Cooper & DM. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizationai
Behavior. 1, 47-6 1. West Sussex, UK: John Wiiey & Sons Ltd.
Cawley, B.D., Keephg, L.M. & Levy, PB. (1998). Participation in the
performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field
investigations. Journal of A ~ d i e d Psvcholow. 83 (41,6 15-633.
Coch, L. & French, I.R.P. (1948) Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations. 1 (41,512-532.
Combs, A.W. (198). New assumptions for educational reform. Educational
leaders hi^. 45 (s), 38-40.
Comor, P.E. & Lake, L.K. (1994). ManaPine organîzational chance* Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Cook J. & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organlzational
cornmitment and personal need non-fiilnlment. Journal of Occumtional Psvcholow. 53,
39-52.
Cooper, WH. & Richardson, A.J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of
A ~ ~ i i e d PsvchoIoev. 7 1 (21, 17% 184.
Corneii, JE. & Herman, S.M. (1989). Change or get changed. Oreanization
Deveio~ment Journd, 7 (4),76-8 1,
Covin, T.J., & Kilmann, R.H. (199 1). ProWg large-scale change efforts.
0 0 1-90..
Daly, J.P. (1995). Explaining changes to employees: the influence of
justifications and change outcomes on employees' faimess judgements. Journal of
A ~ ~ l i e d Behavioural Science. 3 1 (42 415-428.
Daly, J.P. & Geyer, P.D. (1994). The role of fairness in irnplementing large-scde
change: employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations.
Journal of Ormnizational Behaviour. 15,623-638-
Davy, LA., Kinicki, A.J- & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A test of job security's direct
and mediated effects on withdrawd cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 18,
323-349.
DeMeuse, K.P. & McDarïs, KK (1994, February). An exercise in managing
change. Traînin~ - & Develo~ment, 55-57.
Dent, EB. & Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change".
Journal of A ~ ~ l i e d Behavioiual Science. 35 (11,2541,
Dubrin, A.I. L kland, RD. (1993). Management and Or~anization, (2"6 ed.)
Cincinnati, OH: South Western.
Fioreilï, J.S. & Margolis, H. (1993). Managing and understanding large systems
change: Guidelines for executives and change agents. Or~anization Develooment
JoumaI. 11 (31, 1-13,
Fishbein, M. & Azjen, 1. (1975)- Beiief. Attitude. Intention and Behaviour: an
Introduction to Theorv and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Folger, R & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distnîutive
justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academv of Manaeement Journal. 32, 115-
130.
Goldstein, J. (1989). The affirmative core of resistance to change. Organization
Develo~ment Journal. 7 (I),32-38.
Goodyear, B.S. (1990). Resistance to change, expectancies and dimensions of
personaiity in psychoactive substance abuse disorders: a construct validity study of the
Concems About Change scale. Dissertation Abstracts International. 5 1 (1 1 8 ) 5574.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academv
of Manarrement Review. 12 (1),9-22.
Greenhalgh, L. (1983). Managing the job insecurity crisis. Human Resource
Management. 22,43 1-4-44
Greenhaigh, L. & Rosenblatt, 2. (1984). Job insecuity: toward conceptual
clarity. Academv of Manaeement Review. 9 (3), 438-448.
Guest, DE. (1998). k the psychologicai contract worth taking seriously?
Journal of Or~anizational - Behaviour. 19,649-664,
Hepburn, C.G. & Barling, J. (1996). Eldercm responsibiüties, interrde codiict
and employee absence: a daily study. Journal of Occu~ational Heaith P s v c h o l o u 3 1 1-
3 18.
Hinsz, VB. & Nelson, L.C. (1989). Testing modds of turnover intentions with
university faculty. Journal of A~alied Social Psvchology. 2 21 11 ), 68-84.
Hogan, E.A. & Overmeyer-Day, L. (1994). The psychology of mergers and
acquisitions. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), htemational Review of Industriai
and Orizanizational Psvcholow. 9,247-28 1. West Sussex, UK: John WiIey & Sons.
Hom, P.W., Caranilcas-WaLker, F, Prussia, GE. & Griffeth, R.W. (1992). A
meta-anaiytical Structural Equations analysis of a mode1 of employee turnover. Journal
of A ~ ~ l i e d Psvchology. 77 (a, 890-909.
