a perception-based view of the employee: a study of ...file/... · a perception-based view of the...

A Perception-Based View of the Employee: A Study

of Employees’ Reactions to Change

DISSERTATION of the University of St. Gallen,

Graduate School of Business Administration, Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG)

to obtain the title of Doctor of Business Administration

submitted by

Chaiporn Vithessonthi

from

Thailand

Approved on the application of

Prof. Dr. Markus Schwaninger and

Prof. Dr. Günter Müller-Stewens

Dissertation no. 3040

D-Druck-Spescha, St. Gallen 2005

The University of St Gallen, Graduate School of Business Administration, Economics, Law

and Social Sciences (HSG) hereby consents to the printing of the present dissertation,

without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed.

St Gallen, January 20, 2005

The President:

Prof. Dr. Peter Gomez

i

Abstract

Drawing on several theoretical perspectives (e.g., individual motivation, behavioral

decision-making, social exchange theories, organizational justice theories, social cognition,

institutional theories and neoclassical economics theories) from different disciplines (e.g.,

organizational psychology, strategic management, and economics), this dissertation

developed a perception-based approach to examine a possibility that employees’ perceptions

and/or attitudes will be associated with their decisions in an organizational setting.

Specifically, this dissertation examined the effects of employees’ perceptions and/or

attitudes on their reactions to organizational change.

This dissertation addressed two major research questions relevant to organizational

change management, organizational behavior and applied psychology. First, it addressed a

question of what perceptions and/or attitudes influence employees’ resistance to change.

Second, it addressed a question of what perceptions and/or attitudes influence employees’

support for change? This was done by drawing on several theoretical perspectives and

examining relationships between perception and/or attitude variables and resistance to

change and support for change.

Based on data obtained from two samples of respondents from two different settings

(i.e., a downsizing in Study 1 and a privatization in Study 2), this dissertation found

significant relationships between perceptions and/or attitudes and resistance to change

and/or support for change. The findings provide some empirical support for the perception-

based view of the employee. Using multinomial ordered probit modeling, some perceptions

and/or attitudes were found to be significantly predictive of employees’ reactions to change.

The potential practical value of using perceptions and/or attitudes as predictors of

employees’ reactions to change is discussed, as are implications and suggestions for future

research.

ii

Acknowledgements

This dissertation began with a conversation with Professor Dr. Markus Schwaninger, a

professor of management at the University of St. Gallen, in the summer of 2003, when I was

about to finalize my master’s degree in international management at the same university.

During this conversation we discussed organizational change, and since I had thought that it

might make an interesting piece of research, I asked him about the possibility to write the

dissertation that lies before you today. As I expected, his response was clear, insightful,

interesting, and encouraging. He enthusiastically agreed to supervise my dissertation and

told me to proceed with my ideas. So it began.

I am reminded as I finalize these notes of my good fortune in being able to do

something I enjoy, and to complete my research. It is the rarest of privileges for me, with

my limited ability, to do that in a relatively short span of time; this seems tremendously

precious to me. But this work could not have been completed without support from many

people. I owe a debt of gratitude to the 315 respondents who took time out of their busy

schedules to complete and return the questionnaire. I am extremely grateful to Prof. Dr.

Markus Schwaninger, who has been not only the referee for this dissertation but also my

mentor throughout the past years, for offering his invaluable help, comments, perspectives,

and suggestions, and for showing great interest in my research. Undoubtedly, he has pointed

me in the direction of a fascinating landscape, not for the first time and, I hope, not for the

last.

I also want to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Dr. Günter Müller-Stewens,

who has magnanimously taken time out of his busy schedule to become the co-referee, for

offering his valuable insights and perspectives on the theoretical, methodological and

empirical aspects of my dissertation. I am very grateful to Dr. Klaus Edel as well, not only

for offering his valuable suggestions and solutions to statistical issues with enthusiasm, but

also for allowing me to use his computer and statistical applications. I am also grateful to

Silke Bucher, Bernd Beuthel, and Jasmina Hasanbegovic for their thoughtful and

constructive feedback on earlier versions of this dissertation. And, of course, I thank Linda

Roberts, my editor and proofreader, at Western Illinois University, who shouldered the

editorial and proofreading work on my unpolished lines of English. Last but not least, I

would like to thank my parents for their love, incredibly great confidence, and unbounded

support throughout the course of this journey and beyond.

Basel, January 2005 Chaiporn Vithessonthi

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract .....................................................................................................................................i

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................ii

List of Tables...........................................................................................................................vi

List of Diagrams and Figures ............................................................................................... viii

List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................x

1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

1.1. Research Issues ...........................................................................................................1

1.2. Research Questions.....................................................................................................3

1.3. The Importance of the Research Questions................................................................6

1.4. The Scope of the Dissertation.....................................................................................8

1.5. The Intended Contributions of this Dissertation.......................................................10

2. Core Concepts and Relevant Literature ........................................................................12

2.1. Theories of Change...................................................................................................12

2.2. Perceptions................................................................................................................16

2.3. Attitude .....................................................................................................................19

2.4. Emotion.....................................................................................................................21

2.5. Individual Decision-Making.....................................................................................23

2.6. Reactions to Change .................................................................................................27

3. Theoretical Development and Research Model ............................................................31

3.1. Perception-Based View of the Employee.................................................................32

3.2. Research Model and Hypotheses..............................................................................35

3.2.1. Perceived Organizational Support .....................................................................38

3.2.2. Perceived Procedural Justice..............................................................................40

3.2.3. Perceived Participation in Decision-making......................................................42

3.2.4. Perceived Need for Change ...............................................................................45

3.2.5. Attitude towards Organizational Change...........................................................48

3.2.6. Fear of Known Consequences of a Change .......................................................50

3.2.7. Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change ...................................................52

3.2.8. Perceived Change in Power ...............................................................................54

3.2.9. Perceived Change in Status................................................................................56

3.2.10. Perceived Change in Pride .................................................................................58

3.2.11. Job Satisfaction ..................................................................................................60

3.2.12. Job Security........................................................................................................62

iv

3.2.13. Job Motivation ...................................................................................................64

3.2.14. Perceived Employability....................................................................................66

3.2.15. Self-Confidence for Career-Relevant Learning.................................................69

3.2.16. Affective Commitment ......................................................................................71

3.2.17. Trust in Management .........................................................................................73

3.2.18. Colleagues’ Reactions to Change ......................................................................75

4. Research Methodology..................................................................................................77

4.1. Context, Sample and Procedure................................................................................78

4.1.1. Study 1 – Context, Sample and Procedure ........................................................78

4.1.2. Study 2 – Context, Sample and Procedure ........................................................79

4.2. Alternative Methods of Data Analysis .....................................................................80

4.3. The Multinomial Ordered Probit Model...................................................................81

4.4. Measures of Theoretical Constructs .........................................................................83

4.4.1. Dependent Variables..........................................................................................83

4.4.2. Independent Variables .......................................................................................84

4.4.3. Control Variables ...............................................................................................87

4.5. Data Analysis Procedures .........................................................................................87

5. Results and Discussion..................................................................................................89

5.1. Study 1 – Results and Discussion.............................................................................89

5.1.1. Analyses of Correlations among Dependent Variables .....................................89

5.1.2. Analyses of Correlations among Independent Variables...................................90

5.1.3. Results for Hypotheses – The Multinomial Ordered Probit Models .................94

5.1.4. Discussion of Study 1 ......................................................................................106

5.2. Study 2 – Results and Discussion...........................................................................108

5.2.1. Analyses of Correlations among Dependent Variables ...................................109

5.2.2. Analyses of Correlations among Independent Variables.................................110

5.2.3. Results for Hypotheses – The Multinomial Ordered Probit Models ...............114

5.2.4. Discussion of Study 2 ......................................................................................127

5.3. General Discussion .................................................................................................131

5.3.1. Key Contributions of the Dissertation .............................................................131

5.3.2. Limitations to this Dissertation........................................................................136

5.3.3. Implications and Directions for Future Research ............................................138

5.3.4. Implications and Directions for Practice .........................................................139

6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................140

References ............................................................................................................................142

Appendices ...........................................................................................................................165

v

Appendix A: Questionnaire Survey Items for Studies 1 and 2.........................................165

Appendix B: Study 1 – Diagrams and Correlations .........................................................171

Appendix C: Study 2 – Diagrams and Correlations .........................................................195

Appendix D: Additional Regression Analyses for Study 2 ..............................................219

Curriculum Vitae..................................................................................................................236

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Alternative Regression Models ...............................................81

Table 2: Study 1 – Correlations for All Final Variables.....................................................93

Table 3: Study 1 – Regression Results of Active Resistance to Change............................95

Table 4: Study 1 – Regression Results of Passive Resistance to Change...........................96

Table 5: Study 1 – Regression Results of Active Support for Change...............................97

Table 6: Study 1 – Regression Results of Passive Support for Change ..............................98

Table 7: Study 2 – Correlations for All Final Variables...................................................113

Table 8: Study 2 – Regression Results of Active Resistance to Change..........................115

Table 9: Study 2 – Regression Results of Passive Resistance to Change.........................116

Table 10: Study 2 – Regression Results of Active Support for Change.............................117

Table 11: Study 2 – Regression Results of Passive Support for Change ...........................118

Table 12: Summary of Results for Hypotheses in Study 1 and Study 2.............................132

Table 13: Study 1 – Correlations for All Dependent Variables..........................................182

Table 14: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Resistance.....................................................183

Table 15: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Resistance (cont.) .........................................184


Table 17: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Resistance ...................................................186

Table 18: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Resistance (cont.)........................................187


Table 20: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Support .........................................................189

Table 21: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Support (cont.)..............................................190


Table 23: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Support........................................................192

Table 24: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Support (cont.) ............................................193


Table 26: Study 2 – Correlations for Dependent Variables................................................206

Table 27: Study 2 – Correlations for Active Resistance.....................................................207






Table 33: Study 2 – Correlations for Active Support .........................................................213

vii



Table 36: Study 2 – Correlations for Passive Support........................................................216



Table 39: Summary of Regression Results of Indicators for Resistance to Change ..........223

Table 40: Summary of Regression Results of Indicators for Support for Change .............224

Table 41: Regression Results of Active Resistance to Change 1 .......................................225



Table 44: Regression Results of Passive Resistance to Change 1 ......................................227



Table 47: Regression Results of Active Support for Change 1 ..........................................230



Table 50: Regression Results of Passive Support for Change 1.........................................233



viii

List of Diagrams and Figures

Figure 1: Dimensions for Categorization of Reactions to Change ......................................29

Figure 2: A Categorization of Reactions to Change ............................................................30

Figure 3: Alternative Models Relating Perceptions and Reactions to Change ....................31

Figure 4: Conceptual Diagram of the ‘Direct Effects’ Model .............................................37

Figure 5: Five Stages of Organizational Decline .................................................................46

Figure 6: Summary of Measures of Reactions to Change....................................................84

Figure 7: Summary of the Sequence of Data Analysis ........................................................88

Figure 8: Study 1 - Indicators for Active Resistance to Change........................................171

Figure 9: Study 1 - Indicators for Passive Resistance to Change ......................................171

Figure 10: Study 1 - Indicators for Active Support for Change...........................................172

Figure 11: Study 1 - Indicators for Passive Support for Change .........................................172

Figure 12: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Organizational Support................................173

Figure 13: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Procedural Justice........................................173

Figure 14: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Participation in Decision-Making ...............174

Figure 15: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Need for Change..........................................174

Figure 16: Study 1 - Indicators for Attitude towards Organizational Change .....................175

Figure 17: Study 1 - Indicators for Fear of Known Consequences of a Change .................175

Figure 18: Study 1 - Indicators for Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change .............176

Figure 19: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Power .........................................176

Figure 20: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Status ..........................................177

Figure 21: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Pride ...........................................177

Figure 22: Study 1 - Indicators for Job Satisfaction ............................................................178

Figure 23: Study 1 - Indicators for Job Security ..................................................................178

Figure 24: Study 1 - Indicators for Job Motivation..............................................................179

Figure 25: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Employability ..............................................179

Figure 26: Study 1 - Indicators for Self-Confidence for Learning.......................................180

Figure 27: Study 1 - Indicators for Affective Commitment.................................................180

Figure 28: Study 1 - Indicators for Trust in Management ...................................................181

Figure 29: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceptions of Colleagues’ Resistance to Change .......181

Figure 30: Study 2 - Indicators for Active Resistance to Change........................................195

Figure 31: Study 2 - Indicators for Passive Resistance to Change ......................................195

Figure 32: Study 2 - Active Support for Change Indicators ................................................196

Figure 33: Study 2 - Indicators for Passive Support for Change .........................................196

ix

Figure 34: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Organizational Support................................197

Figure 35: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Procedural Justice........................................197

Figure 36: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Participation in Decision-Making ...............198

Figure 37: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Need for Change..........................................198

Figure 38: Study 2 - Indicators for Attitude towards Organizational Change .....................199

Figure 39: Study 2 - Indicator for Fear of Known Consequences of a Change...................199

Figure 40: Study 2 - Indicators for Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change .............200

Figure 41: Study 2 - Indicator for Perceived Change in Power ...........................................200

Figure 42: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Status ..........................................201

Figure 43: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Pride ...........................................201

Figure 44: Study 2 - Indicators for Job Satisfaction ............................................................202

Figure 45: Study 2 - Indicators for Job Security ..................................................................202

Figure 46: Study 2 - Indicators for Job Motivation..............................................................203

Figure 47: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Employability ..............................................203

Figure 48: Study 2 - Indicators for Self-Confidence for Learning.......................................204

Figure 49: Study 2 - Indicators for Affective Commitment.................................................204

Figure 50: Study 2 - Indicators for Trust in Management ...................................................205

Figure 51: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceptions of Colleagues’ Resistance to Change .......205

x

List of Abbreviations

AR Active resistance to change

AR1 Indicator 1 for active resistance to change



AS Active support for change

AS1 Indicator 1 for active support for change



e.g. Exempli gratia; (for example)

etc. Et ectera (and so forth)

i.e. Id est; (that is)

IIA The independence of irrelevant alternatives

IPO Initial Public Offering

OLS Ordinary least square

PBV Perception-Based View (of the employee)

POS Perceived organizational support

PR Passive resistance to change

PR1 Indicator 1 for passive resistance to change



PS Passive support for change

PS1 Indicator 1 for passive support for change



S.E. Standard error

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Issues

The starting point for this research is the challenge of “managing change in organizations.”

Managing organizational change is problematic: situations in which changes are undertaken

are shifting, it is harder for organizations, and in particular top managers as well as change

agents, to prepare for and manage the change in ways that satisfy the demands of both the

organization and its employees.1 How do organizations go about making “structured” and

“unstructured” decisions concerning how to cope with resistance to change, so that they

achieve the goals of their organizational change efforts? It is not surprising that, over the

years, resistance to change has attracted increasing attention from researchers, practitioners,

and the general public. A great deal of research has focused on understanding the sources

and determinants of resistance to change. The media and the general public are generally

interested in various forms of active resistance to change such as strikes or protests. Other

forms of resistance such as passive resistance, although less observable, have not gone

unnoticed and thus have also warranted extensive research over the years.2 Not surprisingly,

resistance to change is frequently reported as being one of the sources of organizational

change failures (Coch and French, 1948; Kotter, 1995; Kotter and Cohen, 2002).

Broadly speaking, the concept of organizational change (e.g., Meyer, 1982; Nadler,

1998) refers to an effort or a series of efforts designed to modify certain aspects or

configurations of an organization: for example, identity, goals, structure, work processes or

human resources. Furthermore, ideas of organizational learning (e.g., Argyris, 1990; Argyris

and Schön, 1978; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Crossan and Berddrow, 2003) or strategic flexibility

(e.g., Harrigan, 1985; Sanchez, 1995; Raynor and Bower, 2001) that emphasize the extent to

which a firm is capable of learning and adapting itself to changing environments are

associated with the antecedents and outcomes of organizational change. We can thus see

that the growing attention to these concepts has enhanced both the frequency and scale of

organizational change efforts. Hence, one can reason that the likelihood of employees facing

some type of organizational change is higher than ever before.

1 According to the institutional school of organizational thought, individuals in organizations have their own interests

and generally try to make use of organizations for their own interests. For a more detailed discussion of these

problems, see Selznick (1965) or Meyer and Rowan (1977). 2 To me it seems that we should distinguish between active resistance and passive resistance. This view is consistent

with those of Hultman (1998) and Judson (1991). For a more extensive discussion of reactions to change, see

Section 2.6 of this dissertation.

2

In addition to the greater level of exposure of employees to organizational change,

managers within most organizations are also experiencing greater internal and external

pressures to initiate change within their organization in order to maintain or improve firm

performance. These pressures include, for example, increased competitive pressures (Meyer,

Brooks and Goes, 1990), new government regulations (Meyer et al., 1990; Haveman, 1992;

Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal and Hunt, 1998), technological change (Haveman, 1992), or

declining firm performance (Bibeault, 1982).

Given the above-mentioned environments, research on organizational change has been

enriched by both empirical and theoretical studies investigating many aspects of

organizational change such as change strategies, change processes, or antecedents and

outcomes of different forms of change.3 To search for conditions that promote successful

change in organizations, it is crucial to know the implications or organizational change for

employees, and more importantly, the reactions employees will have. Much of the past

research on employees’ reactions to change seems to have been implicitly based on a

rational choice theory about employees’ behaviors4, thereby giving little attention to the

potential effects of perceptions, attitudes, or social influence on decisions and behaviors.

Indeed, rational choice theories5 have long dominated the research in organization theory,

which encompasses research on organizational change and development In their roughest

form, rational choice theories would assert that when organizational change efforts are

understood to be beneficial to a firm, employees in this firm should support such changes.

This raises the question of whether all employees do in fact share the same view on this

change. What are the implications for their decisions if they do not share the same view?

Within the large body of research on decision-making in the literature on strategic

management or management science, several concepts and underlying assumptions—for

example, cost-benefit analysis and human rationality—seem to have conditioned both the

theoretical and empirical research in organizational change and employees’ reactions to

3 Organizational change can be considered as a class of organization theory. 4 Note that it is important to understand choice theories and underlying assumptions about how people make choices

because any kind of reactions to change—for example, resistance to change and support for change—is an outcome

of choice-selection process. In its simplest form, the economic model of decision-making assumes that managers

have perfect information and thus could make decisions that maximize profits. For a critique of the economic model

of decision-making, see Simon (1957) and March and Simon (1958). For a more extensive discussion of the concept

of rationality, see Section 2.5 of this dissertation. 5 Simon (1978, 1985, 1986) pointed out that there are at least two main forms of human rationality in social science:

one of them is in an area of cognitive psychology; and the other is in an area of economics. In this dissertation,

unless stated otherwise, both rational choice theories and human rationality shall refer to the form of human

rationality in the field of neoclassical economics. It is important to note that in economics there are variations in the

concepts of rationality.

3

change. This view is consistent with that of Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece (1991), who have

suggested that the logic of economics has dominated the field of strategic management.

Only recently have researchers become aware of the limitations of decision-making models

in economics, and thus have applied a cognitive paradigm in their research on strategic

decision-making (e.g., Schwenk, 1984, 1995; Tversky and Kahneman, 1974).6

Employees who are confronted with changes in their organization face an inevitable

choice: whether they should support or resist such changes in order to still (or best) achieve

their personal goals and objectives. Despite a large body of normative literature on

techniques for managing change, for example, models of implementing change by Judson

(1991), Kotter (1995), Galpin (1996), and Kotter and Cohen (2002), empirical studies of

their application seem to be too sparse to indicate convincingly and conclusively whether

the techniques presented in those models have had significant influences on employees’

reactions to change. Because I do not share the views and assumptions of some prior

researchers7, this dissertation theoretically deviates from the mainstream research on change

management by introducing a perception-based view of the employee as an alternative

approach to understand employees’ reactions to change.

1.2. Research Questions

Researchers and practitioners alike posit that employees’ reactions to change have critical

implications for change implementation and firm performance (e.g., Kotter, 1995; Kotter

and Cohen, 2002). For instance, the issue of intraorganizational conflict as a serious

challenge for managers in making strategic asset decisions has been highlighted (Amit and

Schoemaker, 1993). The question of how firms, managers or consultants can minimize

employees’ resistance to change is a subject of debate and further research. There are a

number of theoretical and practical questions, some of which lie more in the area of

philosophy than in the area of change management or social science. In this dissertation I

am particularly concerned with the role of perceptions and attitudes and how these might

constitute determinants of employees’ reactions to change. These perceptions and attitudes

about change (e.g., perceived need for change, perceived change in power, and job security)

are theorized to be factors leading to subsequent conscious or unconscious decisions and/or

behaviors in response to changes in organizations, which may significantly impact the

6 For a more extensive discussion of decision-making, see Section 2.5 of this dissertation. 7 For a more extensive discussion of assumptions in prior studies and assumptions made in this study, see Section 3 of

this dissertation.

4

change implementation and firm performance. In particular, this dissertation attempts to

answer two research questions:

• What perceptions and/or attitudes influence employees’ resistance to change?

• What perceptions and/or attitudes influence employees’ support for change?

With the above research questions, I advance and test an argument that perceptions and/or

attitudes influence employees’ reactions to change. Rather than hindering or substituting for

current change management models where the main focus is on human rationality, well-

understood effects of perceptions and/or attitudes may actually promote more

comprehensive, effective and pragmatic change management models designed for

promoting employees’ support for change and/or for reducing employees’ resistance to

change. In response to seemingly limited empirical evidence on the effectiveness of most

change management models, well-understood effects of perceptions and attitudes on

reactions to change narrow the domain of potentially key factors influencing employees’

reactions to change to which an organization should pay attention. In addition, these

research questions are consistent with contemporary research on the role of psychological

factors in predicting employees’ behaviors in response to various types of decisions of

organizations, but the role of several psychological factors require empirical verification.

Thus, this dissertation attempts to fill a gap in current empirical research by empirically

examining relationships between several perceptions and/or attitudes on the one hand and

resistance to and support for change on the other hand.

Despite evidence that certain change management practices during organizational

change are related to employees’ resistance to and/or support for change rates (i.e., a

percentage of the total number of employees who support or resist a change to the total

number of employees) at the organizational level, it would be a fallacy to then assume that

such practices are similarly and/or directly related to employees’ resistance to and/or

support for change decisions at the individual level. Thus, it is critical to explain the

relationship between any type of change management practices and resistance to and/or

support for change at the individual level. The results in this dissertation may help scholars

explain such relationship by providing a connecting answer. Rather than answering the

question of the effect of change management practices on employees’ reactions to change

directly, empirical evidence of the role of perceptions and/or attitudes in predicting

employees’ reactions to change may promote a better understanding of psychological

factors influencing employees’ reactions to change. If certain change management practices

were found to influence these perceptions and/or attitudes, then such practices may thereby

5

have the effect on employees’ reactions to change. Thus, the findings in this dissertation add

to the change management literature by examining relationships between perceptions and/or

attitudes held by employees and their reactions to change. Given these research questions,

this dissertation has three major objectives.

• In order to provide foundations for developing a theoretical framework in this

dissertation, the first objective is to review prior research on perceptions, attitudes,

decision-making, theories of change, and employees’ reactions to change. It should

be noted that the literature review on decision-making focuses on the normative and

cognitive decision theories in the fields of management and economics.

• The second objective is to conceptualize a theoretical framework representing the

link between various perceptions and attitudes on the one hand, and resistance to

change and support for change, on the other hand. Here I propose to bring several

theoretical perspectives together, creating a more realistic model of employees’

reactions by combining different conceptions of human rationality. The main aim of

the research model is to investigate which perceptions and attitudes are associated

with resistance to change and/or support for change. Additionally, it aims to provide

theoretical and, perhaps, practical insights to organizations, top managers, as well as

change agents to assist them in developing tools that may detect and alter employees’

perceptions and attitudes in order to (minimize resistance to change and) optimize

support for change.

• The final objective is to empirically test the hypothesized relationships presented in

the research model by gathering and analyzing relevant empirical data in a systematic

way.

After having identified the main research questions, the next step is to decide the

appropriate level of analysis: employee, top manager, or firm level. To answer the research

questions above, the employee, not the firm, will be the unit of analysis in this dissertation.

Using the employee as the unit of analysis, one can explore a perception or attitude as a

predictor of employees’ reactions to change. Further, examination at the decision level of

analysis—that is to say, resistance to change and support for change—diminishes at least

two concerns. First by relating perceptions and attitudes rather than decision-making

process to reactions to change, casual ambiguity is not an issue since (1) the relationships

between perceptions and reactions to change are more direct; and (2) such analyses do not

have to deal with the extent to which an employee uses rational decision-making processes.

Second, to use the decision level of analysis, it is not necessary to assume that employees

6

consistently use specific processes across time or decisions, thereby allowing the notion that

different decision-making processes may be at work for each reaction to change.

Past research has posited that it is a key interest of a firm to appropriately deal with

resistance to change in order to achieve the goals of organizational change efforts (Coch and

French, 1948; Kotter, 1995; Kotter and Cohen, 2002). However, it is important to know

whether resistance to change always has a negative impact on change efforts and thus firm

performance, or whether there might at times be a counter-intuitive implication, i.e., a

positive effect, on change efforts and thus firm performance. Despite the claim that

resistance has a negative effect on change efforts and therefore should be minimized (e.g.,

Kotter, 1995; Kotter and Cohen, 2002), the question is, then, whether resistance to change

may be strategically valuable or positive when it acts as a means to ensure that the change is

indeed designed and implemented to promote an organization’s goals. Thus, one can

question the accuracy of the claim made by some researchers (e.g., Coch and French, 1948)

that resistance to change is always undesirable. This question seems to have gone unnoticed,

providing little recognition of the conditions under which resistance to change may result in

superior outcomes of organizational change. Although identifying conditions in which

resistance to change has positive or negative outcomes on change processes is not the goal

of this dissertation itself, it deserves mention so as to reflect on this issue.

In order to state that resistance to change always has negative implications for the

firm, one would have to show that such resistance can legitimately be considered negative at

any given moment and in any particular circumstance. If this same resistance does not

create a negative implication for the firm at another moment and in another similar

circumstance, one may not legitimately and precisely conclude that resistance to change is

always undesirable and negative. On the other hand, it is probable that resistance to change

may at times have a positive effect on the outcome of organizational change, and that it may

be strategically valuable to an organization. For example, it is imaginable that resistance to

change could be constructive by entailing a high degree of objective evaluation of the

change. This should suggest that researcher should not make the critical assumption that

resistance to change always has negative effects on the outcomes of organizational change.

Instead, they should investigate how to benefit from resistance to change.

1.3. The Importance of the Research Questions

Clearly, improved firm performance is one of the main objectives of organizational change,

but intermediate outcomes are more proximal indicators of its success or failure.

Employees’ performance can be considered as an immediate outcome or a path through

which changes in organizations affect firm performance. Therefore, one can also reason that

7

employees’ resistance to or support for change which are arguably predictive of their

performance at the time of the organizational change, can be seen as an indicator predicting

the probability of success of the change (Kotter, 1995; Kotter and Cohen, 2002). Thus, the

optimization of resistance to change and support for change may enhance the probability of

success of organizational change, thereby improving firm performance. In order to optimize

these levels of resistance to change or support for change, we need to understand the factors

that play an important role in creating or changing them. In this dissertation I focus on the

direct relationships between perceptions and attitudes on the one hand, and resistance to

change and support for change on the other hand. This perspective assumes that employees’

perceptions and attitudes are likely to influence their reactions to change. I take this a step

further by proposing that if we know which perceptions or attitudes affect levels of

resistance to change and support for change, we will then have opportunities to develop

tools to properly influence reactions to change.

Although individual decision-making processes are not programmed, they are

programmable (Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret, 1976): the underlying basis of this

argument is that strong evidence indicates that a basic logic or structure underlies the

actions of a decision-maker and that this structure can be identified by a systematic study of

his or her behavior8. If individuals have patterns of decision-making processes, the study of

employees’ reactions to change may yield some valuable insight. That is, if certain

perceptions or attitudes are associated with certain decisions at a given moment and in a

particular setting, the same pattern of relationships may persist at other moments and in

other settings.

One assumption in this dissertation is that employees’ decisions are based on their

interpretation and evaluation of the data available to them. As this data is collected and

interpreted, different employees may arrive at different perceptions, interpretations and

understandings of the same data. Consistent with Simon’s (1957) concept of ‘bounded

rationality’ in decision-making processes9, I argue that there are potential gaps between the

object’s (e.g., organizational change’s) ‘objective’ (what they actually are) characteristics

and ‘perceived’ (what people believe or perceive them to be) characteristics, and that the

8 Note that in this dissertation, words like “decision”, “behavior”, or “reaction” are used interchangeably since they all

refer to an employee’s resistance to change and/or support for change. In its simplest form, one may find that

resistance to change and support for change can be considered as one kind of decision, and that both resistance to

change and support for change are expressed in terms of behaviors or reactions. 9 Simon (1957) has discussed the two main problems with the economic model of decision-making; first, managers

seldom have perfect information and thus often have to make decisions under uncertainty. Second, managers are not

cognitively capable of processing all of the information that they would need to make a profit-maximizing decision.

Therefore, Simon (1957) has introduced the concept of “bounded rationality” for the model of decision-making.

8

‘perceived’ characteristics rather than the ‘objective’ characteristics are used as inputs in the

decision-making processes determining decisions. Thus, perceptions of the object play an

important role in decision-making processes and result in decisions that at least partially

reflect these perceptions.

As I reflect on economic theories that seem to explain well the utilitarian side of

human behavior, but seem to fail to explain the side of human behavior that goes beyond

outcome-driven self-interest, I want to explore an alterative approach in understanding

employees’ reactions to change, and label this approach the “perception-based view of the

employee.” In short, using perception-based logic, this dissertation focuses on the role of

perceptions and attitudes as the driving forces leading employees to either support or resist

organizational change. Understanding the ways in which employees react to change will

certainly provide a potential avenue for developing new change management strategies that

may bring employees’ perceptions into alignment with ones desired, thereby eliciting

desired reactions to change.

1.4. The Scope of the Dissertation

Obviously, the field of organizational change and its scientific investigation is manifold. For

instance, archetypes of a firm’s organizational change can be neatly classified into five

groups or dimensions: (1) identity; (2) strategy; (3) business processes; (4) structure; and (5)

human resources. Each of these dimensions has different implications for an organization as

well as its employees.10

In view of the fact that organizational change can take on many forms, this dissertation

focuses on two aspects of organizational change: “downsizing,” which can be subsumed

into the “firm structure” dimension, and “privatization.” which is part of the “firm strategy”

dimension.11 In Study 1, a downsizing effort was chosen because this kind of change

typically has direct and significant implications for employees, who directly experience the

effects of these changes. For example, employees may have to increase their productivity

(Hambrick & Schecter, 1983) or risk losing their jobs. Further, downsizing has often been

employed as a means to improve firm performance (Freeman & Cameron, 1993).

Additionally, firms in a crisis situation often downsize as part of their turnaround strategies

(Robbins & Pearce, 1992; Appelbaum, Everard & Hung, 1999). Similarly, there were

10 Donaldson (1987) pointed out that organizational change can be thought of as an adjustment of strategy, structure,

or processes of an organization. For a more extensive discussion of organizational change, see Section 2.1 of this

dissertation. 11 It is noteworthy that from different perspectives, any kind of organizational change can be classified into more than

one category.

9

numerous reasons for choosing privatization as a context of the study. First, many state-

owned enterprises in several countries are, or will eventually be, in a process of

privatization, and this privatization has several implications for markets, other firms, and

their employees. Second, in addition to being a change in itself, privatization is also a source

of other changes within an organization—for example, changes in corporate strategies and

corporate structures. Consequently, it is important to note that a study of employees’

reactions to privatization not only has to deal inclusively with reactions to privatization but

also with reactions to a set of changes that come along with the privatization initiative in a

broader sense.

This dissertation aims to develop a research model which suggests relationships

between perceptions and attitudes on the one hand and resistance to change and support for

change on the other hand, and to empirically test it by using data gathered from employees

currently facing organizational change. The number of variables examined in this

dissertation is limited predominantly due to two key reasons: theoretical aspect (the greater

the number of variables in the model, the less the degree of parsimony of the model), and

practical aspect (the greater the number of variables in the model, the lower the response

rates in the survey).

This dissertation focuses on empirical evidence gathered at a particular point in time

from employees in two organizations. In Study 1, a survey was distributed to a random

sample of 100 teachers at a large private school in Thailand where the management has

recently decided to reduce the number of teachers. Of those sampled, 91 teachers returned

the surveys (91% response rate). In Study 2, a survey was distributed to 500 employees at a

large state-owned company in Thailand where top managers have attempted to privatize the

organization. Of those sampled, 224 employees returned the survey (44.8% response rate).

The focus of this dissertation is strictly limited to the examination of the relationships

between perceptions and attitudes on the one hand and reactions to change on the other hand

at the given moment in time rather than during different points in time. Thus, it is not a

longitudinal study. This implies that these studies did not investigate feedback-loops or a so-

called dynamic model12 that addresses: (1) the effects of employees’ resistance to and

support for change on the change efforts (e.g., the change goals and processes); and (2) the

perceptions of the modifications in organizational change efforts at time t1 as a consequence

of employees’ reactions at time t0 on their reactions to such modifications at time t1. One

12 As March (1955) pointed out problems in determining influence order, one may consider that the influence

relationships in this dissertation may represent closed-loop systems. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see

March (1955).

10

reason why this dissertation does not include the feedback-loops model concerns the casual

link between perceptions or attitudes, and reactions to change. If we were to find such a

relationship at one moment in time, then we might expect to find that relationship at another

moment in time. Another reason concerns the practical aspect of developing and validating

the feedback-loops model using data from the questionnaire surveys: this would require not

only comparing results of different surveys but also gathering data from the same

respondents at different times, which would be too problematic or beyond the scope of this

study.

It is important to note that the nature and magnitude of the impact of organizational

change on employees depends on, among other things, the type of change and the way in

which the change is introduced. For example, changes can be initiated either from top

management (a so-called top-down approach) or from employees (a so-called bottom-up

approach). Because I assumed that the strength of the impact of the change was inherently

expressed in the perceptions of the employees, it was not necessary to separately explore the

effects of the change on the employees, or distinguish how the changes were introduced.

However, because the changes studied in this dissertation entailed organization-specific,

situation-specific, time-specific, and relationship-specific contexts, the extent to which the

findings can be generalized to other contexts is limited. It is also useful to note that the

implications of cultural differences on reactions to change are not within the scope of this

dissertation. Thus, the examination of relationships between predictors and outcomes within

one culture (Thailand) is conducted.

1.5. The Intended Contributions of this Dissertation

The principal thesis that emerges from the research model is that employees who are

confronted with any form of organizational change tend to develop the initial and

subsequent reactions to this change through a variety of decision-making processes.

Consistent with the bounded rationality framework (Simon, 1957), this dissertation further

argues that certain perceptions and attitudes enhance or prohibit their choices of reactions to

change.

Specifically, this dissertation focuses on employees’ perceptions and attitudes in a

downsizing situation (in Study 1) and a privatization situation (in Study 2). These

perceptions and attitudes are theorized to be factors leading to subsequent conscious and/or

unconscious decisions and/or behaviors in response to the changes, which may significantly

impact the change implementation and firm performance. This dissertation attempts to

contribute to the research on organizational change, especially employees’ resistance to

change and support for change, in three ways.

11

First, this dissertation examines a variety of actions that employees may choose in

response to a change in the organization. Drawing upon prior research, it identifies two

primary types of employees’ reactions to change: resistance to change and support for

change. These are further divided into: active and passive resistance, and active and passive

support.

Second, using perception-based logic, this dissertation examines a number of

perceptions and attitudes that may influence employees’ choice (conscious or unconscious)

to support or resist change, thus shedding light on whether perceptions and attitudes impel,

impede or exert no effect on employees’ behavior and decisions. Although the

organizational change literature is rich, there seems to be a surprising gap in the literature

concerning the role and nature of employees’ perception of change in organizations. In

particular, this dissertation aims to contribute in this area by examining the link between

various perceptions and attitudes on the one hand and resistance to change and support for

change on the other hand. Consensus on these issues will allow theories of employees’

reaction to change to move forward in a systematic fashion.

Third, based on the findings in this dissertation, it is probable that we will be able to

develop a variety of tools for predicting employees’ reactions to change. More importantly,

understanding the ways in which employees establish certain reactions to change will

provide a potential avenue for developing a range of change management strategies that

may bring employees’ perceptions in alignment with those desired, thereby strengthening

the degree to which employees support organizational change. Specifically, the key findings

are mainly relevant to the design, implementation, and closing phases of change

management strategies in Thailand. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that part of the

knowledge derived from the present dissertation will be applicable and transferable to firms

in other geographical settings and industries wishing to introduce a change, any change, to

their organization.

The findings in this dissertation will also be informative for consultants, as a way to

improve the current change management practices in dealing with employees’ resistance to

change. As discussed earlier, employees’ resistance to change is reported to be a source of

problems for organizations and has subsequent negative effects on firm performance.

Understanding employees’ perceptions and attitudes before, during, and after the

implementation of organizational change may prove to be valuable to firms, managers, and

consultants.

12

2. Core Concepts and Relevant Literature

This section discusses the central tenets of theories of change, perception, attitude, emotion,

individual decision-making, resistance to change and support for change, focusing on the

core theoretical and empirical arguments. It is important to note that I neither seek to

provide an exhaustive literature review, nor seek to explicitly review an extended list of the

critiques of the core arguments previously made. This narrow focus is deliberate, for my

purpose is to concisely outline the main tenets of concepts and theories concerning these

topics, to assess how they are conceptualized, to provide a basis for establishing the link

between key concepts, and to develop my research model.

2.1. Theories of Change

There are several relevant questions concerning change. What is it? Why do firms need to

change? Under which conditions will firms initiate changes in their organization? What

kinds of outcome will a change bring to firms? Certainly, these questions already suffice to

show that there is need for research on organizational change.13 The wide range of past

research on organizational change has focused on four main categories. One category has to

do with content issues, and it mainly focuses on factors related to successful or unsuccessful

change attempts (e.g., Hofer 1980; Bibeault, 1982; Hambrick and Schecter, 1983; Barker

and Duhaime, 1997). Another category concerns process issues, mainly focusing on steps,

phases, or actions undertaken during the implementation of an intended change (e.g.,

Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995; Galpin, 1996). An additional category deals with context issues,

focusing on internal or environmental forces or conditions affecting a change in an

organization (e.g., Schendel and Patton, 1976; Slatter, 1984; Robbins and Peace, 1992). The

final category concerns reaction issues, and it focuses on employees’ responses to

organizational change (e.g., Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996; DeWitt, Trevino, and Mollica,

1998; Patterson and Cary, 2002).

The literature suggests several internal and external factors that lead a firm to

commence a change. Examples of these factors include: (1) increased competitive pressure

(Meyer, Brooks and Goes, 1990); (2) new government regulation (Meyer et al., 1990;

Haveman, 1992; Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal and Hunt, 1998); (3) technological change

(Haveman, 1992); and (4) management team change (Castrogiovanni, Baliga and Kidwell,

1992).

13 As mentioned earlier, research on organizational change is one of the areas in organization theory research.

13

Firms that undertake change, any change, in their organization often aim to improve

their performance in terms of, for example, higher profits, better responsiveness to the

market, and long-term competitive advantage. For example, past studies on corporate

turnaround (e.g., Hofer 1980; Bibeault, 1982; Hambrick and Schecter, 1983; Barker and

Duhaime, 1997) have found several actions or strategies that can revive the troubled firms

through corporate turnaround. We can thus conclude that the real value of organizational

change rests on its ability to alter an organization’s identity, strategy, structure, operation or

human resources as a means to enhance firm performance.

Now let us consider the characteristics of change. Change is defined as a movement

away from a current state toward a future state (George and Jones, 1995). In the

organizational change literature, at the abstract level, there are two distinct modes of

change: first- and second-order change. The phrase “first-order change” is used to describe

organizational changes that occur within a relatively stable system that remains mostly

unchanged; and for a system to remain stable or unchanged, it requires frequent first-order

changes (Weick and Quinn, 1999).14 On the contrary, second-order change or so-called

episodic change modifies or transforms fundamental structures or properties of the system

(Weick and Quinn, 1999). The concept of first- and second-order change is very popular

and powerful, and its fruits have been many. To give but a brief sample of some of the

works that have benefited from this concept, it has advanced several theoretical models such

as Argyris and Schön’s (1979, 1996) single- and double-loop learning by individuals, Miller

and Friesen’s (1984) adaptation vs. metamorphosis by organizations, and Tushman and

Anderson’s (1986) competence-enhancing vs. competence-destroying changes in

technology. In summary, there are several patterns or types of change (Miller, 1980;

Johnson-Cramer, Cross and Yan, 2003): small or large (Ledford et al., 1989), planned or

emergent in nature (Johnson-Cramer et al., 2003), radical or incremental (Weick and Quinn,

1999).

Another aspect of change is that it can occur at differing organizational levels. First,

change can occur within a population of organizations. For example, changes occurring at

an industry level (e.g., changes in customers’ demands and preferences) have implications

for most, if not all, companies within the industry. Similarly, changes occurring at a country

level have implications for most, if not all, organizations within the country. In addition,

changes can occur in a single organization, having implications for the whole organization

14 As the phrase “continuous change” is used to describe organizational changes that tend to be ongoing, cumulative,

and evolving (Weick & Quinn, 1999), the terms “first-order change” and “continuous change” seem to be used

interchangeably.

14

or for specific parts of the organization. Last but not least, changes can occur at the level of

individuals within an organization—that is, at the level of employees or managers. The

important point for us to observe is that changes at differing levels may share some common

characteristics but may also possess certain unique characteristics.

One of the central issues of organizational change concerns the ability of the

organization to enact change.15 The ability may be partly limited by organizational inertia;

that is, the organization may not be inclined to search for new solutions (Meyer and Rowan,

1977; Zucker, 1987). This raises the question of whether organizations can change

themselves.16 That is a difficult question, and no single answer will adequately answer it.

My answer is that they cannot, due to the fact that from a legal perspective, an organization

is a non-human entity; therefore, we can argue that it is not the organization that changes

itself but rather the people in the organization that change themselves and thereby change

the organization. But this leads to the question of whether an organization’s capability to

adapt is conditioned by its employees’ capability to adapt, which may be determined by the

levels of inertia at the individual level.

Research has been done on organizational inertia, which examines the role and impact

of organizational inertia on organizational structure and design.17 In the organizational

inertia literature, it is argued that various factors generate several forms of inertia in the

organization (e.g., strategic, structural, or cultural inertia). Organizational change may be

limited by internal factors such as an organization’s investments18 in plant, equipment, and

specialized personnel (Hannan and Freeman, 1989). It is also possible that top managers or

decision makers may receive limited or insufficient information to the extent that they may

15 The question concerning the degree to which organizations or managers can change the ways organizations work in

response to changes in their operating environments is one of the main questions in the organization theory research.

There are two contrasting views: The first perspective is that organizations or individuals in organizations can

undertake a surveillance of their environments and change their internal properties to promote their survival. The

second view is that organizations or individuals in organizations are constrained by limitations to the possibility for

change. 16 It should be noted that this question is different from the question of whether organizations change or not. A key

difference between them concerns who is an actor or initiator of organizational change. The former question focuses

on whether organizations can be the ones who make organizational change, whereas the latter question focuses on

whether organizations, as an object, can be changed. To the latter question, prior research has suggested that

organizations do change certain aspects such as strategies or structures (Zajac and Shortell, 1989). 17 For an extensive discussion of organizational inertia, see Arrow (1974), Hannan and Freeman (1984, 1989), or

Perrow (1986). 18 In economics theory these investments can be considered sunk costs.

15

fail to make a decision on organizational change or adaptation.19 If internal politics exist in

an organization, they may also contribute to organizational inertia; that is, political

disequilibrium in an organization may lead to resistance towards certain proposed changes.

Indeed, most organizational changes are designed to benefit the organization as a whole;

and these benefits are likely to take time to be realized; however, any political resistance

within the organization generates short-run political costs that may either exceed the

potential benefits or be high enough that top executives may decide against the intended

change (Hannan and Freeman, 1989).20 Likewise, external factors such as the dynamics of

political coalitions, costly or limited information with regard to relevant environments, and

legal and other barriers to entry or exit from the market may also restrict the nature and

degree of organizational change or adaptation in organizations (Hannan and Freeman,

1984).

Research on organizational change has led to various views and perspectives.

However, there are at least three most prominent views on organizational change. The first

view, based on population ecology theory,21 argues that most of the variations in

organizational structures occur through the creation of new organizations and organizational

forms, and the demise of old ones (Hannan and Freeman, 1977, 1989; Freeman and Hannan,

1983). According to Hannan and Freeman (1989), this perspective, which may be called

“selection theory,” argues that existing organizations, particularly the largest and most

powerful ones, seldom change their strategy and structure quickly enough to keep up with

the demands of uncertain and changing environments. The second view, based on random

transformation theory, proposes that endogenous processes induce structural changes in the

organizations, but the changes are loosely associated with the goals of the organization and

the demands of the uncertain and changing environments (March and Olsen, 1976; Weick,

1976). The third view, based on the rational adaptation theory developed by March and

Simon (1958), argues that organizational variability generates changes in strategy and

structure of organizations in response to threats, opportunities, and environmental changes.

19 This proposition is consistent with Simon’s concept of bounded rationality. For more complete details, see Simon

(1957). 20 From the political and institutional perspectives, it is difficult to enact changes in organizations without a major

organizational crisis. For a detailed discussion on this issue, see Fligstein (1996) or Myer and Rowan (1977). 21 Population ecology theory, which is based on biological theory, especially Darwinian natural selection theory, was

developed in response to a growing dissatisfaction with and critiques on the adaptation and strategic contingency

models.

16

There are some variations in this view. For example, strategic contingency theories22 focus

on structural changes that match organizational structures (Thompson 1967), whereas

resource dependence theories23 focus on structural changes that neutralize sources of

environmental uncertainty (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

In summary, as the review of the literature has shown, organizational change,

regardless of its form, will have implications for the organization as well as its employees.

Simon (1991: 32) noted that “employees, especially but not exclusively at managerial and

executive levels, are responsible not only for evaluating alternatives and choosing among

them but also for recognizing the need for decisions.” Accordingly, it is useful to understand

how employees view and react to organizational change. In support of this view, the main

focus of this dissertation is on the implications of organizational change for employees

rather than for organizations and, specifically, on how employees respond to organizational

change.

2.2. Perceptions

As this dissertation will deal to a high degree with perceptions and reactions to change, it is

especially important to elaborate on the nature and implications of perceptions on decisions.

Although research on perceptions is rich and comprehensive, the intent of this literature

review is not to present an exhaustive list of extant definitions of perception. Instead, my

intent is to establish two key points. First, perception, as a psychological construct, is

associated with other constructs such as attitude or emotion. Despite the differences among

these constructs, most, if not all, of them seem to share common properties that shall be

seen later. Second, perceptions influence the ways in which humans understand the world

around them and how they make decisions. With deeper insights into how people

understand the world, we can better comprehend the ways in which humans make decisions

and why they behave in certain ways.

First of all, what is perception? Perception can be defined as a “complex process by

which people select, organize, and interpret sensory stimulation into a meaningful and

coherent picture of the world” (Berelson and Steiner, 1964: 88). In the same vein,

perception is “about receiving, selecting, acquiring, transforming and organizing the

22 The strategic contingency theory assumes that owners and managers of organizations establish organizations that

allow them to monitor the goals and procedures in the organization so that they will be able to respond to external

problems. See Thompson (1967) for a theoretical approach along these lines. 23 Slightly different from the logic of the strategic contingency theory, the resource dependency theory argues that

managers strategically create organizational structures and procedures that help organizations mitigate the effects of

external environments on the organization. See Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) for more complete references.

17

information supplied by our senses” (Barber and Legge, 1976: 7). The research on

perceptions can be traced back to Bartlett’s (1932) influential works on the constructive

nature of cognition, which argues that schematic thinking dominates human perception in

ways that human generic beliefs about the world influence and shape information processes.

Several researchers (e.g., Allport, 1954) have extended Bartlett’s (1932) work and have

advanced our understanding of perception, attitude, judgment, and several other concepts.24

The preceding discussion has suggested that from a psychological perspective,

individuals’ perceptions have a directive influence upon their decision-making and the

outcome of their decisions; thus, it is not surprising that organization theorists are now

interested in relationships between perceptions and various aspects of organizations. For

example, a work by Anderson and Paine (1975) has posited the influences of the perception

of uncertainty in the environment on the perception of the need for change in a firm’s

strategies.

The research on the roles and effects of perceptions on people’s decisions and

behaviors is yet to be completed, and the search for a better understanding of various

perceptions on employees’ behaviors such as turnover or commitment in the field of human

resource management continues its momentum. However, empirical research has begun to

show that in organizational settings, certain perceptions such as the perception of

uncertainty are associated with people’s behaviors. An empirical study by Ashford and

colleagues (1989), for example, has shown evidence for a positive relationship between

perceived job insecurity and intention to quit. Another empirical study by Eisenberger,

Fasolo and Davis-LeMastro (1990) has demonstrated that employees’ perceived

organizational support is related to various attitudes and behaviors. In a more recent study,

Gopinath and Becker (2000) found that perceived procedural justice concerning the

divestment activities of the firm is positively related to post-divestment commitment to the

firm.

Thus far, I have dealt with a holistic review of perceptions. However, the discussion of

the general concept of perceptions would be incomplete without mentioning two other

related concepts – recognition and action. The concept of recognition deals with the ability

to discriminate among familiar classes of objects,25 and it is related to the concept of

categorization. Thus, at an abstract level, recognition is one’s ability to place objects in a

24 Note that the dominant assumption in much of human perception is that one’s schematic preconceptions drive his or

her evaluations of, and reactions towards, an object. We will come back to this issue in later chapters. 25 For a detailed discussion of the concept of recognition, see Langley and Simon (1981).

18

category.26 To understand the relationship between recognition and categorization, it is

necessary to consider how humans make sense of reality in a complex world. Perhaps the

key answer to this question is the assertion in psychology that in an attempt to make sense

of a complex world, humans often construct and use categorical representations to simplify

and streamline the perception process (Fiske and Taylor, 1984, 1991; Gilbert and Hixon,

1991). In psychology, the term “categorization” is typically regarded as a process in which

people group together objects and/or things (Zentall, Galizio, and Critchfield, 2002). Within

psychology literature, there are several theories of categorization, for example, exemplar

models (Brooks, 1978) and decision bound theory (Ashby and Gott, 1988).

The other relevant concept in connection with perception is “action.” Action refers to

one’s activities such as moving the body in response to the perceptual process. As pointed

out by Argyris (1999), humans possess certain kinds of mental programs on how to act

effectively in different types of interaction; and there are two theories of action that humans

hold. The first one is normally expressed in the form of stated beliefs and values. The

second one is actually used and can thus only be inferred from observing their behaviors.

Up to now, most people studied have a theory-in-use, which is called Model I (Argyris,

1999).27 Model I theory-in-use requires defensive reasoning (Argyris, 1999). In his view,

individuals tend to keep their premises and inferences tacit for fear that they may lose

control, and the use of defensive reasoning prevents questioning the defensive reasoning.28

The consequences of the model of the theory-in-use strategies are that defensiveness,

misunderstanding, and self-fulfilling and self-sealing processes are more likely (Argyris,

1999).

If perceptions are derived from or based on incomplete information and limited

observation, perceptual biases will occur, and thus affect a person’s decisions and actions.29

But what is the point of getting to know the concept of perception? Here, it is the contention

that several perceptions of change are acting as determinants of employees’ reactions to

26 The term “category” typically refers to the totality of information that one has in mind about various groups of

objects (Smith, 1998). 27 In short, Model I theory-in-use (Argyris, 1982, 1990, 1993, 1999; Argyris & Schön, 1996) has four governing

values: achieve your intended purpose; maximize winning and minimize losing; suppress negative feelings; and

behave according to what you consider rational. 28 This is because most people who follow Model I theory-in-use employ the following prevalent action strategies:

advocate your opinion; evaluate the thoughts and actions of others (and your own thoughts and actions); and

attribute causes for whatever you are trying to understand (Argyris, 1999). 29 Individuals do not see or receive everything that happens in a particular situation. More importantly, they tend to be

selective in what they attend to and what they perceive. This selectivity in the perceptual process leads to the

tendency or bias to perceive one thing and not another. This is called “perceptual bias.”

19

change. That is, humans usually try to make sense of what has happened, what is happening,

and what will happen. A number of researchers have noted a link between the perceptual

process and the interpretation of information; they have argued that the interpretation of

information is based on the perceptual process (e.g., Anderson and Pained, 1975). Further,

during organizational change processes, employees create their own perspectives and

interpretations of what is going to happen, what others are thinking, and how they

themselves are perceived. Additionally, if there is a lack of information about the change,

then evidence of employees’ own perspectives and interpretation of the change is more

likely to be observed (Coghlan, 1993).

2.3. Attitude

Like the preceding discussion of human perceptions that has given an overview of how

humans perceive and make sense of the world, this section discusses how research on

perceptions has advanced our understanding of attitude(s). In psychology, attitude has been

examined extensively for a long period of time. The main focus of research on attitudes

concerns the nature and function of attitudes and how individuals construct them. The

application of current knowledge on attitude to business settings and the implications of

attitude for individuals’ decisions and behaviors are of interest in this dissertation. This

dissertation asserts that employees’ attitudes can influence their predisposition to formulate

a pre-determined response to a change.

The definitions of attitudes have been many. In social psychology, the term “attitude”

refers to an individual’s preference for or disinclination toward an idea, issue, item or

object; it is subjective in nature, and can be positive or negative. There are three other

definitions that have influenced subsequent studies on attitude.30 One definition is that

attitude is “the affect for or against a psychological object” (Thurstone, 1931: 261). Another

definition that seems to be more comprehensive is that attitude is “a mental and neural state

of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon

the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related” (Allport,

1935: 8). A final definition that is slightly different from Thurstone’s (1931) is that attitude

is “a disposition to react favorably or unfavorably to a class of objects” (Sarnoff, 1960:

261). There are two important aspects of attitude: one of them is a belief aspect that uses

cognitive processes to describe an object and its relation to other objects, the other is an

affective aspect that leads to liking or disliking an object (Katz, 1960).

30 For a detailed review of attitudes, see Greenwald and Banaji (1995).

20

Another fundamental question in the research on attitudes is about how individuals

acquire attitude. In psychology, attitudes arise from concepts, which are constructed through

experience; and concepts become attitudes though a process in which an evaluative aspect is

added on to them (Rhein, 1958). To understand the role of attitude in human behavior, a

model by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) has suggested that: first, an individual’s positive or

negative beliefs about an object form an attitude towards that object; second, this attitude

determines the individual’s intention to behave with respect to the object; and finally, this

intention to behave is related to the actual behaviors acted.

Given this observation, we may assume that attitudes towards organizational change

tend to result in pre-determined intentions to behave and then subsequent behaviors. In this

sense, managers and/or employees who have a negative attitude towards organizational

change are more likely to resist efforts to change. In the same way, it is probable that

managers or employees who have a positive attitude toward organizational change are more

likely to support efforts to change.

There are two basic assumptions guiding the directions of research on attitude. The so-

called traditional view assumes that attitudes are dispositional in nature. According to the

dispositional approach, the so-called traditional view, attitudes are seen as stable

dispositions that have developed within the individual. In its roughest form, this view

emphasizes the role of an individual’s disposition to the development of attitudes (Salancik

and Pfeffer, 1978). A more recent theory, developed in the late 1970s, can be seen as a

breakaway from the traditional view on how attitudes are formed is based on the assumption

that attitudes are situational in nature. According to this approach, attitudes are viewed as

reactions to social situations that change when social context changes (Salancik and Pfeffer,

1978). For instance, the social information processing perspective (e.g., Salancik and

Pfeffer, 1977, 1978) asserts the role of social information on the behavioral reactions of

individuals to situations. Both predictions may help us gain insights into how humans

acquire and change their attitudes. By considering the two different views, whether attitudes

are dispositional or situational in nature, my main conclusion is that the two views

complement one another. Attitudes may be stable dispositions, but may be influenced by

social situations.

There is also the question of whether attitudes are conscious or unconscious in nature.

Recent research, which has suggested that attitudes are conscious in nature, has been

implicitly embedded in much of the prior research on attitudes (Greenwald and Banaji,

1995); and most of the previous studies have focused on conscious cognitive involvement in

debate judgments and decisions. On the contrary, another group of researchers has begun to

recognize the unconscious aspect of attitude. The key proposition of this stream of research

21

is that there is an implicit operation of attitudes.31 By acknowledging both implicit and

explicit operations of attitudes, we can assert that humans’ attitudes can influence thinking,

decision-making and behaviors in situations in which people recognize the existence of their

attitudes as well as in situations in which they do not recognize the existence of their

attitudes.

2.4. Emotion

Because the human rationality approach to decision-making in economics has dominated

much of the research on organization theory for years (Ashkanasy, Härtel and Daus, 2002),

empirical research on the effects of emotion on decision-making and behavior in the field of

management has been limited. Therefore, we can reason that because of the predominance

of the rational choice models, the concept of emotion has been largely unnoticed or ignored

for some time in the mainstream research in management science. Whereas there is a

relatively sparse body of management literature dealing with emotion, research on emotion

in the field of psychology has been voluminous.

Research on emotion has a long history, perhaps starting with Charles Darwin’s book

The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animal (1872). Since then, the development of

the literature on emotion has lead to at least four prominent perspectives: the Darwinian, the

Jamesian, the Cognitive, and the Social-Constructivist.32 All of these approaches have

attempted to provide answers to the same fundamental questions, for example, what is

emotion, and how does it evolve? This literature review will not discuss each of the key

questions in light of the different perspectives. In fact, it will only touch on certain aspects

of the last two. Since my objective is to give only a brief overview of the research on

emotion and underpin arguments for my research model, this literature review will take us

through the research on emotion in the simplest form.

The term “emotion” has been defined as “a relative short-term positive or negative

evaluative state that involves neurophysicological, neuromuscular, and cognitive

components” (Kemper, 1978). Although in the psychology and sociology literature, there

seems to be little consensus concerning the meaning of emotion and related terms such as

mood, feeling, and sentiments (Kemper, 1987), it is beyond scope of this paper to offer a

new definition. For that reason I shall simply review the role of and influence of emotion on

31 There has recently been some debate over the views on conscious or unconscious aspects of attitudes. The

traditional view does not make an explicit distinction as to whether attitudes operate in conscious mode or in

unconscious mode, while a recent view explicitly acknowledges that attitudes also operate in unconscious mode. For

a detailed discussion of this issue, see Greenwald and Banaji (1995). 32 For an overview of all four perspectives on emotion, see Cornelius (1996).

22

people’s decisions and behavior. Because emotions exert effects on people’s decisions and

behavior, it is important for this dissertation to recognize and understand how and why

emotions can exert such effects on employees’ decisions and behavior in the context of

organizational change.

Previous research on emotion has suggested that humans’ affective states, decisions

and behavior are influenced by how they process information. For example, a central theme

of the Affective Infusion Model (AIM) proposed by Forgas and George (2001) is that the

influence of affective states on individuals’ judgments and behaviors depends on the type of

information-processing strategies the individuals adopt in a particular situation. In its

roughest form, the basic idea is that affect (referring to both moods and emotions) impacts

organizational behavior because it influences both what people think (the content of

thinking) and how people think (the process of thinking); and most social thinking and

action occurs in naturally complex and ambiguous situations, and requires the use of active,

constructive information process strategies (Forgas and George, 2001).

According to Forgas (1995), affect infusion can be defined as the process whereby

affectively loaded information exerts influence upon and becomes incorporated into an

individual’s cognitive and behavioral processes, entering into their constructive

deliberations and eventually coloring the outcome in a mood-congruent direction. Basically,

the AIM model (Forgas and George, 2001) asserts that there are four information-

processing strategies based on different affect infusion potentials: (1) a direct access; (2) a

motivated processing; (3) a heuristic processing; and (4) a substantive processing. Both the

direct access and motivated processing strategies require little constructive processing,

limiting the extent of mood infusion. On the contrary, both the heuristic and substantive

processing strategies require a high degree of open and constructive thinking, allowing

greater mood infusion to occur, and resulting in the creation of new knowledge from the

combination of new information and stored information. Moreover, task characteristics,

personal variables, and situational features determine processing choices (Forgas and

George, 2001), implying that the influence of affect is context-dependent.

Central among issues of emotion is whether there is only one direction, either positive

or negative, for each relationship between emotions and the other variables. This is crucial

because it complicates and shapes how researchers conduct their research on emotions.

Based on numerous studies on emotions, it is obvious that there can potentially be inverse

relationships between moods and emotions on the one hand and behaviors and attitudes on

the other hand. For example, George and Zhou (2001) theorized that under certain

conditions, positive moods might hinder, and negative moods might enhance creative

performance. This is because when creativity is an objective for people and that they are

23

high on clarity of feeling, they may use their mood as input to determine the sufficiency of

their efforts. In this sense, negative moods may signal that things are not going well and that

additional effort is needed. Along similar lines, positive moods may signal that things are

going well and that an additional effort is not required. George and Zhou’s (2001) findings

were consistent with their theory, that is, positive mood was negatively associated with

creative performance; and negative mood was positively associated with creative

performance. In other conditions, there may be a positive relationship between positive

mood and creative performance (see, e.g., Isen, Daubman and Nowicki, 1987).

According to the literature on mood, its effects on work motivation are manifold. First,

positive moods may enhance spontaneity and helpfulness toward coworkers (George, 1991).

Second, positive moods may facilitate a flexible and open cognitive style in social situations

(Forgas, 1999a, 1999b). Last but not least, positive moods may influence the performance

of leaders (George 1995, 2000). In contrast, a negative mood has been linked to several

negative decisions and behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover. For example, empirical

research has shown an inverse relationship between employees’ positive moods and levels

of absenteeism (e.g., George, 1989). Another example is that the interaction between value

attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood is likely to predict turnover intentions among

employees (George and Jones, 1996).

2.5. Individual Decision-Making

In economics, research on decision-making and judgment seems to have begun in 1950’s,

focusing on a rational approach.33 Since then, research on decision-making (e.g., strategic

decision-making in organizations) has been growing. Another stream of research on

decision-making in the field of psychology has also advanced our understanding of how

individuals make judgments and decisions. It is important to note that with regard to human

rationality, the forms of human rationality in the area of psychology, which differ from

those of theories of human rationality in neoclassical economics, have begun to receive

greater attention in strategic management research. Examples of works that have been

influential in strategic management or management science (e.g., Dean and Sharfman,

33 This by no means suggests that the concept of rationality is not being applied in other social sciences. Simon (1978,

1979, 1985, 1986) pointed out neatly that most social sciences implicitly or explicitly assume human rationality;

however, the forms of human rationality that they adopt may differ. Thus there is a point of agreement concerning

human rationality: that is, humans have reasons for what they do or for how they behave. The differences have to do

with the question of what constitutes rationality. For instance, economic theories take a special form of human

rationality – the rationality of the utility maximizer who will objectively aim for the best possible choice in terms of

the given utility function (Simon, 1978).

24

1996) are those of Simon (1957), March and Simon (1958), and Tversky and Kahneman

(1974). Central to these works are the arguments that there are several forms of human

rationality, and that human rationality is bounded to external and/or internal constraints.

A review of past research on strategic decision-making has shown that there are

several models of the strategic decision-making process.34 One example is Hofer and

Schendel’s (1976) model that outlines seven steps of the strategic decision-making process:

(1) strategy identification; (2) environmental analysis; (3) resource analysis; (4) gap

analysis; (5) strategic alternatives; (6) strategy evaluation; and (7) strategic choice. Another

is the model of Mintzberg et al. (1976), which suggests three phases and seven steps of the

strategic decision-making process: (1) identification phase consisting of decision

recognition and diagnosis steps; (2) development phase consisting of search and design

steps; and (3) selection phase consisting of screening, evaluation, and authorization steps.

Likewise, Fredrickson (1984) suggested that from the perspective of a managerial decision

maker, the rational decision-making process involves five interrelated cognitive stages: (1)

pay attention to a problem or opportunity; (2) gather information; (3) develop a series of

options; (4) value the options using expected costs and benefits; and (5) select the option

with the greatest utility.

Another key aspect in decision-making is learning, which involves developing new

understandings. The learning process involves the acquisition and interpretation of

knowledge (Linsay and Norman, 1977). Learning is the process of modifying one’s

cognitive map or understandings (Friedlander, 1983: 194), thereby altering the range of

one’s potential behaviors (Huber, 1991). So we may speculate that since learning capability

refers to individuals’ ability to develop a new understanding of the world around them, it

may promote or limit their understanding of a proposed change.

Past research has led to several concepts and theories to explain certain aspects of

decision-making with the goal of explaining decision-outcome deviations from normative

expectations of the rational decision-making approach. One such theory is Beach’s (1990)

image theory that incorporates Einhorm and Hogarth’s (1981) idea that humans make use of

mental simulation to evaluate options by applying strategies from known situations to new

situations.35 Another example is the model called framing effects that has suggested how

apparently irrelevant variables can influence decision-making. According to Kahneman and

Tversky (1979), framing or editing phases occurring during a process of choice concerns

34 For a detailed review of the literature on strategic decision-making, see Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992). 35 For a detailed discussion of image theory, see Einhorn and Hogarth (1981), Klein and Crandall (1995), and Beach

(1990).

25

with the preliminary analysis of alternatives, their outcomes and contingencies.36 Note that

the concept of framing effects is theoretically related to the concept of categorization

discussed in the previous chapter.

Most strategic decision-making models that have been influenced by economic

theories assert implicitly or explicitly that a manager as well as an employee, as an agent of

a firm, should arrive at a decision that will achieve the firm’s goals, one of which is the

maximization of the firm’s value. This observation suggests a key difference between

strategic decision-making models for firms and decision-making models for employees.

That is, decisions (e.g. reactions to change) of employees may be oriented towards the

individual-level maximization of certain objectives such as career advancement or social

status rather than towards the firm’s goals such as maximizing the value of the firm.

However, we may argue here that the ways in which different individuals arrive at decisions

(e.g., as a manager making a choice that achieves the firm’s goals or as an employee making

a choice that achieves his or her personal goals) may not be fundamentally different. That is,

as employees react to change, they are likely to carry out: (1) objective identification; (2)

decision/outcome alternatives; and (3) evaluation and selection. In this sense, employees are

assumed to be rational; however, their form of rationality does not necessarily correspond to

the form of rationality in economics or the form of rationality that the firm may wish its

employees to hold.

Let me now turn to a study leading to a model of reaction to change proposed by

Isabella (1990). In this empirical work, 40 executives from a medium-sized, urban, financial

services institution were asked to describe and discuss five events that had occurred in the

organization over the previous five years. The results showed that members of the

organization construe key events linked to the process of change and that there are four

stages that individuals go through as changes unfold. The four stages are anticipation,

confirmation, culmination, and aftermath. In the anticipation stage, people gather rumors,

scattered pieces of concrete data, to construct a construed reality. In the confirmation stage,

following the standardization of events into a conventional frame of reference, people

reflect or refer their frames of reference which have worked in the past. In the culmination

stage, people compare the conditions before and after an event, at which time they amend

their frame of reference to either include new information or omit invalid information. In

the aftermath stage, people review and evaluate the consequences of a change. From this

36 See Tversky and Kahneman (1981), John et al. (1993), and Paese, Bieser, and Tubbs (1993) for empirical research

on framing effects.

26

example we begin to better understand the process which individuals undergo when they are

confronted with a change in their organization.

At this point, I shall discuss how individuals interpret data and information. The term

“interpretation” has been defined as the process through which people give meaning to

information (Daft and Weick, 1994). The process of interpretation is important because it is

used to understand information. Accordingly, employees use the process of interpretation to

give meaning to, and to understand the information concerning a change. It is logical to

argue that different people may give differing meanings to the same information,37 and that

the differing meanings prompt differing decisions. Moreover, an individual’s emotions and

behaviors depend upon the way they structure their thoughts (Ellis and Harper, 1975). Thus,

one can reason that the processes of interpretation and decision-making may be related.

Indeed, the evaluation phase of a decision-making process requires interpreting information.

Past research on interpretation processes has suggested several models of the decision-

making processes. For example, Jaffe, Scott, and Tobe (1994) have proposed a four-stage

model of how employees interpret events as an organizational change unfolds. The four

stages are denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment. However, one may argue that

this general explanation is an incomplete view of real decision-making processes (Beach,

1993). For instance, personal biases, failures of memory, and misunderstood probabilities

have been found to cause decision mistakes (see, e.g., Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky,

1982). In addition, several researchers have emphasized the existence of intuitive and

irrational decision-making (Isenberg, 1986; Fiske, 1992). That is, decision-making

processes sometimes involve experience-based mental routines, creating quick decisions

without rational thought.

Now let us have another look at mood theory. Forgas and colleagues have conducted

studies on mood theory concerning the manner whereby moods determine behaviors in

social (see, e.g., Forgas, 1995) and organizational (see, e.g., Forgas and George, 2001)

settings. In short, past empirical research on emotions such as positive or negative moods

has suggested that emotions may affect people’s attitudes, values, and behaviors toward

other objects and their world. This observation suggests that the effects of emotion on

judgments, thought processes, decision-making, and behaviors should not be neglected

when one wishes to study people’s decisions and behaviors.

37 Let us consider whether we always give the same meaning to the same information—that is to say, whether we

sometimes assign differing meanings to the same information in other circumstances. If this is the case, then we

might reason that it ought to be possible that different people may give a different meaning to the same information

as well.

27

2.6. Reactions to Change

Resistance to change has been identified as a negative and undesired response for

organizations because it can lead to failures of change efforts (Martin, 1975; Regar,

Mullance, and Gustafson, 1994; Spiker and Lesser, 1995). Indeed, studies of organizational

change often attribute outcomes of change efforts to behaviors of employees, especially

acceptance of change and resistance to change (e.g., Kotter, 1995; Galpin, 1996). Given the

frequent occurrence and persistence of resistance to change in most change initiatives, it is

not surprising that much research has been devoted to examining the problems of resistance

to change, especially the ways in which resistance to change can be minimized. It is

understandable that research on organizational change management has a pessimistic view

on resistance to change. After all, resistance to change may disrupt or suppress efforts to

change. However, little work has directly addressed the possibility of gaining a positive

effect from resistance to change. As discussed earlier, the question is whether resistance is

always negative. It might be that resistance to change can become strategically valuable.

If we are to understand why resistance to change has been considered the source of

organizational change failures, we need to examine closely the characteristics and role of

resistance to change itself. It appears that Kurt Lewin (1945, 1947, 1951) was the first

author who used the notion of resistance to change. According to his field theory38, the

status quo represents the equilibrium between the forces supporting change and the barriers

to change. Some difference between these forces is therefore required to generate the

“unfreezing” that initiates change. To make the change permanent, “refreezing” at the new

level is required. In this sense, resistance is a system phenomenon. It is part of the change

process and is not necessarily a negative factor.

Many studies have posited that resistance to change is negative and should be removed

or minimized. For example, Coch and French’s (1948: 521) view on resistance to change is

that it is a combination of an individual reaction to frustration with strong group-induced

forces. Similarly, Zander has defined resistance to change as “a behavior which is intended

to protect an individual from the effects of real or imaged change” (Zander, 1950: 9). In the

same view, Agócs (1997) has defined resistance as a process of refusal by decision-makers

to be influenced or affected by the views, concerns or evidence presented to them by those

who propose change. In summary, resistance to change generally refers to the behaviors of

individuals or groups of individuals who are opposed to or unsupportive of changes that top

executives want or decide to implement in the organizations.

38 For Lewin (1947), a change process consists of three phases: (1) unfreezing, (2) moving, and (3) refreezing.

28

Ford, Ford, and McNamara (2002) noted that, from a constructivist perspective,

resistance to change is a function of the socially constructed reality in which a person lives,

and that depending on the nature of that constructed reality, the form of that resistance will

vary. On the contrary, from a modernist perspective, with the assumption that the same

objective and homogeneous reality is shared by everyone, all people involved in a change

are believed to confront the same change within the same context. An important conclusion

to be drawn from these extremely different perspectives is that we need to develop a better

understanding of how individuals really construct reality or see the world. However, for the

purpose of this dissertation, I suggest that any difference between both perspectives is not of

a great concern since in any circumstance the reality that a person holds will ultimately be

expressed in terms of perceptions and/or attitudes.

According to Agócs (1997), a typology of forms of resistance consists of: (1) denial of

the legitimacy of the case for change; (2) refusal to recognize the responsibility to address

the change issue; (3) refusal to implement a change initiative that has been adopted by the

organization; and (4) the reversal or dismantling of a change initiative once implementation

has begun. Recently, some researchers (e.g., Dent and Goldberg, 1999) have argued that

people do not resist change, but rather losses of status, pay or comfort, and that this is not

the same as resisting change.

In the literature on organizational change, several factors are thought to be

determinants of resistance to change; they include fear of real or imagined consequences

(Morris and Raben, 1995), fear of unknown consequences (Mabin, Forgeson, and Green,

2001), a threat to the ways in which people make sense of the world (Ledford et al., 1989), a

threat to the status quo (Beer, 1980; Hannan and Freeman, 1988; Spector, 1989), a threat to

social relations (O’Toole, 1995), distrust toward those leading change (Bridges, 1980;

O’Toole, 1995), and different understandings or assessments of the situation (Morris and

Raben, 1995). Thus, it can be reasoned that a person does not resist organizational change

but rather the consequences of organizational change. However, it can also be reasoned that

the consequences of organizational change are part of change efforts and thus cannot be

clearly separated.

As discussed above, a central issue raised by previous research in change management

is the role and implications of resistance to change, that is, how resistance to change

evolves. At least one issue emerges from previous studies. Despite the seemingly extensive

research on resistance to change, with the exceptions of the aforementioned definitions,

seldom has previous research provided a definition of resistance to change. It seems that the

term ‘resistance to change’ is used as a given. Thus, it is useful, if not critical, to examine

29

the dimensions of “reaction to change” to better understand and conceptualize the term and

the concept of “resistance to change” as well as “support for change.”

Figure 1: Dimensions for Categorization of Reactions to Change

Discontent Contentment

Active Passive

Discontent ContentmentDiscontent Contentment

Active PassiveActive Passive

As illustrated in Figure 1, one dimension of reactions to change is whether a reaction

represents one’s contentment or discontent with the change. Resistance to change can be

described as a reaction that represents a high degree of one’s discontent with change. In

contrast, support for change can be described as a reaction that represents a high degree of

one’s contentment with change. Another dimension of reactions to change is whether it is

active or passive in nature. An active action refers to any action that is active in nature and,

thus, can be easily recognized, whereas a passive action refers to any action that is passive

in nature and, thus, cannot be easily observed.

I treat each dimension as a continuum along which any reaction can be located. The

position of the reaction along each continuous dimension affects the categorization and

nature of information required to detect it. That is, it is possible that one can easily observe

most active actions with relatively little effort. On the contrary, a relatively large amount of

efforts is required to detect passive actions. Likewise, the position of the reaction along each

continuous dimension affects the relative ease of interpretation of the reaction. To illustrate:

By seeing employees listening quietly to the announcement of organizational change, any

observers will find it relatively difficult to know whether they will support or resist the

change; therefore, addition information will be needed to develop a better understanding of

their position with regard to the change. On the contrary, by seeing employees acting in

ways that they oppose change efforts, any observer can easily determine that they resist the

change. Several researchers (e.g., Hultman, 1998; Judson, 1991) have already distinguished

between active and passive resistance.

Thus, it can be reasoned that these dimensions of reactions to change are capable of

creating the parameters in which the definitions of resistance to change and support for

change could be conceptually established. However, each dimension alone is insufficient to

constitute a reaction that can be considered as resistance or support for change. Therefore, I

suggest that a combination of the two dimensions can form the basis for defining and

30

categorizing various reactions to change. As illustrated in Figure 2, any reaction to change

can be neatly classified along two dimensions into one of four categories: (1) active

resistance; (2) passive resistance; (3) active support; and (4) passive support.

Figure 2: A Categorization of Reactions to Change

Passive Support Passive Resistance

Active SupportActive Resistance

Passive

Active

ContentmentDiscontent

Passive Support Passive Resistance

Active SupportActive Resistance

Passive

Active


According to this classification, active resistance to change can be defined as a reaction that

is active in nature and represents discontent with the change. Consider, for example,

expressing opposition to a proposed change. It is an active action and reveals discomfort

with or disagreement with the change; therefore, it can be considered active resistance to

change. In contrast, passive resistance to change can be defined as a reaction that is passive

in nature and reveals discontent with the change. For example, the act of ignoring is passive

in nature and implicitly indicates one’s discomfort with change; thus, it can be called

passive resistance to change. Active support for change can be defined as a reaction that is

active in nature and reveals contentment with the change. Consider, for example, praise of

the change. This is an active action and reveals one’s comfort with or agreement with the

change; therefore, it can be considered active support for the change. In contrast, passive

support for change can defined as a reaction that is passive in nature and represents

contentment with the change. For example, expressing agreement is a passive action and

reveals one’s contentment with the change.

In summary, to explore the concept of resistance to change and support for change,

this dissertation proposes two dimensions that specify the properties that should be

considered the criteria for defining both resistance to change and support for change. It is

expected that these definitions will increase the level of clarity of the definitions of

resistance to change and support for change.

31

3. Theoretical Development and Research Model

Recall that the research questions of this dissertation are: What perceptions and/or attitudes

influence employees’ resistance to change? And, what perceptions and/or attitudes influence

employees’ support for change? A review of the literature suggests not only direct

relationships between perceptions/attitudes and reactions to change but also paths (indirect

relationships between them). Reflecting on the research questions, I first examine whether

there is a direct relationship between each perception and each reaction to change without

considering the potential moderating effects of other variables. This model is called a ‘direct

effects’ model in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Alternative Models Relating Perceptions and Reactions to Change

Perceptions / Attitudes Reactions to Change

Perceptions / Attitudes Perceptions / Attitudes Reactions to Change


1. Direct Effects Model

2. Partially Moderated Model

3. Fully Moderated Model

Perceptions / Attitudes Reactions to Change



1. Direct Effects Model

2. Partially Moderated Model

3. Fully Moderated Model

It is important to note that the main focus of this dissertation is on the direct effects model.

This narrow focus is deliberate, for my objective is to concisely develop and empirically test

the model of perception-based factors affecting employees’ reactions to change. If a

majority of hypothesized relationships in the direct effects model were to receive significant

support, I will also examine a set of intervening models to assess if inclusions of some

perceptions and attitudes improve the explanation of reactions to change, and, if so, which

intervening model is most appropriate to the data.

As suggested earlier, one reason to develop the degree of employees’ resistance to

change and support for change as the dependent variables in this research is that

organizational change may strongly affect work performance in some change efforts, affect

only average in others, and affect weakly in still others. To this point, one can reason that

resistance to change tends to have a negative relationship with work performance (Kotter,

1995). One can also reason that employees’ overall performance during organizational

32

change processes depends, among other things, on the net effect of organizational change on

employee’s reactions to change; that is to say, organizational change has a direct effect on

employee’s reactions to change, which in turn have a direct effect on work performance,

which subsequently affects firm performance. Thus, it is sensible to study what factors

enable resistance to change and support for change to emerge.

Indeed, employees’ resistance to change and support for change often depend on,

among other things, how employees construct numerous perceptions, and assign the degree

of importance to each perception. Each of these perceptions can lead to higher or lower

levels of resistance to change and/or support for change. Aggregating the outputs of these

numerous perceptions can impose a difficulty at examining whether a particular set of

perceptions and attitudes actually generates resistance to change and/or support for change.

In this setting, it is also useful to recognize the importance of employees’ ranking of level of

importance attached to each perception with regard to a decision choice.

3.1. Perception-Based View of the Employee

What is a perception-based view (PBV) of the employee? In contrast to the rational

decision-making approach commonly used in the mainstream research in management

science, an alternative approach which is labeled as ‘a perception-based view of the

employee’ in decision-making focuses on the use of perception, attitude or emotion for a

purpose of selecting a sensible alternative in pursuit of one’s goals. The main purpose of the

perception-based view of the employee is to explain variations in decision and/or behavior

among employees in the same context. That is, it attempts to answer two primary questions:

(1) why do individuals in the similar setting and facing the same object have differing

decisions; and (2) why do individuals make decisions that might seem irrational, and be

contradictory to those predicted by rational choice theories?

Perceptions are multi-dimensional and have behavioral implications for humans’

decision-making. What, then, are the implications of perceptions on decisions and

behaviors? Why is this related to reactions to change? First, let us consider a question of

whether perceptions are a source of input for making a decision. If we are to agree that

humans use perceptions as inputs for arriving at decisions, we face a question of whether we

perceive the world around us as others do. The central idea here is that a person may obtain

a different perception of a stimulus than others do,39 and each reacts to this stimulus

according to his or her interpretation process and is thereby motivated to make a decision

39 There is also the question of whether we assume that humans have an objective description of the world as it really

is; that is, whether their perception of the world corresponds to the world as it really is.

33

that is different to one another. This point emphasizes at least two implications. First, if

different people have different perceptions of a similar object at a given moment and in a

given circumstance, and if one perception, as a certain input for a process of choosing,

contributes to one decision and/or behavior rather than another, then one may conclude that

variations in decisions and behaviors can be explained by variations in perceptions. Second,

if, on the other hand, a perception varies across space and time—that is to say, a person’s

perception of a similar object does not hold true at another moment and in another

circumstance, then we may acknowledge consequences of time and space on humans’

perceptions. Here, it seems to me, if the concept of perceptions is to be applied in this

dissertation, it is important to recognize that one shall have to understand the basic elements

of this construct.

The PBV perspective deals with how perceptions, attitudes, and emotions are used by

individuals to solve a problem or to make a decision. At the abstract level, it deals with the

effects and implications of psychological factors on individuals’ decision-making in a

choice situation. In this sense, the central question concerns the extent to which

psychological and emotional factors exert an influence on humans’ decisions and behaviors.

By approaching humans’ decision-making with the PBV logic rather than with the rational

approach, one will observe at least three key differences between the two approaches.

A first difference is that the PBV perspective does not assume that decision-makers

focus on a choice that maximizes expected utility, which is at the heart of the rational choice

perspective, influenced by the neoclassical economic theory.40 Viewed from an economic

perspective, an individual is outcome-driven self-interested, thereby attempting to maximize

expected utility. More importantly, we should make a distinction between a rational choice

of an individual and a rational choice of the firm. This is important because one choice may

seem irrational to one person, but it may seem rational to another. For illustration, I can use

the logics of economics—the utility function. If two persons arrive at a rational choice that

maximizes expected utility of their utility function respectively, and if both do not have a

similar utility function, then both will not arrive at the same decision. If one of them

presumes the other to hold the similar utility function, it is possible that this person may

view the other’s choice as an irrational choice.41

40 In its simplest form, the economic model of decision-making assumes that managers have perfect information and

thus could make decisions that maximize profits. For a critique of the economic model of decision-making, see

Simon (1957) and March and Simon (1958). The logic of the economic model of decision-making may be extended

to employees’ decision-making. 41 Assume that he thinks such choice that the other has made gives a lower level of expected utility (according to his

own utility function).

34

A second difference is that although I tend to agree with prior research on decision-

making asserting that humans make rational decisions,42 I do not believe that humans

always arrive at a rational decision. Now consider a simple example of an angry man.

Should we assume that all decisions he makes at the moment of angriness are rational? If

your answer is “no”, then you are getting close to agreeing with my argument. As this

example illustrates, several psychological constructs such as emotion or attitude exert a

directive or influence on individuals’ decision-making process and outcomes, thereby

diminishing the use of rationality in the process of making a decision.

A third difference is that the PBV perspective does not assume that decision-makers

consistently use a rational decision-making process that focuses on analytical

comprehensiveness. According to Miller (1987), analytical comprehensiveness is a concept

that focuses on individuals’ systematic scanning and analysis of environments in decision-

making processes. Consider a situation in which people have to make quick responses; that

is, there is a time constraint for arriving at decisions. In these circumstances, they may not

go through all steps in decision-making process for making their decisions.

Most important for the PBV perspective is that the greater the existence of the

psychological factors for an individual in a choice selection situation, the stronger the

predictive power of the PBV logic; that is, the PBV posits that the nature and magnitude of

psychological factors existing at the time of decision-making will condition the effects of

these psychological factors on a decision choice, and moderate the extent to which

individuals make use of the rational-decision making process. In this dissertation,

perception-based predictions of employees’ behavior are tested using the degrees of

resistance to change and support for change of employees as dependent variables.

For the moment, to illustrate a potential limitation to the PBV logic, consider a case

that resistance to change of an employee only depends on two perceptions: perception A and

perception B. Suppose that each of these perceptions has a positive effect on an employee’s

resistance to change: that is, the greater the degree of perception A, the greater the degree of

resistance to change becomes. Similarly, the greater the degree of perception B, the greater

the degree of resistance to change becomes. Suppose that the firm has a change management

strategy that is effective at minimizing perception A, but is ineffective at minimizing

perception B. Suppose that this employee has a low level of perception A but a high level of

perception B. The net effect of these two perceptions on resistance to change may be that

42 Rational decisions in this sense are not limited to rational choices within a boundary of the rational choice theory in

economics. The notion of rational decisions here is in a broader sense and includes both a rational decision and a

decision that is derived from a rational decision-making process.

35

this employee only produces average levels of resistance to change, and subsequently

average levels of work performance. If researchers were to measure the degree of perception

A that influences this employee to resist a change, and correlate this perception with this

employee’s resistance to change, they might conclude that perception-based predictions

were not supported; i.e., resistance to change is higher than predicted by the perception-

based logic. On the other hand, if researchers were to measure the degree of perception B

that influences this employee to resist a change, and correlate this perception with this

employee’s resistance to change, they might conclude that perception-based predictions

were not supported, but in a different way; i.e., resistance to change is lower than predicted

by perception-based logic. Both of these findings apparently contradict the perception-based

logic which will be discussed in greater detail in the following section, although, at this

employee’s overall perceptions, perception-based logic may be strongly supported.

3.2. Research Model and Hypotheses

In view of research issues and research questions discussed earlier, the model of perceptual

and attitudinal factors exerting an influence upon employees’ resistance to change and

support for change presented here represents an attempt to develop a conception of the

directive influence of perceptions and attitudes on decisions of the employees in the context

of organizational change upon which to support the perception-based view of the employee.

As such, the research model links various perceptions and attitudes on the one hand and

resistance to change and support for change on the other hand. It is theorizing that, through

a decision-making process, a range of perceptions and attitudes may exert the effects upon

the nature and magnitude of resistance to change and support for change.

While prior empirical research has examined the role of some of these factors, much of

prior research has focused on a smaller set of variables than the one this dissertation

examines. Additionally, empirical research pertaining to the examination of factors

influencing employees’ support for change is relatively sparse. Here, it seems to me, much

of past empirical research has emphasized more on the examination of resistance to change

and less on the investigation of acceptance of change or support for change. An example of

empirical works on acceptance to change is an empirical study by Iverson (1996) examining

the relationships between various factors such as organizational commitment, job

satisfactory and job motivation on the one hand and employees’ acceptance of

organizational change on the other hand. Another example is an empirical study by Iverson

and Pullman (2000) investigating the determinants of voluntary and involuntary turnover in

a repeated downsizing environment. The final example is an empirical study by Erez,

36

Earley, and Hulan (1985) examining the impact of participation on goal acceptance and

performance.

The review of the literature on employees’ reactions to various organizational

decisions (e.g., layoff, turnaround strategy, and employee compensation plan) has identified

several perception variables that are expected to exert an influence upon their resistance to

change and support for change. Based on the results of the initial literature review, the

research model, as illustrated in Figure 4, was developed. The explanatory variables

proposed in this research model using the perception-based predictions can be neatly

categorized into four groups or dimensions: (1) factors concerning change processes; (2)

factors concerning real and expected consequences of change; (3) factors concerning

employees’ ability; and (4) factors concerning employees’ relationship with the firm and

their colleagues.

To summarize, this dissertation focuses on (1) the degree to which employees support

or resist organizational change and (2) whether direct relationships exist between various

perceptions and/or attitudes and reactions to change. In the following section, I will discuss

each of hypothesized relationships in greater detail.

37

Figure 4: Conceptual Diagram of the ‘Direct Effects’ Model

Factors concerning

Employees’

Relationships

with the Firm and

Colleagues

Factors concerning

Actual & Expected

Consequences

of the Change

Factors concerning

Change Processes

Perceived Change in Power

Perceived Change in Status

Perceived Change in Pride

Job Satisfaction

Job Security

Job Motivation

Fear of Unknown Consequence of Change

Fear of Known Consequence of Change

Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived Procedural Justice

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making

Perceived Need for Change

Attitude toward Organizational Change

Factors concerning

Employees’ Ability

Perceived Employability

Self-Confidence for Learning/Development

Trust in Management

Affective Commitment

Colleagues’ Reaction to Change

Employees’ Reactions to Change

Passive Resistance to Change

Active Resistance to Change

Active Support for Change

Passive Support for Change

Factors concerning

Employees’

Relationships

with the Firm and

Colleagues

Factors concerning

Actual & Expected

Consequences

of the Change

Factors concerning

Change Processes

Perceived Change in Power

Perceived Change in Status

Perceived Change in Pride

Job Satisfaction

Job Security

Job Motivation

Fear of Unknown Consequence of Change

Fear of Known Consequence of Change

Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived Procedural Justice

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making

Perceived Need for Change

Attitude toward Organizational Change

Factors concerning

Employees’ Ability

Perceived Employability

Self-Confidence for Learning/Development

Trust in Management

Affective Commitment

Colleagues’ Reaction to Change











38

3.2.1. Perceived Organizational Support

The variation in employees’ reactions to change – resistance to change and support for

change – may be systematically attributable to certain perceptions, attitudes and emotions

that employees form about a change. Previous studies have suggested that perceived

organizational support is related to a wide array of work-related attitudes and outcomes

(Eisenberger, Fasolo and Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Accordingly, if perceived organization

support is correlated with certain decisions of employees, we would then expect that

employees are more likely to take into account perceived organizational change when

making decisions regarding whether to resist or support organizational change.

Consider employees who search for a response to organizational change by

considering the extent to which their organization has supported them. The value of

subjective perceptions of organizational support comes from the possibility of avoiding

negative consequences of organizational change. Intuitively they would be willing to

support organizational change efforts to the value of perceived organizational support they

receive. On the contrary, they will be more likely to resist organizational change if they hold

a perception that their organization does not support them.

Based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity

(Gouldner, 1960)43, which have been widely used for research on the relationship between

organizations and employees, it can be reasoned that employees’ perceived organizational

support affects their feeling of obligation to their organization. Based on the norm of

reciprocity, employees tend to respond positively to favorable treatments from their

employer, or they feel obliged to help those who helped them, implying a positive norm of

reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). On the contrary, employees tend to respond negatively to

unfavorable treatments from their employer or feel obliged to retaliate against those who

injured them, implying a negative norm of reciprocity in which individuals retaliate to the

injuries or the negative benefits enacted by others (Gouldner, 1960).

Prior empirical studies (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986) have found a positive correlation

between perceived organizational support and feelings of obligation. The key to this idea is

that based on the organization’s procedures and policies employees form perceptions about

the organization’s intentions and attitudes towards them. Then, they assign certain human-

like attributes/characteristics to the organization on the basis of the treatment they receive.

43 Gouldner (1960) noted that, in a view that exchanges of benefits or favors among individuals induce the imbedded

obligation, there are three different components of the process that form the governance of the norm of reciprocity.

A first component is equivalence, which is the extent to which the amount of return almost equates to what was

received. A second component is immediacy, which is the time period between repayment and receipt of favors. A

final component is interest, which is the motive of the partner in making the exchange of benefits.

39

In this view, employees who perceive greater support from their organization feel obliged to

repay their organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1990). In one

empirical study, Allen, Shore and Griffeth (2003) have illustrated that perceived supportive

human resource practices contributed to the development of perceived organizational

support, of which mediated relationships with organizational commitment and job

satisfaction.

Likewise, the concept of the inducements-contributions framework of voluntary

turnover (March and Simon, 1958) has suggested that a balance between the inducements

offered by the organization and the contributions expected of employees is more likely to

determine employees’ decision to continue their participation in the organization. In this

view, employees who have a perception of greater inducements would be less likely to

desire to leave the organization than those who have a perception of fewer inducements.

Research on psychological contracts44 examining implications of psychological

contract breach45 on employees’ attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Robinson and Morrison,

1994; Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Robinson, 1996; Turnley, Bolina, Lester and

Bloodgood, 2003) has suggested that the breach of psychological contracts often results in a

wide range of negative consequences such as declined job satisfaction or declined trust in

the organization. Thus, it is possible that employees may consider organizational change as

the breach of psychological contracts committed by their organization, and this promotes

their negative reaction to change.

In summary, an organization that offers support to its employees, particularly during

change processes, may be seen as offering greater inducements to employees, thereby

promoting a sense of obligation for the employees to repay to the organization. In this sense,

we might expect that perceived organizational support would be correlated with reactions to

change. Specifically, it is positively correlated with support for change and is negatively

correlated with resistance to change. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1a: Employees’ perceived organizational support will be negatively related to their

resistance to change.

H1b: Employees’ perceived organizational support will be positively related to their

support for change.

44 Psychological contract refers to an employee’s beliefs about the terms and conditions of the exchange agreement

between himself or herself and the organization (Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994) 45 An employee feels that the organization breaches the psychological contract when the organization has failed to

fulfill one or more of the perceived obligations comprising the psychological contract (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).

40

3.2.2. Perceived Procedural Justice

An important question arises regarding the likelihood of interaction between perceived

procedural justice and reactions to change. Before considering whether, or in what sense,

perceived procedural justice can explain employees’ reactions to change, one must first ask

what fairness or justice can do. Several researchers in management science have indicated

that fairness of organizational policies and procedures exerts an impact on people in

organizations (e.g., Adams 1965; Thibaut and Walker, 1975, Gopinath and Becker, 2000).

By recognizing the role of fairness of organizational policies and procedures on employees’

decisions, it is possible to investigate if one facet of justice – perceived procedural justice –

has an effect on employees’ reactions to change.

The literature dealing with (1) how employees react to inequitable processes and

outcomes (e.g., Greenberg, 1982; Folger and Greenberg, 1985) and (2) how they try to

establish equitable conditions (e.g., Greenberg, 1982; Folger and Greenberg, 1985) has

suggested that perceptions of fairness of organizational decision-making processes have

significant effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviors.46 Moreover, empirical research

has shown that perceived justice of the organization’s decision-making process has been

found to have effects on employees’ reactions to strategy implementation (Kim and

Mauborgne, 1993) and pay raise decisions (Folger and Konovsky, 1989). In addition,

perceptions of fairness have been found to be positively associated with employees’

organizational commitment (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992) and job satisfaction (Conlon and

Fasolo, 1990).

It should be noted that there are several forms of justice in the social psychology

literature: one of them is procedural justice; the other is distributive justice. What is

procedural justice? For Thibaut and Walker (1975), procedural justice refers to decision

control and process control in determining fairness. In a same vein, Tyler (1994) noted that

procedural justice deals with the fairness of a procedural or set of procedures. There are

several aspects of procedural justice: for example, consistency and bias suppression

(Leventhal, 1980). What is distributive justice? Distributive justice refers to the perceived

fairness of resource allocations or outcomes (Moorman, 1991). Rooted in the field of social

psychology, distributive justice theory has been used to study various organization

phenomena such as conflict resolution process (Karambayya and Brett, 1989) and work

group incentive pay plans (Dulebohn and Martocchio, 1998). In addition to its root in social

psychology literature, distributive justice is also grounded in equity theory, which states that

when outcomes are consistent with individuals’ inputs; they believe outcomes are fair

46 For a detailed review, see Lind and Tyler (1988)

41

(Folger and Crapanzano, 1998). Thus, one may reason that employees evaluate the fairness

of their own outcome by comparing it to a reference point (e.g., the outcome of their

colleagues).

Now let us cast an eye on empirical research on procedural justice in an organizational

setting in greater detail. A first example of empirical work on procedural justice is a study

by Brockner et al. (1994) which has found that perceptions of procedural justice

significantly influenced the reactions of employees who survive layoffs; that is, when

survivors of layoffs felt that procedural justice was high, the perception of negative

outcomes had no effect on their reactions, whereas survivors who felt that procedural justice

was low reacted more adversely to perceived negative outcomes.

Another example is an empirical study by Gopinath and Becker (2000) which has

found that high levels of perceived procedural justice are correlated with high levels of trust

in new ownership and high levels of post-divestiture commitment to the organization. This

study has also found that communications from management explaining the events helped

increase perceptions of the procedural justice of the divestiture and layoffs.

My final example of empirical study on procedural justice is a work by Korsgaard,

Sapienza and Schweiger (2002) which has found that procedural justice would moderate the

impact of planning change on employees’ obligations, trust in management, and intention to

remain in the organization. In light of previous theoretical and empirical research

aforementioned, extending these results to the context of organizational change by linking

perceived procedural justice to employees’ resistance to change and support for change

seems plausible.

If employees perceive a high level of procedural justice in organizational change

efforts, then consequences of organizational change may seem justifiable. Intuitively that

will promote the level of legitimacy of the change. Consequently, it may enhance

employees’ support for change, and reduce employee’s resistance to change. On the

contrary, if employees hold a perception that procedural justice regarding organizational

change is low, then consequences of organizational change may seem unjustifiable.

Intuitively that will reduce the degree of legitimacy of the change. Consequently, it may

reduce employees’ support for change, and increase employees’ resistance to change. In

sum, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a: Employees’ perceived procedural justice will be negatively related to their resistance

to change.

H2b: Employees’ perceived procedural justice will be positively related to their support

for change.

42

3.2.3. Perceived Participation in Decision-making

So far the argument that perceived procedural justice is likely to influence employees’

reactions to change has been made. The argument raises the issue of whether the extent to

which employees participate in decision-making might have an effect on their reactions to

change. It is clear that while perceived procedural justice and perceived participation in

decision-making may be parallel, they are not the same. Therefore, we should distinguish

between the two. Consider employees who hold a perception that procedural justice is high,

who seek to hedge or minimize the downside consequence of organizational change by

influencing decisions regarding the change. The perception of their participation in

decision-making is then not contingent upon their perception of procedural justice, implying

that one cannot assume that high levels of perceived procedural justice implies or equates

high levels of perceived participation in decision-making since they are two different

constructs.

Several researchers have emphasized the role of participation in decision-making for

promoting employees’ acceptance of change (e.g., Blumberg, 1976; Coch and French, 1948,

Lewin, 1951). Extending the logic of previous research, one might expect that employees

who perceive a low level of their participation in an organization’s decision-making

concerning organizational change tend to react more negatively to change than those who

perceive a high level of their participation in decision-making. Using the same logic, one

might expect that employees who perceive a high level of their participation in decision-

making process tend to react more positively to change than those who perceive a low level

of their participation in decision-making. The key to these propositions is that if employees

who face organizational change efforts evaluate their level of participation in decision-

making or the extent to which their organization allows them to participate in the decision-

making concerning organizational change or to express their opinions, concerns, or

suggestions, and if they correlate this perception of participation in decision-making to their

reactions to change, we may expect that a degree of perceived participation in decision-

making tends to be associated with employees’ resistance to change and support for change.

Empirical research on participation in decision-making has suggested that participation

in decision-making is related to a variety of work-related attitudes and decisions. For

example, a study by Ruh, Kenneth, and Wood (1975) has found a correlation between

participation in decision-making and job involvement. A more resent study by Allen, Shore

and Griffeth (2003) has found a significant negative and significant correlation between

participation in decision-making and turnover intentions and a significant positive

relationship between participation in decision-making and perceived organizational support.

However, prior empirical studies on participation in decision-making have shown mixed

43

results. For example, a study by Locke, Frederick, Lee, and Bobko (1984) has suggested

that participation in decision-making was less effective in production setting. Thus, findings

of this dissertation may help clarify these issues to some extent, and allow a theory to move

forward in a systematic fashion.

There are at least three reasons to support a proposition linking perceived participation

to change on the one hand and resistance to change and support for change on the other

hand. One reason is that according to the self-interest model (Thibaut and Walker, 1978),

which is based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), an organization’s decision has

implications for employees; therefore, employees will want to gain control (to some extent)

over the decision-making, and exert an influence on any major decision. This is because it is

possible that employees consider a control over decision-making as a means to mitigate the

magnitude of their own exposure to a potential negative effect. Consistent with the logic of

the self-interest model, I argue that if low levels of participation in a decision-making are to

promote uncertain feelings concerning a preferred outcome of organizational change, and if

employees perceive themselves as a decision-taker rather than a decision-maker because

they have a low level of participation in this decision-making process, and correlate this

perception with their subsequent decision, we might expect that perceived participation in a

decision-making is correlated with their reactions to change. Empirical evidence has

suggested the relationship between perceived participation in decision-making and reactions

to decisions of organizations. For example, a study by Erez, Earley and Hulin (1985) has

found that participative goal setting results in higher goal acceptance than goal assignment

and that when a variance in individual goal acceptance exists, the performance of

participative goal setting groups are higher than assigned goal setting group.

A second reason is that if perceived participation in decision-making is related to a

feeling of uncertainties in the organization due to the uncertainties surrounding

organizational change and its consequences, then employees who feel uncomfortable about

organizational change or a situation with which it is related may attempt to participate in

decision-making so that they may be able to obtain information about organizational change

(early enough and/or sufficient enough), and to have an opportunity to change it if needed.

By having a strong sense of control47 over a situation, especially decision-making,

employees may feel more secure about the situation regarding organizational change.

Empirical evidence has suggested that perceived control is negatively associated with

47 A sense of control has been defined as “a generalized belief on the part of the individual about the extent to which

important outcomes are controllable” (Parks, 1989: 21).

44

emotional distress (Spector, 1986) and negatively associated with burnout during a

downsizing process (Westmann, Etzion and Danon, 2001).

A final reason is that employees may view the merit of organizational change not only

on the content of organizational change (e.g., reasons for change and the expected

outcomes) but also on the process of organizational change (e.g., how a change is designed,

evaluated, selected and implemented). Specifically, a perception that an organization does

not allow employees to participate in a decision-making or express their opinion, concerns,

or suggestions may give a signal that an organization does not care about employees’

feelings.48 Based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity

(Gouldner, 1960), employees may return in kind the favors of the organization; that is, they

may react negatively to the change.

Following the above discussion, two hypotheses regarding the effects of perceived

participation in decision-making on employees’ reactions to change are developed. In

developing the hypotheses, it is assumed that employees have a perception that a higher

level of participation in the decision-making they have, the higher a probability of receiving

a positive consequence of organizational change (at least for themselves) becomes or the

lower a probability of receiving a negative consequence of organizational change (at least

for themselves) becomes. It is also assumed that employees have the same preference of a

level of participation in decision-making as a baseline.49 In addition, it is assumed that

employees take on the same initial degree of exposure to organizational change.50 In

summary, the effects of the perception of participation in a decision-making process on

employees’ reactions to change can be expressed in the following hypotheses:

H3a: Employees’ perceived participation in decision-making processes regarding

organizational change will be negatively related to their resistance to change.