Jacobson, D. & Hartiey, J. (199 1). Mapping the context. In J. Hadey, D.
Jacobson, B. Klandennans, & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.) Job insecuritv: co~ine with iobs at
risk, (chap. 1). London: Sage.
Kahn, 1. (1999, June 7). Wal-Mart Shops in Europe. Fortune, 105-1 12.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psycholow of Or9anizations. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kilboume, L.M., O'Leary-KeUy, AM. & Williams, S .D. (1996). Employee
perceptions of fairness when human resource systems change: The case of employee
layoffs. Io R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (Eck.) Research in Or~anizaîional Chans
and Deveio~ment. 9,49-80. Greenwich, JAI Press.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, DM, & Sapienza, H.J. (1995). Building
cornmitment, attachent and trust in strategic decision-making tearns: the role of
procedural justice. Academv of Management Journal. 38 11 ),60-84-
Kotter J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard
Business Review. Mar/A~r.= 106-1 14.
Lahey, M.A. & Kuhnert, W. (1988). The m e d g and measure of job security.
In R. Sims (Chair), TechnoIonical innovation and its im~act on todav's em~lovees.
Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of Operations Research Society of
Americf ie Institute for Management Science, Washington, DC.
Leck, J.D. & Saunders, DM. (1992). Hirschman's loyalty: attitude or behaviour?
Ern~lovee Reswnsibilities and Riehts Journal. 5 (3), 2 19-230.
Lewis, L.K & Seibold, D R (1996). Communication during intra-organizationai
innovation adoption: predicting users' behaviourai coping responses to innovations in
organizations. Communication Monogra~hs. 63, 13 1-157.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative mode1 of
organizational trust. Academv of Management Review. 20 (3), 709-734.
McEvoy, G.M. & Cascio, WF. (1987). Do good or poor performers leave? A
rneta-analysis of the relationship between performance and turnover. Academv of
744-762.
Merron, K. (1993). Let's bory the term resistance. Oreanization Develooment
Journal, 11 (42 77-86-
Miller, ELL & Monge, PB. (1986). Participation. satisfaction and productivity: a
meta-analytic review. Academv of Management - Journal. 29 (42 727-753,
Moorman, R.H- (199 1). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviours: do faimess perceptions innuence employee
citizenship? Journal of A ~ d i e d Psvchologv. 76,845-855.
Napier, N.K. (1989). Mergers and acquisitions, human resource issues and
outcornes: a review and suggested typology, Journal of Management Studies. 26 (32
27 1-289.
O'Quinn, K. & Lo Tempio, S. (1998). lob satisfaction and intentions to turnover
in human services agencies perceived as stable or non-stable- Perce~tual and Motor
Skills. 86, 339-344.
Oxford Modem Endish dictionarv (1992). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Porras, LI., & Robertson, P.J. (199 1). Organization development: Theory,
practice an research. In M. D. Dumette & LM. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psvcholow. 3, (20d ed.), 7 19-822. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psyc hologists Press.
Rentsch, J.R. & Schneider, B. (199 1). Expectations of post-combination
organizational life: A study of responses to rnerger and acquisition scenarios. Journal of
A ~ ~ i i e d Social Psvcholow. - - 21 (31,233-252,
Robinson, S.L. & Momson, E.W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: the
effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic vimie behaviour. Journal of Oreanizational
Behaviour. 16,289-298.
Robinson, SL. & Rousseau, DM. (1994). Violating the psychological contract:
not the exception but the nom. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 15,245-259.
Rosenblatt, 2. & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensionai modd of job
insecurity: the case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 17,587-
605.
Sachs, S M. (1994). Building trust in democratic organizations- P s y c h o l o ~
Journal of Human Behaviour. 3 1 (22 35-44.
Sagie, A. & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizationai attitudes and behavioun as a
function of participation in strategic and tacticai change decisions: an application of path-
goal theory. Journal of Or9anizational Behaviour. 15,3747.
Sagie, A. & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision Type, Organisational control, and
acceptance of change: an integrative approach to participative decision making. A~oiied
Psvcholoev: an International Review. 45 (l), 85-92.
Schmidt, W.& & F i g a n , I.P. (1992). The race without a finish line. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwarz, N. (1999). How the questions shape the answers. American
Psvcholorrist, 54 (2), 93-105.
Schweiger, DM. 8r DeNisi, AS. (1991). Communication with employees
following a rnerger: a longitudinal field expeiment. Academv of Management Journal,
34 (1). 1 10-135.
Schweiger, DM. & Walsh, J.P. (1990). Mergers and acquisitions: an
interdisciplinary view. In G.R. Fems & K-M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Mana~ement. - 8,4t-107. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc-
Scully, J.S., Kirkpahick, S.A. & Locke, EA. (1995). Locus of knowledge as a
determinant of the effects of participation on performance, affect and perceptions.
Orrranizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 6 1,276-288 -
Seashore, SE., Lawler, EE., Mirvis, P., &Cammann, C- (Eds.) (1982)
Observin~ and measurine - oreanizational change: A mide to field oractice. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Shore, L.M. & Tetrick, L- (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory
h e w o r k in the employment relationship. In C. Cooper, & D. Rousseau (Eds.) Trends
in Oreanizational Behaviour. 9,91-109. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Spector, P.E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies
conceming autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations. 39 (1 1). 1005-10 16.
Spector, P.E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report
measures of job conditions. In C L Cooper & LT. Robertson Gds.), International
Review of Industrial and Or~anizational Psvcholo~;~~ 7,123-152. West Sussex, UK: John
Wiley & Sons.
Spector, PB. & Brannick, M.T. (1995). The nature and effects of method
variance in organizational research- Io CL, Cooper & LT. Robertson (Eds.), International
Review of industrial and Or~anizationd Psvcholow. 10,249-274. West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
Susskind, A.M., Miller, V.D. & Johnson, J D . (1998). Downsizing and structural
holes: their impact on Iayoff survivors' perceptions of organizational chaos and openness
to change. Communication Research. 25 (11,30-65.
Tomaskovic-Devely, D., Leiter, J. & Thompson, S. (1994). Orgaaizational
survey non-response. Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 39.439457.
Tuily, S. ( 1999, Iune 7). It's time for merger mania II. Fortune, 23 1-232.
Tyler, T.R. (1987). Conditions leading to valueexpressive effects in judgements
of procedurai justice: a test of four models.
52 (2). 333-344.
Tyler, TP. & Lind E.A. (1992). A relational mode1 of authority in groups. In
M.P. Zama (Ed.), Advances in ex~erimental social ~svcholow. 25, 1 15- 19 1. San Diego,
USA: Academic Press.
Vroom, V. (1959). Some Personalitv Determinants of the Effects of
Partici~ation. Englewood Clif fs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Whithey, M. J. & Cooper, WH. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and
neglect. Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 34,52 1-539.
Young, M.. & Post, JE. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to
manage: How Leading companies communicate with employees. Or~anizational
Dvnamics. 22(1), 3 143.
Appendix
Complete S w e y Package Ad-stered to Sample
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL AND APPTED HUMAN SCIENCES Depumient of Psychology
Dear Sir/Madam:
M y name is Anuradha Chawla 1 a m a Master's student at the University of Guelph. 1 am currently conducting research in coilaboration with the University to assess employees' perceptions of change within their organization and the aspects that they believe to be crihcai for making the change successfiil, Specifically, the merger between CSS and FACS and the Enhanced Parinership Project involving 0MAF;RA and the University might have required you to make adjustrnents in your work environment, As weU, the mi-versity wouId Eilre to*use this tool to assess the strengths and short£omings of the changes instituted. This survey allows you the opporRmity to provide feedback on issues tbat mïght be of continuhg concem for you-
Please be assured that the data-king coliected wiii be kept compIetedy anonyrnous and confidential (please do NOT ut vour narne anvwhere). Only my advisor and 1 sball have access to the completed questiomaires. The data will be used for research purposes ody. The Monnation reported by you d l NOT be used for pirrposes of performance evaluation, negotiatioos, etc. Ln a brief fmal report to the university, analysis of the data wiU be reported in the fonn of group totais ody - individual attitudes will NOT be reported. Also, you may acquire a copy of the report at any t h e for your information. Thus, 1 hope you wiii feel free to be completely honest in your evaluation of the &anges and your work attitudes.