H3b: Employees’ perceived participation in decision-making processes regarding

organizational change will be positively related to their support for change.

48 In my view, despite the fact that participation in decision-making is regarded as one facet of procedural justice or

fairness, we should not assume that low perceived participation in decision-making implies low perceived

procedural justice. 49 The alternative would be to assume that employees have a different preference of a level of participation in decision-

making. 50 The alternative would be to assume that employees take on the different initial degree of exposure to a change.

45

3.2.4. Perceived Need for Change

For organizational change to emerge there must be some underlying causes or antecedents

of a change in an organization. For organizational and/or strategy theorists, a combination

of internal and external pressures influences an organization to undertake a certain

archetype of organizational changes. For any change to occur, one can expect that most

organizations that want to undertake organizational change will communicate their

compelling reasons for change to employees at one point in time.

Research on organizational change has suggested that a proper communication from

management tends to help employees understand a situation and a need for organizational

change, thereby facilitating change processes and reducing employees’ resistance to change

(see, e.g., Kotter 1995; Kotter and Cohen, 2002). One of purposes of communication

between organizations and their employees is to legitimize organizations’ decision to enact

organizational change, subsequently promoting employees’ acceptance of the change.

Empirical research on organizational change management seems to support the role of

communication during change processes. For example, an empirical study by Gopinath and

Becker (2000) has found that in contexts of divestiture, communications from management

that help employees understand the events relating to the sales of business units are

positively correlated with the perceived procedural justice of the divestiture and the absolute

justice of layoffs.

Up to this point, it raises a question of whether employees will share the similar view

of a situation with that of their organization.51 Starbuck and Milliken (1988) suggested three

reasons concerning why perceptual filters of managers might affect noticing changes in the

environment. First, individual habits and beliefs will exert an effect on what they notice.

Second, some stimuli that are not actively noticed must change significantly in order to get

noticed. Third, the organizational institutionalization may induce problems of noticing

because resources are assigned to track those stimuli that top managers have perceived as

important, while other stimuli that top mangers have not identified as important may not be

traced, and go unnoticed. Additionally, a study by Barr, Stimpert and Huff (1992)

attempting to investigate a relationship between changes in mental models of top managers

and changes in organizational action has suggested that top managers may not notice

changes in the environment because these changes are not central to existing mental models

51 Or, to be more precise, that of the organization’s top management. Note that, unless stated otherwise, the terms “top

management” and “organization or organizations” are used interchangeably, i.e. top management’s view refers to

the organization’s view, and vice versa.

46

of top managers, and it has also found that the organization that renewed its strategy and

still survives shows a definite succession in mental models.

Based on the preceding discussion, it raises a question of whether the concept of the

perceptual filters of managers may be applicable to employees. If employees have such

filters, we might reason that they may not notice changes in the environment because their

existing mental models do not focus on those changes. One possible implication of this is

that employees who have not noticed changes in their environment tend to have a differing

view on organizational change than those (e.g., top managers or other employees) who have

noticed these changes in the environment.

Figure 5: Five Stages of Organizational Decline

Source: Weitzel and Jonsson (1989), p. 102

But what is a perceived need for change? Anderson and Paine (1975: 815), from a strategic

formulation standpoint, defined a perceived need for change as “the perception by the

47

strategic formulator (boundary spanner) of a distinct lack of competence, capabilities, or

internal resource to carry out a planned program of action”. If organizations fail to perceive

a need for change and to carry out a corrective action, they may experience a decline. As

illustrated in Figure 5, Weitzel and Johnsson (1989) suggested a model that portrays five

stages of organizational decline from the early stage of decline to the demise of organization

as follows: the blinded stage, the inaction stage, the faulty action stage, the crisis stage, and

the dissolution stage.

One plausible interpretation on Anderson and Paine’s (1975) definition of a perceived

need for change and on Weitzel and Johnsson’s (1989) model of organizational decline is

that for organizational change to be perceived as needed, one condition must be fulfilled:

that is, a currently planned program of actions is less likely to be fulfilled, subsequently

resulting in lower performance. In this sense, it may suggest that people (e.g., top managers

and employees) may perceive that their organization needs to change when viewing that a

considerable threat to certain aspects of the organization exists. Hence, this definition of

perceived need for change does not take another important aspect of organizational change

into account. That is, organizational change may be initiated in order to capitalize on an

opportunity to enhance firm performance or to preempt competitors from taking

opportunities that may present a great threat to the firm. One may argue that for

organizations with good performance, there may not be a need for change to survive, but

there may be a need for change to take an advantage of available opportunities to perform

better. Similarly, one may argue that although organizations may perform well, they should

try to enact organizational change that may improve their performance. In this sense, we

clearly observe an ambiguity of the term “perceived need for change”, suggesting a

subjective nature of how one defines and quantifies a need for change.

It is useful to note that from employees’ point of view, the context in which

organizational change takes place tends to exert an effect on employees’ perceptions of need

for change. For example, organizational change in a turnaround situation tends to be

perceived of greater need than organizational change in a normal situation, demonstrating

the implication of the context in which organizational change occurs on employees’

perceived need for change. In summary, two hypothesize are proposed:

H4a: Employees’ perceived need for change will be negatively related to their resistance

to change.

H4a: Employees’ perceived need for a change will be positively related to their support for

change.

48

3.2.5. Attitude towards Organizational Change

Several researchers (e.g., Kirton and Mulligan, 1973) have suggested that there are effects

of employees’ attitudes towards organizational change on their reactions to change. As

discussed earlier, any attitude may register directive effects on a person’s predisposition to

formulate a certain type of pre-determined reaction to a wide range of objects, it ought to be

possible that employees’ positive or negative attitudes towards organizational change may

exert an effect on their perceptions of organizational change and a situation with which it is

related.

Much of the attitude literature has suggested that there is considerable consistency in

the underlying belief that an individual with attitudes about an idea, item or object is likely

to approach such idea, item or object with a set of pre-determined behaviors, essentially

demonstrating a distorted information processing and interpreting process and a form of

preference. As Allport (1935: 8) has defined an attitude as “a mental and neural state of

readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the

individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related”, one can reason

that attitude induces not only pre-determined responses but also tendencies towards

performing of such responses. Prior research has shown that attitudes are related to a variety

of decisions of people in organizational setting. For example, Robey (1979) argued that

attitudes could affect the use of a computer based information system, and found that users’

attitudes are significantly related to management information system use.

Past research has suggested that employees’ experiences with other decisions of an

organization have an impact on their evaluation of the current decision of the organization.

For example, Davy, Kinicki, and Scheck (1991) found that the ways in which employees

evaluate an organization’s decision-making process (e.g., decision-making process

concerning a layoff) are undertaken in the context of their experiences with other decisions.

Therefore, it is logical to argue that prior evaluation of organizational change is likely to

exert a directive effect on the evaluation of a present organizational change effort. If a series

of the evaluations results in similar outcomes, one might reason that these outcomes,

through the attitude construction mechanism, may form or promote a positive or negative

attitude about organizational change.

What is attitude towards organizational change? Generally speaking, there is no

general agreement on the definition of attitude towards organizational change in the

literature. Grounding on Sarnoff’s (1960) definition of attitude, attitude towards

organizational change is defined here as a disposition to react favorably or unfavorably to a

change within an organization. It must be noted that there is no restriction on this definition

with regard to whether attitudes toward organizational change are conscious or unconscious

49

in nature. My position is that a question of whether employees recognize the existence of

their attitudes is of irrelevance to this dissertation so long as an influence of attitudes

towards organizational change on shaping employees’ reactions to change does in fact exist.

Parallel to the logic of hypotheses 4a and 4b, it is expected that there is a direct

relationship between employees’ attitude towards organizational change and their reactions

to change. Specifically, it is expected that a positive attitude towards organizational change

may result in greater positive perceptions of a current change and/or greater feelings of

comfort with the change and, through positive perceptions of a current change and/or

feelings of comfort with the change, lead to lower levels of resistance to change and/or

higher levels of support for change. Likewise, it is possible that a positive attitude towards

organizational change may result in a distortion of perceptual process. Thus, a positive

attitude towards organizational change may promote a positive perception of the change,

weaken any feeling of uneasiness with the presence of the change, and thus facilitate a

decision to accept or support a change.

On the other hand, a negative attitude towards change may create negative perceptions

of a current change and/or feelings of uncomfortable with a current change, which can result

in a distortion of perceptual process. In this sense, employees who have a negative attitude

towards organizational change may have a negative perception of organizational change that

promotes feelings of uneasiness with the presence of organizational change and, thus, leads

to higher levels of resistance to change and/or lower levels of support for change. In sum,

the effects of attitudes towards organizational on employees’ reactions to change can be

expressed in the following hypotheses:

H5: Employees’ (positive) attitude towards organizational change will be negatively

related to their resistance to change.

H5: Employees’ (positive) attitude towards organizational change will be positively

related to their support for change.

50

3.2.6. Fear of Known Consequences of a Change

One can question whether fear serves as a determinant of humans’ reactions. Or for that

matter interferes or hinders the process of arriving at any reaction. In either case, it is a

valuable moment to examine if there is an effect of fear on humans’ decision. For purposes

of discussing fear of known consequences of change, one must first note that fear is one

kind of emotional states (Ortony et al., 1988) that are capable of exerting influences on

humans’ decision. How can fear be conceptualized so as to make this concept useful for

management theory? Interestingly, it is relatively difficult to find a clear and precise

conceptualization of fear in the management literature. But according to Merriam-Webster’s

Collegiate Dictionary, fear refers to “an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by

anticipation or awareness of danger”. Due to a lack of empirical or theoretical knowledge of

fear in the management literature, this dissertation follows much of theories and frameworks

from other social sciences (e.g., psychology) to understand effects of fear in the

organizational setting, particularly in an organizational change situation. But what does this

fear of known consequences of a change effort have to do with employees’ reactions to

change?

Fear is often considered as a factor that triggers employees’ resistance to change

(Agócs, 1997, Kotter and Cohen, 2002). But why is this so? In the case before us, where the

organization is trying to undertake organizational change, which is intended to improve

organizational performance, fear of known consequences of a change becomes a barrier to

employees’ acceptance of change, because it exerts a negative effect on any person’s

rational thinking. If we accept the notion that fear can affect our thinking and reasoning, we

might expect that fear can also affect our decision-making in general and our decision-

making concerning a reaction to change in particular. Thus it is not hard to observe that

researchers have associated fear with resistance to change. For example, Dubrin and Ireland

(1993) noted that resistance to change is attributed to employees’ fear of poor outcomes, the

unknown, and realization of pitfalls with the change. In the same vein, Kotter and Cohen

(2002) posited that fear or panic drives self-protection or immobilization.

There are numerous explanations for a question of why we react negatively to an

object or idea while we fear such objective or idea. First, fear can suppress our rational

thinking and decision-making—that is to say, fear may shorten a person’ sequences of

thinking process or duration of such processes because it reduces a set of information

needed for making a decision and encourages impulsive decisions. Second, in circumstances

where fear exists, we may arrive at decisions that we may not have made in other

circumstances. In the extreme case, fear can force anyone to kill someone. Although we do

not expect that fear will force employees to kill managers, we must recognize that fear is

51

powerful and capable of invoking a person to do things unimaginable. Third, the known

consequences may be psychologically unbearable—that is to say, employees who view the

know consequences as psychologically unacceptable or as a threat to their psychologically

well-being may react negatively to ideas of experiencing this change. Finally, the known

consequences may be viewed as practically unattainable at the level of individual or firm.

For example, if employees who realize new demands of them and limitations of their

resources and/or abilities do not hold a belief that they could meet these new demands, then

they will be more likely to react negative to this change.

Through the fear-generating mechanisms and the effects of fear of known

consequences, employees tend to react negatively to change. The argument for employees

making resistance to change is relatively straightforward. To the extent that employees are

afraid of or fear the known consequences, they will feel that this change is not good, at least

not good for them. Or is it the other way around? In either case, fear will drive them into

protection mode. In order to get rid of feelings of fear, they either (1) accept the situation as

it is and live with it or (2) remove a source of fear—that is to alter the change. Using the

logic of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960),

it is argued that feelings of fear are likely to result in a more negative evaluation of the

organization making organizational change and of the change because this change is viewed

as a negative treatment a person receives from the organization. Therefore, if they are afraid

of or fear the known consequences, and they feel that the organization treats them badly

with this change, they return the organization a negative treatment—they resist the change.

Although much of prior research on resistance to change has suggested that, under an

underlying assumption that employees’ fear tends to recede when they are well aware of

what is going on (e.g., Kanter, 1995), the positive effects of communication in various

phases of the change process may minimize their resistance to change. However, the

organization’s communication of organizational change alone may not be sufficient to

reduce employees’ resistance to change because fear induced by knowing the content (e.g.,

the consequences of the change) may be responsible for their resistance to change. In

summary, to test the potential effect of fear of known consequences of a change on

employees’ reactions to change, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H6a: Employees’ fear of known consequences of a change will be positively related to

their resistance to change.

H6b: Employees’ fear of known consequences of a change will be negatively related to

their support for change.

52

3.2.7. Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change

As the preceding discussion of fear of known consequences of a change concerns primarily

the effects of fear induced by knowing consequences of a change on employees’ reactions to

change, I now turn my attention to a related-but-distinct factor—fear of unknown

consequence of a change. Specifically, I examine whether there is any relationship between

employees’ fear of unknown consequences of a change and their reactions to change. From

a practical perspective, shifting attention from explaining employees’ reactions to fear of

known consequences to explaining their reactions to fear of unknown consequences allows

an organization to decide on the extent to which the information on organizational change

should be communicated to its employees.

In the organizational change literature, there are suggestions that change

communications are more likely to reduce employees’ resistance to change (Kanter, 1995;

Cobb, Wooten and Folger, 1995) because these communications will reduce anxiety about

change (Kanter, 1995), and increase a perception of fairness of change (Cobb et al., 1995).

Because past research has found that organizational change is related to anxiety and stress

(Jick, 1985; Leana and Feldman, 1992), most change management models and frameworks

(Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995; Galpin, 1996) have emphasized the roles and effects of

communication during the change process.

Anticipating the effect of fear of unknown consequences of a change on employees’

resistance to change is supported by two reasons. One reason is that the majority of people

tend to be afraid of moving from the known to the unknown—that is to say, if

organizational change entails moving employees from the known sphere to the unknown

sphere, and if employees are afraid of the unknown, then we might expect that employees

who do not know the consequences of a change tend to have a negative response to that

change (Steinburg, 1992; Coghlan, 1993).

Another reason is that if the majority of people tend to form a negative perception

about the unknown, we might expect that employees may form a negative perception about

the unknown consequence, leading to fear of not knowing consequences of change. This

fear of unknown consequences of a change then contributes to resistance to change. As

Mabin, Forgeson and Green (2001) noted that fear of unknown may be defined as being

uncertain about the nature of change, feeling that he or she does not know what is going on,

and what the future is likely to hold, it is possible that employees may have a rather dark

image of the unknown consequences of a change.

As discussed earlier, most people do not want to experience a feeling of fear. If

employees decide to direct their fear of unknown consequences of a change towards the

organization because they feel that such change is a bad treatment of the organization for

53

them, using the logic of the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity

(Gouldner, 1960), we might expect that they will react negatively to organizational change

that has induced fear to them. However, past research has not discussed the likelihood that

without fear employees will support the change. Therefore I also examine whether there is a

relationship between fear of unknown consequence of a change and support for change—

that is to say, if employees have a low level fear of unknown consequence of change, then

they may support such change. Although this prediction does not directly address a question

of whether communication during the change process will enhance employee’s support for

change, it will indirectly address a question of whether communication that minimizes

employees’ fear of unknown consequence of a change will promote their support for

change.52

To summarize, the above discussion suggests two hypothesized relationships. On the

one hand, I predict a negative relationship between fear of unknown consequence of a

change and resistance to change. Using the same theoretical lens, I examine whether there is

a negative relationship between fear of unknown consequences of a change and support for

change. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H7a: Employees’ fear of unknown consequences of a change will be positively related to

their resistance to change.

H7b: Employees’ fear of unknown consequences of a change will be negatively related to

their support for change.

52 Many researchers (e.g., Kotter, 1995; Galpin, 1996; and Kotter and Cohen, 2002) have argued that organizations’

communication to employees during organizational change processes will lower employees’ fear of unknown

consequences, and increase employees’ support for change.

54

3.2.8. Perceived Change in Power

Research in a variety of setting has revealed a consistent view of power. In particular,

several studies have noted that loss of power is associated with resistance to change (e.g.,

Agócs, 1997; Trader-Leigh, 2002). This dissertation therefore examines if there is a

relationship between perceived change in power and reactions to change. What is power?

The term “power” can be seen in a wide range of disciplines: for example, political science,

organization theory, sociology and psychology. Several definitions of power have been

offered and adopted in research over year. One of influential definitions of power is French

and Raven’s definition. That is, power has been defined as “the perception by P that O has a

legitimate right to prescribe behavior for him” and that P accepts “that O has a legitimate

right to influence P and P has an obligation to accept that influence” (French and Raven,

1959: 151). Another example of definitions is the one offered by Pierce and Newstrom

(1995: 21), defining power as “the ability to change one’s environment”.

A review of literature on power has suggested that the concepts of power, influence,

and control have been used almost interchangeably. For example, legitimated power is one

form of influence, and individuals develop power to have a control in order to meet

organizational and personal objectives (Pfeffer, 1981). Similarly, influence refers to “the

process whereby one party changes the views or preferences of another so that they now

conform to their own” (Dawson, 1996: 170). In addition, a concept of power distance,

which refers to the extent to which less powerful members of an organization or a society

accept an unequal or hierarchical distribution of power within an organization or in a society

(Hofstede, 1980), has been as a key explanation to various studies. Here, it seems to me,

concepts of power, influence and control are, at least, overlapping each other.

In organizational setting, power is generally associated with a position in an

organization; that is, a higher level of a hierarchical position in an organization, a higher

level of power is associated with it. In this view, any change in an organization that affects a

power or hierarchical structure in an organization may result in creating a combination of

three distinct groups of employees. A first group consists of any employee who will receive

or gain greater power in this organization as a consequence of this change. A second group

consists of any employee who will have lesser power in this organization as a consequence

of this change. A final group consists of any employee who will experience no change of

their power in this organization. It is not surprising that employees who will have less power

in an organization as a result of this change may react to this change differently than those

who will have more power as a result of this change or than those who will maintain their

current level of power. One important aspect requires attention here. That is, there is a

question of whether employees’ goals and an organization’s goals are always aligned. To

55

this question, we may reason that both managers and employees regarded as an agent of an

organization may have a set of personal goals (e.g., career goals) that is not necessarily

coherent or aligned with that of an organization.53 The key here is that an effort to achieve

the organization’s objectives by inducing organizational change may affect the attainment

of employees’ personal goals. Thus, employees whose personal goals have been negatively

affected by organizational change may attempt to defend their personal goals through

various means.

A perceived negative change in power as a consequence of a change can lead to

aversive psychological outcomes. Using logics of the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)

and the norm of reciprocity (see, e.g., Blau, 1964; Eisenberger et al, 1986; Fasolo and

Davis-LaMastro, 1990), one can reason that employees’ strong feelings of deterioration in

power may result in their resistance to change because they may feel that their organization

has mistreated them. If a perceived change in power is considered as an injury or

mistreatment committed by the organization, then employees may have a negative response

to the change. On the other hand, employees who have a perception that they have, or will

have, more power as a consequence of a change may have a more positive response to the

change because they may view this perceived gain in power as a benefit provided by the

organization, and feel obliged to repay the organization by providing support for change.

Based on the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, it can be argued that

employees in a change situation will have a normative expectation about the likelihood of

various outcomes regarding their power position in an organization that might occur in that

setting. The actual outcomes that occur in a change setting do not necessarily conform to

these expectations for a variety of reasons. Suppose that the least employees expect is to

maintain the current level of their power. Any such deviation of actual outcomes from

expectation has an effect on their reactions to change. Employees may reduce negative

deviations (loss in power) by resisting such change (with an attempt to alter the change so

that their power will not be reduced). On the contrary, employees may not reduce positive

deviations (gains of power), and thus support the change. Thus, the following hypotheses

are proposed:

H8a: An employee’s perceived rise (fall) in power resulting from a change will be

negatively (positively) related to their resistance to change.

H8b: An employee’s perceived rise (fall) in power resulting from a change will be

positively (negatively) related to their support for change.

53 In economics, this kind of problem is known as a principal-agent issue, see Fama (1980) for a detailed discussion.

56

3.2.9. Perceived Change in Status

Does it bother you when you get a lower status in your social group? Or when your friend or

colleague rejects, neglects, or ignores your request that was once easily accepted? Or for

that matter disagrees or argues with you? Of course, you are left feeling hurt, upset, and

angry, but the question is why? Why does that bother us? Why do you care if you get a

lower status in a society?54

So often we throw around the words like status, ranking, and position. But what do

they all mean and how are they connected to our decision? In general, status indicates the

relative standing of a person in his or her social group. But what does this have to do with

being upset, hurt, or angry? Researchers have argued that a person’s status is based on the

prestige, honor and deference accorded him or her by other members of the group (Lovaglia

and Houser, 1996).55 When we talk about the concept of status, we refer to two interrelated

concepts: (1) the creation of status ranking, and (2) the attempt to achieve high status

ranking (Waldron, 1998). That would be great if we could get it ourselves directly, but

status is a by-product of how we behave or live our life. It cannot be gained directly.

Notice that I say “by other members of the group”. In order to gain the prestige, honor

and deference accorded by other members, we must do what is right, and more importantly

be perceived to do something right, meaning that we must be able to behave for a period of

time that can be weeks, months, or even years. This is why any situation that takes away our

status in effect harm our self-esteem, because when we feel being demoted in status, we

think we do something wrong. Therefore we find that our self-esteem is intertwined. And

that is the key. A change in anyone’s status implies a change in a set of relationship

between this person and other people in the social group. As we will see, it is the loss of

status that exerts effects on our decision. When we see our status in a society is declining,

we will often see ourselves fighting back against whatever seems to cause that change. We

become defensive and that is understandable. For instance, when we are ordered to take up a

position that is considered to be lower than the one we are currently occupying, we do not

feel good about ourselves, and we may even feel guilty and fight back. Any situation that

robs us of our status forces us consciously or unconsciously to react negatively. Prior

research on organizational change management has suggested that employees’ status quo in

54 Research on status has been undertaken in at least three disciplines: (1) sociology, (2) anthropology, and (3)

psychology. Arguments made in this dissertation are mainly from theories and frameworks from sociology and

psychology. 55 Note that we should distinguish between status in organizational contexts and the formalized positions in the

organizations. As Waldron (1998) points out, formalized positions and status rankings may often be parallel, but

they are not identical.

57

an organization induces resistance to change, particularly when a change negatively affects

their status quo (e.g., Smith, 1982; Spreitzer and Quinn, 1996). Additionally, Spreitzer and

Quinn (1996) discovered that middle managers claimed that higher-ranked executives

resisted change efforts. Similarly, Smith (1982) found that people in power often try to

maintain the status quo rather than change it and that when a proposed change is perceived

of having a negative impact on their power, such perceived loss of power enacts a defense

mechanism, leading to resistance to change. Research has also shown that the achievement

of status is one of the important concerns of employees (e.g., Kovach, 1987).

Many people tend to associate power with social status, maintaining that the greater

the power, the higher the rank of social status becomes. When organizational change affects

our status in a negative way, it causes us to question ourselves as a person, and we have a

tendency, conscious or unconscious, to behave in ways that may maintain our status. Do

you feel that words like power and status sound similar to us? Although power and status

may often be parallel, they are not the same. Therefore it is important to distinguish between

the two, and that will allow us to study the effects of perceived change in status.

There is also another aspect to consider. Based on the social exchange theory (Blau,

1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), it is argued that employees will view a

decline in their status in an organization as a negative treatment they receive from an

organization, and feel obliged to return a negative treatment to the organization (Gouldner,

1960). This is why people are easily annoyed and upset when something demotes their

status. And this is exactly why, when a change affects employees’ status, they tend to have a

negative response to such change. On the other hand, one can argue that employees facing

organizational change will react positively when they feel that such change will provide

them a higher status in an organization. This is because employees may perceive a higher

status as a positive treatment they receive from an organization, and feel obliged to return a

positive favor or benefit to the organization, leading them to support the change.

In line with this discussion, it can be reasoned that there may exist the relationship

between employees’ perceptions of change in status resulting from organizational change

and their reactions to change. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H9a: An employee’s perceived rise (fall) in status resulting from a change will be


H9b: An employee’s perceived rise (fall) in status resulting from a change will be

positively (negatively) related their support for change.

58

3.2.10. Perceived Change in Pride

An idea that employees’ perceived change in pride affects their reactions to change has yet

become well studied. A question in this context is: Does a perceived change in pride

resulting from organizational change exert an effect on a choice of reactions to change and

the magnitude of any chosen reaction? Based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)

and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), a general hypothesis is that any modification

to a person’s pride will be the major driver of his or her subsequence reactions to a cause of

such modification.

It is argued that employees facing organizational change will have a normative

expectation about the likelihood of various outcomes of a change that might occur in that

setting. Any outcome of a change that robs or decreases employees’ pride forces them to

react negatively to such change—that is to say, they will resist such change. On the other

hand, any outcome of a change that promotes or increases employees’ pride encourages

them to react positively to such change—that is to say, they will support such change.

What is pride? In general, pride is “the quality or state of being proud”. In the

organizational setting, pride can be defined here as the quality or state of being proud about

oneself in one’s social group (e.g., in one’s workplace). A question then is why any change

in pride has an effect on employees’ reactions to change. Initial answers to this question

focus on the psychological motivations for reacting to any change in pride. It is logical to

expect that any person who feels being robbed of his or her pride will feel hurt and upset,

and try to regain his or her pride. This is because we, as a human being, socialize with other

member of our social group. Interactions with other members and the group’s acceptance of

us in a social group are the key to our psychological well-being. When a person is left

feeling a loss of pride, these emotions or feelings tear away at his or her self-esteem.56

Loss of pride can lead to embarrassment and disruptive modifications of ties or

linkages between people and their social group. Thus, they will try to regain their pride, and

remove their embarrassment. One of possible cures for this loss of pride is to remove its

cause—the change. Thus, if employees perceive organizational change accountable for their

loss of pride, and feel that removing such change will bring back their pride, they will try to

remove such change, meaning that they will resist the change.

As mentioned earlier, the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of

reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) can be used to explain the possible relationship between

perceived change in pride on the one hand and resistance to change and support for change

on the other hand. Consider organizational change that decreases employees’ pride. Suppose

56 See Maslow (1954, 1970) for a detailed discussion of the hierarchy of need’s theory.

59

that employees’ pride is based on how they are proud of themselves in their social group. If

employees have a feeling that organizational change causes a negative change in their pride

(that they have in their workplace), and perceive this negative shift in pride as a negative

treatment or injury they receive from an organization, we might expect that they will want

to return in kind this injury to the organization—that is to say, they will resist the change.

On the contrary, if employees have a feeling that organizational change causes a positive

change in their pride (that they have in their workplace), and perceive that this positive

change in pride as a positive treatment or favor they receive from an organization, we might

expect that they will feel obliged to return in kind this benefit to the organization—that is to

say, they will support the change. This view is consistent with past research that has

suggested that pride is related with humans’ decision. For example, Kotter and Cohen

(2002) found that false pride or arrogance drives complacency, and that prevents the

implementation of planned change. This means that when employees perceive that their

pride may be obstructed or negatively affected by organizational change, they tend to

behave in such a way that may maintain the current state of pride, meaning that they will

resist the change.

It is important to note that pride is often associated with power; that is, the greater the

power, the greater the pride becomes. But it is crucial that we distinguish between the two

because even if power and pride may often be parallel, they are not the same. To illustrate

this point, consider whether employees who are proud of their contribution to the firm’s

success will always have more power in the organization. Of course their contribution may

lead them to be promoted to a higher position within the firm. A question is then whether

we can firmly conclude that pride and power are parallel in a situation where the

contribution does not lead to any promotion or more power57, and they are still proud of

themselves for what they have achieved for the organization. Thus, we should not assume

that pride and power are the same in this context. In sum, the following hypotheses are

proposed:

H10a: An employee’s perceived rise (fall) in pride resulting from a change will be


H10b: An employee’s perceived rise (fall) in pride resulting from a change will be positively

(negatively) related to their support for change.

57 Note that I focus only the power associated with a position in an organization. For simplicity, other kinds of power

or how others’ perceptions of his power are not taken into account.

60

3.2.11. Job Satisfaction

Now I should like to discuss another factor in my model—job satisfaction. The question is

whether there is a direct relationship between job satisfaction and reactions to change. Past

studies have tried to explain relationships between job satisfaction and a variety of decisions

and behaviors. For example, Mobley (1977) noted that job dissatisfaction often leads

employees to quit the organization due to the effect of the expectation that leaving an

organization will result in getting a more satisfying job. Therefore, it seems logical to argue

that job satisfaction may place considerable condition on an exchange relationship between

employees on the one hand and the organization and their reactions to change on the other

hand.

To fully understand what is going on, we have to answer the question: what is job

satisfaction? Research on job satisfaction has generated several definitions of job

satisfaction. I can only mention a few definitions here. First, Smith, Kendall and Hulin’s

(1969: 6) defined job satisfaction as “the extent to which an employee has a positive

affective orientation or attitude toward their job, either in general or towards particular

facets of it”. Second, Locke (1976: 1300) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or

positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences”.

Finally, Dorman and Zapf (2001: 486) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable emotional

state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job”. In a nutshell job satisfaction tells us about

how a person feels about his job—for example, whether he is happy or unhappy with his

job.

When employees are satisfied with their job, they may be happy because it satisfies

how they want to see themselves. And this helps them establish their ability to feel in

control. On the other hand, when they are not satisfied with their job, they may not be happy

because it hurts how they see themselves. It robs them of their ability to feel in control.

When they are not satisfied with their job, they feel uncomfortable. When they are told

doing wrong things at work, they go into protection mode—they try to defend themselves of

what they did, and more importantly, of a person they are.

This is why organizational change that changes the degree to which they are satisfied

with their job may bother them. A person with a perception that this change means he has

performed not well enough will fell uncomfortable, hurt, and upset. Because these feelings

eat away at his self-respect and self-esteem, he feels less good about himself. So he

becomes defensive and wants to protect his self-respect and self-esteem. He will react

negatively to this change. On the other hand, when a person thinks that this change indicates

that he has worked well, he will feel good, happy, and joyful. Because these feelings

enhance his self-respect and self-esteem, he feels better about himself. So he becomes more

61

open and wants to gain even more self-respect and self-esteem. Therefore he will react

positively to this change.

Prior research on job satisfaction has suggested that job satisfaction is positively

correlated with attitude towards change (Gardner et al., 1987). Moreover, it has been

empirically confirmed that low job satisfaction is related to high turnover (e.g., Mobley,

Horner and Hollingsworth, 1978; Porter and Steers, 1973). Another empirical study by

Farrell (1983) has found that low job satisfaction is related to four categories of behaviors—

exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Past studies have also suggested that job satisfaction is

sigificnatly correlated with organizational commitment (e.g., Brooke, Russell and Price,

1988, Davy et al., 1991). A more recent study by Iverson (1996) has found that employees

with high levels of job satisfaction will have higher levels of acceptance of organizational

change.

In addition, it should be noted that despite a general tendency to measure job

satisfaction at the overall job, several researchers have started to measure satisfaction with

job facets such as pay or promotion opportunities (e.g., Smith et al., 1979; Taber and

Alliger, 1995). In addition, some searchers (e.g., Weiss et al., 1967; Davy, Kinicki, and

Scheck, 1997) have started to distinguish between intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job

satisfaction. Intrinsic job satisfaction denotes a pleasurable emotional state resulting from

the appraisal of one’s intrinsic aspects of the job, whereas extrinsic job satisfaction denotes

a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s extrinsic aspects of the

job.

As the above discussion suggests, employees who perceive lower levels of job

satisfaction as a direct or indirect consequence of a change are more likely to react

negatively to change. Likewise, employees who have high levels of job satisfaction as a

direct or indirect consequence of a change are more likely to react positively to change. In

summary, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H11a: Employees’ job satisfaction will be negatively related to their resistance to change.

H11b: Employees’ job satisfaction will be positively related to their support for change.

62

3.2.12. Job Security

Is it possible that job security or insecurity might exert an influence on employees’ reactions

to change? The big question here is whether employees can make their decision properly

and correctly when they do feel insecure about their job situation. A variety of studies have

shown some consistency in the strength or even the direction of the relationships between

job security and several work-related decisions observed. For example, an empirical study

by Westman et al. (2001) has found that there is a relationship between job security and

burnout, whereas an empirical study by King (2000) has found that job security has a

significant impact on work efforts, organizational loyalty as well as on citizenship behavior.

Another empirical study by De Witte (1999) has also found that job security has effects on

psychological well-being. As a result, it ought to be possible that perceptions of job security

may have effects on employees’ reactions to change.

What is job security? Unlike job satisfaction, job security reflects the perceived

continuity in a job a person receives for his or her contribution to the organization. Job

security has been defined as “one’s expectations about continuity in a job situation” (Davy

et al., 1997: 323). What is job insecurity? Job insecurity has been referred to the degree of

uncertainty an individual has about his or her job continuity (see e.g., Greenhalgh, 1982).

Job insecurity has been defined as “the lack of control to maintain desired continuity in a

threatened job situation” (Hui and Lee, 2000: 216).

But how does job security or insecurity have to do with reactions to change? We all

know that for a change, any change, in an organization, we might sense its impact in one

way or another. If we do not feel anything about this change with regard to job security,

then it is fine. But if we feel that this change affects our job security, it causes us to question

our own self-worth and react on it. This is why employees with a perception of job

insecurity are highly sensitive—because they question themselves of their ability to work

and remain with the organization. When we feel insecure about our job situation, we feel

less good about who we are and what we do. The greater our feeling of job insecurity, the

greater hurt we feel. Therefore we go into protection mode—we react negatively. Resistance

to change is the impulsive response to this hurt feeling because we direct our resistance

toward the source that we feel responsible for eating away at our self-respect and self-

esteem. In sociology and psychology, the literature on trust suggests that trust lowers

transaction costs by ‘replacing contracts with handshakes’ (Adler, 2001). Therefore, we may

expect that both parties—employees and employers—would try to honor both formal and

informal contracts because withdrawing from the contacts is usually costly, and parties are

willing to accept such costs which can be in monetary and/or non-monetary forms only if

positive consequences of a contractual cancellation are considerable. Has there ever been a

63

time in your life when you had implicit expectations about your job security? Prior studies

have insisted that we do have implicit expectation about our job security (Rousseau, 1989).

Researchers have suggested that any perceived threat to the job security represents a

possible violation of the informal or psychological contract, and that leads to withdrawal

cognitions (Davy et al., 1997).

Feelings or perceptions of job insecurity during change processes can lead to aversive

psychological outcomes. This occurs through a complex process (e.g., interpretation), which

tends to weaken a person’s rational thinking mechanism. Strong feelings of job insecurity

that stem from organizational change can result in resistance to change because employees

may view resistance to change as a means to reverse the change. Why is this so? By

focusing on the negative aspects of change (e.g., job insecurity), employees will feel less

good about the change. When their feeling of job insecurity becomes so strong, they become

very emotional and tend to forget about other potentially good aspects of the change. In

addition, perceptions of uncertainty regarding the existence of one’s current job may be as

damaging as actual job losses (Latack and Dozier, 1986).

Another question is whether employees who feel secure at their job during change

processes are likely to be less emotionally affected by the change, thereby decreasing a

tendency to engage in such behaviors that opposes the change. Intuitively the magnitude of

perceptions of job security or insecurity is likely to influence how employees will react. It is

noteworthy that it may occur that a negative shift along a continuum—from job security to

job insecurity—tends to have a far greater effect on employees’ response than a positive

shift along the same continuum—from job insecurity to job security.

But do you feel that traditional notions of job security remain in many workplaces

nowadays? Rousseau (1995) posited that in some workplace settings employees tend to

focus on employability rather than job security. Thus, the extent to which employees value

job security may mediate the effect of job security on reactions to change. Additionally, a

notion of work-life balance58 was found positively correlated with organizational

commitment (Scandura and Lankau, 1997). This may also condition the effects of feelings

of job security on reactions to change. In sum, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H12a: Employees’ job security will be negatively related to their resistance to change.

H12b: Employees’ job security will be positively related to their support for change.

58 The concept of work-life balance concerns with career advancement and family responsibilities (Wolfe & Kolb,

1980)

64

3.2.13. Job Motivation

Recent developments in the management literature, and particularly in the field of

organizational behavior, have raised great interests as to how organizations can raise the

extent to which employees are motivated to perform their job (e.g., Herzberg, 1968).

However, it is not the purpose of this dissertation to discuss these interests, or to determine

whether organizations can motivate employees, or to examine what they should do to

motivate their employees.59 Rather, I shall assume that most, if not all, actions of an

organization affect employees’ job motivation, and shall put forth some proposition as to the

effect of job motivation on employee’s reactions to change might be.

Broadly speaking, an organization’s actions are expected to affect employees’ job

motivation because these actions may lead to significant changes at the employee level such

as new job characteristics, new hiring, or even dismissal (Korsgaard et al., 2002). Because

past research has suggested that job motivation tends to affect work performance (e.g.,

Herzberg, 1968), it can be reasoned that organizational changes may have an effect on

employees’ job motivation, and that job motivation may in turn determine not only the

choice of reactions to change but also the strength of such reaction. In this respect, this

dissertation focuses on examining if there is a direct relationship between job motivation on

the one hand and resistance to change and support for change on the other hand.

What is job motivation? Or for that matter, what is motivation? In psychology,

motivation has long been defined in relation to need strength. For example, McClelland’s

need theory has posited that humans are motivated by need for power, achievement and

affiliation (McClelland and Boyatizis, 1984). Prior research on job motivation in the

management literature seems to follow the frameworks of research on motivation in

psychology. For instance, the motivation-hygiene theory of job attitude (Herzberg, 1968)

has suggested that there are two sets of different needs of humans: one of which relates to

animal nature; another relates to unique characteristic of human—the ability to achieve and

to experiment with psychological growth.

Research on job motivation has distinguished between intrinsic motivation and

extrinsic motivation (Herzberg, 1968; Hui and Lee, 2000; Sansone and Harackiewicz,

2000). Intrinsic motivation represents “the relationship between a person and his/her job

itself” (Hui and Lee, 2000: 216) and is derived from within the person or form the activity

related to the job itself (Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). Research on intrinsic motivation

has suggested that task variety, task significance, task identity, and feedback from the task

59 In the research on job motivation, there are several theories: for example, Kanfer’s taxonomy of motivation theories

(1990) and Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964).

65

are the key characteristics that induce intrinsic motivation (Hackman and Oldham, 1976).

On the other hand, extrinsic motivation represents the relationship between a person and

externally administered rewards such as pay or prestige from others (Komaki, 1982).

An empirical study by Stumpf and Hartman (1984) has found that there is a positive

relationship between work motivation and perceived work performance and that work

motivation has a moderate correlation with intention to quit. Thus, it can be reasoned that if

there is a considerable relationship between job motivation and intention to quit, then, it

ought to be possible that there may be a relationship between job motivation and resistance

to change or support for change. It can be argued that employees who have a low level of

job motivation60 are less likely to provide support for organizational change than those who

have a high level of job motivation. In the same vein, employees who have a high level of

job motivation may be less likely to provide resistance to change than those who have a low

level of job motivation. Why is this so?

Drawing upon research on job motivation (e.g., Herzberg, 1968) suggesting that

employees seek to align motivation levels with efforts and that alignment processes have

certain implications for their decision, one may expect that the nature and magnitude of

employees’ reactions to change may also be influenced by their job motivation. In addition,

one may also reason that if past actions of organizations influence employees’ job

motivation, then organizational change may also influence their job motivation.

Suppose that organizational change has negative consequences for employees: for

example, greater levels of workloads or lower compensation. In this situation, employees

will be less motivated to work and, thus, more likely to provide resistance to change. On the

other hand, suppose that organizational change has positive consequences for employees:

for example, higher compensation or better job conditions. Then, they will be greater

motivated to work and, thus, more likely to render support for change. It must be noted that

in this dissertation, it is assumed that any effect of consequences of organizational change

on employees will be subsumed to a level of job motivation. In summary, it is hypothesized

that:

H13a: Employees’ job motivation will be negatively related to their resistance to change.

H13b: Employees’ job motivation will be positively related to their support for change.

60 For simplicity, I assume that the degree of job motivation of employees during organizational change represents the

net degree of job motivation after any effect of organizational change that may have on him.

66

3.2.14. Perceived Employability

As discussed earlier, a general attitude towards an idea, issue or object formed by an

individual is more likely to promote a positive or negative inclination on the perceptual

process and decision-making process.61 If employees form a perception about their

employability, which refers to how employable they are for another identical or better job in

the market, perceived employability may play a role in determining a kind of reactions to

change.

In contrast to a relative large body literature in the area of human resource

management dealing with a wide array of job characteristics such as job motivation (e.g.,

Herzberg, 1968), job security (e.g., Westman et al., 2001), or job satisfaction (e.g., Mobley

et al., 1978; Porter and Steers, 1973), research on employability has been extremely scant.

Indeed, I have found no theoretical or empirical work focusing on employability. The path I

propose to follow in theorizing the effect of perceived employability on reactions to change

is by using arguments of the concept of sense of control (e.g., Parks, 1989; Westman and

Etzion, 1995; Westman et al., 2001).

Sense of control is “a generalized belief on the part of the individual about the extent

to which important outcomes are controllable” (Parks, 1989:21). Following from this, I

propose that employees may consider “employability” as an important outcome and that

they may have a certain degree of sense of control over their employability—that is to say,

they may hold a certain belief about the extent to which acquiring new jobs are controllable.

In this view, it can be reasoned that perceived employability, at its core, has at least one

similar property as that of sense of control: that is to say, both constructs concern the extent

to which important outcomes are perceived to be controllable. Thus, I maintain that one may

extent the concept of sense of control to develop a better understanding of perceived

employability.

Empirical evidence has shown that sense of control exerts effects on several work-

related outcomes of employees. For example, an empirical study by Westman and Etzion

(1995) has found a negative relationship between sense of control and burnout of

employees: that is, sense of control helps reduce degrees of burnout. In a more recent study,

Westman et al. (2001) also found that employees’ burnout is associated with their feelings

of job insecurity as well as self-control. Thus, if sense of control has the effects on one’s

attitudinal and work outcomes, so has sense of perceived employability, and the prediction

that perceived employability may influence employees’ reactions to change will seem

plausible.

61 For a detailed discussion of the concept of attitudes, see Section 2.4 of this dissertation.

67

The nature and magnitude of perceived employability may arise from several sources

such as self-confidence (e.g., self-efficacy for performing), career aspiration, and current

characteristics of job market. Specifically, factors such as a high level of self-confidence, a

booming job market, good economic conditions or a high degree of knowledge possessed

and demanded by the market may promote a positive perception of one’s employability

which can be defined as a perception of having no difficulty for getting an identical or better

job if needed. On the other hand, factors such as a low level of self-confidence, a poor job

market, poor economic conditions or a low degree of knowledge possessed and demanded

by the market may promote a negative perception of one’s employability which can be

defined as a perception of having some difficulty in getting an identical or better job than

the current one if needed.

The important for us to observe is that the perceived employability construct also has

one property of the concept of self-confidence: that is, to say, for employees to form their

perceived employability, they need to form a level of confidence that they will achieve a

certain goal, of which is getting a new job. Thus, one may also extend the logic of the

concept of self-confidence to explain potential effects of perceived employability for

employees’ resistance to change and support for change.62

Here, it is argued that employees’ perceived employability might affect their

perceptual process and decision-making process when dealing with how to react to

organizational change. Suppose that employees have already established a perception of

their employability, it is possible that their perception may moderate a relationship between

them and their organization. That is, perceived employability may determine the extent to

which employees depend on the organization in terms of employment. Is it possible to

expect that employees who feel capable of having a new job easily will feel less dependent

on their current employment than those who feel less capable of getting a new job?

Up to this point, a key assumption in this discussion is that the degree to which

employees value the employment contract with their current employer can be explained by

the degree of their employability in the job market they hold. One can also reason that

employees’ perception of their dependency on the organization may be determined by

perceived employability. Then, it is probable that employees who have a low level of

perceived employability may be motivated to behave in ways to remain with their

organization than those who have a high level of perceived employability.

One key question remains: how does perceived employability shape or affect

employees’ reactions to change? It remains unclear whether a positive perception of

62 For a detailed discussion of self-confidence, see Section 3.2.15 of this dissertation.

68

employability will have a positive or negative relationship with resistance to change and/or

support for change. Similarly, it remains unclear whether a negative perception of

employability will have a positive or negative relationship with resistance to change and/or

support for change. To illustrate this point, let us consider, for example, a simple case where

employees are afraid of losing their job, and they do not expect to get a new job easily. One

possible scenario is that they will strongly resist the change because keeping their current

job is very important. On the other hand, it is also possible that they will accept the change

because they are afraid that their resistance to change may cause their job.

Similar to the above case, let us consider whether employees will support or resist

organizational change when they have a high degree of perceived employability. Certainly

we cannot answer this question outright because this perception seems to mediate

relationships between other variables and reactions to change rather than to have a direct

effect on reactions to change. In addition, because employees who have a high degree of

perceived employability may not be dependent on their current job, they may have more

options regarding reactions to change, and feel relatively free to make a reaction.63 The

important point for us to observe is that both high and low levels of perceived employability

can lead to different reactions to change. However, because there is no prior study

examining the effect of perceived employability on reactions to change, I shall first focus on

examining direct relationships between them. Thus, I propose the following hypotheses:

H14a: Employees’ perceived employability will be positively related to their resistance to

change,

H14b: Employees’ perceived employability will be negatively related to their support for

change.

63 Note that I assume that an employee with a high degree of perceived employability is not afraid of choosing a

decision that he feels is right (for him). In contrast, an employee with a low degree of perceived employability tends

to be afraid of choosing a reaction that may eventually cause his job even if that choice may be his preferred

reaction.

69

3.2.15. Self-Confidence for Career-Relevant Learning

Individuals have different beliefs or perceptions about the factors responsible for what

happens to them. Individuals with an internal locus of control consider what happens to

them as determined by factors under their control, whereas those with an external locus of

control consider what happens to them as determined by factors outside their control

(Rotter, 1966; Elangovan and Lin Xie, 1999). A question is then whether it is possible that

one’s self-confidence exerts an influence on his or her decision? Specifically, does

employees’ self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competent development exert

effects on their reactions to change? In exploring a direct effect of self-confidence for

career-relevant learning and competent development (or in short ‘self confidence for

learning and development’) on employees’ reactions to change, this dissertation focuses on

resistance to change and support for employee of employees as (dependent) variables of

interest.

There has been a growing awareness in the organizational psychology literature (e.g.,

Bandura, 1977) that self-efficacy is a key determinant of individuals’ intention and choice to

pursue an activity. Self-efficacy has been defined as the belief that one possesses the ability

to complete a certain task (Foley, Kidder and Powell, 2002). Moreover, Bandura (1997)

suggested three levels of self-efficacy: (1) task specific self-efficacy; (2) domain self-

efficacy; and (3) general self-efficacy. Consistent with the definition of self-efficacy, self-

confidence for career-relevant learning and competence development can be categorized at

the task specific self-efficacy, which is self-confidence for dealing with performance of a

specific task, and at the domain self-efficacy level, which is self-confidence for dealing with

performance within a certain domain of tasks. In addition, competence development should

encompass learning of new skills or new level of existing skills. Consequently, self-

confidence for learning and development, at its core, refers to one’s confidence in learning

new things and developing new skills.

It has been argued that self-efficacy for development and learning and self-efficacy for

performance should be distinguished (Maurer, 2001). According to Maurer (2001), self-

efficacy for development and learning refers to one’s confidence in developing skills and

learning new things, whereas self-efficacy for performance refers to one’s confidence in

performing a task that one already possesses the skills required to perform that task. It is

useful to note that research has suggested that a decline in older employees’ self-confidence

in their ability to learn and develop may contribute to the age effect on participation in

learning and development (see e.g., Fossum, Arvey, Paradise and Robbins, 1986).

Another question is whether it is plausible to expect that employees who have a high

level of self-confidence for learning and development tend to feel more comfortable with

70

organizational change than those who have a low level of self-confidence for learning and

development. One may speculate that employees who have a high level of self-confidence

for learning and development will feel more comfortable than those who have a low level of

self-confidence for learning and development. One plausible reason to support this

proposition is that the degree to which a knowledge, skill or competence is obtainable may

be influenced by self-confidence for learning and development. Another possible reason is

that a work performance may be influenced by a result of learning new knowledge and

skills; therefore, employees who have a low level of self-confidence for learning and

development may be afraid of having a poorer work performance because they fail to learn

new knowledge or skills. Likewise, those who have a high level of self-confidence for

learning and development may consider learning new skills as an interesting challenge

sufficient so as to enjoy doing it, whereas those who have a low level of self-confidence for

learning and development may have a negative view on learning new skills. Last but not

least, it is also possible that employees who have a high level of self-confidence for learning

and development may consider learning new skills (as part of organizational change) as an

opportunity to boost their career prospect rather than as a threat to their work performance

or career advancement, whereas those who have a low level of self-confidence for learning

and development may have another idea.

In sum, this dissertation examines whether there is a negative relationship between

self-confidence for learning and development and resistance to change and whether there is

a positive relationship between self-confidence for learning and development and support

for change. To test these hypothesized relationships, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H15a: Employees’ self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competence

development will be negatively related to their resistance to change.

H15b: Employees’ self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competence

development will be positively related to their support for change.

71

3.2.16. Affective Commitment

Despite the general agreement on the effect of affective commitment—that is to say, the

relationship between affective commitment and various work-related variables such as

willingness to turnover (Parker et al., 2003) or trust in management (Kim and Mauborgne,

1993; Pearce, 1993) have been found, there seems to be no prior empirical studies

examining effects of affective commitment on reactions to change, especially resistance to

change and support for change. Following from this, one might expect that employees who

are committed to their organization are not only less likely to behave in ways that resist

organizational change but also more likely to behave in ways that support organizational

change because they want their organization to be successful. Therefore, this dissertation

examines whether there is a relationship between affective commitment and resistance to

change and support for change.

A review of the literature dealing with organizational commitment has revealed

several terms such as affective commitment (Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian, 1974;

Allen and Meyer, 1990), normative commitment (Weiner, 1982), organizational

commitment (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979), and affective organizational commitment

(Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1982). Affective commitment refers to emotional attachment

to, identification with, and involvement in organization (Meyer and Allen, 1997), whereas

organizational commitment refers to identification with organizational goals, willingness to

exercise effort on behalf of the organization, and interest in remaining with the organization

(Mowday et al., 1979). There is one issue here to which I would like to draw attention.

Although these terms seem to have been used interchangeably across much of research,

there is still some disagreement concerning the definitions of organizational commitment

(Iverson and Roy, 1994). The point of departure amongst researchers over the definitions of

organizational commitment centers on an issue about whether commitment is attitudinal or

behavioral in nature. However, this is not of a great concern to this dissertation because one

can take either perspective or both of them for the purpose of studying the effect of

employees’ commitment to their organization on their decisions. In spite of their

differences, however, I tend to follow the “attitudinal commitment” perspective because it

can be argued that humans tend to follow what their heart tells to do.64

While researchers seem to disagree on the definitions, they have provided empirical

evidence supporting the notion that commitment, regardless of whether it is attitudinal (or

64 Note that to be more specific and correct on this point, one has to assume that actions that the mind or heart tells one

to do are actionable. For example, if someone intends to quit his job for whatever reason, he might not actually do so

when he does not think he can get another comparable job in a reasonable time period.

72

affective) commitment or behavioral commitment, has the effects on employees’ decisions

(e.g., Kim and Mauborgne, 1993; Parker et al., 2003). Additionally, research on

organizational commitment has pointed out that a degree of the organization’s commitment

to its employees is one of predictors of organizational commitment. This argument is

supported by an argument that employees’ perception of their organization’s actions will

induce the reciprocity in their attitudes or behaviors (Shore and Tetrick, 1991). Moreover,

empirical evidence has also suggested that perceived organizational support is significantly

correlated with organizational commitment (e.g., Shore and Tetrick, 1991), and

organizational commitment is significantly related to trust in management (e.g., Kim and

Mauborgne, 1993; Pearce, 1993; Gopinath and Becker, 2000; Whitener, 2001).

Based on past theoretical underpinning and empirical evidence, linking employees’

affective commitment to their reactions to change (e.g., resistance to change and/or support

for change) is supported by at least two reasons. A first reason is that based on the norm of

reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), employees who have a low level of affective commitment

may hold a perception that they are under no obligation to return certain benefits to their

organization because a low level of affective commitment indirectly implies a low level of

perceived organizational support (Shore and Tetrick, 1991). On the other hand, employees

who have a high level of affective commitment may hold a perception that they have an

obligation to return benefits to their organization. Following from this, organizational

change that shifts levels of affective commitment tends to have altered perceptions of an

obligation to the organization. Employees who have a perception that they are under an

obligation to return a favor to their organization are more willing to repay their organization

in one or more ways than those who have a perception that they are under no obligation to

their organization. On the other hand, employees who have a perception that they are under

no obligation to their organization are unlikely to refrain themselves from resisting the

change, if it deems appropriate. It can be reasoned that if employees were to consider

support for change as a means to repaying his organization, those who have a perception

that they are under an obligation to repay their organization will provide higher levels of

support for change.

A second reason to support the potential relationship between affective commitment

and resistance to change and support for change is that if levels of affective commitment

play a role in determining levels of work performance (Parker et al., 2003), employees who

have a high level of affective commitment tend to perform their work better than those who

have a low level of affective commitment. If employees have a low level of affective

commitment during organizational change, then we might expect that they will tend to have

a lower level of work performance. Intuitively, changes in work performance may be

73

influenced by resistance to change. Similarly, if employees have a high level of affective

work performance, then we might expect that they will tend to have a higher level of work

performance. Changes in work performance may be influenced by support for change. This

position is then supported by an empirical study by Parker and colleagues (Parker et al.,

2003), which has found that effects of work attitudes (job involvement and commitment) on

work performance are partially mediated by motivation. If support for change is positively

correlated with work effort devoted to an organization, and if resistance to change is

negatively correlated with work efforts, then affective commitment differences among

employees will result in a variation in the nature and the degree of reactions to change.

Specifically, it is expected that there is a positive relationship between affective

commitment and support for change, and there is a negative relationship between affective

commitment and resistance to change. Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H16a: Employees’ affective commitment will be negatively related to their resistance to

change.

H16b: Employees’ affective commitment will be positively related to their support for

change.

3.2.17. Trust in Management

Parallel to the logic of H16a and H16b, this dissertation predicts that there is a relationship

between trust in management and reactions to change. An important question is concerned

with whether employees will make a different decision between when having a high degree

of trust in management and when having a low degree of trust in management. Past research

has recognized the significance of trust in management or leadership (e.g., Argyris, 1962;

McGregor, 1967). Not only has the concept of trust in management lead to several

leadership theories—for example, trust is a key element of leader-member exchange theory

(Schriesheim, Castro and Cogliser, 1999) and employees’ trust in management as an

important factor for leader effectiveness (Bass, 1990)—but it has been emphasized in other

concepts such as psychological contracts, organizational relationships, or change

management. It has been suggested that trust in management would inevitably become one

of key concepts in organizational theory (Kramer, 1999).

Trust, which is a social construct, has been defined as a “psychological state

comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the

74

intention or behavior of another (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer, 1998: 395).65 Trust in

management refers to employees’ attitude towards top management that indicates their

willingness to be vulnerable to top management (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaad and Werner,

1998). Similarly, the trustworthiness has been defined as “an individual belief that top

management can be trusted” (Spretizer and Mishra, 2002: 710).

Prior research on organizational change management has noted that when top

managers attempt to undertake changes within their organization, they should build trust

among their employees in order to facilitate and sustain effective change (Webb, 1996).

Indeed, top managers should build trust among employees so as to increase organizational

effectiveness (Argyris, 1962). In addition, perceptions of legitimacy of organizational

change can be enhanced by trust in management (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). Several

researchers (e.g., Bridges, 1980; O’Toole, 1995) have noted that distrust towards those

leading changes is one of factors that lead to employees’ resistance to change.

Empirical research examining the role of trust in management has shown that there are

certain relationships between employees’ trust in management and their attitudinal

outcomes (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). For example, Kim and Mauborgne (1993) and Pearce

(1993) found a relationship between trust in management and affective commitment. More

recently, Spreitzer and Mishra (2002) also found a positive correlation between the

trustworthiness of management and affective commitment. In addition, empirical evidence

has suggested that trust in management has a positive effect on group performance

(Klimoski and Karol, 1976) and business unit performance (Davis, Shoorman, Mayer and

Tan, 2000). Although prior research on trust has suggested that employees’ trust in

management develops through a social exchange process over time; that is, a process of

social exchange generates trust (Blau, 1965), there are different explanations about the

process through which trust forms as well as the process through which trust affects work-

related outcomes (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).66

There is another issue here deserves attention. The issue is that there is a great

diversity in constructs of trust across much of past studies. Not only have researchers

provided many definitions of trust in management but also they have specified the construct

with different leadership referents (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). For example, some researchers

have given attention to trust in a direct leader, whereas others have given attention to trust in

top management. Clarification on this issue is very important not only for theoretical

65 For Kim and Mauborgne (1993), this definition suggests that employees’ trust in management reflects two important

aspects: (1) an employee’s faith in organizational goal attainment and an organizational leader; and (2) an

employee’s belief that he or she will receive benefits from an organizational action. 66 For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Dirks and Ferrin (2002).

75

reasons, but also for practical reasons, as it may provide guidance on whether this

dissertation should focus on trust in a direct leader or trust in leadership. Considering that

the forms of organizational change studied in this dissertation are a downsizing and a

privatization that have been originated by top managers,67 I therefore propose that the

theoretical construct of trust in management in this dissertation rests on trust in top

management rather than on a direct leader.

In light of this discussion, it can be reasoned that employees who have high levels of

trust in management are likely to provide higher levels of support for change and lower

levels of resistance to change. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H17a: Employees’ trust in management will be negatively related to their resistance to

change.

H17b: Employees’ trust in management will be positively related to their support for

change.

3.2.18. Colleagues’ Reactions to Change

Research on the effect of group and organizational context on attitudes and behaviors of

employees has attracted growing attention in the field of management (Kidwell, Mossholder

and Bennett, 1997). The social context has been described by relational phenomena that

cannot be understood in terms of individual separately but rather in terms of characteristics

of the environment, organization, and work group together, of which have an impact on

attitudes or behaviors of individual members of the group (Kidwell et al., 1997). Both the

social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) can

explain the interactions and interpersonal relationships between members of the group and

the influence of the group’s norms on individual members of the group. In addition, social

network theory (Alderfer, 1986), which suggests that social relationships are embedded

within a larger structural context that encourages or precludes various kinds of social

contact, can also be used to explain the effect of the social group’s actions on members of

the group.

In the organizational behavior literature, the influence of social factors on individuals’

behavior has been demonstrated in several studies. Social identity theory and social

comparison research have demonstrated how other people exert an influence on individuals’

67 Note that middle-level managers were not the one who initiated the change (both for a case of downsizing at the

private school and for a case of privatization at EGAT); therefore, trust in middle-level manager (or in a direct

leader) is of less relevance to employees.

76

behavior (Festinger, 1954; Terry and Hogg, 2000). According to a social identity theory

(Capazza and Brown, 2000; Tajfel and Turner, 1986) people tend to classify others and

themselves into social categories/groups and identify more with members of their own

categories (in-group) than with members of other categories (out-group). People may have

multiple social identities along several dimensions: for example, gender, ethnicity, and

sexual orientation (Frabble, 1997). In addition, the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977)

postulates that role models for behavior have the effects on individuals’ behavior; that is,

individuals obtain a collection of certain behaviors by observing others’ behaviors and the

consequences in their social environment. According to the social information processing

theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), individuals use information about norms, values,

expectations, and behavior outcome contingencies derived from others in their social

environment to steer behavior. Moreover, the attraction-selection-attrition perspective

(Schneider, 1975) suggests that a group attracts, selects, and retains individuals with

characteristics or traits similar to those of other members of the group. For example,

individuals with easy-going tendencies would be more likely to be attracted to, selected by,

and stay with groups with similarly easy-going members, resulting in the establishment of a

group with relatively easy-going characteristics.

According to Hackman (1992), characteristics of a work environment may be

conceived of as either (1) discretionary stimuli that are transferred to individual members of

the group differently or (2) ambient stimuli that are diffused throughout the group setting

and are possibly available to all members of the group. In a conflicting social identities

situation, people tend to identify more with those who are similar along the dimension of

social identity that is most salient to them. Brewer (1991) has also noted that the value of

group identification comes from distinctiveness and shared identity.

In light of the above discussion, the social group’s decision is expected to exert an

effect on individual members’ decision. That is, colleagues’ resistance to change may

promote employees’ resistance to change, and weaken employees’ support for change

because employees, as a member of the group, tend to feel obliged to follow their group’s

decision so that they are not excluded from the group. On the other hand, colleagues’

support for change may weaken employees’ resistance to change, and promote employees’

support for change. In line with this reasoning, this dissertation hypothesizes that:

H18a: Employees’ perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change will be positively related

to their resistance to change, and be negatively related to their support for change

H18b: Employees’ perceptions of colleagues’ support for change will be negatively related

to their resistance to change, and be positively related to their support for change.

77

4. Research Methodology

The overall objective of this dissertation is to examine if perceptions and/or attitudes effect

employees’ reactions to change. To achieve this objective, this dissertation seeks to test the

hypothesized relationships between perceptions and/or attitudes on the one hand and

employees’ resistance to change and support for change on the other hand. If one wishes to

understand the implications of employees’ perceptions and attitudes for their reactions to

change, and if one postulates a direct relationship between perceptions and reactions to

change, then two important consequences follow. First, the understanding of different

research methodologies that have been used in social science in general and management

science in particular was required. Second, a research strategy that was capable of providing

answers to the research questions in this dissertation had to be determined.

It is understandable that empirical research has many variants. Three of which are the

most prominent: (1) empirical experimental research; (2) empirical statistical research; and

(3) empirical case study (Wacker, 1998). According to Wacker (1998), each type of

research strategies seeks to address different research objectives: for the empirical

experimental research, the focus is on examining the relationships between variables by

manipulating controlled treatments to determine the exact effect on specific dependent

variables; the purpose of the empirical statistic research is to empirically validate the

assumed relationships between variables in a large sample from actual environments; and

the purpose of the empirical case study is to develop insightful relationships within smaller

or limited samples. For the moment, one can consider this dissertation to be the empirical

statistic research as it was to empirically test the hypothesized relationships between

predictors and outcomes.

Reflect on my research questions: what perceptions and/or attitudes influence

employee resistance to change? And what perceptions and/or attitudes influence employees’

support for change? Quantitative research seems to better address these research questions

than qualitative research. One plausible reason to lend strong support for the use of

quantitative research in this dissertation is that quantitative research is better suited than

qualitative research where the purpose of the study is to investigate relationships as pairs of

variables. In particular, quantitative research provides an opportunity to generalize the

results statistically to the population.

To address the research questions, this dissertation follows a positivistic tradition that,

as Schwaninger (2004) has described, focuses on facts, adopts an objectivist worldview, and

relies on quantification. Another issue to be considered is concerned with research design

78

choices which imply trade-offs between three dimensions: (1) generalization to the

population that supports the external validity; (2) precision in measurement and control of

the behavioral variables that affect internal and external validity; and (3) realism of context.

It is also useful to note that this dissertation was primarily concerned with statistical

generalization and precision in measurement.

The following sections address sampling criteria with the emphasis on the method

used for selecting the original population for studies 1 and 2, for selecting a sample size, and

for collecting data. Different methods of data analysis and model specification for the main

research model will be discussed. This dissertation proceeds by discussing measures of

study variables: dependent variables, independent variables and control variables. Finally,

the overall sequence of data analysis will be discussed in detail.

4.1. Context, Sample and Procedure

4.1.1. Study 1 – Context, Sample and Procedure

The setting for Study 1 was a private school in Thailand employing 120 employees at the

time of the survey. Declining numbers of enrolled (both new and retained) students over

past few years (e.g., from approximately 200 students per class in 1990 to 100 students per

class in 2004) had caused the management team to make multiple efforts to improve the

school’s efficiency and profitability. However, the numbers of enrolled students still

continue to decline every year, pressurizing the management team to engage in workforce

reductions. The downsizing program was initially aimed to reduce approximately 10

teachers by the start of the next academic year (i.e., 2005-2006) so as to improve the

student/teacher ratio and to remain profitable. Teachers were informed about the downsizing

decision in August 2004. It is useful to note that at the time of the survey (during the first

two weeks of September 2004), teachers did not have the full details of the downsizing

program (e.g., the details of the involuntary workforce reductions program).

A multiple-item survey in Thai was administered during working hours to a random

sample of 100 teachers at the school. In order to determine the clarity and the readability of

the original questionnaire written in the English language, the referee and the co-referee

conducted a review of the questionnaire items. Then, I whose first language is Thai

translated the questionnaire into the Thai language. Then, a professional Thai-English

translator back-translated the questionnaire into the English language and I examined each

item for translation error. The inspection did not find any instances where an item’s

meaning had significantly changed due to the translation. Survey instructions stressed that

participation in this survey was voluntary and confidential and that this survey was

undertaken for the purpose of writing a doctoral dissertation. Ninety-one surveys were

79

returned, presenting a response rate of 91%. Of these, 3 surveys were removed from the

analysis due to missing values in the main part of the returned questionnaire. Thus, the

sample comprised 88 cases. Respondents were representative of the larger population (25%

male, 80 % of respondents had a bachelor degree or equivalent, mean age = 44.1 years,

mean position tenure = 14.8 years, mean organizational tenure = 17.8 years). Listwise

deletion of missing values of the remaining sample reduced the sample to 86 cases (for

further data analysis with three control variables: age, education, and gender).

4.1.2. Study 2 – Context, Sample and Procedure

The setting for study 2 was a stated-own company in Thailand employing around 63,700

employees. Since 1992 this organization has started to form subsidiaries with the

government’s privatization policy to increase private sector participation in this industry and

reduce investment burden of both the organization and the government. Since 2003 the

organization has been in the final phrase of the privatization process; that is, the

management team has planned to list the company on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.

Although the initial public offering (IPO) was scheduled in mid-2004, this has yet been

materialized due to the fact that a final decision on the IPO has yet been made as a result of

disagreement between four main stakeholders (i.e., employees, top management, the

government and the public) on the details of the IPO. It should be noted that at the time of

the survey (during the first two weeks of September 2004), the final decision on the IPO

was still pending.

A multiple-item survey in Thai was administered during working hours to a random

sample of 500 employees at four offices located in Bangkok. It is useful to note that the four

offices had about 900 employees in total. For the purpose of comparability, the

questionnaire items in Study 2 were similar to those of in Study 1. As with Study 1, survey

instructions stressed that participation in this survey was voluntary and confidential and that

this survey was undertaken for the purpose of writing a doctoral dissertation. Two hundred

and twenty-four questionnaires were returned, presenting a response rate of 44.8%. Of

these, 17 surveys were removed from the analysis due to those respondents not completing

the main part of the questionnaire survey. The final sample comprised 207 cases.

Respondents were representative of the larger population (64.7% male, 40.5 % of

respondents had a bachelor degree or equivalent, mean age = 39.1 years, mean position

tenure = 9.0 years, mean organizational tenure = 14.9 years). Listwise deletion of missing

values of the remaining sample reduced the sample size to 197 respondents (for further data

analysis with three control variables: age, education, and gender).

80

4.2. Alternative Methods of Data Analysis

In this section, several methods of data analysis for the research model are discussed in

great details. Let us first consider an ordinary regression analysis since it is often used in

many, if not most, studies in management science. Given that dependent variables were

measured with six items on a five-point scale, which indicate the ordinal nature of the

dependent variable, using the ordinary regression analysis (ordinary least square or OLS) as

an analytical tool for estimation may be inappropriate.

In the tests of employees’ resistance to change (which was divided into two subsets:

active and passive resistance to change) and support for change (which was divided into two

subsets: active and passive support for change) as dependent variables, an ordinary

regression analysis (OLS) would be inadequate because it would fail to account for the

ordinal nature of the dependent variable. The ordinary regression analysis would treat the

difference between a level of scales (e.g., resistance to change) 4 and 5 as the same as the

difference between a level of scales (e.g., resistance to change) 1 and 2 (McKelvey and

Zavoina, 1975; Goodstein, 1994). Given a view that the differences between the levels of

resistance to change need not be similar, the parallel regression assumption may not be true,

implying that with the ordinary regression model, the estimates of the effects of independent

variables would be wrong, i.e., biased and inconsistent.

Let us then consider a multinomial logit or probit model. From the outset, both logit

and probit models seem to be more appropriate than the ordinary regression model.

However, the examination of these models suggests a key issue concerning the use of these

models in this dissertation. For both multinomial logit and probit regression models, there is

no order in the different categories that dependent variable can take; these models would not

take the existence of a ranking into account. Therefore, both models are also inefficient in

this dissertation. It is also important to note that the multinomial logit regression model

makes an implicit assumption, which is known as the independence of irrelevant

alternatives (IIA) property. The independence of irrelevant alternative property implies that

the ratio of the probability of choosing one choice to the probability of choosing a second

choice unchanged for individual decision-makers if a third choice enters the race (for

review, see Alvarez and Nagler, 1998). On the contrary, as the multinomial probit

regression model allows for correlations between the disturbances for difference choices, it

does not assume the independence of irrelevant alternative property (see Alvarez and

Nagler, 1998).

Based on the limitations to several regression models discussed here, the multinomial

ordered probit regression model seems to be the most appropriate tool for estimation in this

81

context because (1) it takes the existence of a ranking into account, (2) it assumes that the

difference between any two adjacent levels is not known, and (3) it does not assume the

independence of irrelevant alternative property. To test hypotheses, I therefore conducted

the multinomial ordered probit regression model, which does not violate the independence

of irrelevant alternative property. But it must be noted that due to a computation difficulty,

the estimation of large choice multinomial probit models is almost impossible using the

numerical integration of bivariate normal distributions (Alvarez and Nagler, 1998). A

comparison of the key properties of several regression models, which have been discussed

here, is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Characteristics of Alternative Regression Models

Ordinary

Regression

(OLS)

Multinomial

Logit

Conditional

Logit

Multinomial

Probit

Multinomial

Ordered

Probit

Dependent Variable Interval or

Ratio

Ordinal or

Nominal

Ordinal or

Nominal

Ordinal or

Nominal

Ordinal or

Nominal

Independent Variable A linear function of interval/ratio of binary variables

Method e.g.,

Moment-

based

Method

e.g., Maximum Likelihood Method

Type of Distribution Normal

Distribution

Binomial

Distribution

Binomial

Distribution

Cumulative

Normal

Distribution

Cumulative

Normal

Distribution

Correlated Disturbances No No No Yes Yes

Includes Position of Choice No No Yes Yes Yes

Assumes the IIA Property No Yes Yes No No

Can Correctly Measure

Omission of a Choice

No No No Yes Yes

Source: Adopted from Alvarez and Nagle (1998: 59).

4.3. The Multinomial Ordered Probit Model

Let us define two categorical variables y1 ∈ {1…m} and y2 ∈ {1…m} indicating the

observed degree of resistance to change and support for change, respectively. As discussed

earlier, the explanatory variables include (1) five that are related to change process; (2) eight

that are related to actual and expected consequences of change; (3) two that are related to

employees’ ability; and (4) three that are related to the relationships between employees and

their organization and colleagues. The discrete probability function of y conditioned on all

82

explanatory variables is commonly known as an ordered probit model. It is based on a latent

variable intended to present the employees’ reactions to change.

Let us assume that the unobserved continuous measures, resistance to change (Y1*), is

a linear function of a set of explanatory variable X, with the corresponding parameter vector

β, and a normally distributed error term ε:

Y1* = β’X + ε,

Although Y1* is unobserved, it is related to an observed discrete variable y1, whose value is

dependent upon the value that Y1* takes. It is assumed that employees’ resistance to change

is measured in one of three alternatives (y1 = 1, 2 or 3, where 1 = low, 2 = medium, and 3 =

high) corresponding to the range of observed ratings assigned by employees.

y1 = 1 if 0 < Y1* ≤ µ11,

= 2 if µ11 < Y1* ≤ µ12,

= 3 if µ12 ≤ Y1*,

Where µ11 and µ12 (0 < µ11 < µ12) are unknown threshold parameters of Y1* that define the

range of resistance to resistance; these parameters will be estimated in conjunction with the

β vector by maximizing the joint probability or likelihood function. Let us assume that ε is

normally distributed across observations, and the mean and variance of ε are normalized to

zero and one. With the normal distribution, the multinomial ordered probit model suggests

the following probabilities, where Ф denotes the cumulative normal distribution function.

Pr (Y1 = 1|X1, X2, …, Xk) = Ф(µ11 - β’X) ,

Pr (Y1 = 2|X1, X2, …, Xk) = Ф(µ12 - β’X) - Ф(µ11 - β’X) ,

Pr (Y1 = 3|X1, X2, …, Xk) = 1 - Ф(µ12 - β’X), and

Pr (Y1 = 1) + Pr (Y1 = 2) + Pr (Y1 = 3) = 1

Similarly, let us assume that the unobserved continuous measures, support for change (Y2*),

is a linear function of a set of explanatory variable X, with the corresponding parameter

vector β, and a normally distributed error term ε:

Y2* = β’X + ε,

83

Although Y2* is unobserved, it is related to an observed discrete variable y2, whose value is

dependent upon the value that Y2* takes. It is assumed that employees’ support for change

is measured in one of three alternatives (y2 = 1, 2 or 3, where 1 = low, 2 = medium, and 3 =

high) corresponding to the range of observed ratings assigned by employees.

y2 = 1 if 0 < Y2* ≤ µ21,

= 2 if µ21 < Y2* ≤ µ22,

= 3 if µ22 ≤ Y2*,

Where µ21 and µ22 (0 < µ21 < µ22) are unknown threshold parameters of Y2* that define the

range of support for change; these parameters will be estimated in conjunction with the β

vector by maximizing the joint probability or likelihood function. Let us assume that ε is

normally distributed across observations, and the mean and variance of ε are normalized to

zero and one. With the normal distribution, the multinomial ordered probit model suggests

the following probabilities, where Ф denotes the cumulative normal distribution function.

Pr (Y2 = 1|X1, X2, …, Xk) = Ф(µ11 - β’X) ,

Pr (Y2 = 2|X1, X2, …, Xk) = Ф(µ12 - β’X) - Ф(µ11 - β’X) ,

Pr (Y2 = 3|X1, X2, …, Xk) = 1 - Ф(µ12 - β’X),

Pr (Y2 = 1) + Pr (Y2 = 2) + Pr (Y2 = 3) = 1

Thus, we can calculate the probability of levels of both resistance to change and support for

change conditioned on all explanatory variables. For parameter estimation, I used the SPSS

package version 12. Specifically, parameters were estimated by maximum likelihood

function using the command PLUM (PoLytomous Universal Model procedure) with a

probit link function in the SPSS package (see e.g., Borooah, 2002). The size of sample and

number of parameters being estimated can impose a potential estimation problem for both

models: that is, the greater the number of parameters, the larger is the sample size needed.

4.4. Measures of Theoretical Constructs

4.4.1. Dependent Variables

Resistance to change was measured using a newly developed six-item scale. Three newly

developed items were used to measure degrees of behaviors that were believed to represent

employees’ active resistance to change. Specifically, three types of behaviors, i.e., opposing,

arguing, and objecting, were measured. In the same vein, three newly developed items were

used to measure degrees of behaviors that were believed to represent employees’ passive

84

resistance to change. Specifically, two types of reaction, i.e., withdrawing and ignoring,

were measured. Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they agree with each

of items using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Support for change was measured using a six-item scale. Three newly developed items

were used to measure degrees of behaviors that were believed to represent employees’

active support for change. Specifically, three types of reactions, i.e., embracing,

cooperating, and supporting, were measured. Similarly, three newly developed items were

used to measure degrees of behaviors that were believed to represent employees’ passive

support for change. That is, three types of reactions, i.e., agreeing, accepting, and

complying, were measured. Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they

agree with each of three items using a five-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to

5 (strongly agree). Figure 6 presents an overview of measures of behaviors classified into

four categories of reactions to change in this dissertation.

Figure 6: Summary of Measures of Reactions to Change

Opposing a change

Arguing against a change

Objecting a change


Embracing a change

Cooperating with the firm

Giving support for a change


Withdrawing support

Ignoring a change


Agreeing to a change

Accepting a change

Complying with a change



Active

Passive

Opposing a change

Arguing against a change

Objecting a change


Embracing a change

Cooperating with the firm

Giving support for a change


Withdrawing support

Ignoring a change


Agreeing to a change

Accepting a change

Complying with a change



Active

Passive

4.4.2. Independent Variables

Perceived organizational support was measured using a three-item measure reflecting

perceived organizational support. These items were adapted from Eisenberger et al.’s (1986,

85

1990). Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with these items

using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Perceived procedural justice was measured using a three-item perceived procedural

justice scale adapted from the 31-item measuring perceptions of the procedure justice of the

sale and layoffs developed by Gopinath and Becker (2000). Respondents indicated the

degree to which they agreed with these items using a five-point scale ranging from “1

(strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Perceived participation in decision-making process was measured using a three-item

measure reflecting perceived participation in decision-making. Respondents are asked to

indicate the degree to which they agreed with these items using a five-point scale ranging

from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Perceived need for change was measured using a newly developed three-item measure

reflecting employee’s perception of need for a change in the organization. Respondents

were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the items using a five-point

scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Attitude towards organizational change was measured using a newly developed three-

item scale reflecting employees’ attitude towards organizational change. Respondents

indicated the degree to which they agreed with the items using a five-point scales ranging


Fear of known consequence of change was measured using a newly developed three-

item scale. Respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed with these items using a

five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Fear of unknown consequence of change was measured using three newly developed

items. Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they agreed with these items

using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Perceived change in power was measured using a newly developed three-item

measure reflecting perceived change in power. Respondents indicated the degree to which

they agreed with these items using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to

“5 (strongly agree)”.

Perceived change in status was measured using a newly developed three-item scale

reflecting perceived change in status. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to

which they agreed with these items using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly

disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Perceived change in pride was measuring using a newly developed three-item scale

reflecting perceived change in pride. Respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed

86

with these items using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly

agree)”.

Job satisfaction was measured using a three-item scale adopted from those used by

Weiss et al. (1967) and Davy et al. (1997). As job satisfaction items were found to indicate

two sub-dimensions: intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction (Weiss et al, 1967), I used three

items to measure the indicators of extrinsic job satisfaction. These items include: (1) pay

and amount of work; (2) chances for advancement; and (3) working conditions.

Respondents indicate the degree to which they agreed with the items using a five-point scale

ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Job security was measured using a three-item scale adopted from those used by Caplan

et al.’s (1975) and by Hui and Lee (2000). These items consisted of: (1) ‘I am certain about

what my future career picture looks like in this company’, (2) ‘I am certain about what my

responsibilities will be six months from now’, and (3) ‘I am certain about my job security in

this company’. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the

items using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Job motivation was measured using a three-item measure adopted from those used by

Hui and Lee (2000). These items measured extrinsic job motivation. Respondents were

asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the items using a five-point scale

ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)”.

Perceived employability was measured using a newly developed three-item measure

reflecting employees’ perceptions their ability to find a new job. Respondents were asked to

indicate the degree to which they agreed with the items using a five-point scale ranging


Self-confidence for learning and development was measured using two newly

developed items and one item adopted from a study by Maurer et al (2003) reflecting

employees’ perceptions of their ability to learn new knowledge and develop new skills.

Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the items using a


Affective commitment, a psychological attachment to the organizational, was measured

using a three-item sale adopted from a 10-item scale used by Gopinath and Becker (2000).

Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the items using a


Trust in management was measured with a three-item scale adopted from those used

by Gapinath and Becker (2000) and Robinson and Rousseau (1994). Respondents indicated

the degree to which they agreed with the items using a five-point scale ranging from “1 =

strongly disagree” to “5 = strong agree”.

87

Perceptions of colleagues’ reactions to change were measured using a newly

developed three-item scale reflecting employees’ perceptions about colleagues’ resistance to

change and/or support for change. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which

they agreed with the items using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly disagree)” to

“5 (strongly agree)”.

4.4.3. Control Variables

In addition to the endogenous and predetermined variables discussed above, this dissertation

aimed to control for an influence of age (in years), gender (male = 0, female = 1), education

(below a bachelor level = 0, a bachelor level = 1, a master level = 2, higher than a master

level = 3), position tenure (in years), organizational tenure (in years), family status (single =

0, married/co-habiting = 1, divorced = 2), a number of children when conducting analyses

to separate individual differences in age, gender, position tenure, organization tenure, family

status and a number of children. Data for all control variables were obtained from the

questionnaires completed by the respondents.

4.5. Data Analysis Procedures

In this section, the sequence of data analysis conducted in both Studies 1 and 2 that were

designed to test all hypotheses presented in this dissertation is presented. The overview of

the sequence of data analysis is illustrated in Figure 7. First, descriptive statistics (e.g., value

range, minimum and maximum values) for all variable indicators were examined. Second,

histograms illustrating distributions of all variable indicators were examined. In a third step,

for the purpose of reducing the number of indicators, the patterns of directions of indicators

for each variable were examined. To see this, I first averaged all indicators for each

variable, plotted this aggregate indicator along with original indicators in a graph, and

examined the pattern of directions. If the results did not reveal a satisfactory level of internal

consistency, I removed an indicator that appeared to have a different pattern of directions

from the model and conducted the same sequence of analyses until the aggregate indicator

that seemed to provide the highest level of internal consistency was found. As the Spearman

correlations also indicate the pattern of directions between indicators, I also examined the

correlation coefficients among indicators for each variable for the purpose of reducing the

number of indicators. Upon the completion of steps 3 and 4, I reduced the number of

indicators for both dependent and independent variables.

88

Figure 7: Summary of the Sequence of Data Analysis

Examine patterns of directions of indicators for each variable

Examine correlations for indicators for each variable

Reduce the number of indicators for each variable

Examine correlations among final variables

Recode scales of variables measurement

Conduct restricted ordered probit models

Conduct unrestricted (multinomial) ordered probit models

Examine descriptive statistics for all indicators

Examine histograms for all indicators

Examine patterns of directions of indicators for each variable

Examine correlations for indicators for each variable

Reduce the number of indicators for each variable

Examine correlations among final variables

Recode scales of variables measurement

Conduct restricted ordered probit models

Conduct unrestricted (multinomial) ordered probit models

Examine descriptive statistics for all indicators

Examine histograms for all indicators

Upon this point, there was only one indicator (the aggregate indicator) for each variable for

further analyses. Then, correlation analyses for the aggregate indicators were conducted.

Due to the sample size and number of parameters being estimated (for the multinomial

ordered probit models), I recoded levels of measurement for both dependent and

independent variables. That is, the items using a five-point scale ranging from “1 (strongly

disagree)” to “5 (strongly agree)” were recoded to a three-point scale ranging from “1

(low)” to “3 (high)” as follows: “1” and “2” = “1 = low”; “3” = “2 = medium”; and “4” and

“5” = “3 = high”. Next, 76 separate restricted models that included only one of the

independent variables and only one of the dependent variables at a time were conducted.

Then, I ran four separate full multinomial ordered probit models that included all

independent variables, one of the dependent variables, and three control variables (age,

education, and gender). However, the results indicate that the size of sample in Studies 1 (n

= 86) and 2 (n = 197) did not allow for conducting models that had more than one

independent variable. That is, multiple-variables models with the sample size of 86 and 197

cases (for Studies 1 and 2, respectively) inevitably produced a large number of empty cells.

Thus, I did not include control variables in the models and, indeed, ran only two-variable

models to test Hypotheses 1a-18b for both studies.

89

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Study 1 – Results and Discussion

In Study 1, the first step was to examine whether the indicators for each variable were

internally consistent, i.e., whether it was possible to reduce the number of indicators. To

examine this possibility, I first averaged the indicators to form an aggregate indicator,

plotted the aggregate indicator along with the original indicators in a graph, and examined

the pattern of directions (see the Appendix B for further information). Using this procedure,

it could be seen whether the indicators for each variable followed the same pattern of

directions. It is important to note that the method in this study differs from other studies

(e.g., Mathieu and Farr, 1991; Hui and Lee, 2000) due predominantly to the ordinal nature

of the data in this study. Thus, this dissertation did not follow the procedure used in prior

studies that treated the ordinal data as the matrix data. Therefore, a factor analysis was not

conducted.68 The results of the procedure conducted in the present study indicate that it was

possible to reduce the number of indicators for each construct by either averaging all three

indicators to an aggregate level or averaging a pair of indicators to an aggregate level; thus,

I reduced the number of indicators for each variable, and conducted the testing of

hypotheses using the aggregate indicators in the multinomial ordered probit regression. In

addition to the use of graphs to examine the possibility of reducing the number of indicators,

analyses of the Spearman correlation coefficients were also conducted.

5.1.1. Analyses of Correlations among Dependent Variables

Tables in the Appendix B provide the Spearman correlation coefficients among all

indicators for dependent variables: namely, active and passive resistance to change, and

active and passive support for change. It is noteworthy that all correlations typed in bold

were statistically significant at the 0.01 level or at the 0.05 level.

As can be seen in the Appendix B, Active Resistance 1 was positively and

significantly correlated with Active Resistance 2 (r = .34, p < .01), suggesting that the

aggregate indicator between Active Resistance 1 and Active Resistance 2 would be used for

active resistance to change. As Passive Resistance 1 was positively and significantly

correlated with Passive Resistance 2 (r = .23, p < .05), the aggregate indicator between them

would be used for passive resistance to change. There were significant correlations among

all indicators for active support for change; thus, all of them were aggregated to a super

68 For a more detailed discussion of the methods of analyses, see the research methodology section.

90

level. Similarly, the number of indicators for passive support for change was reduced by

aggregating all indicators for passive support for change to a super level.

Further, Active Resistance 1 was positively and significantly correlated with Passive

Resistance 1 (r = .25, p < .05) and Passive Resistance 2 (r = .26, p < .05); and Active

Resistance 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Passive Resistance 2 (r = .27, p

< .05). Unexpectedly, Passive Resistance 3 was positively and significantly correlated with

Passive Support 2 (r = .26, p < .05) and Passive Support 3 (r = .26, p < .05). This raises a

question of whether Passive Resistance 3 could be categorically considered as resistance to

change. The results also indicate that Active Resistance 3 was negatively and significantly

correlated with Active Support 1 (r = -.33, p < .01), Active Support 2 (r = -.44, p < .01),

Active Support 3 (r = -.38, p < .01), and Passive Support 1 (r = -.34, p < .01).

In addition, there is observable evidence that there was a relationship between active

support for change and passive support for change. For instance, Active Support 1 was

positively and significantly correlated with Passive Support 1 (r = .37, p < .01), Passive

Support 2 (r = .25, p < .05), and Passive Support 3 (r = .24, p < .05). Moreover, Active

Support 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Passive Support 1 (r = .58, p <

.01), Passive Support 2 (r = .32, p < .01), and Passive Support 3 (r = .30, p < .01).

Of the correlations between the indicators for dependent variables and control

variables, only one significant correlation existed; that is, Active Resistance 3 was

positively and significantly correlated with organizational tenure (r = .22, p < .05),

suggesting that duration of employment with the organization may lead employees to make

objections to organizational change.

5.1.2. Analyses of Correlations among Independent Variables

Tables in the Appendix B provide the Spearman correlation coefficients between active

resistance to change indictors and all independent indicators. As with analyses of

correlations among the indicators for dependent variables, I examined correlations among

indicators for each independent variable for the purpose of reducing the number of

indicators.

Though Perceived Organizational Support (POS) 1 was negatively and significantly

correlated with Perceived Organizational Support (POS) 2 (r = -.22, p < .05), an aggregate

indicator between both of them was used for this construct.69 Next, since positive and

69 Although the correlation between POS 1 and POS 2 was negative, as can be seen in Figure 12 in the Appendix B,

POS 1, POS 2, and the aggregate indicator (of the two) had the same pattern of directions, suggesting that it was

reasonable to use the aggregate indicator for this construct.

91

significant correlations existed between Procedural Justice 1 and Procedural Justice 2 (r =

.34, p < .01) and Procedural Justice 2 and Procedural Justice 3 (r = .34, p < .05), all three

indicators were aggregated to a super level for perceived procedural justice.

The results show that positive correlations existed between Perceived Participation 1

and Perceived Participation 2 (r = .22, p < .05) and Perceived Participation 2 and Perceived

Participation 3 (r = .24, p < .05); however, the aggregate indicator between Perceived

Participation 2 and Perceived Participation 3 would be used for perceived participation in

decision-making since it provided a relatively higher level of internal consistency. As

Perceived Need for Change 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Perceived

Need for Change 3 (r = .56, p < .01), the aggregate indicator between Perceived Need for

Change 2 and Perceived Need for Change 3 would be used for this construct.

A positive and significant correlation existed between Attitude towards organizational

1 and Attitude towards organizational change 2 (r = .44, p < .01). Thus, these results support

an idea that the aggregate indicator between both of them would be used for attitude

towards organizational change. As Fear of Known Consequences 1 was positively and

significantly correlated with Fear of Known Consequences 2 (r = .52, p < .01), the

aggregate indicator between both of them would be used for fear of known consequences of

a change. As a positive and significant correlation existed between Fear of Unknown

Consequences 2 and Fear of Unknown Consequences 3 (r = .44, p < .01), the aggregate

indicator between both of them would be used for fear of unknown consequences of a

change.

The results also indicate that all indicators for perceived change in power were

positively and significantly correlated with each other: that is, Change in Power 1 was

positively and significantly correlated with Change in Power 2 (r = .27, p < .05), and

Change in Power 3 (r = .42, p < .01); and Change in Power 2 was positively and

significantly correlated with Change in Power 3 (r = .31, p < .01). Thus, all indicators for

perceived change in power were aggregated to a super level. Further, a positive and

significant correlation existed between Change in Status 1 and Change in Status 2 (r = .41, p

< .01), and a negative and significant correlation existed between Change in Status 2 and

Change in Status 3 (r = -.24, p < .05). Thus, the aggregate indicator between Change in

Status 1 and Change in Status 2 would be used for perceived change in status.

A negative and significant correlation existed between Change in Pride 1 and Change

in Pride 2 (r = -.44, p < .01), but a positive and significant correlation existed between

Change in Pride 2 and Change in Pride 3 (r = .25, p < .05). Consequently, Change in Pride 2

and Change in Pride 3 were aggregated to a super level. Further, as a positive and

significant correlation existed between Job Satisfaction 1 and Job Satisfaction 3 (r = .21, p <

92

.05), the aggregate indicator between both of them would be used for job satisfaction.

Similarly, Job Security 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Job Security 3 (r =

.38, p < .01); thus, both of them were aggregated to a super level for job security. As

positive and significant correlations existed among all three indicators for job motivation,

the aggregate indicator of all three indicators would be used for this construct. As Perceived

Employability 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Perceived Employability 3

(r = .25, p < .05), both of them were aggregated to a super level for perceived employability.

All three indicators for self-confidence for learning and development were positively

and significantly correlated with each other; therefore, all of them were aggregated to a

super level for this construct. Though all three indicators for affective commitment were

positively and significantly correlated with each other, the aggregate indicator between

Affective Commitment 1 and Affective Commitment 2 would be used for this construct

because removing Affective Commitment 3 from the aggregate indicator resulted in a

relatively higher level of internal consistency. Similarly, though all indicators for trust in

management were significantly correlated with each other, Trust in Management 1 and

Trust in Management 2 were aggregated to a super level for this construct. As also shown in

Table 2, a positive and significant correlation existed between Colleagues’ Resistance 1 and

Colleagues’ Resistance 2 (r = .60, p < .01); therefore, both were aggregated to a super level

for perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change. Last but not least, it is noteworthy that

Change in Pride 1 was negatively and significantly correlated with Gender (r = -.22, p <

.05).

93

Table 2: Study 1 – Correlations for All Final Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1.

AR

.49

2.

PR

.31†

.41

3.

AS

-.12

.12

.67

4.

PS

-.12

.08

.49†

.70

5.

POS

-.01

.23*

.17

.34†

.41

6.

Justice

.08

.19

.67†

.39†

.25*

.51

7.

Participation

-.09

-.08

.21

.26*

-.03

-.01

.41

8.

Need

.03

.14

.18

.28†

.55†

.18

.10

.68

9.

Attitude

-.22*

.02

.16

.39†

.07

.05

.38†

.35†

.58

10. Fear Known

.54†

.45†

.03

-.02

.03

.17

-.13

.03

-.26*

.67

11. Fear Un

.24*

.44†

-.09

-.06

-.08

-.02

.11

.03

.04

.23*

.58

12. Power

.03

.29†

.28†

.21*

.27*

.38†

-.14

.24*

-.01

.15

.05

.63

13. Status

-.04

.10

.45†

.49†

.26*

.54†

.11

.26*

.08

.06

-.04

.45†

.57

14. Pride

.00

.09

.20

.41†

.41†

.32†

-.05

.26*

.09

.14

-.06

.59†

.46†

.42

15. Job Sat

.26*

.21

.10

.26*

.40†

.26*

.00

.02

-.07

.21

.06

.20

.22*

.32†

.38

16. Job Security

.13

.24*

.10

.34†

.44†

.15

-.01

.48†

.24*

.20

.00

.28†

.27*

.23*

.22*

.52

17. Job M

ot

.21

.12

.02

.22*

.13

-.02

.38†

.35†

.39†

.09

.18

-.17

-.11

-.05

.14

.32†

.81

18. Employ

-.06

-.10

.07

.02

.06

.13

-.09

.19

.01

.01

-.18

.12

.15

.12

-.01

.10

-.03

.41

19. Learning

.11

.07

.07

.28†

.23*

-.09

.43†

.38†

.39†

-.06

.15

-.11

-.11

.11

.11

.27*

.65†

.10

.83

20. Commitment

.26*

.10

-.08

.23*

.11

-.16

.24*

.20

.23*

.05

.11

-.26*

-.17

.09

.28†

.16

.57†

-.16

.60†

.59

21. Trust

.08

.01

.27*

.41†

.44†

.19

.14

.28†

.19

.10

.01

.08

.14

.45†

.48†

.32†

.24*

-.11

.42†

.46†

.93

22. Col Resist

.28†

.31†

-.20

.04

-.06

-.12

.18

-.03

.21

.02

.43†

-.05

-.29†

-.05

.17

.04

.44†

-.30†

.29†

.53†

.15

.73

23. Col Support

.01

-.09

.43†

.40†

.22*

.39†

.17

.19

.11

-.08

-.04

.43†

.55†

.43†

.16

.28†

-.10

.08

.00

-.04

.26*

-.12

-

24. Age

.07

-.02

-.18

-.15

.05

-.07

-.05

-.01

-.16

-.16

.11

.04

-.11

.05

.11

-.02

-.02

-.06

.04

.19

.05

.24*

.01

-

25. Education

-.01

-.02

-.05

.10

.02

-.02

.07

.09

.16

.06

.05

.04

.07

.10

-.01

.04

.06

-.09

.14

.07

.03

-.08

-.01

-.03

-

26. Gender

-.08

.01

.00

.14

-.05

.03

.08

-.01

.09

-.07

.13

.06

.15

.09

.08

-.07

.08

.02

.02

.03

-.07

.16

-.08

-.11

-.19

Notes:

N = 86. Correlations typed in bold are significant at the 0.01 level or the 0.05 level (2-tailed). † p < .01, * p < .05. Scale

reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) are shown along the diagonal.

94

5.1.3. Results for Hypotheses – The Multinomial Ordered Probit Models

After the number of indicators for the variables had been reduced, a correlation analysis for

the final variables was conducted. Table 2 provides the Spearman correlations for all the

variables for Study 1. For ease of interpretation of all the data, results relevant to

correlations analyses and regression analyses will be interpreted together rather than in

sequentially separate results sections.

To test the study hypotheses, a series of ordered probit regressions was conducted. As

discussed earlier, the multinomial ordered probit model was used because it is able to

account for the discrete and ordered nature of dependent variables. Due to the sample size

and number of parameters being estimated, measurement scales for each variable were

recoded (i.e., “1” and “2” = “1”; “3” = “2”; and “4” and “5 = “3”). First, restricted models

that included only one of the independent variables and only one of the dependent variables

were conducted. Then, full models that included all independent variables, one of the

dependent variables, and three control variables were conducted. However, the regression

results of the full models indicate that the size of sample in Study 1 (n = 86) did not allow

for conducting models that had more than one independent variable. That is, multiple-

variables models with a sample size of 86 cases inevitably produced a large number of

empty cells. Thus, I did not include control variables in my analyses and, indeed, ran only

two-variable models to test Hypotheses 1a-18b for Study 1.

It is important to note that the regression results were considered as supportive of any

of the study hypotheses only when all four parameters (i.e., two parameters for dependent

variable threshold and two parameters for independent variable location) were statistically

significant. Additionally, the regression results were considered as partially supportive of

any hypothesis only when both (two) parameters of independent variable location and one

parameter of dependent variable threshold were statistically significant. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6

report the results of the multinomial ordered probit models; significant coefficients are

typed in bold. Surprisingly, the results do not indicate general support for the hypotheses

that perceptions and/or attitudes would be significantly related to reactions to change.

Hypothesis 1a predicted that perceived organizational support would be negatively

related to resistance to change. As shown in Table 2, perceived organizational support was

not significantly correlated with active resistance to change but was positively and

significantly correlated with passive resistance to change (r = .23, p < .05). Further, as can

be seen in Tables 3 and 4, the levels of perceived organizational support were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change or passive resistance to

change. Thus, Hypothesis 1a was not supported by the data.

95

Table 3: Study 1 – Regression Results of Active Resistance to Change

Dependent Variable Threshold Independent Variable Location

Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2

Independent Variables Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. χ2

Perceived Organizational

Support

-.730† .236 .282 .229 -.165 .317 -.302 .288 1.099

Perceived Procedural Justice -.863† .290 .150 .280 -.356 .335 -.396 .333 1.497

Perceived Participation in

Decision-Making

-.353* .198 .667† .204 .350 .344 .364 .266 2.167

Perceived Need for Change -.605† .190 .401* .186 -.031 .303 -.161 .286 .329

Attitude towards Organizational

Change

-.414* .179 .603† .183 .509 .381 .237 .265 2.054

Fear of Known Consequences

of a Change

-1.166† .220 -.018 .192 -1.275

† .314 -.714* .296 17.798

†

Fear of Unknown

Consequences of a Change

-.803† .211 .227 .200 -.613** .328 -.288 .272 3.605

Perceived Change in Power -.943* .441 .066 .434 -.438 .467 -.404 .466 .865

Perceived Change in Status -.659† .224 .360** .218 .071 .302 -.333 .289 2.185

Perceived Change in Pride -.506* .227 .506* .227 -.209 .369 .157 .272 1.200

Job Satisfaction -.786† .195 .242 .184 -.370 .337 -.471** .272 3.326

Job Security -.677† .212 .332 .206 -.295 .377 -.173 .261 .758

Job Motivation -.729† .166 .320* .155 -1.145* .489 -.389 .321 6.523*

Perceived Employability -.226 .233 .801† .243 .476 .325 .476 .290 3.189

Self-Confidence for Learning

and Development

-.717† .179 .322** .170 -.978* .452 -.198 .266 4.905**

Affective Commitment -.732† .168 .313* .157 -1.252* .585 -.436 .295 6.190*

Trust in Management -.604† .190 .402* .186 -.165 .290 -.035 .298 .325

Colleagues’ Resistance to

Change

-.836† .210 .194 .197 -.444 .374 -.471** .262 3.579

Colleagues’ Support for Change -.742† .278 .266 .272 -.238 .336 -.238 .319 .644

Notes: N = 86. Variables have 3 Levels: 1 = Low; 2 = Medium; 3 = High. Parameter for

Independent Variable’s level 3 is set to zero because it is redundant. † p < .01, * p

< .05, ** p < .10

96

Table 4: Study 1 – Regression Results of Passive Resistance to Change


Level 1 Level 2 Level 2



Support

-.763† .237 .425* .230 -.424 .317 -.127 .287 1.888

Perceived Procedural Justice -.694* .284 .517** .281 -.404 .332 .170 .329 4.621**


Decision-Making

-.503* .200 .672† .204 .182 .342 .126 .264 .372

Perceived Need for Change -.658 .191 .516 .188 -.147 .302 -.132 .285 .336


Change

-.524 .181 .654 .184 .337 .376 .065 .264 .811


of a Change

-1.137† .218 .157 .191 -1.054

† .307 -.742* .296 13.595

†

Fear of Unknown


-1.223† .232 .109 .201 -1.388

† .350 -.698* .277 17.255

†

Perceived Change in Power -1.292† .456 -.084 .442 -.923* .478 -.576 .475 4.550

Perceived Change in Status -.645† .223 .541* .221 -.288 .301 .090 .287 1.711

Perceived Change in Pride -.543* .228 .654† .230 -.392 .371 .221 .271 3.209

Job Satisfaction -.733† .193 .452* .187 -.141 .335 -.350 .270 1.683

Job Security -.876† .218 .327 .206 -.274 .376 -.494** .263 3.564

Job Motivation -.587† .160 .587

† .160 -.209 .444 .098 .319 .369

Perceived Employability -.113 .234 1.117† .254 .631** .327 .743* .294 6.850*


and Development

-.646† .177 .529

† .174 -.248 .424 -.113 .265 .434

Affective Commitment -.689† .165 .496

† .160 -.400 .521 -.334 .293 1.686

Trust in Management -.623† .190 .552

† .188 -.166 .289 .037 .297 .444


Change

-1.018† .217 .229 .198 -1.075

† .389 -.551* .263 9.048*

Colleagues’ Support for Change -.590* .274 .590* .274 .159 .334 -.112 .317 .981



< .05, ** p < .10

97

Table 5: Study 1 – Regression Results of Active Support for Change





Support

-.445* .231 .554* .233 -.367 .320 -.106 .288 1.406

Perceived Procedural Justice -1.317† .317 -.004 .286 -1.958

† .380 -.439 .339 36.924

†


Decision-Making

-.487* .201 .568† .203 -1.075

† .383 .000 .264 9.500

†

Perceived Need for Change -.581† .190 .444* .187 -.503 .308 -.561** .292 4.811**


Change

-.517† .182 .517

† .182 -1.053* .419 -.240 .266 6.690*


of a Change

-.310 .191 .681† .198 -.128 .296 .070 .290 .380

Fear of Unknown


-.257 .200 .741† .209 -.168 .328 .199 .272 1.301

Perceived Change in Power -.312 .428 .704 .432 -.256 .461 .232 .459 3.661

Perceived Change in Status -.802† .230 .296 .219 -1.182

† .323 -.347 .289 14.271

†

Perceived Change in Pride -.668† .232 .354 .226 -.702** .377 -.478** .274 4.507

Job Satisfaction -.396* .186 .597† .190 -.203 .338 -.190 .271 .644

Job Security -.461* .208 .551† .210 -.748** .398 -.124 .261 3.579

Job Motivation -.389 .156 .613 .162 -.488 .461 -.277 .325 1.701

Perceived Employability -.145 .234 .867† .245 -.074 .328 .398 .290 3.217


and Development

-.449† .173 .562

† .175 -.667 .448 -.261 .268 2.801

Affective Commitment -.362* .158 .636† .164 .137 .519 -.333 .299 1.407

Trust in Management -.594† .191 .459* .188 -.877

† .306 -.210 .298 8.538*


Change

-.066 .198 .944† .214 .439 .374 .402 .263 2.774

Colleagues’ Support for Change -.940† .286 .139 .273 -1.148

† .351 -.513 .322 11.555

†



< .05, ** p < .10

98

Table 6: Study 1 – Regression Results of Passive Support for Change

Variable Threshold Location




Support

-1.353† .268 -.418** .244 -.823* .334 -.960

† .308 10.823

†

Perceived Procedural Justice -1.254† .313 -.313 .295 -1.040

† .353 -.340 .350 10.970

†


Decision-Making

-.988† .217 -.072 .199 -1.015

† .358 -.295 .271 8.112*

Perceived Need for Change -.965† .203 -.072 .186 -.590** .309 -.519** .291 5.016**


Change

-.926† .195 -.035 .178 -.726** .382 -.434 .269 4.919**


of a Change

-.720† .200 .150 .191 -.285 .296 .056 .295 1.255

Fear of Unknown


-.803† .212 .064 .201 -.221 .328 -.245 .275 .899

Perceived Change in Power -1.058* .456 -.184 .447 -.549 .480 -.311 .480 1.745

Perceived Change in Status -1.657† .279 -.595* .241 -1.652

† .339 -.985

† .316 25.420

†

Perceived Change in Pride -1.281† .260 -.309 .235 -1.568

† .402 -.576* .287 15.796

†

Job Satisfaction -.885† .200 .015 .185 -.826* .346 -.195 .274 5.664**

Job Security -1.037† .227 -.126 .209 -1.080

† .393 -.415 .269 7.732*

Job Motivation -.855† .170 .043 .153 -.594 .450 -.672** .326 5.532**

Perceived Employability -.542* .237 .323 .234 .074 .325 .219 .291 .613


and Development

-.868† .185 .016 .169 -.597 .430 -.426 .270 3.649

Affective Commitment -.871† .173 .038 .155 -.140 .526 -.780* .301 6.916*

Trust in Management -1.096† .210 -.167 .187 -.885

† .300 -.632* .305 9.836

†


Change

-.755 .208 .116 .198 .150 .383 -.248 .263 1.516

Colleagues’ Support for Change -1.691† .342 -.743 .318 -1.315

† .383 -1.110

† .367 13.410

†



< .05, ** p < .10

99

Hypothesis 1b was that perceived organizational support would be positively related to

support for change. As can be seen in Table 2, perceived organizational support was not

significantly correlated with active support for change but was positively correlated with

passive support for change (r = .34, p < .01). The results shown in Table 5 indicate that the

levels of perceived organizational support were not significantly predictive of the levels of

active support for change. The negative coefficients for perceived organizational support

(see Table 6) imply that the lower the level of perceived organizational support, the greater

the likelihood of having passive support for change (b1 = -.823, p < .05; b2 = -.960, p < .01).