The survey will take 45 minutes for you to cornplete, PIease retum the survev within ONE week A r e m envelope is enclosed in the package. Of course, participation is completely voluntary, CompIeting and returnïng the survey will be taken as consent to have your data used in the study. Although I hope that you feel cordortable answerïng all the questions, feel fiee to disregard any question that you are uncomfortable answering. If you prefer to opt out of participation, 1 would greatly appreciate it if you could at Ieast complete Question 10 on the demopphics page (page 1) and return the package. Thank you so much for taking this study into consideration. 1 sincerely appreciate it.
Should you require fiirther information about the study or would like a of the results (avdable in May, 1999), p!ease feel free to contact me at (5 19) 824-4120 Ext 893 1, or by e-mail (achawla@uoguelph,ca)~ Altemately, the project supervisor, Dr- Kevin Kellowajr may also be contacted at (519) 824-4120 Ext, 4475 or via e-mail (kelIoway@css,uoguelph~ca),
Sincerely, _
M.A, Candidate Indus~aVOrganizational Psychology
OAC Dean's Office Act. Director Lab Semkes
/ ~ g e c t b f ~ . &rifood Resource Program .
G U W H O N T . CANADA NIG 2Wl (5 191 8244120 FAX <S 19) 837-8629
Demographks
Please complete the foilowing demographic information. Please be assured that none of this
information will breach confidentiaiity- If you prefer not to participate, couid you piease at ieast
complete Ouestion 10 and retum the package to the researcher. Thank you!
Age 2) Gender M F -
PIease indicate your employee group:
Exempt S tafF Association Professionai/ManageriaI
Faculty Association CoIlege Academic Research Group (CARG)
Other
Department/Division you work for?
Location at which you currently work?
AIfred- KemptviUe Ridgetown U. of Guelph m.IO
Other
Current Position:
Office/Support Staff Lab Tech
Facuity College Instructor
Senior Administration Unit Head (e-g. of department)
ProfessionaVManageriaI Other
Number of years under current supervisor? years
Regular Full-Time position Reguiar Part-time
SessionaLIContracüTemp.
Before the changes, were you working for a department and/or division affected by either
the merger between CSS & FACS OR by the creation of the Enhanced Partnership
Projec t between OMAFRA and the University?
a) YES - in the same job b) YES - but in a different job
Demographics (continued)
NO - 1 was working in a completely different department/division
NO - I was employed elsewhere
you do not need to proceed hicther. If TES'', please complete the remainder of
the questiomaire. Thank you for your co-operation!).
10) Reason for not participahg in study (if choosing to opt out)?
Opemess to Change scale
Note that the questions specificaily refer to the Merger of CSS & FACS or the EPP that occurred
recently. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following scde items.
1 2 3 4 5 S trongiy Disagree Neither agree nor AfPe Strondy Disagree Disagree Agre
1 would consider myself "open" to the recent changes brought to my work role by the
MergerEPP.
Right now, 1 am somewhat resistant to any changes in my work role.
1 am quite reluctant to consider changing the way 1 now do my work
1 think the irnplementation of the recent changes (MergerEPP) positively effects how I
accomplish my work
From my perspective, the recent change (Merger/EPP) was for the better.
The changes (MergerIEPP) are for the worst in accomplishing my work.
The changes (MergedEPP) are negatively impacting how 1 perfonn my work role.
Note. Reproduced £iom "Downsizing and structural holes: their impact on layoff survivoa'
perceptions of organizational chaos and openness to change," by A.M. Susskind VD. Miller, &
J-D. Johnson, 1998, Communication Research. 25 (1),30-65.
Negiect scale
The statements below describe actions employees take h m time to time in the workplace.
Indicate your own fkauencv of exbenence with each action.
1 2 3 4 5 Never Considered Considered Engaged in Engaged in Engaged in this action but reiected action very action action
this action infrequenty occasionaUy fkquentiy
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9-
10.
II.
12.
Note.
Waited, hoping any problems would solve themselves-
Cded in sick in order to not deal with what was happening.
Came in late to avoid some problems-
Left early,
Took unauthorized, extended lunch breaks.
Said nothing to others if 1 noticed a problem, assuming things would work out.
Became less interested and made more errors.
Didn't pass on messages to others.
Foiiowed rules to the letter of the law of "work to de" .
Covered up my mistakes.
Stayed out of sight to avoid work.
Intentionaiiy worked slowly.