Thus, Hypothesis 1b was not supported.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that perceived procedural justice would be negatively related

to resistance to change. Perceived procedural justice was not significantly correlated with

active resistance to change and passive resistance to change (see Table 2). The results

shown in Tables 3 and 4 also indicate that the levels of perceived procedural justice were

not significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change or passive support for

change. Thus, Hypothesis 2a was not supported.

Hypothesis 2b predicted that perceived procedural justice would be positively related

to support for change. As can be seen in Table 2, perceived procedural justice was

positively correlated with active support for change (r = .67, p < .01) and passive support

for change (r = .39, p < .01). However, as can be see in Tables 5 and 6, the levels of

perceived procedural justice were not significantly predictive of the levels of active support

for change or passive support for change. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

Hypothesis 3a was that perceived participation in decision-making regarding

organizational change would be negatively related to resistance to change. This hypothesis

was not supported, as perceived participation in decision-making was not significantly

correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to change (see Table 2). As

also shown in Tables 3 and 4, the levels of perceived participation in decision-making were

not significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change or passive resistance

to change.

Hypothesis 3b, which predicted that perceived participation in decision-making

regarding organizational change would be positively related to support for change, was not

supported by the data. As illustrated in Table 2, perceived participation in decision-making

was not significantly correlated with active support for change but was positively correlated

with passive support for change (r = .26, p < .05). The findings indicate that the levels of

perceived participation in decision-making were not significantly predictive of the levels of

active support for change or passive support for change (see Tables 5 and 6).

100

Hypothesis 4a was that perceived need for change would be negatively related to

resistance to change. As can be seen in Table 2, neither a correlation between perceived

need for change and active resistance to change nor a correlation between perceived need

for change and passive resistance to change was significant. Moreover, as shown in Tables 3

and 4, the levels of perceived need for change were not significantly predictive of the levels

of active resistance to change or passive resistance to change. Therefore, Hypothesis 4a was

not supported.

Hypothesis 4b predicted that perceived need for change would be positively related to

support for change. This hypothesis was not supported. As shown in Table 2, perceived

need for change was not significantly correlated with active support for change but was

positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .28, p < .01). The regression

results indicate that the levels of perceived need for change were not significantly predictive

of the levels of active support for change (see Table 5) or passive support for change (see

Table 6).

Hypothesis 5a suggested that attitude towards organizational change would be

negatively related to resistance to change. As can be seen in Table 2, attitude towards

organizational was negatively and significantly correlated with active resistance to change (r

= -.22, p < .05), but it was not significantly correlated with passive resistance to change.

Furthermore, the degrees of attitude towards organizational were not significantly predictive

of the levels of active resistance to change (see Table 3) or passive resistance to change (see

Table 4). Thus, Hypothesis 5a was not supported.

Hypothesis 5b predicted that attitude towards organizational change would be

positively related to support for change. As illustrated in Table 2, attitude towards

organizational change was not significantly correlated with active support for change but

was positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .39, p < .01). Moreover, the

results of the ordered probit analyses indicate that degrees of attitude towards organizational

change were not significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change (see Table

5) or passive support for change (see Table 6). Thus, Hypothesis 5b was not supported.

Hypothesis 6a was that fear of known consequences of a change would be positively

related to resistance to change. As shown in Table 2, fear of known consequences of a

change was positively correlated with active support for change (r = .54, p < .01) and

passive support for change (r = .45, p < .01). However, as can be seen in Tables 3 and 4, the

levels of fear of known consequences of a change were negatively and significantly

predictive of active resistance change (b1 = -.1.275, p < .01; b2 = -.714, p < .05; note that

one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant) and passive resistance

change (b1 = -1.054, p < .01; b2 = -.742, p < .05; note that one parameter of dependent

101

variable threshold was not significant). The negative coefficients imply that the likelihood

of having higher levels of active resistance to change or passive resistance to change did

decrease with higher levels of fear of known consequences of a change, which was

inconsistent with expectations. Thus, Hypothesis 6a was not supported.

Hypothesis 6b, which predicted that fear of known consequences of a change would be

negatively related to support for change, was not supported. As results in Table 2 show, fear

of known consequences of a change was not significantly correlated with active support for

change or passive support for change. Furthermore, as the results in Tables 5 and 6 indicate,

the levels of fear of known consequences of a change were not significantly predictive of

the levels of active support for change or passive support for change.

As Hypothesis 7a suggested that fear of unknown consequences of a change would be

positively related to resistance to change, the findings in Table 2 show that fear of unknown

consequences of a change was positively correlated with active resistance to change (r =

.24, p < .05) and passive resistance to change (r = .44, p < .01). However, the levels of fear

of unknown consequences of a change were not significantly predictive of the levels of

active resistance to change (see Table 3). Indeed, the negative coefficients for fear of

unknown consequences of a change (b1 = -1.054, p < .01; b2 = -.742, p < .05; note that one

parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant) mean that the likelihood of

having higher levels of passive resistance to change did decrease with higher levels of fear

of unknown consequences of a change (see Table 4). Thus, Hypothesis 7a was not

supported.

Hypothesis 7b predicted that fear of unknown consequences of a change would be

negatively related to support for change. This hypothesis was not supported. As shown in

Table 2, fear of unknown consequences of a change was not significantly correlated with

active support for change or passive support for change. Furthers, as can be seen in Tables 5

and 6, the levels of fear of unknown consequences of a change were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active support for change or passive support for change.

Hypothesis 8a, which predicted that perceived change in power resulting from a

change would be negatively related to resistance to change, was not supported. As can be

seen in Table 2, perceived change in power resulting from the downsizing was not

significantly correlated with active resistance to change but was positively correlated with

passive resistance to change (r = .29, p < .01). Further, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the

levels of perceived change in power resulting from the downsizing were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active resistance to change or passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 8b suggested that perceived change in power resulting from a change

would be positively related to support for change. As can be seen in Table 2, perceived

102

change in power resulting from the downsizing was positively correlated with active support

for change (r = .28, p < .01) and passive support for change (r = .21, p < .05). However, the

results shown in 5 and 6 indicate that the levels of perceived change in power resulting from

the downsizing were not significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change or

passive support for change. Thus, Hypothesis 8b was not supported.

Hypothesis 9a suggested that perceived change in status resulting from a change would

be negatively related to resistance to change. As can be seen in Table 2, perceived change in

status resulting from the downsizing was not significantly correlated with active resistance

to change or passive resistance to change. Further, the results shown in Tables 3 and 4

indicate that the levels of perceived change in status resulting from the downsizing were not


change. Thus, Hypothesis 9a was not supported.

Hypothesis 9b predicted that perceived change in status resulting from a change would

be positively related to support for change. On the one hand, as shown in Table 2, perceived

change in status resulting from the downsizing was positively correlated with active support

for change (r = .45, p < .01) and passive support for change (r = .49, p < .01), suggesting

that this hypothesis is supported. On the other hand, as shown in Table 5, the levels of

perceived change in status resulting from the downsizing were not significantly predictive

of the levels of active support for change. The results shown in Table 6 also show the

negative coefficients for perceived change in status resulting from the downsizing (b1 = -

1.652, p < .01; b2 = -.985, p < .01), implying that the likelihood of having higher levels of

passive support for change did decrease with higher levels of perceived change in status.

Thus, Hypothesis 9b was not supported.

Hypothesis 10a suggested that perceived change in pride resulting from a change

would be negatively related to resistance to change. This hypothesis was not supported. As

can be seen in Table 2, perceived change in pride was not significantly correlated with

active resistance to change or passive resistance to change. Furthermore, the findings shown

in Tables 3 and 4 also indicate that the levels of perceived change in pride resulting from the

downsizing were not significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change or

passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 10b predicted that perceived change in pride resulting from a change

would be positively related to support for change. As shown in Table 2, perceived change in

pride resulting from the downsizing was positively correlated with passive support for

change (r = .41, p < .01) but was not significantly correlated with active support for change.

As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the levels of perceived change in pride resulting from the

downsizing were significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change (b1 = -

103

.702, p < .10; b2 = -.478, p < .10; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold

was not significant) and passive support for change (b1 = -1.568, p < .01; b2 = -.576, p < .01;

note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant). The negative

coefficients imply that the higher the level of pride as a result of the downsizing, the lower

the likelihood of having active support for change and passive support for change. Thus,

Hypothesis 10b was not supported by the data.

Hypothesis 11a predicted that job satisfaction would be negatively related to resistance

to change. This Hypothesis was not supported. As can be seen in Table 2, job satisfaction

was positively correlated with active resistance to change (r = .26, p < .01) but was not

significantly correlated with passive resistance to change. The regression results indicate

that the levels of job satisfaction were not significantly predictive of the levels of active

resistance to change (see Table 3) or passive resistance to change (see Table 4).

Hypothesis 11b predicted that job satisfaction would be positively related to support

for change. As can be seen in Table 2, job satisfaction was not significantly correlated with

active support for change but was positively correlated with passive support for change (r =

.26, p < .05). Furthermore, the levels of job satisfaction were not significantly predictive of

the levels of active support for change (see Table 5) or passive support for change (see

Table 6). Thus, Hypothesis 11b was not supported.

Hypothesis 12a predicted that job security would be negatively related to resistance to

change. As shown in Table 2, job security was not significantly correlated with active

resistance to change but was positively correlated with passive resistance to change (r = .24,

p < .05). The regression results illustrated in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that the levels of job

security were not significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change or

passive resistance to change. Thus, Hypothesis 12a was not supported.

Hypothesis 12b was that job security would be positively related to support for change.

As can be seen in Table 2, job security was not statistically correlated with active support

for change but was positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .34, p < .01).

However, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, the levels of job security were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active support for change or passive support for change. Thus,

Hypothesis 12b was not supported.

Hypothesis 13a predicted that job motivation would be negatively related to resistance

to change. This hypothesis is not supported. As can be seen in Table 2, job motivation was

not significantly correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to change.

Moreover, as can be seen in Tables 3 and 4, the levels of job motivation were not


change.

104

Hypothesis 13b, which suggested that job motivation would be positively related to

support for change, was not supported. As can be seen in Table 2, job motivation was not

statistically correlated with active support for change but was positively correlated with

passive support for change (r = .22, p < .05). However, as illustrated in Tables 5 and 6, the

levels of job motivation were not significantly predictive of the levels of active support for

change or passive support for change.

Hypothesis 14a was that perceived employability would be positively related to

resistance to change. As shown in Table 2, perceived employability was not significantly

correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to change. The results

shown in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that degrees of perceived employability were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change but were partially

predictive of the levels of passive resistance to change (b1 = .631, p < .10; b2 = .743, p < .05;

note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant). Thus,

Hypothesis 14a was partially supported for only one of the two indicators for resistance to

change: passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 14b, which predicted that perceived employability would be negatively

related to support for change, was not supported in that, as shown in Table 2, perceived

employability was not significantly correlated with active support for change or passive

support for change. Moreover, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, the degrees of perceived

employability were not significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change or

passive support for change.

Hypothesis 15a predicted that self-confidence for career-relevant learning and

competence development would be negatively related to resistance to change. This

hypothesis was not supported. As can be seen in Table 2, self-confidence for career-relevant

learning and competence development was not significantly correlated with active

resistance to change or passive resistance to change. Furthermore, the degrees of self-

confidence for career-relevant learning and competence development were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active resistance to change (see Table 3) or passive resistance to

change (see Table 4).

Hypothesis 15b predicted that self-confidence for career-relevant learning and

competence development would be positively related to support for change. As can be seen

in Table 2, self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competence development was

not significantly correlated with active support for change but was positively correlated with

passive support for change (r = .28, p < .01). Furthermore, degrees of self-confidence for

career-relevant learning and competence development were not significantly predictive of

105

the levels of active support for change or passive support for change. Thus, Hypothesis 15b

was not supported.

Hypothesis 16a, which predicted that affective commitment would be negatively

related to resistance to change, was not supported. As shown in Table 2, affective

commitment was positively correlated with active resistance to change (r = .26, p < .01) but

was not significantly correlated with passive resistance to change. In addition, the levels of

affective commitment were not significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance (see

Table 3) to change or passive resistance to change (see Table 4).

Hypothesis 16b suggested that affective commitment would be positively related to

support for change. This hypothesis was not supported. As shown in Table 2, affective

commitment was not statistically correlated with active support for change but was

positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .23, p < .05). However, as can be

seen in Tables 5 and 6, the levels of affective commitment were not significantly predictive

of the levels of active support for change or passive support for change.

Hypothesis 17a, which predicted that trust in management would be negatively related

to resistance to change, was not supported. As shown in Table 2, trust in management was


In addition, the levels of trust in management were not significantly predictive of the levels

of active resistance to change (see Table 3) or passive resistance to change (see Table 4).

Hypothesis 17b was that trust in management would be positively related to support

for change. As shown in Table 2, trust in management was positively correlated with active

support for change (r = .27, p < .05) and passive support for change (r = .41, p < .01).

However, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, the levels of trust in management were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change but were negatively and

partially predictive of the levels of passive support for change (b1 = -.885, p < .01; b2 = -

.632, p < .01; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant).

Thus, Hypothesis 17b was not supported by the data.

Hypothesis 18a suggested that perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change would

be positively related to resistance to change, and be negatively related to support for change.

As shown in Table 2, a perception of colleagues’ resistance to change was positively

correlated with active resistance to change (r = .28, p < .01) and passive resistance to

change (r = .31, p < .05), but it was not significantly correlated with active support for

change or passive support for change. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the degrees of

perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change were not significantly predictive of the

levels of active resistance to change but were negatively and partially predictive of the

levels of passive resistance to change (b1 = -1.075, p < .01; b2 = -.551, p < .05; note that one

106

parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant). The results also indicate that

the degrees of perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active support for change (see Table 5) or passive support for

change (see Table 6). Thus, Hypothesis 18a was not supported.

Finally, Hypothesis 18b predicted that perceptions of colleagues’ support for change

would be negatively related to resistance to change, and be positively related to support for

change. As shown in Table 2, a perception of colleagues’ support for change was not

significantly correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to change, but

it was positively correlated with active support for change (r = .43, p < .01) and passive

support for change (r = .40, p < .05). However, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the degrees of

perceptions of colleagues’ support for change were not significantly predictive of the levels

of active resistance to change or passive resistance to change. As also shown in Tables 5

and 6, the degrees of perceptions of colleagues’ support for change were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active support for change but was partially predictive of the levels

of support for change (b1 = -1.315, p < .01; b2 = -1.110, p < .01; note that one parameter of

dependent variable threshold was not significant). Thus, Hypothesis 18b was not supported.

5.1.4. Discussion of Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to extend our understanding of the relationships between

perceptions and reactions to change in an environmental context of the downsizing in

Thailand, where many, if not most, of the employees were under pressure to radically

transform themselves or risk losing their job. Toward this end, I examined perceptions

and/or attitudes and reactions of teachers in one private school in Thailand to a relatively

large-scaled forthcoming layoff that fundamentally altered the practice and policy of the

school and teachers.

Important aspects of Study 1 are that (1) it examined a relatively large set of predictors

and outcomes variables, (2) it received a high response rate (91%) to the survey which is

very rare, and (3) it offered some insights into employees’ reactions to change in the

downsizing situation in the private school in Thailand where research on organizational

change is extremely sparse. Before going further with this discussion, two important

cautions to the interpretation of the findings must be made. First, it must be noted that it was

not possible to control for the effects of age, education, gender and other control variables

for the ordered probit regressions due predominantly to a relatively small sample size (n =

86). It is entirely possible that a relatively larger sample size would improve the results of

these regressions. Second, it is also important to note that given the small sample size in

107

Study 1, response scales of variable measurements were recoded for the purpose of

conducting the ordered probit analyses.

Overall, the results of the analyses concerning the prediction of employee’s reactions

to change in this study are not clear-cut. That is, some significant correlations existed

between certain predictors and outcomes, but the sign of some of those significant

correlations was not consistent with expectations and the strength of some of those

significant correlations was low. In general, the results of the ordered probit models offer

little empirical support for the study hypotheses. Surprisingly only one of the 36 hypotheses

was supported: that is, Hypothesis 14a was supported in that most respondents having

higher degrees of passive resistance to change when they believed that they had higher

levels of employability, and those having lower levels of passive resistance to change when

they believed that they had lower levels of employability.

Although most hypotheses tested in Study 1 were not endorsed, there are some

interesting and surprising results. The findings indicate that employees who perceived

higher levels of organizational support had lower degrees of passive support for change.

Clearly, these findings are contradictory to the literature on perceived organizational support

(e.g., Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa, 1986; Allen, Shore and Griffeth,

2003), the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) as well as the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner,

1960).

Unexpectedly, higher degrees of fear of known consequences of a change decreased

the likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change and passive resistance

to change. In the same vein, the results also indicate that the likelihood of having higher

levels of passive resistance to change did decrease with higher levels of fear of unknown

consequences of a change. This is certainly a surprise as it demonstrates that the

commonsense belief that fear of known and/or unknown consequences of a change will

promote employees’ resistance to change is now known to be (e.g., Morris and Raben,

1995; Mabin et al., 2001), is not correct.

The findings that indicate that the greater the level of perceived need for change, the

lower the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change contradict the

argument that when employees perceive a need for change, they will be more ready to

provide support for change (e.g., Kotter 1995; Kotter and Cohen, 2002). While only

partially significant, this unexpected relationship calls into a question as to whether

perceptions of need for change will always promote employees’ support for change.

The evidence that perceptions of having greater pride resulting from the downsizing

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change or passive

support for change is surprising. One plausible to these results is that in the context of

108

downsizing where some employees will inevitably have to leave the school, those who may

benefit directly or indirectly from this downsizing may not want to appear to be actively

supportive of the downsizing because they did not want to irritate their colleagues. The

findings that perceptions of having greater degrees of status resulting from downsizing

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change are

unexpected, but it is valuable as it lends support for my interpretation on the findings

concerning perceived change in pride. It is entirely possible that those who had gained some

pride from this downsizing may feel that showing support for this decision will cause

interpersonal problems with their colleagues, thereby reporting low levels of passive support

for change.

In the case of trust in management, the results indicate that higher levels of trust in

management decreased the likelihood of having passive support for change. One caveat to

the findings is that not all parameters were significant. Thus, firm conclusions about these

findings could not be drawn. Furthermore, the results also indicate that the stronger the

degree of perceptions of colleagues’ support for change, the lower the likelihood of having

passive support for change becomes.

In sum, from the point of view of observers expecting rational decisions or behaviors,

this is certainly a surprise as the abovementioned results lend empirical support for the

dispositional argument in this dissertation, or at least weaken the argument that humans are

rational or make rational decisions. However, the conclusions drawn from these results must

be treated with caution since they may not be generalized to other employees in other

organizations due predominantly to the small sample size (n = 86). Therefore, a sample in

Study 2, where another type of organizational change occurs and a sample size is relatively

larger (n = 197), was analyzed. Further analyses in Study 2 will suggest whether the

hypotheses proposed would be endorsed in another sample.

5.2. Study 2 – Results and Discussion

As with Study 1, the purpose of stage 1 was to examine whether the indicators for each

variable were internally consistent, i.e., whether the numbers of indicators for each construct

could be reduced. The same sequence of analysis was completed, starting first with an

assessment of the patterns of directions of the aggregate indicators and the original

indicators in graphical forms (see the Appendix C for further information). As with Study 1,

the results of the procedure used in Study 2 suggest that it was possible to reduce the

number of indicators for each construct (e.g., by either aggregating all three indicators to a

super level or aggregating a pair of indicators to a super level); thus, I reduced the number

of indicators for each variable and conducted the testing of hypotheses using the aggregate

109

indicators. In addition to the use of graphs (see the Appendix C for further information) to

examine the possibility of reducing the number of indicators, I also examined whether the

indicators for each variable were internally consistent using the Spearman correlation

coefficients. Based on the results of both approaches, a selection of indicators (e.g., the

original indicators or the aggregate indicator) to be used for each variable was undertaken.

5.2.1. Analyses of Correlations among Dependent Variables

Tables in the Appendix C provide the Spearman correlation coefficients for all dependent

indicators in Study 2. As can be seen, Active Resistance 1 was positively and significantly

correlated with Active Resistance 2 (r = .28, p < .01) and with Active Resistance 3 (r = .36,

p < .01). In graphs the aggregate indicator between Active Resistance 1 and Active

Resistance 3 visually provided a higher level of internal consistency than the aggregate

indicator between Active Resistance 1 and Active Resistance 2. Thus, I used the aggregate

indicator between Active Resistance 1 and Active Resistance 3 for active resistance to

change.

Further, the number of indicators for passive resistance to change could be reduced

since Passive Resistance 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Passive

Resistance 3 (r = .38, p < .01), and the plotted diagram indicated that they had the same

pattern of directions. Therefore, the aggregate indicator between Passive Resistance 2 and

Passive Resistance 3 would be used for passive resistance to change.

Similarly, I reduced the number of indicators for active support for change by

aggregating Active Support 1 and Active Support 2 to a super level for this construct

because Active Support 1 was positively and significantly correlated with Active Support 2

(r = .43, p < .01), and the plotted diagram indicated that they had the same pattern of

directions. Note that negative and significant correlations existed between Active Support 1

and Active Support 3 (r = -.42, p < .01) and between Active Support 2 and Active Support 3

(r = -.46, p < .01), suggesting that these combinations could not be used for this construct.

Next, Passive Support 1 was positively and significantly correlated with Passive

Support 2 (r = .45, p < .01) and with Passive Support 3 (r = .28, p < .01), but Passive

Support 2 was not significantly correlated with Passive Support 3. Graphically, the

aggregate indicator between Passive Support 1 and Passive Support 2 appeared to provide a

higher level of internal consistency than the aggregate indicator between Passive Support 1

and Passive Support 3; therefore, I reduced the number of indicators for passive support for

change by aggregating Passive Support 1 and Passive Support 3 to a super level.

Concerning relationships among indicators for active resistance to change and passive

resistance to change, there were eight positive and significant correlations among them;

110

moreover, there were three negative and significant correlations among them. On the

contrary, there were five positive and significant correlations but six negative and

significant correlations among the indicators for active support for change and the indicators

for passive support for change. Concerning the correlations between dependent indictors

and control variables, unlike in Study 1, there were several significant correlations among

them.

5.2.2. Analyses of Correlations among Independent Variables

Tables in the Appendix C provide the Spearman correlation coefficients for active resistance

to change indictors and all independent indicators. As with Study 1, I first examined

whether the indicators for each variable were significantly correlated with each other.

Concerning perceived organizational support (POS), POS 1 was positively and

significantly correlated with POS 2 (r = .50, p < .01), whereas POS 2 was negatively and

significantly correlated with POS 3 (r = -.25, p < .01). Thus, I reduced the number of

indicators for perceived organizational support by aggregating POS 1 and POS 2 to a super

level. Since Perceived Procedural Justice 1 was positively and significantly correlated with

Perceived Procedural Justice 3 (r = .15, p < .05), the aggregate indicator between Perceived

Procedural Justice 1 and Perceived Procedural Justice 3 would be used for perceived

procedural justice. Participation 1 was significantly correlated with Perceived Participation

2 (r = .37, p < .01) and Perceived Participation 3 (r = .38, p < .01), but Perceived

Participation 2 was not significantly correlated with Perceived Participation 3. Therefore,

Perceived Participation 1 and Perceived Participation 2 would be aggregated to a super level

for perceived participation in decision-making.

Perceived Need for Change 1 was positively and significantly correlated with

Perceived Need for Change 2 (r = .18, p < .05), and Perceived Need for Change 2 was

positively and significantly correlated with Perceived Need for Change 3 (r = .33, p < .01).

Comparing between two aggregate indicators (the one between Perceived Need for Change

1 and Perceived Need for Change 2 and the one between Perceived Need for Change 2 and

Perceived Need for Change 3) in diagrams, the latter combination seemed to provide a

higher level of internal consistency. Thus, Perceived Need for Change 2 and Perceived

Need for Change 3 were aggregated to a super level for perceived need for change. Since

Attitude towards Organizational Change 1 was significantly and significantly correlated

with Attitude towards Organizational Change 2 (r = .24, p < .01), the aggregate indicator

between Attitude towards Organizational Change 1 and Attitude towards Organizational

Change 2 would be used for attitude towards organizational change. Fear of Known

Consequences 3 was negatively and significantly correlated with Fear of Known

111

Consequences 1 (r = -.19, p < .01) but was positively and significantly correlated with Fear

of Known Consequences 2 (r = .17, p < .05). Therefore, Fear of Known Consequences 2

and Fear of Known Consequences 3 would be aggregated to a super level for this construct.

As a positive and significant correlation existed between Fear of unknown

Consequences 2 and Fear of Unknown Consequences 3 (r = .22, p < .01), Fear of Unknown

Consequences 2 and Fear of Unknown Consequences 3 would be aggregated to a super

level for fear of unknown consequences of a change. The results also suggest that all

indicators for perceived change in power were positively and significantly correlated with

each other; however, further graphical analyses suggested that only two indicators for this

construct should be aggregated to super level: that is, Change in Power 2 and Change in

Power 3 (r = .46, p < .01).

Concerning perceived change in status, Change in Status 1 was positively and

significantly correlated with Change in Status 2 (r = .31, p < .01) but was negatively and

significantly correlated with Change in Status 3 (r = -.16, p < .05); and Change in Power 2

was negatively and significantly correlated with Change in Status 3 (r = -.49, p < .01). To

reduce the number of indicators for this construct, I aggregated Change in Status 1 and

Change in Status 2 to a super level. Next, a negative and significant correlation existed

between Change in Pride 1 and Change in Pride 3 (r = -.34, p < .01), suggesting that I could

not aggregate the two indicators. To reduce the number of indicators for perceived change in

pride, I plotted the aggregate indicators between all possible pairs of indicators for

perceived change in pride. The results (see the Appendix C for further information) partially

supported the idea that the aggregate indicator between Change in Pride 1 and Change in

Pride 2 could be used for this construct.

Job Satisfaction 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Job Satisfaction 3 (r

= .20, p < .01); thus, Job Satisfaction 2 and Job Satisfaction 3 would be aggregated to a

super level. Though all indicators for job security were positively and significantly

correlated with each other, Job Security 1 and Job Security 2 would be aggregated to a super

level because it provided a higher level of internal consistency. With regard to job

motivation, Job Motivation 2 was positively and significantly correlated with Job

Motivation 1 (r = .20, p < .01) and Job Motivation 3 (r = .53, p < .01). To reduce the

number of indicators for this construct, I aggregated Job Motivation 2 and Job Motivation 3

to a super level as a unit of analysis.

Next, all indicators for perceived employability were significantly correlated with each

other, but with different signs. That is, Perceived Employability 2 was negatively and

significantly correlated with Perceived Employability 1 (r = -.14, p < .05) and Perceived

Employability 2 (r = -.23, p < .01); and Perceived Employability 1 was positively and

112

significantly correlated with Perceived Employability 2 (r = .16, p < .05). Thus, Perceived

Employability 1 and Perceived Employability 2 were aggregated to a super level for this

variable.

All correlations among the indicators for self-confidence for learning and development

were positive and significant. However, I reduced the number of indicators for this construct

by aggregating Self-Confidence for Learning 1 and Self-Confidence for Learning 3 since it

graphically provided the highest level of internal consistency. Affective Commitment 1 was

positively and significantly correlated with Affective Commitment 2 (r = .36, p < .01) and

Affective Commitment 3 (r = .27, p < .01). Thus, Affective 1 and Affective 2 were

aggregated to a super level. Although all indicators for trust in management were positively

and significantly correlated with each other, I reduced the number of indictors for this

construct by aggregating Trust in Management 1 and Trust in Management 3 because this

combination provided, in graphs, a relatively higher level of internal consistency.

Concerning a perception of colleagues’ resistance to change, a negative and significant

correlation existed between Colleagues’ Resistance 1 and Colleagues’ Resistance 2 (r = -

.21, p < .01). As can be seen in the Appendix C, there was a common pattern of directions

between the two indicators, suggesting that both indicators could be aggregated to a super

level.

113

Table 7: Study 2 – Correlations for All Final Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1.

AR

.41

2.

PR

.32†

.58

3.

AS

-.54†

-.47†

.59

4.

PS

.49†

.33†

-.43†

.68

5.

POS

.47†

.59†

-.59†

.45†

.69

6.

Justice

-.14*

.12

.11

-.33†

.07

.19

7.

Participation

.47†

.46†

-.45†

.44†

.47†

.00

.56

8.

Need

.35†

.32†

-.39†

.42†

.40†

-.08

.27†

.51

9.

Attitude

.00

.35†

-.25†

.09

.17*

.25†

.26†

.34†

.33

10. Fear Known

.46†

.44†

-.52†

.43†

.53†

-.08

.45†

.31†

.08

.23

11. Fear Un

.20†

.13

-.20†

.20†

.35†

-.02

.09

.35†

.05

.14

.36

12. Power

.51†

.47†

-.47†

.55†

.52†

-.15*

.45†

.45†

.22†

.43†

.23†

.65

13. Status

.16*

.38†

-.22†

.25†

.36†

.15*

.27†

.26†

.29†

.12

.22†

.40†

.41

14. Pride

-.47†

-.44†

.44†

-.44†

-.44†

.10

-.41†

-.29†

-.08

-.46†

-.15*

-.56†

-.21†

-.02

15. Job Sat

.36†

.02

-.18*

.21†

.23†

-.26†

.03

.07

-.36†

.15*

.19†

.06

.09

-.18*

.27

16. Job Security

-.23†

.29†

.00

-.27†

.06

.40†

.11

.02

.53†

-.08

-.05

.06

.29†

.08

-.52†

.85

17. Job M

ot

-.16*

.29†

-.01

-.12

.14*

.46†

.17*

.09

.52†

-.09

.03

.15*

.31†

.06

-.47†

.70†

.63

18. Employ

.27†

.35†

-.24†

.30†

.34†

.02

.26†

.33†

.28†

.14

.08

.43†

.40†

-.27†

.07

.21†

.30†

.30

19. Learning

-.51†

-.09

.33†

-.26†

-.22†

.26†

-.04

-.07

.26†

-.26†

-.04

-.22†

-.05

.27†

-.46†

.36†

.40†

-.01

.63

20. Commitment

-.19†

.17*

.04

-.07

.05

.22†

.09

.09

.32†

-.15*

.02

.04

.11

-.02

-.26†

.37†

.43†

.18†

.44†

.49

21. Trust

-.23†

.07

.10

-.01

-.08

.17*

-.03

-.01

.33†

-.21†

-.04

.01

-.03

.17*

-.32†

.34†

.43†

.10

.30†

.38†

.36

22. Col Resist

-.27†

-.10

.18*

-.01

-.14*

.02

-.07

-.08

.19†

-.21†

-.08

.04

-.04

.07

-.18*

.12

.24†

.12

.32†

.32†

.41†

-.63

23. Col Support

.29†

.28†

-.23†

.44†

.27†

-.05

.28†

.45†

.24†

.18*

.23†

.46†

.30†

-.25†

.02

.04

.19†

.48†

-.07

.14

.23†

.40†

-

24. Age

-.20†

.05

.12

-.06

-.09

.12

-.05

.16*

.26†

-.23†

.04

.05

.26†

.03

-.23†

.29†

.43†

.24†

.31†

.26†

.24†

.18*

.14*

-

25. Education

.29†

.26†

-.29†

.09

.30†

.14

.13

.24†

.26†

.15*

.25†

.22†

.19†

-.28†

-.01

.14*

.19†

.19†

-.12

.01

-.05

-.14

.10

-.06

-

26. Gender

.08

.01

.07

-.07

-.05

-.03

.00

-.07

-.11

-.03

-.04

-.01

-.02

-.07

.03

-.02

-.09

-.09

-.18†

-.16*

-.07

-.17*

-.05

-.20†

.14*

Notes:

N = 197. Correlations typed in bold are significant at the 0.01 level or the 0.05 level (2-tailed). † p < .01, * p < .05. Scale

reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) are shown along the diagonal.

114

5.2.3. Results for Hypotheses – The Multinomial Ordered Probit Models

As with Study 1, after the number of indicators has been reduced, a correlation analysis for

the final variables was conducted. Table 7 reports the Spearman correlations among all the

variables for Study 2. As with Study 1, for ease of interpretation of all the data, results

relevant to correlations analyses and regression analyses will be interpreted together rather

than in sequentially separate results sections. It should be noted that in comparison to Study

1, a relatively larger sample size in Study 2 suggested that the results of Study 2 should be

treated with higher value than those of in Study 1: that is, the results of Study 1 should be

treated as exploratory due to a small sample size (n = 86).

Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11 present the results of the ordered probit models. As with Study

1, I used the ordered probit models to test Hypotheses 1a-18b. Before the ordered probit

regressions were computed, measurement scales for both dependent variables and

independent variables were recoded (i.e., 1 and 2 = 1; 3 = 2; and 4 and 5 = 3).70 Restricted

models that included only one of the independent variables and only one of the dependent

variables were computed. Then, full models that included all independent variables, one of

the dependent variables, and three control variables were computed. However, the size of

sample in Study 2 (n = 197) did not allow for conducting models that had more than one

independent variable. That is, multiple-variables models with the sample size of 197 cases

inevitably produced a large number of empty cells. Thus, I decided to conduct only two-

variable models to test Hypotheses 1a-18b for Study 2. As with Study 1, the results of the

ordered probit models were considered to be (1) fully supportive of any hypotheses when all

parameters of the independent variable location and all parameter of dependent variable

threshold were significant and (2) partially supportive of any hypotheses only when both

(two) parameters of independent variable location and one parameter of dependent variable

threshold are significant.

Hypothesis 1a predicted that perceived organizational support would be negatively

related to resistance to change. As shown in Table 7, perceived organizational support was

not significantly correlated with active resistance to change but was positively correlated

with passive resistance to change (r = .23, p < .05). The regression results shown in Tables 8

and 9 indicate that the levels of perceived organizational support were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active resistance to change but were negatively and significantly

predictive of the levels of passive resistance to change (b1 = -1.088, p < .01; b2 = -.629, p <

.01). Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported for only one of the two alternative indicators for

resistance to change: passive resistance to change.

70 See Sections 4.3 and 4.4 for more information.

115

Table 8: Study 2 – Regression Results of Active Resistance to Change





Support

-.646† .179 .945

† .186 -1.088

† .218 -.405 .223 27.948

†

Perceived Procedural Justice -.048 .119 1.405† .153 -.045 .247 -.065 .183 .132


Decision-Making

-.909† .198 .733

† .193 -1.277

† .227 -.783

† .240 33.298

†

Perceived Need for Change -.625† .165 .933

† .173 -.897

† .224 -.788

† .204 20.657

†


Change

-.158 .123 1.369† .157 .413** .250 -.507

† .186 14.179

†


of a Change

-.924† .217 .705

† .212 -1.466

† .255 -.694

† .240 37.974

†

Fear of Unknown


-.474* .209 1.013† .219 -.624* .244 -.457** .238 6.541*

Perceived Change in Power -.849† .174 .849

† .174 -1.613

† .234 -.683

† .211 52.483

†

Perceived Change in Status -.346* .155 1.144† .173 -.443* .214 -.475* .199 6.623*

Perceived Change in Pride .453† .126 2.123

† .192 1.501

† .271 .826

† .189 39.513

†

Job Satisfaction -.418 .257 1.091† .268 -.704* .281 -.094 .284 14.210

†

Job Security .105 .108 1.588† .153 .745* .300 .240 .189 6.863*

Job Motivation .058 .109 1.578† .156 .893

† .265 -.066 .198 12.863

†

Perceived Employability -.373† .140 1.140

† .160 -.645* .259 -.540

† .182 11.060

†


and Development

.350† .114 1.950

† .176 1.258

† .310 .867

† .188 31.506

†

Affective Commitment .060 .110 1.533† .152 .534* .249 .048 .196 4.671**

Trust in Management .186** .113 1.664† .158 .434** .257 .531

† .190 8.984*


Change

.417† .144 1.957

† .191 .547* .242 .785

† .191 17.540

†

Colleagues’ Support for Change -.609† .170 .942

† .178 -.803

† .216 -.766

† .212 17.340

†

Notes: N = 197. Variables have 3 Levels: 1=Low; 2=Medium; 3=High. Parameter for


< .05, ** p < .10

116

Table 9: Study 2 – Regression Results of Passive Resistance to Change





Support

-1.505† .203 -.393* .182 -1.590

† .226 -.629

† .233 58.590

†

Perceived Procedural Justice -.706† .124 .241* .118 -.855* .249 -.297** .177 12.717

†


Decision-Making

-1.572† .218 -.521

† .201 -1.471

† .235 -.918

† .250 43.247

†

Perceived Need for Change -1.404† .184 -.364* .166 -1.033

† .223 -1.284

† .210 40.664

†


Change

-.943† .134 .060 .122 -.442** .248 -.972

† .180 29.758

†


of a Change

-1.150† .220 -.158 .209 -1.112

† .245 -.411** .242 26.812

†

Fear of Unknown


-1.030† .219 -.086 .211 -.469** .244 -.801

† .242 11.833

†

Perceived Change in Power -1.280† .180 -.271 .165 -1.197

† .214 -.856

† .212 32.821

†

Perceived Change in Status -1.185† .170 -.191 .156 -.936

† .215 -.955

† .201 27.389

†

Perceived Change in Pride -.187 .119 .815† .128 1.528

† .292 .434* .175 31.411

†

Job Satisfaction -1.050† .269 -.119 .262 -.529** .283 -.769

† .292 7.377*

Job Security -.668† .114 .270* .108 -.540** .301 -.519* .185 9.674

†

Job Motivation -.732* .116 .227* .109 -.372 .259 -.777* .193 16.740†

Perceived Employability -1.130† .153 -.121 .138 -1.009

† .249 -.952

† .182 32.123

†


and Development

-.503† .113 .409

† .112 .116 .299 -.138 .176 .938

Affective Commitment -.627† .115 .297

† .110 -.372 .247 -.384* .189 5.382**

Trust in Management -.552† .114 .360

† .112 -.205 .251 -.197 .184 1.506


Change

-.438† .136 .475

† .136 -.131 .229 .133 .176 1.535

Colleagues’ Support for Change -1.306† .185 -.306** .170 -.905

† .216 -1.168

† .217 30.840

†



< .05, ** p < .10

117

Table 10: Study 2 – Regression Results of Active Support for Change





Support

.073 .175 .962† .185 1.522

† .222 .940

† .228 48.070

†

Perceived Procedural Justice -.843† .129 -.101 .119 -.284 .244 -.008 .184 1.475


Decision-Making

-.296 .184 .502† .186 .939

† .219 .293 .233 22.158

†

Perceived Need for Change -.119 .159 .717† .165 1.183

† .227 .982

† .203 33.961

†


Change

-.548† .127 .241* .123 .060 .250 .790

† .188 19.198

†


of a Change

-.027 .206 .821† .213 1.497

† .253 .628

† .239 40.854

†

Fear of Unknown Consequences

of a Change

-.253 .208 .524* .210 .913† .247 .480* .238 14.394

†

Perceived Change in Power -.089 .160 .767† .168 1.332

† .219 .894

† .210 39.249

†

Perceived Change in Status -.344* .154 .436† .155 .630

† .214 .753

† .200 15.524

†

Perceived Change in Pride -1.309† .146 -.470

† .126 -1.531

† .271 -.638

† .184 36.248

†

Job Satisfaction -.445** .258 .309 .257 .555* .279 .205 .286 6.108*

Job Security -.861† .119 -.120 .108 -.161 .305 -.183 .188 1.073

Job Motivation -.805† .119 -.046 .109 -.546* .263 .281 .200 7.999*

Perceived Employability -.477† .140 .292* .138 .678

† .259 .515

† .180 10.911

†


and Development

-1.051† .128 -.286* .113 -.584** .304 -.561

† .182 11.236

†

Affective Commitment -.834† .120 -.093 .111 -.252 .251 -.011 .195 1.059

Trust in Management -.813† .121 -.074 .112 .088 .262 -.096 .189 .475


Change

-1.000† .150 -.252** .139 -.387 .236 -.292 .184 3.651

Colleagues’ Support for Change -.214 .164 .593† .168 .689

† .211 1.036

† .215 23.862

†



< .05, ** p < .10

118

Table 11: Study 2 – Regression Results of Passive Support for Change

Variable Threshold Location




Support

-1.220† .192 .063 .173 -1.567

† .222 -1.046

† .229 51.033

†

Perceived Procedural Justice .050 .119 1.113† .136 .387 .240 .295 .179 4.128


Decision-Making

-1.104† .198 .097 .184 -1.306

† .222 -1.016

† .239 36.011

†

Perceived Need for Change -.878† .168 .319* .159 -1.371

† .230 -.804

† .199 37.580

†


Change

-.257* .122 .809* .130 -.376 .256 -.252 .176 3.247


of a Change

-1.178† .220 .002 .207 -1.356

† .247 -1.108

† .243 31.688

†

Fear of Unknown


-.594† .208 .497* .207 -.744

† .241 -.403** .234 9.940

†

Perceived Change in Power -1.088† .176 .198 .160 -1.577

† .223 -.963

† .210 52.671

†

Perceived Change in Status -.594† .208 .497* .207 -.744

† .241 -.403** .234 27.029

†

Perceived Change in Pride .085 .120 1.311† .147 1.736

† .282 .116 .179 42.054

†

Job Satisfaction -.232 .255 .826† .259 -.233 .276 -.010 .283 1.929

Job Security .055 .107 1.127† .127 .413 .298 .461* .185 7.233*

Job Motivation -.027 .108 1.027† .124 .177 .261 .225 .189 1.635

Perceived Employability -.714† .144 .470

† .140 -1.237

† .268 -.834

† .180 31.686

†


and Development

-.005 .110 1.060† .127 -.016 .306 .339** .178 3.852

Affective Commitment -.190** .110 .870† .121 -.126 .250 -.249 .193 1.738

Trust in Management -.224* .112 .848† .122 -.606* .271 -.142 .186 5.279**


Change

-.113 .135 .944† .146 -.182 .235 .066 .178 1.165

Colleagues’ Support for Change -.828† .171 .349* .164 -1.252

† .220 -.658

† .206 33.149

†



< .05, ** p < .10

119

Hypothesis 1b predicted that perceived organizational support would be positively related to

support for change. As shown in Table 7, perceived organizational support was not


passive support for change (r = .34, p < .01). As shown in Tables 10 and, the levels of

perceived organizational support were positively and partially predictive of the levels of

active support for change (b1 = 1.522, p < .01; b2 = .940, p < .01; note that one parameter of

dependent variable threshold was not significant) but was negatively and partially predictive

of the levels of passive support for change (b1 = -1.567, p < .01; b2 = -1.046, p < .01; note

that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant). The negative

coefficients of –1.567 and –1.046 for perceived organizational support imply that the lower

the level of perceived organizational support, the greater the likelihood of having higher

levels of active support for change and passive support for change respectively. Thus,

Hypothesis 1b was supported for only one of the two indicators for support for change:

active support for change.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that perceived procedural justice would be negatively related

to resistance to change. As shown in Table 7, the correlations between perceived procedural

justice on the one hand and active resistance to change and passive resistance to change on

the other hand were not statistically significant. The regression results shown in Tables 8

and 9 indicate that the levels of perceived procedural justice were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active resistance to change but were negatively and significantly

predictive of the levels of passive resistance to change (b1 = -.855, p < .05; b2 = -.297, p <

.10). Thus, Hypothesis 2a was supported for only one of the two indicators for resistance to

change: passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 2b, which predicted that perceived procedural justice would be positively

related to support for change, was not supported. As shown Table 7, perceived procedural

justice was positively correlated with active support for change (r = .67, p < .01) and

passive support for change (r = .39, p < .01). However, as shown in Tables 10 and 11, the

levels of perceived procedural justice were not significantly predictive of the levels of active

support for change or passive support for change.

Hypothesis 3a predicting that perceived participation in decision-making regarding

organizational change would be negatively related to resistance to change was supported. As

shown in Table 7, neither active resistance to change nor passive resistance to change was

significantly correlated with perceived participation in decision-making regarding the

privatization. However, the results shown in Tables 8 and 9 indicate that the levels of

perceived participation in decision-making regarding the privatization were negatively and

120

significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change (b1 = -1.277, p < .01; b2 =

-.783, p < .01) and passive resistance to change (b1 = -1.471, p < .01; b2 = -.918, p < .01).

Hypothesis 3b predicting that perceived participation in decision-making regarding

organizational change would be positively related to support for change was not supported.

As shown in Table 7, perceived participation in decision-making regarding the privatization

was not significantly correlated with active support for change but was positively correlated

with passive support for change (r = .26, p < .05). The regression results also indicate that

the levels of perceived participation in decision-making regarding the privatization were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change (see Table 10) or passive

support for change (see Table 11).

Hypothesis 4a predicted that perceived need for change would be negatively related to

resistance to change. As shown in Table 7, perceived need for change was not significantly

correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to change. However, as

shown in Tables 8 and 9, the levels of perceived need for change were negatively and

significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change (b1 = -.897, p < .01; b2 = -

.788, p < .01) and passive resistance to change (b1 = -1.033, p < .01; b2 = -1.284, p < .01).

Thus, Hypothesis 4a was supported.

Hypothesis 4b predicted that perceived need for change would be positively related to

support for change. As can be seen in Table 7, perceived need for change was not

significantly predictive of active support for change but was positively and significantly

predictive of passive support for change (r = .28, p < .01). Further, as shown in Table 10,

the levels of perceived need for change were positively and partially predictive of the levels

of active support for change (b1 = 1.183, p < .01; b2 = .982, p < .01; note that one parameter

of dependent variable threshold was not significant). However, the negative coefficients for

perceived need for change (see Table 11) mean that the likelihood of having higher levels of

passive support for change did decrease with higher levels of perceived need for change (b1

= -.590, p < .10; b2 = -.519, p < .10). Thus, Hypothesis 4b was partially supported for only

one of the two alternative indicators for support for change: active support for change.

Hypothesis 5a predicted that attitude towards organizational change would be

negatively related to resistance to change. As shown in Table 7, attitude towards

organizational was negatively and significantly correlated with active resistance to change (r

= -.22, p < .05) but was not significantly correlated with passive resistance to change. The

results shown in Tables 8 and 9 indicate that the degrees of attitude towards organizational

change were not significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change but were

negatively and partially predictive of the levels of passive resistance to change (b1 = -.442, p

< .10; b2 = -.972, p < .01; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not

121

significant). Thus, Hypothesis 5a was partially supported for only one of the two alternative

indicators for resistance to change: passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 5b predicted that attitude towards organizational change would be

positively related to support for change. As can be seen in Table 7, attitude towards

organizational change was not significantly correlated with active support for change but

was positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .39, p < .01). In addition, as

shown in Tables 10 and 11, the levels of attitude towards organizational change were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change or passive support for

change. Thus, that Hypothesis 5b was not supported.

Hypothesis 6a predicted that fear of known consequences of a change would be

positively related to resistance to change. As shown in Table 7, fear of known consequences

of the privatization was positively correlated with active support for change (r = .54, p <

.01) and passive support for change (r = .45, p < .01). However, as can be seen in Tables 8

and 9, the levels of fear of known consequences of the privatization were negatively and

significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance change (b1 = -1.466, p < .01; b2 = -

.694, p < .01) and was negatively and partially predictive of the levels of passive resistance

to change (b1 = -1.112, p < .01; b2 = -.411, p < .10; note that one parameter of dependent

variable threshold was not significant). Thus, Hypothesis 6a was not supported.

Hypothesis 6b predicted that fear of known consequences of a change would be

negatively related to support for change. As shown in Table 7 show, fear of known

consequences of the privatization was not significantly correlated with active support for

change or passive support for change. Furthermore, as can be seen in Tables 10 and 11, the

levels of fear of known consequences of the privatization were positively and partially

predictive of the levels of active support for change (b1 = 1.497, p < .01; b2 = .628, p < .10;

note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant) but was

negatively and significantly predictive of the levels of passive support for change (b1 = -

1.356, p < .01; b2 = -1.108, p < .10; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold

was not significant). Thus, Hypothesis 6b was partially supported for only one of the two

indicators for support for change: passive support for change.

Hypothesis 7a predicted that fear of unknown consequences of a change would be

positively related to resistance to change. As illustrated in Table 7, fear of unknown

consequences of the privatization was positively correlated with active resistance to change

(r = .24, p < .05) and passive resistance to change (r = .44, p < .01). However, the results

shown in Tables 8 and 9 indicate that the levels of fear of unknown consequences of the

privatization were negatively and significantly predictive of active resistance to change (b1

= -.624, p < .05; b2 = -.457, p < .10) and passive resistance to change (b1 = -.469, p < .10; b2

122

= -.801, p < .01; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not

significant). Thus, Hypothesis 7a was not supported.

Hypothesis 7b addressed the negative effect of fear of unknown consequences of a

change on support for change. As shown in Table 7, fear of unknown consequences of the

privatization was negatively correlated with active support for change (r = -.20, p < .05) but

was positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .20, p < .01). The results

shown in Tables 10 and 11 indicate that the levels of fear of unknown consequences of the

privatization were not significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change but

was negatively and significantly predictive of the levels of passive support for change (b1 =

-.744, p < .01; b2 = -.403, p < .10). Thus, Hypothesis 7b was supported for only one of the

two indicators for support for change: passive support for change.

Hypothesis 8a predicted that perceived change in power resulting from a change would

be negatively related to resistance to change. As shown in Table 7, perceived change in

power resulting from the privatization was not significantly correlated with active support

for change or passive support for change. However, as shown in Tables 8 and 9, the levels

of perceived change in power resulting from the privatization were negatively and

significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change (b1 = -1.613, p < .01; b2 =

-.683, p < .01) and passive resistance to change (b1 = -1.197, p < .01; b2 = -.856, p < .01;

note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant). Thus,

Hypothesis 8a was supported.

Hypothesis 8b suggested that perceived change in power resulting from a change


power resulting from the privatization was positively correlated with passive resistance to

change (r = .29, p < .01). The regression results shown in Tables 10 and 11 indicate that the

levels of perceived change in power resulting from the privatization did increase the

likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change (b1 = 1.332, p < .01; b2 =

.894, p < .01; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant)

but did decrease the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change (b1 = -

1.577, p < .01; b2 = -.963, p < .01; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold

was not significant). Thus, Hypothesis 8b was partially supported for only of the two

indicators for support for change: active support for change.

Hypothesis 9a predicted that perceived change in status resulting from a change would

be negatively related to resistance to change. As can be seen in Table 7, perceived change in

status resulting from the privatization was not significantly correlated with active resistance

to change or passive resistance to change. However, as shown in Tables 8 and 9, the degrees

of perceived change in status resulting from the privatization did decrease the likelihood of

123

having higher levels of active resistance to change (b1 = -.443, p < .05; b2 = -.475, p < .05)

and passive resistance to change (b1 = -.936, p < .01; b2 = -.955, p < .01; note that one

parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant). Thus, Hypothesis 9a was

supported.

Hypothesis 9b was that perceived change in status resulting from a change would be

positively related to support for change. As shown in Table 7, perceived change in status

resulting from the privatization was positively correlated with active support for change (r =

.45, p < .01) and passive support for change (r = .49, p < .01). Further, as shown in Table

10, the likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change did increase with

higher levels of perceived change in status resulting from the privatization (b1 = .630, p <

.01; b2 = .753, p < .01). However, as illustrated in Table 11, the likelihood of having higher

levels of passive support for change did decrease with higher levels of perceived change in

status resulting from the privatization (b1 = -.744, p < .01; b2 = -.403, p < .10). Thus,

Hypothesis 9b was supported for only one of the two indicators for support for change:

active support for change.

Hypothesis 10a predicted that perceived change in pride resulting from a change

would be negatively related to resistance to change. As can be seen in Table 7, perceived

change in pride resulting from the privatization was not significantly correlated with active

resistance to change or passive resistance to change. Further, as shown in Tables 8 and 9,

the levels of perceived change in pride resulting from the privatization increased the

likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change (b1 = 1.501, p < .01; b2 =

.826, p < .01) and passive resistance to change (b1 = 1.528, p < .01; b2 = .434, p < .05; note

that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant). Thus, Hypothesis

10a was not supported.

Hypothesis 10b predicted that perceived change in pride resulting from a change


pride was positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .41, p < .01) but was not

significantly correlated with active support for change. The results shown in Tables 10 and

11 indicate that perceived change in pride decreased the likelihood of having active support

for change (b1 = -1.531, p < .10; b2 = -.638, p < .10) but was not significantly predictive of

passive support for change. Thus, Hypothesis 10b was not supported.

Hypothesis 11a predicted that job satisfaction would be negatively related to resistance

to change. As can be seen in Table 7, job satisfaction was positively correlated with active

resistance to change (r = .26, p < .01) but was not significantly correlated with passive

resistance to change. As shown in Tables 8 and 9, the levels of job satisfaction were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change, but higher levels of job

124

satisfaction decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive resistance to change

(b1 = -.528, p < .10; b2 = -.769, p < .01; note that one parameter of dependent variable

threshold was not significant). Thus, Hypothesis 11a was partially supported for only one of

the two indicators for resistance to change: passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 11b predicted that job satisfaction would be positively related to support

for change. As can be seen in Table 7, job satisfaction was not significantly correlated with

active support for change but was positively correlated with passive support for change (r =

.26, p < .05). Furthermore, the levels of job satisfaction were not significantly predictive of

the levels of active support for change (see Table 10) or passive support for change (see

Table 11). Thus, Hypothesis 11b was not supported.

Hypothesis 12a predicted that job security would be negatively related to resistance to

change. As shown in Table 7, job security was not significantly correlated with active

resistance to change but was positively correlated with passive resistance to change (r = .24,

p < .05). The regression results shown in Tables 8 and 9 indicate that the levels of job

security were not significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to change but

significantly predictive of the levels of passive resistance to change (b1 = -.540, p < .10; b2 =

-.519, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 12a was supported for only one of the two indicators for

resistance to change: passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 12b, which predicted that job security would be positively related to

support for change, was not supported. As can be seen in Table 7, job security was not


passive support for change (r = .34, p < .01). The regression results shown in Tables 10 and

11 indicate that the levels of job security were not significantly predictive of the levels of

active support for change or passive support for change.

Hypothesis 13a predicting that job motivation would be negatively related to

resistance to change was not supported. As can be seen in Table 7, job motivation was not

significantly correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to change.

Furthermore, as shown in Tables 8 and 9, the levels of job motivation were not significantly

predictive of the levels of active resistance to change or passive resistance to change.

Hypothesis 13b predicted that job motivation would be positively related to support for

change. As illustrated in Table 7, job motivation was not statistically correlated with active

support for change but was positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .22, p

< .05). Furthermore, as shown in Tables 10 and 11, the levels of job motivation were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change or passive support for

change. Thus, Hypothesis 13b was not supported.

125

Hypothesis 14a predicting that perceived employability would be positively related to

resistance to change was not supported. As Table 7 illustrates, perceived employability was


Furthermore, as shown in Tables 8 and 9, higher degrees of perceived employability

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change (b1 = -.645, p

< .05; b2 = -.540, p < .01) and passive resistance to change (b1 = -1.009, p < .01; b2 = -.952,

p < .01; note that one parameter of dependent variable threshold was not significant).

Hypothesis 14b predicted that perceived employability would be negatively related to

support for change. As shown in Table 7, perceived employability was not significantly

correlated with active support for change or passive support for change. As shown in Table

10, higher degrees of perceived employability increased the likelihood of having higher

levels of active support for change (b1 = .678, p < .01; b2 = -.515, p < .01) However, as

shown in Table 11, higher degrees of perceived employability did decrease the likelihood of

having higher levels of passive support for change (b1 = -1.237, p < .01; b2 = -.834, p < .01).

Thus, Hypothesis 14b was supported for only one of the two indicators for support for

change: passive support for change.

Hypothesis 15a suggested that self-confidence for career-relevant learning and

competence development would be negatively related to resistance to change. As can be

seen in Table 7, self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competence development

was not significantly correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to

change. The results shown in Tables 8 an 9 indicate that higher levels of self-confidence for

career-relevant learning and competence development increased the likelihood of having

higher levels of active resistance to change (b1 = 1.258, p < .01; b2 = .867, p < .01), but they

were not significantly predictive of levels of passive resistance to change. Thus, Hypothesis

15a was not supported.

Hypothesis 15b was that self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competence

development would be positively related to support for change. As can be seen in Table 7,

self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competence development was not


passive support for change (r = .28, p < .01). Furthermore, as shown Tables 10 and 11,

higher degrees of self-confidence for career-relevant learning and competence development

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change (b1 = -.584, p <

.10; b2 = -.561, p < .01), but they were not significantly predictive of the levels of passive

support for change. Thus, Hypothesis 15b was not supported.

Hypothesis 16a predicting that affective commitment would be negatively related to

resistance to change was not supported. As shown in Table 7, affective commitment was

126

positively correlated with active resistance to change (r = .26, p < .01) but was not

significantly correlated with passive resistance to change. Furthermore, the levels of

affective commitment were not significantly predictive of the levels of active resistance to

change (see Table 8) or passive resistance to change (see Table 9).

Hypothesis 16b predicted that affective commitment would be positively related to

support for change. This hypothesis was not supported. As shown in Table 7, affective

commitment was not statistically correlated with active support for change but was

positively correlated with passive support for change (r = .23, p < .05). The results also

indicate that the levels of affective commitment were not significantly predictive of the

levels of active support for change (see Table 10) or passive support for change (see Table

11).

Hypothesis 17a, which predicted that trust in management would be negatively related

to resistance to change, was not supported. As can be seen in Table 7, trust in management

was not significantly correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to

change. Furthermore, as shown in Tables 8 and 9, higher levels of trust in management

increased the likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change (b1 = .434, p <

.10; b2 = .531, p < .01) but were not significantly predictive of the levels of passive


Hypothesis 17b predicting that trust in management would be positively related to

support for change was not supported. As shown in Table 7, trust in management was

positively correlated with active support for change (r = .27, p < .05) and passive support

for change (r = .41, p < .01). However, the levels of trust in management were not

significantly predictive of the levels of active support for change (see Table 10) or passive

support for change (see Table 11).

Hypothesis 18a predicted that perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change would

be positively related to resistance to change, and be negatively related to support for change.

As illustrated in Table 7, a perception of colleagues’ resistance to change was positively

correlated with active resistance to change (r = .28, p < .01) and passive resistance to

change (r = .31, p < .05). However, it was not significantly correlated with active support

for change or passive support for change. As shown in Tables 8 and 9, higher degrees of

perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change increased the likelihood of having higher

levels of active resistance to change (b1 = .547, p < .05; b2 = .785, p < .01), but they were

not significantly predictive of the levels of passive resistance to change. Further, the degrees

of perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change were not significantly predictive of the

levels of active support for change (see Table 10) or passive support for change (see Table

127

11). Thus, Hypothesis 18a was supported for only one of the four indicators for reactions to

change: active resistance to change.

Finally, Hypothesis 18b predicted that perceptions of colleagues’ support for change

would be negatively related to resistance to change, and be positively related to support for

change. As shown in Table 7, a perception of colleagues’ support for change was not

significantly correlated with active resistance to change or passive resistance to change.

However, it was positively correlated with active support for change (r = .43, p < .01) and

passive support for change (r = .40, p < .05). The regression results shown in Tables 8 and 9

suggest that higher levels of perceptions of colleagues’ support for change decreased the

likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change (b1 = -.803, p < .01; b2 = -

.766, p < .01) and passive resistance to change (b1 = -.905, p < .01; b2 = -1.168, p < .01). On

the contrary, the results shown in Tables 10 and 11 indicate that higher levels of perceptions

of colleagues’ support for change increased the likelihood of having higher levels of active

support for change (b1 = .689, p < .01; b2 = 1.036, p < .01; note that one parameter of

dependent variable threshold was not significant), but they decreased the likelihood of

having higher levels of support for change (b1 = -1.252, p < .01; b2 = -.658, p < .01). Thus,

Hypothesis 18b was supported for three of the four indicators for reactions to change: active

resistance to change, passive resistance to change, and active support for change.

5.2.4. Discussion of Study 2

As with Study 1, the purpose of Study 2 was to extend our understanding of the

relationships between perceptions and/or attitudes and reactions to change in an

environmental context of privatization, where many, if not most, of the employees are likely

to be under pressure to radically transform themselves should the stated-owned enterprise

go IPO. Toward this end, I examined perceptions and/or attitudes and reactions of

employees in one state-owned enterprise in Thailand to a pending decision of becoming a

publicly listed company in the Stock Exchange of Thailand that will fundamentally and

significantly alter several aspects of the organization.

Important aspects of Study 2 are that (1) it examined a relatively large set of predictors

and outcomes variables, (2) it received a relatively high response rate (44.8%) to the survey,

and (3) it offered insights about employees’ reactions to change in the context of a

privatization at a large state-owned enterprise in Thailand where research on organizational

change remains extremely sparse. Before going further with this discussion, two important

cautions to the interpretation of the findings must be made. First, it must be noted that, as

with Study 1, it was not possible to control for the effects of age, education, gender and

other control variables for the multinomial ordered probit models due predominantly to a

128

relatively small sample size (n = 197). Second, it is also important to note that for the

purpose of conducting the multinomial ordered probit regressions, measurement scales of

both dependent and independent variables were recoded.

In contrast to the results of Study 1, the findings in Study 2 indicate that some

perceptions and/or attitudes were significantly predictive of reactions to change. The pattern

of results lends some empirical support for the core arguments of the conceptual

framework—the perception-based view (PBV) of the employee that deals with the effects

and implications of psychological factors on individuals’ decision-making. Support for the

PBV logic and the research model comes from 17 (fully/partially) supported hypotheses (of

36 hypotheses) I found in Study 2.

The regression results concerning the prediction of employees’ resistance to change

are relatively clear-cut. Consistent with expectations, the findings suggest that higher levels

of perceived participation in decision-making (H3a), perceived need for change (H4a),

perceived change in power (H8a), perceived change in status (H9a), perceptions of

colleagues’ resistance to change (H18a), and perceptions of colleagues’ support for change

(H18b) decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change.

Hypotheses related to the relationships between perceptions about change processes

and passive resistance to change were also supported by the data. Specifically, the findings

suggest that higher levels of perceived organizational support (H1a), perceived procedural

justice (H2a), perceived participation in decision-making (H3a), perceived need for change

(H4a), attitudes towards organizational change decreased the likelihood of having higher

levels of passive resistance to change. Moreover, some hypotheses concerning the

relationships between perceptions about actual and expected consequences of privatization

and passive resistance to change were supported. The results also indicate that perceptions

of higher degrees of pride resulting from the privatization (H8a), perceptions of higher

degrees of status resulting from the privatization (H9a), job satisfaction (H11a), and job

security (H12a) decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive resistance to

change. However, hypotheses related to perceptions about employees’ ability were not

supported. Nevertheless, a perception about colleagues’ support for change did in fact

decrease the likelihood of having higher levels of passive resistance to change.

The results concerning the prediction of employees’ support for change are not clear-

cut. That is, concerning the prediction of employees’ active support for change, only five

hypotheses were supported. The results indicate that higher levels perceived organizational

support (H1b), perceived need for change (H4b), perceived change in power (H8b),

perceived change in status (H9b), and perceptions of colleagues’ support for change

increased the likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change.

129

The results also indicate that only three hypothesized relationships between

perceptions and passive support for change were supported. That is, higher levels of fear of

known consequences of a change (H6b), fear of unknown consequences of a change (H7b)

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change.

Like Study 1, the results in Study 2, though not supportive of some hypotheses, reveal

some interesting relationships. First, there is an observable inverse relationship between the

levels of perceived organizational support and the levels of passive support for change

because the results indicate that higher levels of perceived organizational support decreased

the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change. In the same vein,

higher levels of perceived participation in decision-making regarding privatization

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change. Similarly,

greater degrees of perceived need for change decreased the likelihood of having higher

levels of passive support for change.

The results also indicate that higher degrees of fear of known consequences of

privatization did in fact decrease the likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance

to change, passive resistance to change, and active support for change. In the same vein,

higher degrees of fear of unknown consequences of privatization decreased the likelihood of

having higher levels of active resistance to change, passive resistance to change, and active

support for change. Consistent with the results of Study 1, this is certainly a surprise as it

demonstrates that the commonsense belief that fear of known and/or unknown consequences

of a change will promote employees’ resistance to change is now known to be (e.g., Morris

and Raben, 1995; Mabin et al., 2001), is not correct.

The findings indicate that higher levels of power resulting from the privatization

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change. Evidence

also shows that higher levels of status resulting from the privatization decreased the

likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change. The findings also show that

the likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change and passive resistance

to change increased with higher levels of pride resulting from the privatization. In contrast,

the likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change decreased with higher

levels of pride resulting from the privatization. Taken collectively, one plausible explanation

to these surprising results is that employees may not have viewed the indicators for passive

support for change as support for change. As can be seen in Table 2, there is an observable

indication that active support for change was negatively and significantly correlated with

passive support to change.

The results also indicate that higher degrees of perceived employability decreased the

likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change and passive resistance to

130

change. Moreover, higher degrees of perceived employability increased the likelihood of

having higher levels of active support for change. One plausible explanation to this pattern

of results is that employees may not want to search for a new job even if they believed they

would be able to obtain a job elsewhere; thus, they provided low levels of resistance to

change and higher levels of active support for change.

The results also indicate that higher levels of self-confidence in learning and

development increased the likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change

and decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change. One

plausible interpretation on this pattern of findings is that employees may not be willing to

learn new things even if they believed that they were capable to do so. Thus, they did not

support the privatization. These results may also suggest that inertia exists within

individuals. Further, the finding that higher degrees of trust in management increased the

likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change is a surprise. My

interpretation on this finding is that though employees may trust top management, they did

not relate their trust in management to the privatization and, thus, resisted the change.

The finding that greater degrees of perceptions of colleagues’ support for change did

decrease the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change is inconstant

with expectations. Given the fact that greater degrees of perceptions that colleagues’ support

for change increased the likelihood of having higher levels of active support to change and

the negative and significant correlation existed between active support for change and

passive support for change, this finding is not a real surprise.

Finally, aside from its empirical contribution, Study 2 also extends our understanding

of the effects of perceptions and/or attitudes on employees’ reactions to change in the

context of privatization by identifying its underpinnings in perception-based view

perspective. While the notion that humans’ perceptions have the effects on their decisions

and behaviors is not a new perspective in the human resource management literature, it has

not been widely applied to the study of employees’ reactions to organizational change, at

least not in the context of Thailand. Study 2 proposed and tested the concept of perceptions-

based prediction of humans’ decisions and behaviors, in line with Simon’s (1978, 1979) call

to incorporate a ‘differentiated approach to understanding humans’ rationality’.

131

5.3. General Discussion

5.3.1. Key Contributions of the Dissertation

In this research, the new perspective on employees’ reactions to change was introduced.

Indeed, this dissertation was conducted in an attempt to improve the understanding of how

perceptions and/or attitudes relate to employees’ reactions to change. In Study 1, it was

found that perceptions and attitudes were not significantly predictive of reactions to change.

However, the results of Study 2 indicate that the relationships existed between perceptions

and/or attitudes and reactions to change. Table 12 provides a summary of regressions results

for hypotheses in Study 1 and Study 2. Taken collectively, this dissertation reinforces the

view that perceptions and/or attitudes explain and predict reactions to change. It contributes

five important findings to the theory and research on organizational change.

First, perceptions concerning organizational change processes are significantly

predictive of employees’ reactions to change. In support of Hypothesis 1a in Study 2,

employees who perceived greater organizational support had lower levels of passive

resistance to change and higher degrees of active support for change. These findings support

prior research suggesting that perceptions of organizational support are related to work-

related attitudes and outcomes (Eisenberger, et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1990).

With regard to perceptions of procedural justice, I found that perceived procedural

justice of privatization explains and predicts only passive resistance to change: that is,

employees who perceived greater degrees of procedural justice regarding privatization had

lower degrees of passive resistance to change. The fact that perceived procedural justice was

not significantly predictive of active resistance to change, active support for change, and

passive support for change is contradictory to the justice literature (e.g., Kim and

Mauborgne, 1993; Brockner et al., 1994; Korsgaard et al., 2002).

Further, in support of Hypothesis 3a, perceived participation in decision-making

concerning the privatization decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of active

resistance to change. This finding is valuable as it demonstrates that employees may relate

the extent to which they could influence outcomes of a change to their active resistance to

change. Thus, these findings are in harmony with the literature on participation in decision-

making (e.g., Ruh et al, 1975; Erez et al., 1985; Allen et al., 2003).

132

Table 12: Summary of Results for Hypotheses in Study 1 and Study 2

Hypotheses Expected

Sign

Study 1 Study 2

H1a: Perceived Organizational Support - Not supported Partially supported

H1b: Perceived Organizational Support + Not supported Partially supported

H2a: Perceived Procedural Justice - Not supported Partially supported

H2b: Perceived Procedural Justice + Not supported Not supported

H 3a: Perceived Participation in Decision-Making - Not supported Supported

H 3b: Perceived Participation in Decision-Making + Not supported Not supported

H4a: Perceived Need for Change - Not supported Supported

H4b: Perceived Need for Change + Not supported Partially supported

H5a: Attitude towards Organizational Change - Not supported Partially supported

H5b: Attitude towards Organizational Change + Not supported Not supported

H6a: Fear of Known Consequences of a Change + Not supported Not supported

H6b: Fear of Known Consequences of a Change - Not supported Partially supported

H7a: Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change + Not supported Not supported

H7b: Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change - Not supported Partially supported

H8a: Perceived Change in Power - Not supported Not supported

H8b: Perceived Change in Power + Not supported Partially supported

H9a: Perceived Change in Status - Not supported Partially supported

H9b: Perceived Change in Status + Not supported Partially supported

H10a: Perceived Change in Pride - Not supported Not supported

H10b: Perceived Change in Pride + Not supported Not supported

H11a: Job Satisfaction - Not supported Partially supported

H11b: Job Satisfaction + Not supported Not supported

H12a: Job Security - Not supported Partially supported

H12b: Job Security + Not supported Not supported

H13a: Job Motivation - Not supported Not supported

H13b: Job Motivation + Not supported Not supported

H14a: Perceived Employability + Partially supported Not Supported

H14b: Perceived Employability - Not supported Partially supported

H15a: Self-Confidence for Learning & Development - Not supported Not supported

H15b: Self-Confidence for Learning & Development + Not supported Not supported

H16a: Affective Commitment - Not supported Not supported

H16b: Affective Commitment + Not supported Not supported

H17a: Trust in Management - Not supported Not supported

H17b: Trust in Management + Not supported Not supported

H18a: Colleagues’ Resistance to Change + / - Not supported Partially supported

H18b: Colleagues’ Support for Change - / + Not supported Partially supported

Notes: For H18a: a “+” sign for resistance to change; a “-” sign for support for change.

For H18b: a “-” sign for resistance to change; a “+” sign for support for change.

133

The extent to which organizational change (e.g., the privatization in Study 2) was seen as

needed was predictive of the levels of active resistance to change, passive resistance to

change and active support for change. However, it is noteworthy that higher levels of

perceived need for change decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive

support for change in both studies 1 and 2. Nevertheless, the findings reported here offer

support for the argument that perceived need for change is associated with employees’

reactions to change. The finding that positive attitudes towards organizational change

decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive resistance to change offers new

empirical insights into how attitudes towards organizational change play a role in

employees’ reactions to change and is promising for practitioners. Clearly, management can

moderate the negative consequences of organizational change by promoting employees’

positive attitudes towards organizational change prior to initiating a change. While the

results show that several perceptions concerning change processes were significantly

predictive of reactions to change, one caution to these findings is that the data were gathered

at the same point in time. Therefore, it was not possible to determine causality.

Nevertheless, these findings lend strong support for the notion that how employees are

treated during organizational changes has implications for employees’ reactions to change.

Second, perceptions concerning actual and expected consequences of a change explain

and predict employees’ reactions to change. As expected, fear of known consequences of a

change decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive support for change.

However, this finding must be tempered by the fact that evidence also shows that employees

who had higher levels of fear of known consequences of a change had lower degrees of

active resistance to change, lower degrees of passive resistance to change, and higher

degrees of active support for change. In addition to these unexpected effects of fear of

known consequences of a change, fear of unknown consequences of a change also had the

unexpected effects. That is, inconsistent with Hypotheses 7a and 7b, employees who had

higher levels of fear of unknown consequences of a change had lower degrees of active and

passive resistance to change and higher degrees of active support for change. It is

noteworthy that higher levels of fear of unknown consequences of a change decreased the

likelihood of having levels of passive support for change. Clearly, these findings do not

support, or indeed weaken the argument made in prior studies (e.g., Judson, 1991; Dubrin

and Ireland, 1993; Kotter, 1995; Galpin, 1996; Kotter and Cohen, 2002) that fear causes


Moreover, as mentioned in the discussion leading up to Hypotheses 8a and 8b,

perceptions of greater power resulting from the change decreased the likelihood of having

higher levels of active resistance to change, passive resistance to change, and active support

134

for change. This was not true, however, with regard to passive support for change, as higher

levels of power resulted in lower levels of passive support for change. Nevertheless, it is

still possible to draw relatively firm conclusions about perceived change in power as the

findings in this dissertation begin to address the relationship between perceived changes in

power and reactions to change.

Further, the extent to which changes in status resulting from a change was perceived

by employees as positive or negative was significantly predictive of the levels of active

resistance to change, passive resistance to change, and active support for change. These

findings lend strong support for prior studies that negative changes in status will contribute

to resistance to change (e.g., Smith, 1982; Spreitzer and Quinn, 1996). Interestingly, as

evidenced by the analyses, employees who perceived greater levels of pride resulting from a

change had higher levels of active resistance to change, higher levels of passive resistance to

change, and a lower degree of active support for change. Clearly, these findings do not

support Hypotheses 10a and 10b. However, the findings may suggest a new perspective

regarding how employees react to changes in their pride.

Moreover, as hypothesized, higher levels of job satisfaction decreased the likelihood

of having higher levels of passive resistance to change, but it was not significantly

predictive of any other reactions to change. Thus, the findings in this dissertation suggest

that job satisfaction is not a strong predictor of reactions to change. Also, as hypothesized,

higher levels of job security decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of passive

resistance to change; however, the findings do not reveal and significant effect of job

security on other reactions to change. In contrast to Davy et al. (1997) who suggested that

any perceived threat to the job security represents a possible violation of the informal or

psychological contract, and that leads to withdrawal cognitions, the findings here suggest

that the effect of job security was not significantly associated with reactions to change.

Interestingly, job motivation was not significantly predictive of any of the reaction

variables. This finding is valuable as it demonstrates that the extent to which employees are

motivated to perform their job is irrelevant to their reactions to change. However, the

conclusions drawn from these analyses must be treated with caution since only extrinsic

facet of job motivation was measured.

Third, perceptions concerning employees’ ability are significantly predictive of

employees’ reactions to change. Though employees who perceived higher levels of their

employability had lower degrees of passive support for change (consistent with Hypothesis

14b), they also had lower degrees of active resistance to change, lower degrees of passive

resistance to change, and higher degree of active support for change. Clearly, these results

are inconsistent with Hypothesis 14a and 14b by having different signs of regression

135

coefficients. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the discussion leading to Hypotheses 14a and

14b that the main focus of these hypotheses was to determine whether perceived

employability has direct relationships with employees’ reactions to change, these findings

provide suggestive evidence that perceived employability is indeed significantly predictive

of employees’ reactions to change.

Fourth, perceptions concerning employees’ relationships with the organization and

colleagues explain and predict employees’ reactions to change. Consistent with Hypothesis

18a, greater degrees of perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change increased the

likelihood of having higher levels of active resistance to change. Further, in support of

Hypothesis 18b, perceptions of colleagues’ support for change decreased the likelihood of

having higher levels of active resistance to change and passive resistance to change and

increased the likelihood of having higher levels of active support for change. One caveat to

these findings is that perceptions of colleagues’ support for change decreased the likelihood

of having higher levels of passive support for change. In sum, the findings provide some

empirical insight into the effects of social influence on employees’ reactions to change. One

the one hand, perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change seem to enhance the likelihood

that employees react negatively to the change; on the other hand, perceptions of colleagues’

support for change seem to enhance the likelihood that employee react positively to the

change.

Finally, the overall finding in this dissertation supports the notion that how employees

perceive or feel during organizational change has significant implications for their

decisions. The findings reported here are relatively in harmony with expectations drawn

predominantly from the perception-based view of the employee, on the one hand, and the

social exchange theories and norm of reciprocity71, on the other hand. The perception-based

view explains variations in decision and/or behavior differences among employees in the

same setting. From the perception-based view perspective, employees primarily rely on the

use of perceptions, attitudes, or emotions for a purpose of selecting a choice in pursuit of

their goals. Consistent with the perception-based-view perspective, as evidenced by

analyses in Study 1, employees appeared not to arrive at expected reactions to change: that

is, the results suggest that perceptions and/or attitudes were not significantly predictive of

employees’ reactions to change. This finding is valuable because it demonstrates that

employees are not always rational at making decisions. Recall that I have argued that

71 Note that I mention here only two of several theories that had been used during a discussion leading to hypotheses.

Though several other theories deserve mention, these two have frequently been extended to argue for many

hypotheses in this dissertation.

136

humans need not necessarily make rational decisions. This notion was initially aimed to

counter arguments and assumptions made implicitly or explicitly in other studies that human

always make rational decisions.72 In contrast, the results reported in Study 2 suggest that

certain perceptions and attitudes were significantly predictive of employees’ reactions to

change. Therefore, it is possible to draw relatively firm conclusions about how and, more

importantly, which perceptions and attitudes explain and predict employees’ reactions to

change. From the social exchange theories and norm of reciprocity perspective, the

significant relationships found in Study 2 are attributable to the social influence (e.g., the

beliefs people have about how to interact with others in social groups) on employees. In

sum, as the perception-based view is considerably supported, the logic of the perception-

based view and findings in this dissertation would appear to be fertile for future study.

5.3.2. Limitations to this Dissertation

A number of limitations to this dissertation deserve mention. One limitation is the relatively

small overall sample size (n = 86 for Study 1; n = 197 for Study 2). Due to the relatively

small population size in Study 1 (n = 120), the high response rate (91%) to the survey in

Study 1 could only allow for simple data analysis (e.g., a regression analysis without any

control variables). Though the relatively high response rate (44.8%) to the survey in Study 2

and the relatively low rate of missing value in some returned questionnaires, only 39.4

percent (197/500) of employees provided completed data. I acknowledge that this call into

questions of the limitations to the sequences and methods of analysis (e.g., the sample sizes

were not sufficient for the inclusion of control variables in the ordered probit models) and

the representativeness of the portion of the sample used (in relation to the whole population)

in the analyses. However, as discussed in the research methodology section, the final

samples used in the analyses were very similar to other subsets of employees (respondents

and non-respondents) in both studies. Moreover, the sample used in both studies was

relatively large in relation to population: that is, the sample used in Study 1 accounted for

71.67 percent (86/120) of the total population; and the sample used in Study 2 accounted for

21.89 percent (197/900) of the total population of locations (four offices) where the sample

was drawn. Thus, I am cautiously optimistic that my results are replicable in other similar

settings.

A second limitation is that all data is self-reported. Thus, there was no way to separate

method variance from true score variance. It is possible that method variance bolstered or

weakened the magnitude of relationships between predictors and outcomes. To reduce the

72 For more information on a discussion of rationality, see Section 2.5 and 3.1 in this dissertation.

137

possibility of mono-method bias, future studies should aim to incorporate other methods

(e.g., direct observations) so as not to rely solely on subjects’ reports.

A third limitation is concerned with the internal consistency reliability for the variable

scales. While I attempted to accommodate a large set of variables to be examined, I used at

most three items to measure any of variables. At first glance, all variables studied could then

be measured in one questionnaire. However, the lack of a more comprehensive measure of

variables dealing with perceptions, attitudes and behaviors may explain why levels of

internal consistency (e.g., reliability scales) were low. Moreover, it must be noted that many

variables were measured with newly developed measures since no prior studies have

examined them before. Consequently, it is possible that the aggregate indicators, which

were derived from the newly developed measures, may not be a truly correct measure of

those variables, implying that the conclusions drawn from these regression results must be

treated with caution. However, I argue that although levels of internal consistency among

measures for variables in Study 2 were low, they were not entirely attributable to the use of

new measures due to the fact that there is observable evidence that there were low levels of

the internal consistency for certain variable scales adopted from prior studies.

A four limitation is that because data in this dissertation is cross-sectional. Thus, I am

not able to make causal inferences regarding predictor/outcome relationships. As Greenberg

and Barling (1999) have suggested, future studies should aim for longitudinal designs so as

to enable true causal inferences.

The above limitations being acknowledged, it is relevant to mention the strengths of

the dissertation. The first and foremost obvious strength is that this dissertation examined a

large and more varied set of variable in one study. In comparison with previous studies

where examined a relatively smaller set of variables, the questionnaire surveys in this study

covered the total of 66 measures for 19 variables. This is crucial because the results reveal

that from a broad range of perceptions tested, which perceptions are significantly predictive

of employees’ reactions to change. Another strength deserves mention is the methods of

analyses used in this dissertation. As emphasized in the research methodology section, this

dissertation conducted the relatively most appropriate regression models in view of the data

available in this study: that is, the ordered probit models, rather than the ordinary regression

models, were conducted to analyze the data where both dependent variables and

independent variables are ordinal (discrete and ordered) in nature. From the methodological

(e.g., statistical) point of view, it is important to choose the most appropriate data analysis

procedures for the data so as to be able to draw firm conclusions. Up to this point, I am

cautiously optimistic that this dissertation at least appeared to meet this requirement.

138

5.3.3. Implications and Directions for Future Research

In view of these results, what can we then say about the implications for future research?

There are several directions I would like to see taken by future research. First, my focus in

this current dissertation was on the direct relationships between predictors and outcomes at

one point in time. Therefore, it was not possible to examine causality. Later work should

aim for longitudinal study so as to draw firm conclusions about true causal inferences.

Second, in the same discussion, I would like to recommend that future study be

directed to examine indirect relationships among variables. As the main focus of this study

was on exploring whether direct relationships between predictors and outcomes existed,

which suggesting that they existed, future study should aim to emphasize on examining the

potential moderating effects of certain variables. For example, it would be interesting to see

if trust in management has moderating effects on the predictors of employees’ perceived

need for change and reactions to change.

Third, I would also suggest that future study should focus on not only confirming

whether these results would be replicable in other similar settings but also determining

whether these results would be replicable in the different settings. The reason is that since

the results in Study 1 did not yield significant predictors/outcomes relationships but the

results in Study 2 did, these contradictory findings are relatively susceptible and suggest that

context differences may exert certain effects on the magnitude of relationships. As many of

hypotheses and arguments in this dissertation can be extended to other forms of

organizational change, it is worthy of additional examination to determine whether

hypotheses investigated here would be endorsed in other contexts. Therefore, I recommend

that future work be directed to more important extensions. For example, it would be

interesting to see if fear of known consequences of a change and consequences reactions

differ in level or form across different archetypes of organizational change.

Finally, concerning the method of analyses, as demonstrated in this dissertation, I

would like to call for attention to the nature of data and the appropriate method of analyses.

I recommend that future work that analyses ordinal data be encouraged to adopt regression

models that are capable of properly treating dependent variables that are measured on an

ordinal scale. For example, the ordered probit models and/or multinomial ordered probit

models would be more appropriate as an analytical tool to analyze the ordinal data. From

the methodological point of view, this is very important because other regression models

would not account for the abovementioned characteristics and the use of such regression

models would violate the underlying assumptions of such models.73

73 For a more detailed discussion, see the research methodology section.

139

5.3.4. Implications and Directions for Practice

As discussed earlier, the main focus of this dissertation was on examining what perceptions

and/or attitudes exert an influence on employees’ reactions to change. As some findings in

this dissertation were consistent with the expectations, this lends some useful insights to

practitioners in areas of organizational change, especially to management consultants. In

sum, two important insights for practice deserve mention.

First, this dissertation informs a perspective that advocates perception and/or attitude

identification to predict employees’ reactions to change, such as resistance to change and

support for change. As certain perceptions and attitudes were significantly predictive of

employees’ reactions to change, others were not. The perception-based view suggests that

this occurred because humans do not always make rational choices. For example, the

commonsense belief that fear of known and/or unknown consequences of a change will

promote employees’ resistance to change is now known to be (e.g., Morris and Raben,

1995; Mabin et al., 2001), is incorrect. The finding that employees do not often arrive at

rational decisions is valuable for firms or managers as it demonstrates that the current

logical thinking they may have about their decisions (e.g., from managers’ point of view,

their decision may be considered highly rational; therefore, they believe that employees

should use the same logical thinking and, thus, consider their decision rational and

acceptable) will unlikely be applicable when predicting employees’ reactions to change.

This occurs because employees may use their perceptions, and perhaps, another way of

thinking when reacting to change. However, the potential benefits of identifying employees’

perceptions and attitudes during organizational change and predicting their future reactions

are considerable. Most notably, this tool can be very useful for identifying corrective actions

to minimize resistance to change and promote support for change. This is because firms that

know how their employees perceive organizational change will have an opportunity to

devise some activities to modify or align employees’ perceptions and attitudes to the ones

desired. Greater levels of support for change and/or lower levels of resistance to change will

certainly increase the likelihood of having a successful organizational change.

Similarly, for those providing advice to firms on change management strategies or

organizational change in general, the findings of this dissertation may help in showing that

they should systematically monitor employees’ perceptions and attitudes during

organizational change projects. With a perceptions-detection mechanism in place,

consultants will be able to understand how employees feel, and have an opportunity to

devise change management strategies that will change employees’ perceptions as the ones

desired in a timely manner. This will certainly help increase the likelihood that change

projects will meet their objectives, and deliver the desired outcomes.

140

6. Conclusions

The theoretical arguments and empirical findings in this dissertation appear to offer new

insights into how perceptions and/or attitudes influence employees’ resistance to and

support for change. Overall, this dissertation has built on diverse streams of research from

the fields of organizational change, strategic management, sociology, and psychology. A

basic tenet of the present study on employees’ perceptions and/or attitudes and resistance to

and support for change was that the employees determine their course of action in response

to their perceptions, interpretation and understanding of the event, i.e., organizational

change. Consequently, this dissertation proposed 18 explanatory variables that were

expected to be related to employees’ resistance to and support for change. These factors

were classified into four groups or dimensions: (1) factors concerning change processes; (2)

factors concerning real and expected consequences of change; (3) factors concerning an

employee’s ability; and (4) factors concerning an employee’s relationship with the firm and

colleagues. It must be noted that the number of variables examined in this dissertation is

limited predominantly due to two key reasons: theoretical aspect (the greater the number of

variables in the model, the less the degree of parsimony of the model), and practical aspect

(the greater the number of variables in the model, the lower the response rates to the survey.

To test the hypothesized relationships proposed in this dissertation, two empirical studies

were conducted: one in the context of the downsizing at the private school in Thailand;

another in the context of the privatization at one stated-owned enterprise in Thailand.

This dissertation extends the idea of bounded-rationality (Simon, 1978, 1979) by

suggesting that perceptions and/or attitudes determine the levels and, perhaps, choices of

reactions to organizational change. To minimize resistance to change and promote support

for change, the understanding of employees’ perceptions and attitudes during change

processes is therefore required. In support of this perspective, the findings indicate that

variations in certain perceptions and/or attitudes explain and predict differences in levels of

resistance to and support for change. Indeed, of the 18 predictors tested, all but job

motivation were significantly predictive of at least one of the four categories of reactions to

change.

In conclusion, the findings are of theoretical importance as they increase our

knowledge concerning the predictors of employees’ reactions to organizational change.

Clearly, we now realize which perceptions and/or attitudes exert an effect on employees’

resistance to and support for change. Precisely, the findings imply that levels of certain

perceptions and/or attitudes would be likely to increase or decrease the likelihood of having

141

higher levels of active and/or resistance to change, and active and/or passive support for

change. These findings also provide a useful starting point for considering the prevention of

employees’ resistance to change and the promotion of employees’ support for change.

However, any attempts to use perceptions and attitudes as predictors of reactions to change

must be sensitive to the context in which organizational change occurs, as evidenced by the

findings that in one setting (as in Study 2), perceptions were significantly predictive of

reactions to change, whereas in another setting (As with Study 1), they were not. This

caveat to the findings is important as it demonstrates that we should always take the context

into consideration when using the framework suggested in this dissertation. Nevertheless,

the findings in this dissertation add to the growing belief that certain perceptions and

attitudes may be at work in determining employees’ decisions and behaviors. Given the fact

that most firms both in Thailand and in many other countries initiate certain types of change

from time to time and the frequency of engaging in organizational change continues to

increase, more research in this area is warranted. It is hoped that the findings presented here

will encourage researchers to continue examining the perceptions-decisions/behaviors

relationship and practitioners to apply knowledge created in this dissertation for the

improvement of their change management practice.

142

References

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology, Vol. 2: 267–299. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Adler, P. 2001. Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of

capitalism. Organizational Science, 12(2): 214-234.

Agócs, C. 1997. Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and

repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 917-931.

Alderfer, C. P. 1986. An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),

Handbook of organizational behavior: 190-222. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. 2003. The role of perceived organizational

support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of

Management, 29(1): 99-118.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance, and normative commitments to the organization. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 63: 1-8.

Allport, G. W. 1935. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology:

798-844. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. 1998. When politics and models collide: Estimating models of

multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1): 55-96.

Anderson, C. R., & Paine, F. T. 1975. Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior.

Academy of Management Journal, 18: 811–23.

Appelbaum, S. H., Everard, A., & Hung, T. S. L. 1999. Strategic downsizing: Critical

success factors. Management Decision, 37(7): 535-552.

Argyris, C. 1962. Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewood,

IL: Dorsey Press.

Argyris, C. 1990. Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational

learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Argyris, C. 1999. On organizational learning. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and

practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

143

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. Creating readiness for

organizational change. Human Relations, 46: 681-703.

Ashby, F. G., & Gott, R. 1988. Decision rules in the perception and categorization of

multidimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and

Cognition, 14: 33-53.

Ashford, S., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. 1989. Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity:

A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 803-

829

Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. 2002. Diversity and emotion: The new

frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28(3): 307-338.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barber, P. J., & Legge D. 1976. Perception and information. London: Methuen.

Barker, V. L., & Duhaime, I. M. 1997. Strategic change in the turnaround process: Theory

and empirical evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1): 13-38.

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17: 99-120.

Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. 1994. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage.

Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 15: 175-190.

Barney, J. B., & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an

organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal,

Winter Special Issue, 15: 5-9.

Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. 1987. First-order, second-order, and third-order change and

organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 23: 483-500.

Bartunek, J. M., Lacey, C. A., & Wood, D. R. 1992. Social cognition in organizational

change: An insider-outsider approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28: 204-

223.

Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial applications. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Free Press.

Beach, L. R. 1990. Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts.

Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Beach, L. R. 1993. Making the right decision: Organizational culture, vision, and planning.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

144

Beer, M. 1980. Organization change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA:

Goodyear.

Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. 1996. Developing and organization capable of implementing

strategy and learning. Human Relations, 18: 523-545.

Beer, M., Eisenstat R. A., & Spector, B. 1990. Why change programs do not produce

change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6): 158-166.

Bennis, W. G. 1966. Changing organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. A. 1964. Human behavior: An inventory of scientific findings.

New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Bibeault, D. B. 1982. Corporate turnaround: How manager turns lowers into winner. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Boeker, W. 1989. Strategic change: The effects of founding and history. Academy of

Management Journal, 32: 489-515.

Bollen, K. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

Borooah, V. K. 2002. Logit and Probit: Ordered and multinomial models. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. 2001. Resistance to organisational change: The role of defence

mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7): 534-548.

Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35: 307–311.

Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 475-482.

Bridges, W. 1980. Transitions: Making sense of life’s changes. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J.

1994. Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and

survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 397–409.

Brooke, P., Russell, D., & Price, J. 1988. Discriminant validation of measures of job

satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 73(2): 139-145.

Brooks, L. R. 1978. Non-analytic concept formation and memory for instance. In. E. Rosch

& B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization, 169-211. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burke, W., & Litwin, G. 1992. A causal model of organizational performance and change.

Journal of Management, 18: 523-545.

145

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P. Jr., Van Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. Jr. 1975.

Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences.

Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Castrogiovanni, G. J., Baliga, B. R., & Kidwell. Jr., R. E. 1992. Curing sick businesses:

Changing CEOs in turnaround efforts. Academy of Management Executive, 6(3), 26-41.

Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of American industrial

enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clarke, J., Ellett, C., Bateman, J., & Rugutt, J. 1996. Faculty receptivity/resistance to

change, personal and organizational efficacy, decision deprivation and effective in

research I universities. Paper presented at the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the

Association for the Study of Higher Education, Memphis, TN, October 31-November 3.

Cobb, A., Woolen, K., & Folger, R. 1995. Justice in the making: Toward understanding the

theory and practice of justice in organizational change and development. Research in

Organizational Change and Development, 8: 386-400.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. Jr. 1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations,

1: 512-532.

Coghlan, D. 1993. A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change.

Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 14(4): 10-14.

Conlon, D. E., & Fasolo, P. M. 1990. Influence of speed of third-party intervention and

outcome on negotiator and constituent fairness judgments. Academy of Management

Journal, 36: 7-27.

Cornelius, R. R. 1996. The science of emotion: Research and tradition in the psychology of

emotion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Crossan, M. M, & Berddrow, I. 2003. Organizational learning and strategic renewal,

Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1087-1105.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation

systems. Academy of Management Review, 9: 284-295.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D, Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. 2000. The trusted general

manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage.

Strategic Management Journal, 21 (5): 563-576.

Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. 1991. Developing and testing a model of

survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38: 302–317.

146

Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. 1997. A test of job security’s direct and

mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4):

323-349.

Dawson, S. 1996. Analysing organizations. 3rd ed. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.

Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. 1996. Does decision process matter? A study of strategic

decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2): 368-396.

Dean, J., Brandes, J., & Dharwadkar, R. 1998. Organizational cynicism. Academy of

Management Review, 23: 341-352.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. 1999. Challenging ‘resistance to change’. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1): 25-41.

Denzin, N. K. 1978. The research act. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

DeWitt, R. L., Trevino, L. K., & Mollica, K. A. The influence of eligibility on employees’

reactions to voluntary workforce reductions. Journal of Management, 24(5): 593-613.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization

Science, 12: 450-467.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and

implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611-628.

Donaldson, L. 1987. Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In

defense of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 1-24.

Dorman, C., & Zapf, D. 2001. Job satisfaction: a meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 22(5): 483-504.

Dubrin, A. A., & Ireland, R. D. 1993. Management & Organization. 2nd ed. Cincinnati,

OH: Southwestern College Publishing Company.

Dulebohn, J. H., & Martocchio, J. J. 1998. Employee perceptions of the fairness of work

group incentive pay plans. Journal of Management, 24(4): 469-488.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. 1981. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment

and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32: 53-88.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational support

and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology,

75: 51-59.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management

Review, 14: 532-550.

147

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic


Elangovan, A. R, & Lin Xie, Jia. 1999. Effects of perceived power of supervisor on

subordinate stress and motivation: The moderating role of subordinate characteristics.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3): 359-373.

Ellis, A., & Harper, R. A. 1975. A new guide to rational living. North Hollywood, CA:

Wilshire Book Company.

Erez, M., Earley, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. 1985. The impact of participation on goal acceptance

and performance: A two-step model. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1): 50-68.

Erickson, K., & Stull, D. 1998. Doing team ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Espejo, R., Schuhmann, W., Schwaninger, M., & Bilello, U. 1996. Organizational

transformation and learning: A cybernetic approach to management. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons.

Fama, E. F. 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Political

Economy, 88 (2): 288-307.

Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: a

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4): 596-607.

Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7: 117-140.

Fetterman, D. M. 1998. Ethnography step by step. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Finstad, N. 1998. The rhetoric of organizational change. Human Relations, 51: 717-740.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management

Review, 10: 803-813.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Fiske, S. T, & Tayler, S. E. 1984. Social cognition. 1st ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fiske, S. T. 1992. Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to

laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63: 877-889.

Fiske, S. T., & Tayler, S. E. 1991. Social cognition. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fligstein, N. 1996. Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market institutions.

American Sociological Review, 61: 656-673.

Foley, S., Kidder, D. L., & Powell, G. N. 2002. The perceived glass ceiling and justice

perceptions: An investigation of Hispanic law associates. Journal of Management, 28(4):

471-496.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 1998. Organizational justice and human resource

management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

148

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. 1985. Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel

systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources

management, 3: 141–183. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on

reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115–130.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations in producing intentional change

in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 541-570.

Ford., J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. 2002. Resistance and the background

conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 105-

121.

Forgas, J. P. 1989. Mood effects on decision-making strategies. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 41: 197–214.

Forgas, J. P. 1990. Affective influences on individual and group judgments. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 20: 441–453.

Forgas, J. P. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological

Bulletin, 117(1): 39–66.

Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. 2001. Affective influences on judgments and behavior in

organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 3-34

Fossum, J., Arvey, R., Paradise, C., & Robbins, N. 1986. Modeling the skills obsolescence

process: A psychological/economic integration. Academy of Management Review, 11:

362–374.

Fox-Wolfgramm, S., Boal, K., & Hunt, J. 1998. Organizational adaptation to institutional

change: A comparative study of first-order change in prospector and defender banks.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 87-126.

Frabble, D. E. S. 1997. Gender, racial, ethic, sexual, and class identities. In J. T. Spence, J.

M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 48: 139-162. Palo Alto,

CA: Annual Reviews.

Fredrickson, J. W. 1984. The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension,

observations, future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 445-466.

Freeman, S. J., & Cameron, K. S. 1993. Organizational downsizing: A convergence and

reorientation framework. Organization Science, 4(1): 10-29.

French, J. P. R. & Raven, B.H. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),

Studies in social power, 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.

149

Friedlander, F. 1983. Patterns of individual and organizational learning. In S. Srivastra &

Associates (Eds.), The executive mind: New insights on managerial thought and action.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Galpin, T. 1996. The human side of change: A practical guide to organizational redesign.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gannon, M. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. 1992. An organizational information-processing

profile of first movers. Journal of Business Research, 25(3): 231-241.

Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. 1987. Employee focus of

attention and reactions to organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

23: 351-370.

George, J. M. 1989. Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 317

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 1995. Understanding and managing organizational behavior.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 1996. The experience of work and turnover intentions:

interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81:318-25.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 2001. Towards a process model of individual change in

organizations. Human Relations, 54: 419–444.

George, J. M, & Zhou, J. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging

the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682-696.

Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multi-level exploration of the

punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 10-36.

Gianakos, I. 1999. Patterns of career choice and career decision-making self-efficacy.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 244–258.

Gilmore, T., Shea, G., & Useem, M. 1997. Side effects of corporate cultural

transformations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33: 174-189.

Glueck, W. F. 1980. Business policy and strategic management. 3rd ed. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill

Goldstein, J. 1994. The Unshackled Organization. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Goodstein, J. D. 1994. Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer

Involvement in Work-Family Issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2): 350-382.

Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. 2000. Communication, procedural justice, and employee

attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26(1):

63-83.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25: 161-178.

150

Grazer, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Greenberg, J. 1982. Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations.

In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior, 389–435.

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. 1999. Predicting employee aggression against coworkers,

subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workforce

factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6): 897-913.

Greenhalgh, L. 1982. Maintaining organizational effectiveness during organizational

retrenchment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18: 155-170.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem,

and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1): 4-27.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1988. Organizational design types, tracks, and the

dynamics of strategic change. Organizational Studies, 8: 293-316.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Understanding strategic change: The contribution of

archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1052-1081.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding radical organizational change:

Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review,

21: 1022-1054.