Adapted £iom "Behind closed doors: organizational and personal consequences of sexual
harassrnent and workplace violence for in-home workers," by J. Barling, A.G. Roger, & E.K.
Kelloway, (manuscript submitted for publication).
Note. Adapted from 'Eldercare responsibilities, interrole conflict and employee absence: a daily
study," by C.G. Hepburn, Br J. Barling, 1996, Jownd of Occuvational Health Psvcholow. 1,
3 11-3 18.
Note. Adapted from "Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect," by M.J. Whithey & WH.
Cooper, 1989, Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 34, 52 1-539.
Job Security scale
The following statements are designed to measure your current job. Please indicate the extent to
which you a m or disame with each statement by circhg the number that you fed best
represents your views. Please c h i e one and odv one number for each item on the swev.
1 2 3 4 5 S tron& Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree A-
I can keep my current job for as long 1 want it.
If 1 wanted to, 1 could easily find a comparable job elsewhere.
This job has retirement security-
1 have been actively recniited by other employers in the past year.
Management has been threatening to close the organization 1 work at for so long now
that no one listens anyrnore.
If 1 lost my job, 1 would be employed elsewhere within a short tirne.
1 am not really sure now long rny present job wîli last.
If my particular job were phased out, the university would try very hard to place me in
another position.
Rumors that the department/division 1 work for wiU close are just rumors.
1 can be sure of my present job as long as 1 do good work.
If 1 were laid off £tom my current job, 1 would probably have to relocate to find
comparable employment.
There would be obvious signs if the department/division 1 work for were going to close.
There is a real need for my position at this university.
I have enough power at thïs university to control events that might affect my job.
1 can prevent negative things from affecting my work situation.
1 understand this university well enough to be able to control things that affect me.
Job Security scale
Note. Reproduced h m "Content, causes and consequences of job insecurity: a theory-based - measure and substantive test," 1989, by S.J. Ashford, Cs Lee & P. Bobko, 1989, Academv of
Management Journal. 32 (4h 803-829.
Note. Reproduced fiom "The meaning and measure of job secunty," by M. A- Lahey & K.W.
Kuhnert, 1988, in Technolo~cal innovation and its im~act on todav's em~lovees, Symposium
conducted at the National Meeting of Operations Research Society of A m e n c f i e hstitute for
Management Science, Washington, DC-
Participation ScaIe
PIease Note That AU the Foilowing Scaies Are to Be S c o d on a 7 4 n t Sde.
Referring to the Merger of CSS & FACS or the Enhanced Partnership Project (EPP) that has
taken place, please recall the degree and nature of partici~ation enlisted h m you and indicate
the extent to which you agree or disagree with the foIIowing .
2 3 4 5 6 S trongly Disagree SLightly Neither agree Slightly A p e S ~ W ~ Y 1 1 Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree I
1. 1 felt that 1 had input in the decisions made drrring the change process.
2. My opinion had been solicited regarding problems involving the change process.
3. If1 had a suggestion to make about improving the change, it was easy for me to get my
ideas across.
4. 1 feel that the university took my concems about the changes seriously.
Note. Adapted from 'The roIe of faimess in implementing large-scale change: employee - evduations of process and outcome in seven faciLity relocations," by J.P. Daly & PD. Geyer,
1994, Journal of Oreanizational Behaviour. 15,623-638.
Note. Adapted fkom Some Personalitv Determinants of the Effects of Particioation, by V. - Vroom, 1959, Englewwd Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail.
Conununication sale
Referrïng to the Merger of CSS & FACS or the Enhanced Partnership Ekject (EPP) that has
taken place, please recd the degree and nature of information communicated to you about the
change and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the foIIowing statements.
I Disa- Disagree nor Disagree I
The need for the change (MergerEPP) was M l y explained.
Importaut information about the changes(Merger/EPP) that were to take place was
communicated.
The information communicated clarified any ambiguiîy about the impending chaages.
Information about the change (MergedEPP) has k e n consistent.
Mormation about the change has been communicated continually.
Questions that employees have had about the changes (Merger/EPP), have been answered
cleariy . In general, it was clear why change (MergedEPP) was necessary.
The benefits of the change for aII em~Iovees have been communicated.
The benefits of the change for my iob have been clearly communicated.
In general, 1 have had a clear understanding of the change process.