Gresov. C., Haveman, H., & Oliva, T. 1993. Organizational change and performance under

conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 37: 48-75.

Greve, H. R. 1998. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1): 58-86.

Gujarati, D. N. 1995. Basic econometrics. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette

& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 159-170.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.

Hage, J. 1980. Theories of organizations: form, process, and transformation. New York,

NY: Wiley.

Hambrick, D. C., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Are you sure you have a strategy? Academy of

Management Executive, 15(4): 48-59.

151

Hambrick, D. C., & Schecter, S. M. 1983. Turnaround strategies for mature industrial-

product business units. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 231-248.

Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. 1993. Top executive

commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management

Journal, 14: 401-418.

Hammersley, M. 1990. Reading ethnographic research: A critical guide. London:

Longmans.

Hammersley, M. 1992. What’s wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations.

London: Routledge.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American

Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-964.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American

Sociological Review, 49(2): 149-164.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1988. Structural inertia and organizational change. In K.

Cameron, R. Sutton & Whetten, D. (Eds.). Readings in organizational change, 75-94.

Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Harrigan, K. R. 1985. Strategic flexibility: A management guide for changing times.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Haveman, H. A. 1992 Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and

performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 48-75.

Hedberg, B. L. T., Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. 1976. Camping on seesaws:

Prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21:

41-65.

Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. 2003. Does job insecurity lead to impaired well-being or vice

versa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent variable modeling. Journal of


Herzberg, F. 1968. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business

Review, 46: 53-62.

Hofer, C. 1980. Turnaround strategies. Journal of Business Strategy, 1: 19-31.

Hofer, C., & Schendel, D. 1978. Strategy formulation: Analytical Concepts. St. Paul, MN:

West Publishing.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. 1995. Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western

College Publishing

152

Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. 2003. Guest editors’ introduction to the special

issue: Why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive

heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue 24(10): 889-902.

Hough, J. R., & White, M. A. 2003. Environmental dynamism and strategic decision-

making rationality: An examination at the decision level. Strategic Management

Journal, 24: 481-489.

Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: An examination of contributing processes and

the literatures. Organizational Science, 2: 88-115.

Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. 1992. Strategic renewal and the interaction of

cumulative stress and inertia. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 55-75

Hui, C., & Lee, C. 2000. Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on

organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Management,

26(2): 215-232.

Hultman, K. 1998. Managing change irresistible: Overcoming resistance to change in your

organization. Davies-Black Publishing.

Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change.

Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 325-345.

Isabella, L. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key

organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 7-41.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K., & Nowicki, G. 1987. Positive affect facilitates creative problem

solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1122-1131.

Isenberg, D. J. 1986. Thinking and managing: A verbal protocol analysis of managerial

problem solving. Academy of Management Journal. 29: 327-351.

Iverson, R. D. 1996. Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of

organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 7(1): 121-149.

Iverson, R. D., & Roy, P. 1994. A causal model of behavioral commitment: Evidence from

a study of Australian blue-collar employees. Journal of Management, 20(1): 15-41.

Jaffe, D., Scott, C., & Tobe, G. 1994. Rekindling commitment: How to revitalize yourself,

your work, and your organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jenkins, G. D., & Lawler, E. E. 1981. Impact of employee participation in pay-plan

development. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28: 111-128.

Jick, T. D. 1985. As the axe falls: Budget cuts and the experience of stress on organization.

In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations, 83-

114. New York, NY: Wiley.

153

Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., & Kunreuther, H. 1993. Framing, probability

distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7: 35-51.

Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Cross, R. L., & Yan, A. 2003. Sources of fidelity in purposive

organizational change: Lessons from a re-engineering case. Journal of Management

Studies, 40(7): 1837-1869.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. 1999. Managerial coping with

organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:

107-122.

Judson, A. 1991. Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change.

Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Kahneman, D. D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics

and Biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: Decision under risk. Econometrica,

47: 263-291.

Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In

Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds). Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology, 1: 75-170. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic.

Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Kanter, R. M. 1991. Transcending business boundaries: 12,000 world managers view

change. Harvard Business Review, 69(3): 151-164.

Kanter, R. M. 1995. Managing the human side of change. In D. A. Kolb, J. Osland, & I. M.

Rubin (Eds). The organizational behavior reader, 676-685. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Karambayya, R., & Brett, J. M. 1989. Managers handling disputes: Third-party roles and

perceptions of fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 687-704.

Katz, D. 1960. The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly,

24, 163-204.

Keck, S. L., & Tushman, M. L. 1993. Environmental and organizational context and

executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6). 1314-1344.

Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. 1991. Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic

model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3): 591-612.

Kemper, T. D. 1978. A social interactional theory of emotions. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kemper, T. D. 1987. How many emotions are there? Wedding the social and automatic

structure. American Journal of Sociology, 93: 263-289.

154

Kemper, T. D. 1990. Social relations and emotions: A structural approach. In T.D. Kamper,

Research agendas in the sociology of emotions. 207-237. New York, NY: State

University of New York.

Kidwell, R. E. Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Benett, N. 1997. Cohesiveness and organizational

citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal

of Management, 23(6): 775-793.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. 1991. Implementing global strategies: The role of

procedural justice. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 12: 125-143.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. 1993. Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top

management compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of

Management Journal, 36: 502–526.

King, J. E. 2000. White-collar reactions to job insecurity and the role of the psychological

contract: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management,

39(1): 79-92.

Kirton, M. J., & Mulligan, G. 1973. Correlates of managers’ attitudes toward change.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(1): 101-107.

Klein, G. A., & Crandall, B. W. 1995. The role of mental simulation in problem solving and

decision making. In P. Hancock, J. Flach, J. Caird, & K. Vincente (Eds.) Local

applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems, 325-358. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Klimoski, R. J., B. Karol. 1976. The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 630-633.

Knowles, M. 1973. The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing

Co.

Komaki, J. 1982. Managerial effectiveness: Potential contributions of the behavioral

approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3(3): 71-83.

Kotey, B., & Meredith, G. G. 1997. Relationships among owners/mangers personal values,

business strategies, and enterprise performance. Journal of Small Business Management,

35(2): 37-61.

Kotter, J. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,

73(2): 59-67.

Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. 2002. The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people

change their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kovach, K. A. 1987. What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different

answers. Business Horizons, 30: 58-65.

155

Kramer, R. M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring

questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 569-598.

Kyle, N. 1993. Staying with the flow of change. Journal for Quality and Participation,

16(4): 34-42.

Langley, P. & Simon, H. 1981. The central role of learning in cognition. In J. R. Anderson

(Ed.) Cognitive skills and their acquisition, 361-380. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Latack, J. C., & Dozier, J. B. 1986. After the ax falls: Job loss as a career transition.

Academy of Management Review, 11: 375-392.

Leanna, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. 1992. Coping with job loss: How individuals,

organizations, and communities respond to layoffs. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Ledford, G. Jr., Mohrman, S., Mohrman, A., & Lawler III, E. 1989. The phenomenon of

large-scale organizational change. In A. Mohrman, & Associates (Eds.), Large scale

organizational change, 1-31. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. 1999. A social cognitive view of school-to-work

transition. Career Development Quarterly, 47: 297–311.

Lewin, K. 1945. The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of

Technology. Sociometry, 8: 126-136.

Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1: 5-41

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York,

NY: Plenum.

Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. 1977. Human information processing. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press.

Lippitt, G. L., Longseth, P., & Mossop, J. 1989. Implementing organizational change. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnett (Ed.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting & task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. 1984. Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and

task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.

Lovaglia, M. J., & Houser, J. A. 1996. Emotional reactions and status in groups. American

Sociology Review, 61(5): 867-883.

Mabin, J. V., Forgeson, S., & Green, L. 2001. Harnessing resistance: Using the theory of

constraints to assist change management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25:

168-191.

156

March, J. G. 1955. An introduction to the theory and measurement of influence. The

American Political Science Review, 49(2): 431-451.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway:

Universitetsfortlaget.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Martin, H. H. 1975. How we shall overcome resistance. Training and Development Journal,

29(9): 32-34.

Maslow, A. W. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York; NY: Harper & Row.

Maslow, A. W. 1970. Motivation and personality. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. 1991. Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures

of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76:127-133

Maurer, T. J. 2001. Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs

about self-efficacy for development. Journal of Management, 27: 123-140.

Maurer, T. J., Wrenn, K. A., Pierce, H. R., Tross, S. A., & Collins, W. C. 2003. Beliefs

about ‘improvability’ of career-relevant skills: relevance to job/task analysis,

competency modelling, and learning organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

24(1): 107-131.

McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. 1984. Leadership motive pattern and long-term success

in management. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Motives, personality, and society: Selected

papers, 293-308. New York, NY: Praeger.

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1992. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of

satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management

Journal, 35: 626-637.

McGregor, D. 1967. The professional manager. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McHugh, M. 1997. The stress factor: Another item for the change management agenda?

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10: 345-362.

McKelvey, R. D., & Zavoina, W. 1975. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level

of dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4: 103-120.

Meyer, A. D. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27:

515-537.

Meyer, A., Brooks, G., & Goes, J. 1990. Environmental jolts and industry revolutions:

Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic Management Journal, 11:

93-110.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and

application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

157

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth

and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. 1977. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and

application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, K., & Robins, M. 1991. 10 rules for change. Executive Excellence, 8(5): 9-10.

Miles, R., & Snow, C. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D., & Chen, M. J. 1994. Sources and consequences of competitive inertia. A study of

the US airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1): 1-23.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. 1980. Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation.

Academy of Management Journal, 23 (4): 591-614.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. 1984. Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Milliken, F. J. & Lant T. K. 1991. The impact of an organization’s recent performance

history on strategic persistence and change: The role of managerial interpretations. In J.

Dutton, A., Huff & P. Shrivastava (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, 7: 129-

156. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mirer, T. W. 1990. Economic statistics and econometrics. New York, NY: Macmillan

Publishing Company.

Mobley, W. H. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and

employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62: 237–240.

Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. 1978. An evaluation of precursors of

hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3): 408-414.

Mooreman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal

of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.

Morris, K., & Raben, C. 1995. The fundamentals of change management. In D. Nadler, R.

Shaw, A. Walton & Associates (Eds.). Discontinuing change: Leading organizational

transformation, 47-65. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how

psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22: 226–

256.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-organizational linkages:

The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. In P. Warr (Ed.),

158

Organizational and occupational psychology, 219-229. New York, NY: Academic

Press, Inc.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247.

Nadler, D. A. 1998. Champions of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. 1989. Organizational frame bending: Principles for

managing reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 111(3): 194-204.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change.

Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press

Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. 1984. To avoid organizational crises, unlearn.

Organizational Dynamics, 12(4): 53-65.

O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational and psychological attachment: The effects

of compliance, identification, and internationalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71: 492-499.

O’Toole, J. 1995. Leading change: Overcoming the ideology of comfort and the tyranny of

custom. New York; NY: Fireside.

Paese, P. W., Bieser, M., & Tubbs, M. E. 1993. Framing effects and choice shifts in group

decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56: 149-

165.

Parker, P. C., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., &

Roberts, J. E. 2003. Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work

outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4): 389-416.

Parks, K. 1989. Personal control in occupational context. In A. Steptoe & A. Apples. (Eds.).

Stress, personal control and health, 21-47 New York, NY: Wiley.

Parnell, J. A. 1997. New evidence in the generic strategy and business performance debate:

A research note. British Journal of Management, 8: 175-181.

Paterson, J. M., & Cary, J. 2002. Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of

downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1):

83-103.

Pearce, J. L. 1993. Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: Their

psychological involvement and effects on employee co-workers. Academy of


Perrow, C. 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay. 3rd ed. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view.

Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179-192.

159

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York, NY:

Harper and Row.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. 1995. Leaders and the leadership process: Readings,

assessments, and applications. Chicago, IL: Austen Press.

Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. 1973. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee

turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2): 151-176.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. 1974. Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 59: 603-609.

Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan.

Raynor, M. E., & Bower, J. L. 2001. Lead from the center: How to manage divisions

dynamically. Harvard Business Review, 79(5): 99-100.

Regar, R. K., Mullane, J. V., Gustafson, L. T., & DeMarie, S. M. 1994. Creating

earthquakes to change organizational mindsets. Academy of Management Executive,

8(4): 31-46.

Reichers, A., Wanous, J., & Austin J. 1997. Understanding and managing cynicism about

organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11 (1): 48-59.

Rhine, R. J. 1958. A concept-formation approach to attitude acquisition. Psychological

Review, 65: 362-370.

Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. 1990. What is the relationship between socio-emotional

behavior and status in task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95: 1189-1212.

Robbins, K. D., & Pearce, J. A. 1992. Turnaround: Retrenchment and recovery. Strategic

Management Journal, 13(4): 287-309.

Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1974. Measuring organizational communication. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 59: 321-326.

Robey, D. 1979. User attitudes and management information use. Academy of Management

Journal, 22(3): 527-538.

Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 41: 574–599.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of

unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16:

289–298.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the

exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 245–259.

160

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligations and the

psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37:

137–152.

Rohner, R. P. 1977. Advantages of the comparative method of anthropology. Behavior

Science Research, 12(1): 117-144.

Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. 1994. Organizational transformation as punctuated

equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5): 1141-1166.

Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(609).

Rousseau, D. M., & Tijorilawa, S. 1999. What’s a good reason to change? Motivated

reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 84: 514-528.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A

cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393-404.

Ruh, R. A., White, J. K, & Wood, R. R. 1975. Job involvement, values, personal

background, participation in decision making, and job attitudes. Academy of

Management Journal, 18(2): 300-312.

Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. 1991. Strategic management and economics.

Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 12: 5-29.

Russo, M. V. 2003. The emergence of sustainable industries: Building on natural capital.

Strategic Management Journal, 24(4): 317-331.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. 2000. Participation and empowerment in organizations:

Modeling, effectiveness, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1977. An examination of needs-satisfaction models of job

attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427-456.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job

attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253.

Sanchez R., 1995. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management

Journal, Summer Special Issue, 16: 135-159.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for

optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sarnoff, I. 1960. Psychoanalytic theory and social attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly,

24(2): 251-279.

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. Research methodology in management: Current

practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal,

43(6): 1248-1264.

161

Schein, E. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schendel, D., & Patton, G. 1976. Corporate stagnation and turnaround. Journal of

Economics and Business, 28: 236-241.

Schendel, D., Patton, G., & Riggs, J. 1976. Corporate turnaround strategies: A study of

profit decline and recovery. Journal of General Management, 3: 3-11.

Schneider, B. 1975. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-454.

Schriesheim, C., Castro, S., & Cogliser, C. 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX)

research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic

procedures. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 63-113.

Schwaninger, M. 2004. Methodologies in conflict: Achieving synergies between system

dynamics and organizational cybernetics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21:

411-431.

Scott, C. D., & Jaffe, D. T. 1988. Survive and thrive in times of change. Training and

Development Journal, April: 25-27.

Selznick, P. 1965. TVA and the grass roots. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Senge, P. 1993. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York, NY: Doubleday.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. 1991. A construct validity study of the survey of perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 637-643.

Silverman, D. 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Simon, H. A. 1957. Administrative behavior. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Simon, H. A. 1978. Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic

Review: Proceedings, 68(2): 1-16.

Simon, H. A. 1979. Rational decision making in business organizations. American

Economic Review, 69(4): 493-513.

Simon, H. A. 1985. Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political

science. American Political Science Review, 79(2): 293-304.

Simon, H. A. 1986. Rationality in psychology and economics. Journal of Business, 59(4, 2):

S209-S224.

Simon, H. A. 1991. Organizations and markets. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 5(2):

25-44.

Slatter, S. S. P. 1984. Corporate recovery. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Smart, B. (Ed.) 1992. Beyond compliance: A new industry view of the environment.

Washington, DC: The World Resource Institute.

162

Smith, E. R. 1998. Mental representation and memory. In D. Gilbert, S. Fisker, & G.

Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 4th ed., 1: 391-445. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Smith, K. K. 1982. Groups in Conflict: Prisons in Disguise. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work

and Retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Spector, B. 1989. From bogged down to fired up: Inspiring organizational change. Sloan

Management Review, 30(2): 32-46.

Spector, P. E. 1986. Perceived control by employee: A meta analysis of studies concerning

autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39: 1005-1016.

Spiker, B. K., & Lesser, E. 1995. We have met the enemy. Journal of Business Strategy,

16(2), 17-21.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. 2002. To stay or to go: voluntary survivor turnover

following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 707-

729.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. 1996. Empowering middle managers to be

transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3): 237-261.

Starbuck, W. H., Greve, A., & Hedburg, B. L. T. 1978. Responding to crisis. Journal of

Business Administration, 9(2): 111-137.

Steinburg, C. 1992. Taking charge of change. Training and Development, 46(3): 26-32.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Stumpf, S. A., & Hartman, K. 1984. Individual exploration to organizational commitment or

withdrawal. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2): 308-329.

Susanne, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for

optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Taber, T. D., & Alliger, G. M. 1995. A task-level assessment of job satisfaction. Journal of


Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.) 2000. Attitudes, behaviors, and social context: The role

of norms and group membership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1978. A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66: 541–

566.

Thurstone, L. L. 1931. The measurement of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 26(3): 249-269.

163

Trader-Leigh, K. E. 2002. Case study: Identifying resistance in managing change. Journal

of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 138-155.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2003. The impact of

psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2): 187-206.

Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, A. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational

environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 439-465.

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model

of convergence and reorientation. In B. Staw & L. Cummins (Eds.). Research in

organizational behavior, 7: 171-222. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice.

Science, 221: 453-458.

Vollman, T. 1996. The transformation imperative. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. 1944 Theory of games and economic behavior.

Princeton University Press.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. 1980 Theory of games and economic behavior.

Princeton University Press.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley

Wacker, J. G. 1998. A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-

building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations


Waldron, D. A. 1998. Status in organizations: Where evolutionary theory ranks. Managerial

and Decision Economics, 19(7): 505-520.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a

reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 132-142.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070.

Wayne, S. J., Shores, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and

leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 40: 82-111.

Webb, E. 1996. Trust and crisis. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:

frontiers of theory and research, 288-302. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Webb, J., & Dawson, P. 1991. Measure for measure: Strategic change in an electronic

instruments corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 28: 191-206.

164

Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21: 1-19.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. 1999 Organizational change and development. Annual Review

of Psychology, 50: 361-386.

Weiner, Y. 1982. Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of

Management Review, 7: 418-428.

Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the

structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 18: 1-74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weiss, R., Dawis, G., England, G., & Lofquist, L. 1967. Minnesota studies in vocational

rehabilitation: Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. University of

Minnesota, MN.

Weitzel, W., & Jonsson, E. 1989. Decline in organizations: A literature integration and

extension. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1): 91-109.

Wernerfelt, B., & Karnani, A. 1987. Competitive strategy under uncertainty. Strategic


Westman, M., & Etzion, D. 1995. Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse

to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 169-181.

Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Danon, E. 2001. Job insecurity and crossover of burnout in

married couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5): 467-481.

Whitener, E. M. 2001. Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee

commitment? A cross level analysis using hierarchical liner modeling. Journal of


Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Zander, A. F. 1950. Resistance to change – Its analysis and prevention. Advanced

Management, 4(5): 9-11.

Zentall, T. R., Galizio, M., & Critchfield, T. S. 2002. Categorization, concept learning, and

behavior analysis: An introduction. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior,

78(3): 237-248.

Zucker, L. G. 1987. Institutional theories of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 13:

443-464.

165

Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire Survey Items for Studies 1 and 2

Active resistance

1. I am opposing or will oppose this change.

2. I am currently arguing for not making this change.

3. I will let this change happen without any objection. (R)

Passive resistance

1. I certainly withdraw my support for this change.

2. I pay no attention to this change. 3. I ignore this change.

Active support

1. I am embracing this change warmly.

2. I fully cooperate with the organization on this change. 3. This change gets my full support.

Passive support

1. I agree with the organization’s decision to make this change.

2. This change is acceptable to me.

3. I certainly comply with this change.

Perceived organizational support

1. The organization values my contribution to its well-being.

2. The organization really cares about my well-being.

3. The organization would ignore any complaint from me. (R)

Perceived procedural justice

1. Decision-making procedures related to this change have been applied consistently.

2. Overall, the procedures used for making change decisions were fair.

3. There has been two-way communication in decision-making process.

Perceived participation in a decision-making process

1. I am allowed to participate in decisions regarding this change.

2. I am satisfied with ways in which I can express my views on this change.

3. I really have no chance of giving my opinions on this change to decision-makers.

Perceived need for change

1. Reasons provided by top management for making this change are not convincing. (R)

2. I really understand the need for undertaking this change. 3. I agree with top management that we need to make a change.

166

Attitude towards organizational change

1. It is important to make some change within any organization from time to time.

2. I feel positive toward organizational change in general. 3. In general, I am sceptical about benefits of organizational change. (R)

Fear of known consequences of change

1. I am afraid of some aspects of this change.

2. The consequences of this change frighten me.

3. I am not afraid of the known consequences of this change (R)

Fear of unknown consequence of change

1. I am not afraid of the unknown consequences of this change. (R)

2. I am disturbed by not knowing what is going to happen with this change.

3. Unknown consequences of this change frighten me.

Perceived change in power

1. I feel this change grants me more power in this organization.

2. This change gives me more power to do my job.

3. I feel this change gives me a greater sense of control in doing my job.

Perceived change in status

1. In general, this change enhances my position in the organization.

2. After this change, my standing in this organization seems stronger.

3. I feel this change takes me backwards in the rank here. (R)

Perceived change in pride

1. I have lost a bit of respect from my colleagues as the change unfolds. (R)

2. As the change takes place, I feel a sense of greater respect by my colleagues.

3. In general, my colleagues seem to have a better opinion of me than before the

change.

Extrinsic Job satisfaction

1. I am satisfied with pay and amount of work.

2. I am not satisfied with the opportunities for advancement in this company. (R)

3. I am satisfied with current working conditions.

Job security

1. I am certain about what my future career picture looks like in this company.

2. I am certain about what my responsibilities will be six months from now.

3. I am certain about my job security in this company.

Intrinsic Job motivation

1. I take pride in doing my job as well as I can.

2. I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively.

3. I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well.

167

Perceived employability

1. I will not have a problem to have a new job at the same level with another

organization.

2. I trust my ability to find a better job when I need one.

3. In case I would lose my job, it would not be easy to find another job at the same

level. (R)

Self-confidence for learning and development

1. I am very confident at learning and developing new skills relevant for my job.

2. I know I am very capable of keeping up with new techniques and knowledge

required for my job.

3. I can develop my career-relevant skills.

Affective commitment

1. When someone praises this organization, I feel like a personal compliment.

2. The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it stands for, that is, its values.

3. I feel a sense of ownership for this organization.

Trust in management

1. I feel very favorable toward top management.

2. I trust top management.

3. In general, I believe top management’s motives and intentions are good.

Colleagues’ reactions to change

1. I feel a sense of resistance to this change among my colleagues.

2. My colleagues seem to support this change

3. I know my colleagues oppose to this change.

Note: (R) indicates items that were reverse-ordered

168

Dear Participant, Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions about a recent change << insert here a description of the change>> in << insert here the company name>>. Listed below and on the next pages are statements that represent possible opinions about YOU may have about working at << insert here the company name>> during this change process. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by marking on the box on the right hand side that best represents your point of view about the recent organization change and a situation with which it is related. Please choose from the following answers:

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

I fully cooperate with the organization on this change.

This change is acceptable to me.

Overall, the procedures used for making change decisions were fair.

In general, I am sceptical about benefits of organizational change.

I am opposing or will oppose this change.

The organization really cares about my well-being.

In general, this change enhances my position in the organization.

I trust top management.

Reasons provided by top management for making this change are not convincing.

It is important to make some change within any organization from time to time.

I am not afraid of the known consequences of this change

I am currently arguing for not making this change.

I agree with top management that we need to make a change.

I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively.

I feel positive toward organizational change in general.

I am embracing this change warmly.

There has been two-way communication in decision-making process.

Unknown consequences of this change frighten me.

The organization would ignore any complaint from me.

I will let this change happen without any objection.

This change gets my full support.

I am not afraid of the unknown consequences of this change.

The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it stands for, that is, its values.

I know I am very capable of keeping up with new techniques and knowledge required for my job.

I really understand the need for undertaking this change.

I certainly withdraw my support for this change.

I certainly comply with this change.

169

1 2 3 4 5

I am satisfied with current working conditions.

I agree with the organization’s decision to make this change.

I can develop my career-relevant skills.

Decision-making procedures related to this change have been applied consistently.

As the change takes place, I feel a sense of greater respect by my colleagues.

I pay no attention to this change.

I am allowed to participate in decisions regarding this change.

I am not satisfied with the opportunities for advancement in this company.

I feel this change grants me more power in this organization.

I am disturbed by not knowing what is going to happen with this change.

In general, I believe my employer’s motives and intentions are good.

I feel a sense of ownership for this organization.

I am certain about my job security in this company.

I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well.

I am afraid of some aspects of this change.

When someone praises this organization, I feel like a personal compliment.

I feel a sense of resistance to this change among my colleagues.

I am satisfied with ways in which I can express my views on this change.

The known consequences of this change frighten me.

The organization values my contribution to its well-being.

In case I would lose my job, it would not be easy to find another job at the same level.

I am satisfied with pay and amount of work.

I ignore this change.

I feel this change takes me backwards in the rank here.

I feel very favorable toward top management.

I have lost a bit of respect from my colleagues as the change unfolds.

I am certain about what my responsibilities will be six months from now.

My colleagues seem to support this change

In general, my colleagues seem to have a better opinion of me than before the change.

I will not have a problem to have a new job at the same level with another organization.

I really have no chance of giving my opinions on this change to decision-makers.

After this change, my standing in this organization seems stronger.

This change gives me more power to do my job.

I trust my ability to find a better job when I need one.

I know my colleagues oppose to this change.

I take pride in doing my job as well as I can.

170

1 2 3 4 5

I am certain about what my future career picture looks like in this company.

I am very confident at learning and developing new skills relevant for my job.

I feel this change gives me a greater sense of control in doing my job.

I fully cooperate with the organization on this change.

This change is acceptable to me.

Please be so kind to provide general information about yourself.

1. How old are you? _______ years

2. What is your highest level of education? A degree below a bachelor level

A degree equivalent to a bachelor level

A degree equivalent to a master level

A degree higher than a master level

3. What is your gender? Male

Female

4. How long have you worked in this position? _______ year(s)

5. How long have you worked for this company? _______ year(s)

6. What is your family status? Single

Married / co-habiting

Divorced

7. If you have a child, how many children do you have? _______ child(children)

Thank you very much for participating in this survey. You have provided a significant amount of valuable information for my doctoral dissertation.

171

Appendix B: Study 1 – Diagrams and Correlations

For Figures 8 – 29, the horizontal axis denotes the number of respondents, whereas the

vertical axis denotes the corresponding scale for the questionnaire item (on a 5-point scale).

Figure 8: Study 1 - Indicators for Active Resistance to Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Active Resistance 1 Active Resistance 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 9: Study 1 - Indicators for Passive Resistance to Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Passive Resistance 1 Passive Resistance 2 The Aggregate Indicator

172

Figure 10: Study 1 - Indicators for Active Support for Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Active Support 1 Active Support 2 Active Support 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 11: Study 1 - Indicators for Passive Support for Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Passive Support 1 Passive Support 2 Passive Support 3 The Aggregate Indicator

173

Figure 12: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Organizational Support

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Perceived Organizational Support 1 Perceived Organizational Support 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 13: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Procedural Justice

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Procedural Justice 1 Procedural Justice 2 Procedural Justice 3 The Aggregate Indicator

174

Figure 14: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Participation in Decision-Making

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Participation in Decision-Making 2 Participation in Decision-Making 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 15: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Need for Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Need for Change 2 Need for Change 3 The Aggregate Indicator

175

Figure 16: Study 1 - Indicators for Attitude towards Organizational Change

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Attitude toward Change 1 Attitude toward Change 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 17: Study 1 - Indicators for Fear of Known Consequences of a Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 4 7

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

37

40

43

46

49

52

55

58

61

64

67

70

73

76

79

82

85

88

Fear of known Consequences 1 Fear of known Consequences 2 The Aggregate Indicator

176

Figure 18: Study 1 - Indicators for Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Fear of unknown Consequences 2 Fear of unknown Consequences 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 19: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Power

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Change in Power 1 Change in Power 2 Change in Power 3 The Aggregate Indicator

177

Figure 20: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Status

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Change in Status 1 Change in Status 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 21: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Pride

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Change in Pride 2 Change in Pride 3 The Aggregate Indicator

178

Figure 22: Study 1 - Indicators for Job Satisfaction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Job Satisfaction 1 Job Satisfaction 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 23: Study 1 - Indicators for Job Security

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Job Security 2 Job Security 3 The Aggregate Indicator

179

Figure 24: Study 1 - Indicators for Job Motivation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Job Motivation 1 Job Motivation 2 Job Motivation 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 25: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceived Employability

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Perceived Employability 2 Perceived Employability 3 The Aggregate Indicator

180

Figure 26: Study 1 - Indicators for Self-Confidence for Learning

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Self-Confidence for Learning 1 Self-Confidence for Learning 2 Self-Confidence for Learning 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 27: Study 1 - Indicators for Affective Commitment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Affective Commitment 1 Affective Commitment 2 The Aggregate Indicator

181

Figure 28: Study 1 - Indicators for Trust in Management

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Trust in Management 1 Trust in Management 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 29: Study 1 - Indicators for Perceptions of Colleagues’ Resistance to Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Colleagues' Resistance 1 Colleagues' Resistance 2 The Aggregate Indicator

182

Table 13: Study 1 – Correlations for All Depen

dent Variables

n

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.

Active Resistance 1

88

1.00

2.

Active Resistance 2

88

.34†

1.00

3.

Active Resistance 3

88

.12

.12

1.00

4.

Passive Resistance 1

88

.25*

.15

.20

1.00

5.


88

.26*

.27*

-.15

.23*

1.00

6.


88

-.04

-.07

.10

.08

.07

1.00

7.

Active Support 1

88

.00

-.15

-.33†

-.02

.16

.05

1.00

8.

Active Support 2

88

-.06

-.09

-.44†

.01

.07

.08

.52†

1.00

9.

Active Support 3

88

.02

-.14

-.38†

.11

.20

-.04

.24*

.48†

1.00

10. Passive Support 1

88

.05

-.06

-.34†

.08

.16

.12

.37†

.58†

.34†

1.00


88

-.16

-.13

-.20

-.04

.06

.26*

.25*

.32†

.21

.43†

1.00


88

-.16

-.14

-.17

-.05

.04

.26*

.24*

.30†

.17

.38†

.55†

1.00

13. Age

86

.14

.01

.20

-.02

.01

-.06

-.15

-.15

-.12

-.19

-.09

-.02

1.00

14. Education

88

.02

-.04

.12

-.01

-.02

.08

-.06

-.10

.06

.02

.11

.12

-.03

1.00

15. Gender

88

-.11

-.05

.12

.08

-.04

-.02

.00

.00

.04

.13

.14

.06

-.11

-.20

1.00

16. Position Tenure

87

.15

-.07

.13

.07

-.03

-.01

-.13

-.11

-.12

-.07

-.18

-.17

.61†

-.17

.05

1.00

17. Organizational Tenure

85

.11

-.05

.22*

-.01

-.07

-.03

-.19

-.03

-.07

.02

-.02

.06

.82†

.03

-.01

.65†

1.00

18. Fam

ily Status

86

.20

.02

.09

.18

-.02

.08

-.06

-.08

.13

-.01

.21

.07

.39†

-.06

.08

.33†

.31†

1.00

19. Number of Children

88

.14

.02

-.07

-.02

.11

.05

-.05

.00

.17

.05

.20

.15

.41†

-.06

-.01

.23*

.27*

.67†

Notes:

Correlation typed in bold is significant at the 0.01 level or the 0.05 level (2-tailed). † p < .01, * p < .05.

183

Table 14: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Resistance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

AR 1

1.00

2.

AR 2

.34†

1.00

3.

AR 3

.12

.12

1.00

4.

POS 1

.12

-.11

-.22*

1.00

5.

POS 2

-.03

-.01

-.12

.28†

1.00

6.

POS 3

-.13

.04

-.10

.17

.20

1.00

7.

Justice 1

-.04

.03

-.24*

.13

.08

.05

1.00

8.

Justice 2

.15

.08

-.26*

.26*

.00

-.08

.34†

1.00

9.

Justice 3

.08

.03

-.31†

.26*

.09

-.06

.15

.34†

1.00

10. Participation 1

.00

.09

-.16

.15

.31†

.03

.33†

.21

.41†

1.00

11. Participation 2

-.11

-.10

-.12

.04

.05

-.05

.20

.03

.27*

.22*

1.00

12. Participation 3

-.08

.01

.24*

.08

-.23*

-.03

-.05

-.23*

-.11

-.09

.24*

1.00

13. Need 1

.20

-.04

-.13

-.05

.18

.05

-.05

.22*

.08

-.02

-.17

-.52†

1.00

14. Need 2

.08

.03

-.04

.45†

.23*

.16

-.09

.01

.10

.15

.06

.12

-.10

1.00

15. Need 3

.04

-.01

-.15

.41†

.48†

.17

-.03

.10

.35†

.24*

.25*

-.05

.03

.56†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

-.05

-.02

.13

.05

-.02

-.06

-.19

-.03

.12

.02

.45†

.29†

-.11

.25*

.31†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

-.23*

-.28†

-.18

.23*

.02

-.03

-.14

.09

.07

.04

.18

.13

-.04

.28†

.34†

.44†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

-.05

-.21

-.22*

.01

.16

.13

-.05

-.09

-.11

-.07

-.18

-.26*

.31†

.02

.11

-.10

.08

1.00

19. Fear of known 1

.38†

.45†

.12

.07

-.07

-.07

-.05

.15

-.09

-.08

-.13

-.06

.10

.08

-.05

-.13

-.15

.00

1.00

20. Fear of known 2

.35†

.38†

-.01

.06

.03

.05

.17

.24*

.16

.15

-.03

-.15

.09

.10

-.02

-.18

-.32†

.05

.52†

1.00

21. Fear of known 3

.04

.06

.12

-.18

.05

.10

.09

-.35†

-.16

-.08

.01

.06

-.12

-.25*

-.11

-.05

-.19

.04

-.15

-.09

1.00

22. Age

.14

.01

.20

-.05

.10

.07

.01

-.11

-.07

.02

.00

-.06

.05

.00

-.04

-.07

-.17

-.17

-.19

-.11

.06

1.00

23. Education

.02

-.04

.12

.01

-.03

.21

-.11

.04

.03

.14

.09

.07

.04

.00

.08

.11

.16

.07

.12

.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

-.11

-.05

.12

.04

-.07

-.05

-.05

.05

-.02

.09

.02

.10

-.01

.06

-.03

.11

.04

.11

-.09

-.04

-.13

-.11

-.20

Notes:

N = 88 (except for age, n = 86). Correlations typed in bold are significant at the 0.01 level or the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

† p < .01, * p < .05.

184

Table 15: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Resistance (cont.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

AR 1

1.00

2.

AR 2

.34†

1.00

3.

AR 3

.12

.12

1.00

4.

Fear of Un1

-.09

.00

.09

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

.20

.14

.24*

-.08

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

.16

.16

.10

.02

.44†

1.00

7.

Power 1

.05

.07

-.19

-.15

-.12

.04

1.00

8.

Power 2

.02

.15

.09

-.11

.09

.29†

.27*

1.00

9.

Power 3

.03

-.18

-.10

-.08

-.17

-.06

.42†

.31†

1.00

10. Status 1

.10

-.17

-.27*

-.08

-.29†

.00

.26*

.10

.25*

1.00

11. Status 2

-.01

-.12

-.28†

-.18

-.04

.04

.56†

.24*

.34†

.41†

1.00

12. Status 3

-.08

-.03

.00

-.14

-.31†

-.53†

-.17

-.46†

-.15

.00

-.24*

1.00

13. Pride 1

-.13

-.13

-.16

.11

-.06

-.10

-.24*

-.25*

-.17

-.10

-.17

.19

1.00

14. Pride 2

.13

.09

-.09

-.09

-.11

-.07

.45†

.25*

.36†

.14

.36†

-.13

-.44†

1.00

15. Pride 3

-.10

-.18

-.14

-.08

-.08

.19

.41†

.45†

.25*

.19

.48†

-.22*

-.05

.25*

1.00

16. Job Sat 1

.20

.13

-.13

-.03

.01

.23*

.37†

.34†

.26*

.12

.41†

-.25*

-.15

.28†

.34†

1.00

17. Job Sat 2

-.26*

-.10

.02

-.02

-.13

-.22*

-.23*

-.14

-.07

-.07

-.24*

.12

.19

-.20

-.22*

-.03

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

.12

.14

-.06

.08

-.09

-.09

.02

-.29†

-.13

-.03

.10

.04

-.05

.18

-.13

.21*

.07

1.00

19. Job Security 1

-.06

-.03

-.04

-.24*

-.13

.03

.27†

-.02

.05

.17

.28†

.20

-.14

.16

.16

.28†

-.13

.14

1.00

20. Job Security 2

.13

-.02

.03

-.13

.03

.08

.10

.10

.15

.12

.15

-.17

-.27*

.27†

.06

.20

.03

.21*

.14

1.00

21. Job Security 3

.22*

.01

-.08

.09

-.10

-.12

.18

-.02

.40†

.17

.19

-.01

-.22*

.22*

.08

.11

-.21

.06

.16

.38†

1.00

22. Age

.14

.01

.20

-.05

.14

.05

.02

.01

.08

-.10

-.10

.01

-.05

.04

.04

.20

.15

-.05

-.19

.09

-.08

1.00

23. Education

.02

-.04

.12

.03

.14

-.02

.13

-.09

-.04

.02

.08

-.04

.07

.09

.02

-.03

.05

-.01

-.04

.02

.02

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

-.11

-.05

.12

.09

.07

.13

.11

.07

-.04

.14

.11

-.01

-.22*

.09

.03

-.03

-.13

.16

.22*

-.07

-.04

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

185


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

AR 1

1.00

2.

AR 2

.34†

1.00

3.

AR 3

.12

.12

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

.30†

.07

.03

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

.12

.08

.05

.59†

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

.10

.17

.05

.54†

.57†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

.05

.08

.20

.20

.31†

.30†

1.00

8.

Employability 2

.07

.13

.04

.21*

.25*

.18

.19

1.00

9.

Employability 3

-.20

.02

-.17

-.25*

-.12

-.16

-.05

.25*

1.00

10. Learning 1

.09

.10

.03

.53†

.65†

.59†

.38†

.21*

-.04

1.00

11. Learning 2

.17

.08

.09

.51†

.57†

.51†

.60†

.10

-.09

.70†

1.00

12. Learning 3

.13

.05

.05

.45†

.46†

.40†

.40†

.26*

.10

.68†

.60†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

.17

.17

.07

.31†

.52†

.57†

.23*

.09

-.25*

.54†

.50†

.32†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

.26*

.13

.06

.41†

.39†

.36†

.25*

.06

-.20

.52†

.35†

.34†

.41†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

.16

-.02

-.15

.26*

.30†

.27*

.22*

.04

-.09

.44†

.42†

.35†

.28†

.48†

1.00

16. Trust 1

.16

.05

-.10

.14

.22*

.20

.16

-.04

-.11

.40†

.28†

.30†

.39†

.41†

.33†

1.00

17. Trust 2

.08

.01

-.14

.17

.25*

.19

.19

-.06

-.04

.42†

.35†

.32†

.33†

.34†

.41†

.90†

1.00

18. Trust 3

.08

-.02

-.09

.30†

.40†

.23*

.28†

.19

.12

.45†

.48†

.50†

.31†

.35†

.57†

.37†

.45†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

.18

.18

.31†

.30†

.38†

.43†

.32†

.04

-.32†

.32†

.36†

.21*

.49†

.42†

.17

.16

.06

.08

1.00

20. Col_Support

.10

-.10

-.31†

.04

-.16

-.18

-.04

.11

.03

-.01

-.08

.03

-.12

.05

.25*

.29†

.22*

.24*

-.14

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

.12

.38†

.22*

.21*

.19

.45†

.27*

-.01

-.41†

.26*

.21*

.01

.43†

.35†

.11

.13

.06

-.03

.60†

-.14

1.00

22. Age

.14

.01

.20

-.03

-.01

-.07

.14

.00

-.10

.01

.09

.04

.08

.19

.09

.09

.00

.02

.20

.01

.20

1.00

23. Education

.02

-.04

.12

.02

.03

-.03

-.01

-.09

-.04

.08

.11

.11

.01

.04

.09

-.04

.02

.06

-.07

-.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

-.11

-.05

.12

-.04

.16

.13

.01

.15

-.06

.10

-.03

.05

.13

-.03

-.07

-.06

-.06

-.09

.19

-.08

.08

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

186

Table 17: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Resistance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

.23*

1.00

3.

PR 3

.08

.07

1.00

4.

POS 1

.22*

.25*

-.05

1.00

5.

POS 2

.19

.08

-.03

.28†

1.00

6.

POS 3

-.13

.01

-.38†

.17

.20

1.00

7.

Justice 1

.07

.16

.02

.13

.08

.05

1.00

8.

Justice 2

.02

.13

.06

.26*

.00

-.08

.34†

1.00

9.

Justice 3

.12

.25*

-.04

.26*

.09

-.06

.15

.34†

1.00

10. Participation 1

.08

.30†

-.15

.15

.31†

.03

.33†

.21

.41†

1.00

11. Participation 2

.04

-.09

.12

.04

.05

-.05

.20

.03

.27*

.22*

1.00

12. Participation 3

.04

-.20

.08

.08

-.23*

-.03

-.05

-.23*

-.11

-.09

.24*

1.00

13. Need 1

.02

.06

.08

-.05

.18

.05

-.05

.22*

.08

-.02

-.17

-.52†

1.00

14. Need 2

.19

.13

-.14

.45†

.23*

.16

-.09

.01

.10

.15

.06

.12

-.10

1.00

15. Need 3

.12

.02

-.13

.41†

.48†

.17

-.03

.10

.35†

.24*

.25*

-.05

.03

.56†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

.19

-.12

.18

.05

-.02

-.06

-.19

-.03

.12

.02

.45†

.29†

-.11

.25*

.31†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

-.01

-.01

.00

.23*

.02

-.03

-.14

.09

.07

.04

.18

.13

-.04

.28†

.34†

.44†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

-.04

.00

-.01

.01

.16

.13

-.05

-.09

-.11

-.07

-.18

-.26*

.31†

.02

.11

-.10

.08

1.00

19. Fear of Known 1

.28†

.25*

.17

.07

-.07

-.07

-.05

.15

-.09

-.08

-.13

-.06

.10

.08

-.05

-.13

-.15

.00

1.00

20. Fear of Known 2

.37†

.37†

-.06

.06

.03

.05

.17

.24*

.16

.15

-.03

-.15

.09

.10

-.02

-.18

-.32†

.05

.52†

1.00

21. Fear of Known 3

-.08

-.24*

-.27

-.18

.05

.10

.09

-.35†

-.16

-.08

.01

.06

-.12

-.25*

-.11

-.05

-.19

.04

-.15

-.09

1.00

22. Age

-.02

.01

-.06

-.05

.10

.07

.01

-.11

-.07

.02

.00

-.06

.05

.00

-.04

-.07

-.17

-.17

-.19

-.11

.06

1.00

-.03

23. Education

-.01

-.02

.08

.01

-.03

.21

-.11

.04

.03

.14

.09

.07

.04

.00

.08

.11

.16

.07

.12

.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.08

-.04

-.02

.04

-.07

-.05

-.05

.05

-.02

.09

.02

.10

-.01

.06

-.03

.11

.04

.11

-.09

-.04

-.13

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

187

Table 18: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Resistance (cont.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

.23*

1.00

3.

PR 3

.08

.07

1.00

4.

Fear of Un 1

-.24*

-.09

.12

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

.29†

.17

-.11

-.08

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

.23*

.40†

-.12

.02

.44†

1.00

7.

Power 1

.09

.28†

-.19

-.15

-.12

.04

1.00

8.

Power 2

.13

.38†

-.08

-.11

.09

.29†

.27*

1.00

9.

Power 3

.11

.18

-.07

-.08

-.17

-.06

.42†

.31†

1.00

10. Status 1

-.03

.21*

.22*

-.08

-.29†

.00

.26*

.10

.25*

1.00

11. Status 2

.04

.22*

.08

-.18

-.04

.04

.56†

.24*

.34†

.41†

1.00

12. Status 3

-.32†

-.28†

.12

-.14

-.31†

-.53†

-.17

-.46†

-.15

.00

-.24*

1.00

13. Pride 1

-.31†

-.11

-.04

.11

-.06

-.10

-.24*

-.25*

-.17

-.10

-.17

.19

1.00

14. Pride 2

.08

.09

-.05

-.09

-.11

-.07

.45†

.25*

.36†

.14

.36†

-.13

-.44†

1.00

15. Pride 3

.01

.28†

.00

-.08

-.08

.19

.41†

.45†

.25*

.19

.48†

-.22*

-.05

.25*

1.00

16. Job Sat 1

.17

.35†

.03

-.03

.01

.23*

.37†

.34†

.26*

.12

.41†

-.25*

-.15

.28†

.34†

1.00

17. Job Sat 2

-.01

-.17

.06

-.02

-.13

-.22*

-.23*

-.14

-.07

-.07

-.24*

.12

.19

-.20

-.22*

-.03

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

.10

-.14

.20

.08

-.09

-.09

.02

-.29†

-.13

-.03

.10

.04

-.05

.18

-.13

.21*

.07

1.00

19. Job Security 1

.24*

.26*

.16

-.24*

-.13

.03

.27†

-.02

.05

.17

.28†

.20

-.14

.16

.16

.28†

-.13

.14

1.00

20. Job Security 2

.23*

.13

.00

-.13

.03

.08

.10

.10

.15

.12

.15

-.17

-.27*

.27†

.06

.20

.03

.21*

.14

1.00

21. Job Security 3

.09

.24*

.18

.09

-.10

-.12

.18

-.02

.40†

.17

.19

-.01

-.22*

.22*

.08

.11

-.21

.06

.16

.38†

1.00

22. Age

-.02

.01

-.06

-.05

.14

.05

.02

.01

.08

-.10

-.10

.01

-.05

.04

.04

.20

.15

-.05

-.19

.09

-.08

1.00

23. Education

-.01

-.02

.08

.03

.14

-.02

.13

-.09

-.04

.02

.08

-.04

.07

.09

.02

-.03

.05

-.01

-.04

.02

.02

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.08

-.04

-.02

.09

.07

.13

.11

.07

-.04

.14

.11

-.01

-.22*

.09

.03

-.03

-.13

.16

.22*

-.07

-.04

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

188


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

.23*

1.00

3.

PR 3

.08

.07

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

.10

.01

.07

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

.08

.07

.00

.59†

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

.21

.05

.27*

.54†

.57†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

.26*

.04

.00

.20

.31†

.30†

1.00

8.

Employability 2

-.03

.24*

.09

.21*

.25*

.18

.19

1.00

9.

Employability 3

-.21*

.04

.01

-.25*

-.12

-.16

-.05

.25*

1.00

10. Learning 1

.06

.04

.01

.53†

.65†

.59†

.38†

.21*

-.04

1.00

11. Learning 2

.16

.09

.06

.51†

.57†

.51†

.60†

.10

-.09

.70†

1.00

12. Learning 3

-.10

.04

-.02

.45†

.46†

.40†

.40†

.26*

.10

.68†

.60†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

.11

.10

.17

.31†

.52†

.57†

.23*

.09

-.25*

.54†

.50†

.32†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

.14

-.09

-.05

.41†

.39†

.36†

.25*

.06

-.20

.52†

.35†

.34†

.41†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

.09

.24*

-.08

.26*

.30†

.27*

.22*

.04

-.09

.44†

.42†

.35†

.28†

.48†

1.00

16. Trust 1

.11

-.04

-.03

.14

.22*

.20

.16

-.04

-.11

.40†

.28†

.30†

.39†

.41†

.33†

1.00

17. Trust 2

.06

.01

-.10

.17

.25*

.19

.19

-.06

-.04

.42†

.35†

.32†

.33†

.34†

.41†

.90†

1.00

18. Trust 3

.04

.31†

.06

.30†

.40†

.23*

.28†

.19

.12

.45†

.48†

.50†

.31†

.35†

.57†

.37†

.45†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

.33†

.00

.16

.30†

.38†

.43†

.32†

.04

-.32†

.32†

.36†

.21*

.49†

.42†

.17

.16

.06

.08

1.00

20. Col_Support

-.13

.06

-.15

.04

-.16

-.18

-.04

.11

.03

-.01

-.08

.03

-.12

.05

.25*

.29†

.22*

.24*

-.14

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

.23*

.11

.07

.21*

.19

.45†

.27*

-.01

-.41†

.26*

.21*

.01

.43†

.35†

.11

.13

.06

-.03

.60†

-.14

1.00

22. Age

-.02

.01

-.06

-.03

-.01

-.07

.14

.00

-.10

.01

.09

.04

.08

.19

.09

.09

.00

.02

.20

.01

.20

1.00

23. Education

-.01

-.02

.08

.02

.03

-.03

-.01

-.09

-.04

.08

.11

.11

.01

.04

.09

-.04

.02

.06

-.07

-.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.08

-.04

-.02

-.04

.16

.13

.01

.15

-.06

.10

-.03

.05

.13

-.03

-.07

-.06

-.06

-.09

.19

-.08

.08

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

189

Table 20: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Support

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

Active Support 1

1.00

2.

Active Support 2

.52†

1.00

3.

Active Support 3

.24*

.48†

1.00

4.

POS 1

.19

.16

.22*

1.00

5.

POS 2

.00

.01

-.08

.28†

1.00

6.

POS 3

.08

-.06

-.07

.17

.20

1.00

7.

Justice 1

.46†

.54†

.32†

.13

.08

.05

1.00

8.

Justice 2

.23*

.36†

.31†

.26*

.00

-.08

.34†

1.00

9.

Justice 3

.13

.36†

.64†

.26*

.09

-.06

.15

.34†

1.00

10. Participation 1

.10

.34†

.40†

.15

.31†

.03

.33†

.21

.41†

1.00

11. Participation 2

.33†

.31†

.22*

.04

.05

-.05

.20

.03

.27*

.22*

1.00

12. Participation 3

.04

.02

-.08

.08

-.23*

-.03

-.05

-.23*

-.11

-.09

.24*

1.00

13. Need 1

.01

-.01

-.03

-.05

.18

.05

-.05

.22*

.08

-.02

-.17

-.52†

1.00

14. Need 2

.06

.04

.10

.45†

.23*

.16

-.09

.01

.10

.15

.06

.12

-.10

1.00

15. Need 3

.08

.14

.22*

.41†

.48†

.17

-.03

.10

.35†

.24*

.25*

-.05

.03

.56†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

.02

.04

.09

.05

-.02

-.06

-.19

-.03

.12

.02

.45†

.29†

-.11

.25*

.31†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

.10

.11

.05

.23*

.02

-.03

-.14

.09

.07

.04

.18

.13

-.04

.28†

.34†

.44†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

.02

-.06

-.11

.01

.16

.13

-.05

-.09

-.11

-.07

-.18

-.26*

.31†

.02

.11

-.10

.08

1.00

19. Fear of Known 1

.16

-.05

-.21

.07

-.07

-.07

-.05

.15

-.09

-.08

-.13

-.06

.10

.08

-.05

-.13

-.15

.00

1.00

20. Fear of Known 2

.04

.02

.06

.06

.03

.05

.17

.24*

.16

.15

-.03

-.15

.09

.10

-.02

-.18

-.32†

.05

.52†

1.00

21. Fear of Known 3

14

-.17

-.14

-.18

.05

.10

.09

-.35†

-.16

-.08

.01

.06

-.12

-.25*

-.11

-.05

-.19

.04

-.15

-.09

1.00

22. Age

-.15

-.15

-.12

-.05

.10

.07

.01

-.11

-.07

.02

.00

-.06

.05

.00

-.04

-.07

-.17

-.17

-.19

-.11

.06

1.00

23. Education

-.06

-.10

.06

.01

-.03

.21

-.11

.04

.03

.14

.09

.07

.04

.00

.08

.11

.16

.07

.12

.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.00

.00

.04

.04

-.07

-.05

-.05

.05

-.02

.09

.02

.10

-.01

.06

-.03

.11

.04

.11

-.09

-.04

-.13

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

190

Table 21: Study 1 – Correlations for Active Support (cont.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

Active Support 1

1.00

2.