The means by which the change (MergerEPP) would take place were clearly
communicated.
From the information commmicated during the Merger/EPP, it was apparent that we
would be able to carry out the changes,
Procedurai Justice sale
Indicate the degree to which you aaee or disasme with the foliowing statements.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S trongly Disagree Siightiy Neither agree Slightly Al?= Smn@y Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree APee
If 1 laid a cornplaint about a work issue, the university would ... 1. CoUect accurate information necessary for decision making.
2. Provide opportunities to appeal or challenge the decision.
3. Have ai i sides affecteci by the decision represented.
4. Follow standards or policies so that decisions could be made consistentiy.
5. Hear the concems of al i those affected by the decision.
6. Provide useful information regarding the decision and its implementation.
7. AUow for requests for clarification of additional information about the decision.
8. Ensure that privacy of ail those involved was protected.
Note. Reproduced fiom "Relationship between organizational justice and organizational - citizenship behaviours: do fairness perceptions innuence employee citizenship?," by R.H.
Moonnan, R.H., 199 1, Journal of A~alied Psycholow. 76,845-855.
Turnover Identions scale
Indicate the degree to which you aeree or d i s a m with the following statements:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S trongly Disagree Slightiy Neither agree Slïghtly AiFe S trongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree A-
1 often think about leaving rny current job.
It is quite Uely that 1 will look for another job in the next year.
Over the last few months, 1 have spent some tune looking for a new job.
1 expect to leave my job in the near future.
I have discussed the possibiiity of leaving my job with a fkiend or famüy member (e-g.
spouse, sibling),
1 have discussed the possibility of my leaving my job with a professional (e-g- human
resowce professional, recruiting company) . I often think that 1 would enjoy leaving the university.
Note. Reproduced fkom Observin~ - and measurin~ oreanizationd change: A a i d e - to field
practice, by S.E. Seashore, EE. Lawler, P. Muvis & C. Cammam, 1982, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Note. Adapted fiom 'CBehind closed doors: organizational and personal consequences of sexual
harassrnent and workplace violence for in-home workers," by I. Barling, A.G. Roger, & E.K.
KelIoway, (manuscript submitted for publication).
Tmst scaie
Indicate the de- to which you aeree or disaeree with the foliowing statements.
2 3 4 5 6 Disagree SIightly Neither agree Slightly A- S trongiy ' 1
I Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree A w e I 1. The university is sincere in its attempt to meet the employees' viewpoint
2. This university has a poor fûture uniess it can attract better management.
3. The university c m be tmsted to make sensible decisions for the future.
4. The university seems to do an efficient job.
5. 1 feel quite confident that the University will aiways try to treat me fairly.
6. The univeaity would be quite prepared to gain advantage by deceiving the workers.
Note. Reproduced fiom "New work attitude measures of trust, organizational cornmitment and
personal aeed non-fulfilment," by J. Cook & T. Wail. 1980, Journal of Occuoational
Scope of Change questions
If you are in a mana~erial msition or are a unit head, please complete the following. Thank you.
1. Please corroborate whether you would consider the Merger between FACS and CSS OR
the changes brought about by the Enhanced Partnership Project to match the foilowing
statement:
The Merger/Enhanced Partnership Project can be described as a "lone-tem,
com~rehensive intervention focussed on the realimment of muiti~le submstems
(e.g. rewards, management style, structure, strategy, etc.) to enable the
organization to actively adapt to its extemal environment".
YES NO
2. Please indicate the extent to which foIIowîng five types of environmental change did take
place as a result of the Merger 1 Enhanced Partnership Project:
1 2 3 4 5 No Change Small degree Moderate degree High Degree Compie tely
of change of change of change changed
1, Organizational S trategy
2 . Organizational S tmcture
3 . Organizational Processes
4. Organizational Culture
REMINDER NOTICE!!!!! Dear Sir/Madam:
HeUo! This is just a fiïendly reminder to those of you who were willing to complete the swey on the organizational changes that resulted fiom the merger between CSS & FACS or the Enhanced Partnership Project between OMAERA and the University. If you could please complete and retum the survey as soon as possible, it would be greatiy appreciated. If you have already done so, please know that 1 sincerely appreciate your support and participation.
MA. candidate IndusaiavOrganizational Psychology University of Guelph