Active Support 2

.52†

1.00

3.

Active Support 3

.24*

.48†

1.00

4.

Fear of Un 1

-.16

-.20

-.03

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

-.15

-.13

.02

-.08

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

-.07

-.01

.00

.02

.44†

1.00

7.

Power 1

.25*

.17

.29†

-.15

-.12

.04

1.00

8.

Power 2

.14

.02

.11

-.11

.09

.29†

.27*

1.00

9.

Power 3

.05

.11

.25*

-.08

-.17

-.06

.42†

.31†

1.00

10. Status 1

.22*

.33†

.32†

-.08

-.29†

.00

.26*

.10

.25*

1.00

11. Status 2

.21

.37†

.33†

-.18

-.04

.04

.56†

.24*

.34†

.41†

1.00

12. Status 3

-.02

-.07

-.20

-.14

-.31†

-.53†

-.17

-.46†

-.15

.00

-.24*

1.00

13. Pride 1

.00

.00

.01

.11

-.06

-.10

-.24*

-.25*

-.17

-.10

-.17

.19

1.00

14. Pride 2

-.04

-.02

.10

-.09

-.11

-.07

.45†

.25*

.36†

.14

.36†

-.13

-.44†

1.00

15. Pride 3

.24*

.24*

.17

-.08

-.08

.19

.41†

.45†

.25*

.19

.48†

-.22*

-.05

.25*

1.00

16. Job Sat 1

.12

.08

.18

-.03

.01

.23*

.37†

.34†

.26*

.12

.41†

-.25*

-.15

.28†

.34†

1.00

17. Job Sat 2

-.12

-.16

-.12

-.02

-.13

-.22*

-.23*

-.14

-.07

-.07

-.24*

.12

.19

-.20

-.22*

-.03

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

-.03

-.07

-.13

.08

-.09

-.09

.02

-.29†

-.13

-.03

.10

.04

-.05

.18

-.13

.21*

.07

1.00

19. Job Security 1

.23*

.12

-.01

-.24*

-.13

.03

.27†

-.02

.05

.17

.28†

.20

-.14

.16

.16

.28†

-.13

.14

1.00

20. Job Security 2

.12

.01

.00

-.13

.03

.08

.10

.10

.15

.12

.15

-.17

-.27*

.27†

.06

.20

.03

.21*

.14

1.00

21. Job Security 3

.10

.06

.02

.09

-.10

-.12

.18

-.02

.40†

.17

.19

-.01

-.22*

.22*

.08

.11

-.21

.06

.16

.38†

1.00

22. Age

-.15

-.15

-.12

-.05

.14

.05

.02

.01

.08

-.10

-.10

.01

-.05

.04

.04

.20

.15

-.05

-.19

.09

-.08

1.00

23. Education

-.06

-.10

.06

.03

.14

-.02

.13

-.09

-.04

.02

.08

-.04

.07

.09

.02

-.03

.05

-.01

-.04

.02

.02

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.00

.00

.04

.09

.07

.13

.11

.07

-.04

.14

.11

-.01

-.22*

.09

.03

-.03

-.13

.16

.22*

-.07

-.04

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

191


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

Active Support 1

1.00

2.

Active Support 2

.52†

1.00

3.

Active Support 3

.24*

.48†

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

.06

-.02

-.01

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

.03

.00

-.04

.59†

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

.08

.05

-.01

.54†

.57†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

.03

.00

.06

.20

.31†

.30†

1.00

8.

Employability 2

.12

.06

.12

.21*

.25*

.18

.19

1.00

9.

Employability 3

.02

-.03

.02

-.25*

-.12

-.16

-.05

.25*

1.00

10. Learning 1

.06

.04

-.06

.53†

.65†

.59†

.38†

.21*

-.04

1.00

11. Learning 2

.10

.02

.04

.51†

.57†

.51†

.60†

.10

-.09

.70†

1.00

12. Learning 3

.06

.00

-.03

.45†

.46†

.40†

.40†

.26*

.10

.68†

.60†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

-.15

.04

-.01

.31†

.52†

.57†

.23*

.09

-.25*

.54†

.50†

.32†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

-.09

-.11

-.11

.41†

.39†

.36†

.25*

.06

-.20

.52†

.35†

.34†

.41†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

.06

-.04

.12

.26*

.30†

.27*

.22*

.04

-.09

.44†

.42†

.35†

.28†

.48†

1.00

16. Trust in M

gmt 1

.21

.32†

.10

.14

.22*

.20

.16

-.04

-.11

.40†

.28†

.30†

.39†

.41†

.33†

1.00

17. Trust in M

gmt 2

.21

.30†

.07

.17

.25*

.19

.19

-.06

-.04

.42†

.35†

.32†

.33†

.34†

.41†

.90†

1.00

18. Trust in M

gmt 3

.17

.09

.17

.30†

.40†

.23*

.28†

.19

.12

.45†

.48†

.50†

.31†

.35†

.57†

.37†

.45†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

-.28†

-.20

-.08

.30†

.38†

.43†

.32†

.04

-.32†

.32†

.36†

.21*

.49†

.42†

.17

.16

.06

.08

1.00

20. Col_Support

.22*

.38†

.39†

.04

-.16

-.18

-.04

.11

.03

-.01

-.08

.03

-.12

.05

.25*

.29†

.22*

.24*

-.14

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

-.24*

-.14

-.01

.21*

.19

.45†

.27*

-.01

-.41†

.26*

.21*

.01

.43†

.35†

.11

.13

.06

-.03

.60†

-.14

1.00

22. Age

-.15

-.15

-.12

-.03

-.01

-.07

.14

.00

-.10

.01

.09

.04

.08

.19

.09

.09

.00

.02

.20

.01

.20

1.00

23. Education

-.06

-.10

.06

.02

.03

-.03

-.01

-.09

-.04

.08

.11

.11

.01

.04

.09

-.04

.02

.06

-.07

-.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.00

.00

.04

-.04

.16

.13

.01

.15

-.06

.10

-.03

.05

.13

-.03

-.07

-.06

-.06

-.09

.19

-.08

.08

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

192

Table 23: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Support

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PS 1

1.00

2.

PS 2

.43†

1.00

3.

PS 3

.38†

.55†

1.00

4.

POS 1

.29†

.24*

.35†

1.00

5.

POS 2

-.06

.23*

.28†

.28†

1.00

6.

POS 3

-.21*

-.11

.09

.17

.20

1.00

7.

Justice 1

.36†

.16

.12

.13

.08

.05

1.00

8.

Justice 2

.32†

.19

.14

.26*

.00

-.08

.34†

1.00

9.

Justice 3

.36†

.15

.25*

.26*

.09

-.06

.15

.34†

1.00

10. Participation 1

.24*

.26*

.19

.15

.31†

.03

.33†

.21

.41†

1.00

11. Participation 2

.16

.37†

.31†

.04

.05

-.05

.20

.03

.27*

.22*

1.00

12. Participation 3

.07

.02

.12

.08

-.23*

-.03

-.05

-.23*

-.11

-.09

.24*

1.00

13. Need 1

.06

.10

.12

-.05

.18

.05

-.05

.22*

.08

-.02

-.17

-.52†

1.00

14. Need 2

.05

.14

.26*

.45†

.23*

.16

-.09

.01

.10

.15

.06

.12

-.10

1.00

15. Need 3

.12

.27*

.31†

.41†

.48†

.17

-.03

.10

.35†

.24*

.25*

-.05

.03

.56†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

.02

.29†

.19

.05

-.02

-.06

-.19

-.03

.12

.02

.45†

.29†

-.11

.25*

.31†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

.26*

.40†

.20

.23*

.02

-.03

-.14

.09

.07

.04

.18

.13

-.04

.28†

.34†

.44†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

-.07

.05

.00

.01

.16

.13

-.05

-.09

-.11

-.07

-.18

-.26*

.31†

.02

.11

-.10

.08

1.00

19. Fear of Known 1

.14

-.08

-.14

.07

-.07

-.07

-.05

.15

-.09

-.08

-.13

-.06

.10

.08

-.05

-.13

-.15

.00

1.00

20. Fear of Known 2

.09

-.12

-.11

.06

.03

.05

.17

.24*

.16

.15

-.03

-.15

.09

.10

-.02

-.18

-.32†

.05

.52†

1.00

21. Fear of Known 3

37†

-.27*

-.36†

-.18

.05

.10

.09

-.35†

-.16

-.08

.01

.06

-.12

-.25*

-.11

-.05

-.19

.04

-.15

-.09

1.00

22. Age

-.19

-.09

-.02

-.05

.10

.07

.01

-.11

-.07

.02

.00

-.06

.05

.00

-.04

-.07

-.17

-.17

-.19

-.11

.06

1.00

23. Education

.02

.11

.12

.01

-.03

.21

-.11

.04

.03

.14

.09

.07

.04

.00

.08

.11

.16

.07

.12

.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.13

.14

.06

.04

-.07

-.05

-.05

.05

-.02

.09

.02

.10

-.01

.06

-.03

.11

.04

.11

-.09

-.04

-.13

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

193

Table 24: Study 1 – Correlations for Passive Support (cont.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

.43†

1.00

3.

PR 3

.38†

.55†

1.00

4.

Fear of Un 1

-.16

-.19

-.12

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

-.18

-.19

-.07

-.08

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

.04

-.04

-.06

.02

.44†

1.00

7.

Power 1

.26*

.10

.23*

-.15

-.12

.04

1.00

8.

Power 2

.14

.05

.06

-.11

.09

.29†

.27*

1.00

9.

Power 3

.25*

.01

.07

-.08

-.17

-.06

.42†

.31†

1.00

10. Status 1

.40†

.27†

.22*

-.08

-.29†

.00

.26*

.10

.25*

1.00

11. Status 2

.39†

.22*

.40†

-.18

-.04

.04

.56†

.24*

.34†

.41†

1.00

12. Status 3

-.10

.18

.15

-.14

-.31†

-.53†

-.17

-.46†

-.15

.00

-.24*

1.00

13. Pride 1

-.20

-.10

-.07

.11

-.06

-.10

-.24*

-.25*

-.17

-.10

-.17

.19

1.00

14. Pride 2

.36†

.24*

.18

-.09

-.11

-.07

.45†

.25*

.36†

.14

.36†

-.13

-.44†

1.00

15. Pride 3

.25*

.27†

.22*

-.08

-.08

.19

.41†

.45†

.25*

.19

.48†

-.22*

-.05

.25*

1.00

16. Job Satis 1

.21*

.04

.15

-.03

.01

.23*

.37†

.34†

.26*

.12

.41†

-.25*

-.15

.28†

.34†

1.00

17. Job Satis 2

-.15

-.13

-.16

-.02

-.13

-.22*

-.23*

-.14

-.07

-.07

-.24*

.12

.19

-.20

-.22*

-.03

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

.16

.14

.15

.08

-.09

-.09

.02

-.29†

-.13

-.03

.10

.04

-.05

.18

-.13

.21*

.07

1.00

19. Job Security 1

.32†

.36†

.36†

-.24*

-.13

.03

.27†

-.02

.05

.17

.28†

.20

-.14

.16

.16

.28†

-.13

.14

1.00

20. Job Security 2

.13

.20

.32†

-.13

.03

.08

.10

.10

.15

.12

.15

-.17

-.27*

.27†

.06

.20

.03

.21*

.14

1.00

21. Job Security 3

.21*

.17

.19

.09

-.10

-.12

.18

-.02

.40†

.17

.19

-.01

-.22*

.22*

.08

.11

-.21

.06

.16

.38†

1.00

22. Age

-.19

-.09

-.02

-.05

.14

.05

.02

.01

.08

-.10

-.10

.01

-.05

.04

.04

.20

.15

-.05

-.19

.09

-.08

1.00

23. Education

.02

.11

.12

.03

.14

-.02

.13

-.09

-.04

.02

.08

-.04

.07

.09

.02

-.03

.05

-.01

-.04

.02

.02

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.13

.14

.06

.09

.07

.13

.11

.07

-.04

.14

.11

-.01

-.22*

.09

.03

-.03

-.13

.16

.22*

-.07

-.04

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

194


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PS 1

1.00

2.

PS 2

.43†

1.00

3.

PS 3

.38†

.55†

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

-.03

.07

.15

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

.12

.22*

.11

.59†

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

.14

.21

.15

.54†

.57†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

-.01

.05

.15

.20

.31†

.30†

1.00

8.

Employability 2

.12

.12

.24*

.21*

.25*

.18

.19

1.00

9.

Employability 3

-.03

-.06

.06

-.25*

-.12

-.16

-.05

.25*

1.00

10. Learning 1

.11

.29†

.30†

.53†

.65†

.59†

.38†

.21*

-.04

1.00

11. Learning 2

.02

.20

.23*

.51†

.57†

.51†

.60†

.10

-.09

.70†

1.00

12. Learning 3

.00

.12

.24*

.45†

.46†

.40†

.40†

.26*

.10

.68†

.60†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

.20

.24*

.07

.31†

.52†

.57†

.23*

.09

-.25*

.54†

.50†

.32†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

.03

.06

.13

.41†

.39†

.36†

.25*

.06

-.20

.52†

.35†

.34†

.41†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

.16

.27*

.27*

.26*

.30†

.27*

.22*

.04

-.09

.44†

.42†

.35†

.28†

.48†

1.00

16. Trust in M

gmt 1

.36†

.33†

.32†

.14

.22*

.20

.16

-.04

-.11

.40†

.28†

.30†

.39†

.41†

.33†

1.00

17. Trust in M

gmt 2

.31†

.27*

.28†

.17

.25*

.19

.19

-.06

-.04

.42†

.35†

.32†

.33†

.34†

.41†

.90†

1.00

18. Trust in M

gmt 3

.22*

.32†

.41†

.30†

.40†

.23*

.28†

.19

.12

.45†

.48†

.50†

.31†

.35†

.57†

.37†

.45†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

-.04

.09

-.09

.30†

.38†

.43†

.32†

.04

-.32†

.32†

.36†

.21*

.49†

.42†

.17

.16

.06

.08

1.00

20. Col_Support

.33†

.25*

.34†

.04

-.16

-.18

-.04

.11

.03

-.01

-.08

.03

-.12

.05

.25*

.29†

.22*

.24*

-.14

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

.02

.02

.00

.21*

.19

.45†

.27*

-.01

-.41†

.26*

.21*

.01

.43†

.35†

.11

.13

.06

-.03

.60†

-.14

1.00

22. Age

-.19

-.09

-.02

-.03

-.01

-.07

.14

.00

-.10

.01

.09

.04

.08

.19

.09

.09

.00

.02

.20

.01

.20

1.00

23. Education

.02

.11

.12

.02

.03

-.03

-.01

-.09

-.04

.08

.11

.11

.01

.04

.09

-.04

.02

.06

-.07

-.02

.01

-.03

1.00

24. Gender

.13

.14

.06

-.04

.16

.13

.01

.15

-.06

.10

-.03

.05

.13

-.03

-.07

-.06

-.06

-.09

.19

-.08

.08

-.11

-.20

Notes:


† p < .01, * p < .05.

195

Appendix C: Study 2 – Diagrams and Correlations

For Figures 30 – 51, the horizontal axis denotes the number of respondents, whereas the

vertical axis denotes the corresponding scale for the questionnaire item (on a 5-point scale).

Figure 30: Study 2 - Indicators for Active Resistance to Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Active Resistance 1 Active Resistance 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 31: Study 2 - Indicators for Passive Resistance to Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Passive Resistance 2 Passive Resistance 3 The Aggregate Indicator

196

Figure 32: Study 2 - Active Support for Change Indicators

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Active Support 1 Active Support 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 33: Study 2 - Indicators for Passive Support for Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Passive Support 1 Passive Support 2 The Aggregate Indicator

197

Figure 34: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Organizational Support

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Perceived Organizational Support 1 Perceived Organizational Support 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 35: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Procedural Justice

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Procedural Justice 1 Procedural Justice 3 The Aggregate Indicator

198

Figure 36: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Participation in Decision-Making

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Participation 1 Participation 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 37: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Need for Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Need for Change 2 Need for Change 3 The Aggregate Indicator

199

Figure 38: Study 2 - Indicators for Attitude towards Organizational Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Attitude towards Change 1 Attitude towards Change 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 39: Study 2 - Indicator for Fear of Known Consequences of a Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Fear of known Consequences 2 Fear of known Consequences 3 The Aggregate Indicator

200

Figure 40: Study 2 - Indicators for Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Fear of unknown Consequences 2 Fear of unknown Consequences 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 41: Study 2 - Indicator for Perceived Change in Power

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Change in Power 2 Change in Power 3 The Aggregate Indicator

201

Figure 42: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Status

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Change in Status 1 Change in Status 2 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 43: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Change in Pride

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Change in Pride 1 Change in Pride 2 The Aggregate Indicator

202

Figure 44: Study 2 - Indicators for Job Satisfaction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Job Satisfaction 2 Job Satisfaction 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 45: Study 2 - Indicators for Job Security

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Job Security 1 Job Security 2 The Aggregate Indicator

203

Figure 46: Study 2 - Indicators for Job Motivation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Job Motivation 2 Job Motivation 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 47: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceived Employability

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Perceived Employability 1 Perceived Employability 2 The Aggregate Indicator

204

Figure 48: Study 2 - Indicators for Self-Confidence for Learning

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Self-Confidence for Learning 1 Self-Confidence for Learning 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 49: Study 2 - Indicators for Affective Commitment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Affective Commitment 1 Affective Commitment 2 The Aggregate Indicator

205

Figure 50: Study 2 - Indicators for Trust in Management

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Trust in Management 1 Trust in Management 3 The Aggregate Indicator

Figure 51: Study 2 - Indicators for Perceptions of Colleagues’ Resistance to Change

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 199 205

Colleagues' Resistance 1 Colleagues' Resistance 2 The Aggregate Indicator

206

Table 26: Study 2 – Correlations for Dep

endent Variables

n

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.

Active Resistance 1

207

1.00

2.

Active Resistance 2

207

.28†

1.00

3.

Active Resistance 3

207

.36†

.00

1.00

4.


207

-.17*

.00

-.37†

1.00

5.


207

.33†

.10

.29†

-.50†

1.00

6.


207

.18†

.29†

.18*

-.12

.38†

1.00

7.

Active Support 1

207

-.43†

-.03

-.54†

.35†

-.45†

-.23†

1.00

8.

Active Support 2

207

-.20†

-.18*

-.33†

.57†

-.53†

-.19†

.43†

1.00

9.

Active Support 3

207

.32†

.06

.43†

-.48†

.70†

.33†

-.42†

-.46†

1.00


207

.21†

-.17*

.24†

-.08

.35†

.03

-.37†

-.16*

.29†

1.00


207

.56†

.17*

.59†

-.30†

.54†

.38†

-.64†

-.41†

.56†

.45†

1.00


207

-.17*

-.20†

-.11

-.11

.10

-.17*

.11

-.12

.07

.28†

-.05

1.00

13. Age

205

-.28†

-.05

-.10

.19†

-.10

.19†

.02

.14*

-.05

.04

-.11

.00

1.00

14. Education

200

.15*

.18†

.30†

-.20†

.22†

.23†

-.21†

-.21†

.21†

.00

.24†

-.23†

-.08

1.00

15. Gender

204

.05

.11

.07

.05

-.07

.11

.04

.12

-.05

-.17*

.07

-.13

-.19†

.15*

1.00

16. Position Tenure

202

-.08

.14

-.04

.03

.06

.18†

.01

.00

.00

.13

-.04

-.09

.51†

.18*

-.16*

1.00

17. Organizational Tenure 199

-.34†

-.08

-.16*

.21†

-.18†

.10

.11

.17*

-.10

.06

-.24†

.10

.90†

-.05

-.10

.52†

1.00

18. Fam

ily Status

202

-.17*

-.03

-.16*

.15*

-.23†

-.03

.10

.23†

-.15*

-.06

-.20†

.04

.54†

-.16*

-.02

.23†

.52†

1.00

19. Number of Children

200

-.21†

-.12

-.15*

.09

-.18†

-.06

.11

.14*

-.09

.04

-.18*

.19†

.60†

-.29†

-.22†

.25†

.58†

.69†

Notes:

Correlations typed in bold are significant at the 0.01 level or the 0.05 level (2-tailed). † p < .01, * p < .05.

207

Table 27: Study 2 – Correlations for Active Resistance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

AR 1

1.00

2.

AR 2

.28†

1.00

3.

AR 3

.36†

.00

1.00

4.

POS 1

.21†

.15*

.18†

1.00

5.

POS 2

.49†

.00

.52†

.50†

1.00

6.

POS 3

-.03

.15*

-.14*

-.06

-.25†

1.00

7.

Justice 1

-.07

.19†

-.14

.16*

-.24†

.32†

1.00

8.

Justice 2

.04

-.05

.04

-.09

.02

-.09

.05

1.00

9.

Justice 3

-.08

.11

-.13

.19†

-.04

-.20†

.15*

-.02

1.00

10. Participation 1

.60†

.04

.57†

.27†

.68†

-.24†

-.28†

.00

-.14*

1.00

11. Participation 2

.17*

.06

.17*

.25†

.26†

-.20†

.08

-.22†

.15*

.37†

1.00

12. Participation 3

.30†

.06

.18†

.09

.26†

-.05

-.05

.25†

-.12

.28†

.09

1.00

13. Need 1

.29†

.08

.27†

.32†

.28†

-.02

-.02

-.14*

-.02

.38†

.26†

-.06

1.00

14. Need 2

.32†

.12

.25†

.46†

.48†

-.18*

-.07

.00

-.01

.49†

.17*

.16*

.18*

1.00

15. Need 3

.15*

-.08

.26†

.09

.31†

-.31†

-.26†

.16*

.02

.36†

-.06

.02

.08

.33†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

-.21†

.08

-.10

.08

-.06

-.35†

.06

-.13

.29†

-.06

.23†

-.14*

-.02

.02

.21†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

-.05

.24†

.17*

.33†

.13

-.12

.14*

.02

.16*

.15*

.19†

-.03

.20†

.41†

.22†

.24†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

.09

.11

.00

.18†

.05

.14*

.15*

-.10

.04

.08

.09

-.18†

.35†

.15*

-.11

-.05

-.03

1.00

19. Fear of known 1

.16*

.00

.14

-.07

.08

-.03

-.01

.10

-.08

.04

.05

.29†

-.25†

.06

.10

-.08

-.16*

-.37†

1.00

20. Fear of known 2

.37†

-.05

.43†

.29†

.59†

-.18*

-.26†

.17*

-.07

.67†

.17*

.28†

.34†

.51†

.38†

-.08

.21†

.15*

.06

1.00

21. Fear of known 3

.28†

-.01

.18*

.30†

.27†

.04

-.01

-.22†

-.04

.24†

.24†

-.12

.48†

.14*

-.04

-.06

.02

.39†

-.19†

.17*

1.00

22. Age

-.28†

-.05

-.10

.01

-.13

-.27†

-.12

.06

.40†

-.12

-.01

-.09

-.20†

.14*

.12

.27†

.21†

-.19†

.03

-.05

-.26†

1.00

23. Education

.15*

.18†

.30†

.20†

.27†

.06

.14

-.07

.06

.21†

.06

-.06

.08

.23†

.16*

.13

.24†

.04

.00

.16*

.03

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.05

.11

.07

-.13

.03

.17*

.05

-.04

-.13

.05

-.04

.09

-.02

.05

-.12

-.14*

-.01

-.01

.09

.01

-.07

-.19†

.15*

Notes:

N = 207 (except for age, n = 205; education, n = 200; gender, n = 204). C

orrelations typed in bold are significant at the 0.01

level or the 0.05 level (2-tailed). † p < .01, * p < .05.

208


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

AR 1

1.00

2.

AR 2

.28†

1.00

3.

AR 3

.36†

.00

1.00

4.

Fear of Un1

.27†

-.06

.20†

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

.22†

-.10

.17*

-.05

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

.12

.15*

.09

-.04

.22†

1.00

7.

Power 1

.09

.04

.07

-.18†

.26†

.29†

1.00

8.

Power 2

.33†

.15*

.35†

.17*

.27†

.21†

.37†

1.00

9.

Power 3

.39†

.05

.44†

.14*

.17*

.06

.28†

.46†

1.00

10. Status 1

.06

.01

.15*

.01

.17*

.02

.07

.17*

.20†

1.00

11. Status 2

.08

.25†

.15*

-.01

-.01

.29†

.33†

.39†

.36†

.31†

1.00

12. Status 3

-.12

-.15*

-.19†

-.22†

-.02

-.24†

-.18†

-.37†

-.26†

-.16*

-.49†

1.00

13. Pride 1

-.37†

-.01

-.48†

-.25†

-.17*

-.18*

-.14*

-.54†

-.53†

-.18*

-.42†

.50†

1.00

14. Pride 2

-.18†

.04

-.14*

-.23†

-.16*

.20†

.09

-.16*

-.18†

.07

.12

.09

.00

1.00

15. Pride 3

.24†

.11

.21†

.39†

.23†

.11

.13

.33†

.25†

.18†

.20†

-.43†

-.34†

-.12

1.00

16. Job Sat 1

.24†

.19†

.37†

.12

.21†

.39†

.38†

.43†

.41†

.07

.53†

-.43†

-.45†

.05

.49†

1.00

17. Job Sat 2

.35†

.00

.23†

.21†

.19†

.04

-.25†

.04

.08

.00

-.15*

.08

-.17*

-.19†

.12

-.06

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

.10

-.08

.23†

-.08

.27†

.04

-.12

.05

-.03

.34†

.01

.11

-.07

.04

.03

.13

.20†

1.00

19. Job Security 1

-.25†

.18†

-.21†

-.12

-.27†

.01

.24†

-.02

.00

-.01

.32†

-.17*

.07

.20†

.00

.08

-.60†

-.29†

1.00

20. Job Security 2

-.20†

.18†

-.11

.05

-.23†

.13

.15*

.11

.06

.09

.43†

-.37†

-.13

.22†

.20†

.23†

-.45†

-.20†

.76†

1.00

21. Job Security 3

-.19†

-.02

-.12

-.05

-.15*

.01

.15*

.06

-.01

.11

.20†

-.26†

-.07

.12

.01

.11

-.54†

-.09

.58†

.63†

1.00

22. Age

-.28†

-.05

-.10

-.25†

-.07

.07

.12

.04

.05

.24†

.22†

-.08

-.05

.14

-.11

.05

-.41†

.02

.28†

.32†

.35†

1.00

23. Education

.15*

.18†

.30†

.10

.11

.21†

.12

.16*

.22†

.03

.24†

-.23†

-.31†

-.05

.27†

.26†

.04

-.04

.05

.21†

.05

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.05

.11

.07

.09

-.07

.03

.08

.01

-.03

-.06

.01

.17*

-.07

.02

.05

.04

.05

-.04

-.02

-.01

-.12

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




209


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

AR 1

1.00

2.

AR 2

.28†

1.00

3.

AR 3

.36†

.00

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

.15*

.07

.07

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

-.13

.23†

-.03

.11

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

-.26†

-.07

-.19†

.20†

.53†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

.22†

.08

.35†

.15*

.33†

.17*

1.00

8.

Employability 2

-.04

-.19†

-.08

.31†

-.07

.27†

.16*

1.00

9.

Employability 3

.11

-.03

.14*

-.08

-.18*

-.25†

-.14*

-.23†

1.00

10. Learning 1

-.35†

.03

-.34†

.00

.32†

.40†

-.10

.16*

-.43†

1.00

11. Learning 2

-.43†

.03

-.50†

-.10

.18†

.27†

-.35†

.13

-.11

.43†

1.00

12. Learning 3

-.33†

-.15*

-.46†

.02

.25†

.50†

-.06

.21†

-.28†

.51†

.48†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

.05

.08

-.04

.20†

.14*

.23†

.10

.27†

-.30†

.22†

.14*

.20†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

-.39†

-.01

-.24†

.09

.46†

.60†

.08

.16*

-.30†

.59†

.43†

.50†

.36†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

.40†

.08

.26†

.37†

.15*

.00

.30†

.02

-.10

-.11

-.43†

-.10

.27†

-.06

1.00

16. Trust 1

-.05

.12

.03

.26†

.15*

.19†

.01

.10

-.09

.01

.15*

.07

.10

.19†

.17*

1.00

17. Trust 2

-.25†

.13

.00

-.27†

.30†

.16*

.21†

-.08

.02

.13

.20†

.10

-.15*

.25†

-.21†

.20†

1.00

18. Trust 3

-.33†

-.09

-.27†

.14*

.32†

.58†

.05

.10

-.21†

.34†

.37†

.46†

.10

.51†

-.13

.22†

.21†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

-.37†

.01

-.39†

-.10

.02

.17*

-.33†

.15*

-.05

.27†

.63†

.23†

.16*

.28†

-.36†

.21†

.22†

.27†

1.00

20. Col_Support

.27†

.01

.23†

.25†

.12

.21†

.52†

.12

-.05

-.08

-.28†

.00

.18†

.07

.29†

.06

.06

.19†

-.17*

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

.20†

-.01

.16*

.31†

.14*

.23†

.46†

.06

-.09

.04

-.22†

.07

.17*

.05

.35†

.03

.04

.21†

-.21†

.76†

1.00

22. Age

-.28†

-.05

-.10

-.02

.34†

.44†

.24†

.11

-.08

.22†

.16*

.38†

.06

.41†

-.06

.06

.33†

.35†

.07

.15*

.18*

1.00

23. Education

.15*

.18†

.30†

.03

.25†

.02

.27†

-.11

.00

-.07

-.14

-.13

.00

-.02

.21†

-.02

-.01

-.09

-.27†

.09

.12

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.05

.11

.07

-.17*

-.03

-.15*

-.03

-.18*

.19†

-.19†

-.08

-.12

-.15*

-.10

-.08

-.01

.04

-.10

-.08

-.05

-.08

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




210


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

-.50†

1.00

3.

PR 3

-.12

.38†

1.00

4.

POS 1

-.42†

.56†

.35†

1.00

5.

POS 2

-.32†

.55†

.34†

.50†

1.00

6.

POS 3

.09

-.18*

-.19†

-.06

-.25†

1.00

7.

Justice 1

-.03

-.02

.01

.16*

-.24†

.32†

1.00

8.

Justice 2

.05

-.11

.10

-.09

.02

-.09

.05

1.00

9.

Justice 3

.05

.08

.15*

.19†

-.04

-.20†

.15*

-.02

1.00

10. Participation 1

-.30†

.52†

.27†

.27†

.68†

-.24†

-.28†

.00

-.14*

1.00

11. Participation 2

-.25†

.38†

.13

.25†

.26†

-.20†

.08

-.22†

.15*

.37†

1.00

12. Participation 3

.04

.16*

.14*

.09

.26†

-.05

-.05

.25†

-.12

.28†

.09

1.00

13. Need 1

-.49†

.48†

.02

.32†

.28†

-.02

-.02

-.14*

-.02

.38†

.26†

-.06

1.00

14. Need 2

-.19†

.34†

.42†

.46†

.48†

-.18*

-.07

.00

-.01

.49†

.17*

.16*

.18*

1.00

15. Need 3

-.03

.12

.11

.09

.31†

-.31†

-.26†

.16*

.02

.36†

-.06

.02

.08

.33†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

-.04

.12

.04

.08

-.06

-.35†

.06

-.13

.29†

-.06

.23†

-.14*

-.02

.02

.21†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

-.22†

.30†

.35†

.33†

.13

-.12

.14*

.02

.16*

.15*

.19†

-.03

.20†

.41†

.22†

.24†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

-.23†

.21†

-.01

.18†

.05

.14*

.15*

-.10

.04

.08

.09

-.18†

.35†

.15*

-.11

-.05

-.03

1.00

19. Fear of Known 1

.13

-.16*

.01

-.07

.08

-.03

-.01

.10

-.08

.04

.05

.29†

-.25†

.06

.10

-.08

-.16*

-.37†

1.00

20. Fear of Known 2

-.18†

.46†

.27†

.29†

.59†

-.18*

-.26†

.17*

-.07

.67†

.17*

.28†

.34†

.51†

.38†

-.08

.21†

.15*

.06

1.00

21. Fear of Known 3

-.38†

.44†

-.01

.30†

.27†

.04

-.01

-.22†

-.04

.24†

.24†

-.12

.48†

.14*

-.04

-.06

.02

.39†

-.19†

.17*

1.00

22. Age

.19†

-.10

.19†

.01

-.13

-.27†

-.12

.06

.40†

-.12

-.01

-.09

-.20†

.14*

.12

.27†

.21†

-.19†

.03

-.05

-.26†

1.00

23. Education

-.20†

.22†

.23†

.20†

.27†

.06

.14

-.07

.06

.21†

.06

-.06

.08

.23†

.16*

.13

.24†

.04

.00

.16*

.03

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.05

-.07

.11

-.13

.03

.17*

.05

-.04

-.13

.05

-.04

.09

-.02

.05

-.12

-.14*

-.01

-.01

.09

.01

-.07

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




211


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

-.50†

1.00

3.

PR 3

-.12

.38†

1.00

4.

Fear of Un 1

-.44†

.41†

.08

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

.01

.13

.01

-.05

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

-.04

.12

.21†

-.04

.22†

1.00

7.

Power 1

.09

.00

.23†

-.18†

.26†

.29†

1.00

8.

Power 2

-.31†

.50†

.40†

.17*

.27†

.21†

.37†

1.00

9.

Power 3

-.22†

.32†

.33†

.14*

.17*

.06

.28†

.46†

1.00

10. Status 1

-.06

.15*

.21†

.01

.17*

.02

.07

.17*

.20†

1.00

11. Status 2

-.09

.22†

.48†

-.01

-.01

.29†

.33†

.39†

.36†

.31†

1.00

12. Status 3

.30†

-.50†

-.38†

-.22†

-.02

-.24†

-.18†

-.37†

-.26†

-.16*

-.49†

1.00

13. Pride 1

.35†

-.49†

-.43†

-.25†

-.17*

-.18*

-.14*

-.54†

-.53†

-.18*

-.42†

.50†

1.00

14. Pride 2

.21†

-.20†

.17*

-.23†

-.16*

.20†

.09

-.16*

-.18†

.07

.12

.09

.00

1.00

15. Pride 3

-.36†

.48†

.22†

.39†

.23†

.11

.13

.33†

.25†

.18†

.20†

-.43†

-.34†

-.12

1.00

16. Job Sat 1

-.20†

.27†

.39†

.12

.21†

.39†

.38†

.43†

.41†

.07

.53†

-.43†

-.45†

.05

.49†

1.00

17. Job Sat 2

-.13

.16*

-.08

.21†

.19†

.04

-.25†

.04

.08

.00

-.15*

.08

-.17*

-.19†

.12

-.06

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

.04

-.06

.01

-.08

.27†

.04

-.12

.05

-.03

.34†

.01

.11

-.07

.04

.03

.13

.20†

1.00

19. Job Security 1

-.02

-.02

.23†

-.12

-.27†

.01

.24†

-.02

.00

-.01

.32†

-.17*

.07

.20†

.00

.08

-.60†

-.29†

1.00

20. Job Security 2

-.15*

.15*

.42†

.05

-.23†

.13

.15*

.11

.06

.09

.43†

-.37†

-.13

.22†

.20†

.23†

-.45†

-.20†

.76†

1.00

21. Job Security 3

-.05

.04

.26†

-.05

-.15*

.01

.15*

.06

-.01

.11

.20†

-.26†

-.07

.12

.01

.11

-.54†

-.09

.58†

.63†

1.00

22. Age

.19†

-.10

.19†

-.25†

-.07

.07

.12

.04

.05

.24†

.22†

-.08

-.05

.14

-.11

.05

-.41†

.02

.28†

.32†

.35†

1.00

23. Education

-.20†

.22†

.23†

.10

.11

.21†

.12

.16*

.22†

.03

.24†

-.23†

-.31†

-.05

.27†

.26†

.04

-.04

.05

.21†

.05

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.05

-.07

.11

.09

-.07

.03

.08

.01

-.03

-.06

.01

.17*

-.07

.02

.05

.04

.05

-.04

-.02

-.01

-.12

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




212


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

-.50†

1.00

3.

PR 3

-.12

.38†

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

-.28†

.36†

.07

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

-.13

.15*

.33†

.11

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

.06

.00

.16*

.20†

.53†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

-.19†

.31†

.46†

.15*

.33†

.17*

1.00

8.

Employability 2

-.03

.06

-.04

.31†

-.07

.27†

.16*

1.00

9.

Employability 3

.00

-.07

-.12

-.08

-.18*

-.25†

-.14*

-.23†

1.00

10. Learning 1

.10

-.11

-.01

.00

.32†

.40†

-.10

.16*

-.43†

1.00

11. Learning 2

.33†

-.44†

-.31†

-.10

.18†

.27†

-.35†

.13

-.11

.43†

1.00

12. Learning 3

.27†

-.19†

-.04

.02

.25†

.50†

-.06

.21†

-.28†

.51†

.48†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

-.14*

.14*

.13

.20†

.14*

.23†

.10

.27†

-.30†

.22†

.14*

.20†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

.14*

-.09

.15*

.09

.46†

.60†

.08

.16*

-.30†

.59†

.43†

.50†

.36†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

-.46†

.64†

.27†

.37†

.15*

.00

.30†

.02

-.10

-.11

-.43†

-.10

.27†

-.06

1.00

16. Trust 1

-.03

.07

.01

.26†

.15*

.19†

.01

.10

-.09

.01

.15*

.07

.10

.19†

.17*

1.00

17. Trust 2

.27†

-.22†

.07

-.27†

.30†

.16*

.21†

-.08

.02

.13

.20†

.10

-.15*

.25†

-.21†

.20†

1.00

18. Trust 3

.15*

-.14*

.09

.14*

.32†

.58†

.05

.10

-.21†

.34†

.37†

.46†

.10

.51†

-.13

.22†

.21†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

.22†

-.35†

-.34†

-.10

.02

.17*

-.33†

.15*

-.05

.27†

.63†

.23†

.16*

.28†

-.36†

.21†

.22†

.27†

1.00

20. Col_Support

-.11

.25†

.31†

.25†

.12

.21†

.52†

.12

-.05

-.08

-.28†

.00

.18†

.07

.29†

.06

.06

.19†

-.17*

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

-.14*

.28†

.26†

.31†

.14*

.23†

.46†

.06

-.09

.04

-.22†

.07

.17*

.05

.35†

.03

.04

.21†

-.21†

.76†

1.00

22. Age

.19†

-.10

.19†

-.02

.34†

.44†

.24†

.11

-.08

.22†

.16*

.38†

.06

.41†

-.06

.06

.33†

.35†

.07

.15*

.18*

1.00

23. Education

-.20†

.22†

.23†

.03

.25†

.02

.27†

-.11

.00

-.07

-.14

-.13

.00

-.02

.21†

-.02

-.01

-.09

-.27†

.09

.12

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.05

-.07

.11

-.17*

-.03

-.15*

-.03

-.18*

.19†

-.19†

-.08

-.12

-.15*

-.10

-.08

-.01

.04

-.10

-.08

-.05

-.08

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




213

Table 33: Study 2 – Correlations for Active Support

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

Active Support 1

1.00

2.

Active Support 2

.43†

1.00

3.

Active Support 3

-.42†

-.46†

1.00

4.

POS 1

-.43†

-.43†

.60†

1.00

5.

POS 2

-.64†

-.38†

.61†

.50†

1.00

6.

POS 3

.19†

.09

-.19†

-.06

-.25†

1.00

7.

Justice 1

.19†

.00

-.02

.16*

-.24†

.32†

1.00

8.

Justice 2

-.01

.00

-.08

-.09

.02

-.09

.05

1.00

9.

Justice 3

.14

.04

.11

.19†

-.04

-.20†

.15*

-.02

1.00

10. Participation 1

-.58†

-.39†

.51†

.27†

.68†

-.24†

-.28†

.00

-.14*

1.00

11. Participation 2

-.21†

-.20†

.35†

.25†

.26†

-.20†

.08

-.22†

.15*

.37†

1.00

12. Participation 3

-.19†

-.05

.05

.09

.26†

-.05

-.05

.25†

-.12

.28†

.09

1.00

13. Need 1

-.27†

-.50†

.49†

.32†

.28†

-.02

-.02

-.14*

-.02

.38†

.26†

-.06

1.00

14. Need 2

-.40†

-.27†

.41†

.46†

.48†

-.18*

-.07

.00

-.01

.49†

.17*

.16*

.18*

1.00

15. Need 3

-.33†

-.21†

.15*

.09

.31†

-.31†

-.26†

.16*

.02

.36†

-.06

.02

.08

.33†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

.03

-.03

.05

.08

-.06

-.35†

.06

-.13

.29†

-.06

.23†

-.14*

-.02

.02

.21†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

-.17*

-.38†

.32†

.33†

.13

-.12

.14*

.02

.16*

.15*

.19†

-.03

.20†

.41†

.22†

.24†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

-.01

-.31†

.23†

.18†

.05

.14*

.15*

-.10

.04

.08

.09

-.18†

.35†

.15*

-.11

-.05

-.03

1.00

19. Fear of Known 1

-.13

.28†

-.16*

-.07

.08

-.03

-.01

.10

-.08

.04

.05

.29†

-.25†

.06

.10

-.08

-.16*

-.37†

1.00

20. Fear of Known 2

-.50†

-.35†

.43†

.29†

.59†

-.18*

-.26†

.17*

-.07

.67†

.17*

.28†

.34†

.51†

.38†

-.08

.21†

.15*

.06

1.00

21. Fear of Known 3

-.29†

-.32†

.38†

.30†

.27†

.04

-.01

-.22†

-.04

.24†

.24†

-.12

.48†

.14*

-.04

-.06

.02

.39†

-.19†

.17*

1.00

22. Age

.02

.14*

-.05

.01

-.13

-.27†

-.12

.06

.40†

-.12

-.01

-.09

-.20†

.14*

.12

.27†

.21†

-.19†

.03

-.05

-.26†

1.00

23. Education

-.21†

-.21†

.21†

.20†

.27†

.06

.14

-.07

.06

.21†

.06

-.06

.08

.23†

.16*

.13

.24†

.04

.00

.16*

.03

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.04

.12

-.05

-.13

.03

.17*

.05

-.04

-.13

.05

-.04

.09

-.02

.05

-.12

-.14*

-.01

-.01

.09

.01

-.07

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




214


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

Active Support 1

1.00

2.

Active Support 2

.43†

1.00

3.

Active Support 3

-.42†

-.46†

1.00

4.

Fear of Un 1

-.22†

-.30†

.36†

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

-.33†

-.05

.15*

-.05

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

-.19†

-.10

.12

-.04

.22†

1.00

7.

Power 1

-.12

.00

.10

-.18†

.26†

.29†

1.00

8.

Power 2

-.44†

-.43†

.52†

.17*

.27†

.21†

.37†

1.00

9.

Power 3

-.41†

-.24†

.39†

.14*

.17*

.06

.28†

.46†

1.00

10. Status 1

-.21†

.07

.12

.01

.17*

.02

.07

.17*

.20†

1.00

11. Status 2

-.29†

-.18†

.21†

-.01

-.01

.29†

.33†

.39†

.36†

.31†

1.00

12. Status 3

.30†

.34†

-.48†

-.22†

-.02

-.24†

-.18†

-.37†

-.26†

-.16*

-.49†

1.00

13. Pride 1

.49†

.34†

-.50†

-.25†

-.17*

-.18*

-.14*

-.54†

-.53†

-.18*

-.42†

.50†

1.00

14. Pride 2

.13

.09

-.22†

-.23†

-.16*

.20†

.09

-.16*

-.18†

.07

.12

.09

.00

1.00

15. Pride 3

-.26†

-.25†

.47†

.39†

.23†

.11

.13

.33†

.25†

.18†

.20†

-.43†

-.34†

-.12

1.00

16. Job Sat 1

-.32†

-.20†

.35†

.12

.21†

.39†

.38†

.43†

.41†

.07

.53†

-.43†

-.45†

.05

.49†

1.00

17. Job Sat 2

-.32†

-.11

.16*

.21†

.19†

.04

-.25†

.04

.08

.00

-.15*

.08

-.17*

-.19†

.12

-.06

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

-.17*

.17*

-.04

-.08

.27†

.04

-.12

.05

-.03

.34†

.01

.11

-.07

.04

.03

.13

.20†

1.00

19. Job Security 1

.19†

-.01

-.07

-.12

-.27†

.01

.24†

-.02

.00

-.01

.32†

-.17*

.07

.20†

.00

.08

-.60†

-.29†

1.00

20. Job Security 2

.07

-.17*

.16*

.05

-.23†

.13

.15*

.11

.06

.09

.43†

-.37†

-.13

.22†

.20†

.23†

-.45†

-.20†

.76†

1.00

21. Job Security 3

.10

-.04

.01

-.05

-.15*

.01

.15*

.06

-.01

.11

.20†

-.26†

-.07

.12

.01

.11

-.54†

-.09

.58†

.63†

1.00

22. Age

.02

.14*

-.05

-.25†

-.07

.07

.12

.04

.05

.24†

.22†

-.08

-.05

.14

-.11

.05

-.41†

.02

.28†

.32†

.35†

1.00

23. Education

-.21†

-.21†

.21†

.10

.11

.21†

.12

.16*

.22†

.03

.24†

-.23†

-.31†

-.05

.27†

.26†

.04

-.04

.05

.21†

.05

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.04

.12

-.05

.09

-.07

.03

.08

.01

-.03

-.06

.01

.17*

-.07

.02

.05

.04

.05

-.04

-.02

-.01

-.12

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




215


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

Active Support 1

1.00

2.

Active Support 2

.43†

1.00

3.

Active Support 3

-.42†

-.46†

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

-.20†

-.30†

.42†

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

.02

-.16*

.21†

.11

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

.21†

.09

.00

.20†

.53†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

-.43†

-.26†

.32†

.15*

.33†

.17*

1.00

8.

Employability 2

.09

.17*

.04

.31†

-.07

.27†

.16*

1.00

9.

Employability 3

-.06

.08

-.04

-.08

-.18*

-.25†

-.14*

-.23†

1.00

10. Learning 1

.30†

.05

-.12

.00

.32†

.40†

-.10

.16*

-.43†

1.00

11. Learning 2

.49†

.34†

-.43†

-.10

.18†

.27†

-.35†

.13

-.11

.43†

1.00

12. Learning 3

.34†

.27†

-.18†

.02

.25†

.50†

-.06

.21†

-.28†

.51†

.48†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

-.01

-.10

.18†

.20†

.14*

.23†

.10

.27†

-.30†

.22†

.14*

.20†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

.21†

.07

-.09

.09

.46†

.60†

.08

.16*

-.30†

.59†

.43†

.50†

.36†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

-.38†

-.44†

.57†

.37†

.15*

.00

.30†

.02

-.10

-.11

-.43†

-.10

.27†

-.06

1.00

16. Trust in M

gmt 1

.06

-.09

.11

.26†

.15*

.19†

.01

.10

-.09

.01

.15*

.07

.10

.19†

.17*

1.00

17. Trust in M

gmt 2

.05

.23†

-.26†

-.27†

.30†

.16*

.21†

-.08

.02

.13

.20†

.10

-.15*

.25†

-.21†

.20†

1.00

18. Trust in M

gmt 3

.19†

.13

-.14*

.14*

.32†

.58†

.05

.10

-.21†

.34†

.37†

.46†

.10

.51†

-.13

.22†

.21†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

.51†

.24†

-.39†

-.10

.02

.17*

-.33†

.15*

-.05

.27†

.63†

.23†

.16*

.28†

-.36†

.21†

.22†

.27†

1.00

20. Col_Support

-.28†

-.14*

.17*

.25†

.12

.21†

.52†

.12

-.05

-.08

-.28†

.00

.18†

.07

.29†

.06

.06

.19†

-.17*

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

-.29†

-.21†

.25†

.31†

.14*

.23†

.46†

.06

-.09

.04

-.22†

.07

.17*

.05

.35†

.03

.04

.21†

-.21†

.76†

1.00

22. Age

.02

.14*

-.05

-.02

.34†

.44†

.24†

.11

-.08

.22†

.16*

.38†

.06

.41†

-.06

.06

.33†

.35†

.07

.15*

.18*

1.00

23. Education

-.21†

-.21†

.21†

.03

.25†

.02

.27†

-.11

.00

-.07

-.14

-.13

.00

-.02

.21†

-.02

-.01

-.09

-.27†

.09

.12

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

.04

.12

-.05

-.17*

-.03

-.15*

-.03

-.18*

.19†

-.19†

-.08

-.12

-.15*

-.10

-.08

-.01

.04

-.10

-.08

-.05

-.08

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




216

Table 36: Study 2 – Correlations for Passive Support

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PS 1

1.00

2.

PS 2

.45†

1.00

3.

PS 3

.28†

-.05

1.00

4.

POS 1

.21†

.44†

.04

1.00

5.

POS 2

.44†

.66†

.02

.50†

1.00

6.

POS 3

-.52†

-.21†

-.16*

-.06

-.25†

1.00

7.

Justice 1

-.44†

-.17*

-.21†

.16*

-.24†

.32†

1.00

8.

Justice 2

-.07

-.04

.09

-.09

.02

-.09

.05

1.00

9.

Justice 3

-.03

-.12

-.07

.19†

-.04

-.20†

.15*

-.02

1.00

10. Participation 1

.42†

.68†

-.04

.27†

.68†

-.24†

-.28†

.00

-.14*

1.00

11. Participation 2

.18*

.27†

-.09

.25†

.26†

-.20†

.08

-.22†

.15*

.37†

1.00

12. Participation 3

.17*

.28†

-.06

.09

.26†

-.05

-.05

.25†

-.12

.28†

.09

1.00

13. Need 1

.17*

.39†

.09

.32†

.28†

-.02

-.02

-.14*

-.02

.38†

.26†

-.06

1.00

14. Need 2

.25†

.48†

-.11

.46†

.48†

-.18*

-.07

.00

-.01

.49†

.17*

.16*

.18*

1.00

15. Need 3

.41†

.29†

.18†

.09

.31†

-.31†

-.26†

.16*

.02

.36†

-.06

.02

.08

.33†

1.00

16. Attitude 1

.17*

-.07

.21†

.08

-.06

-.35†

.06

-.13

.29†

-.06

.23†

-.14*

-.02

.02

.21†

1.00

17. Attitude 2

.03

.22†

.03

.33†

.13

-.12

.14*

.02

.16*

.15*

.19†

-.03

.20†

.41†

.22†

.24†

1.00

18. Attitude 3

-.13

.08

.05

.18†

.05

.14*

.15*

-.10

.04

.08

.09

-.18†

.35†

.15*

-.11

-.05

-.03

1.00

19. Fear of Known 1

.13

.11

-.01

-.07

.08

-.03

-.01

.10

-.08

.04

.05

.29†

-.25†

.06

.10

-.08

-.16*

-.37†

1.00

20. Fear of Known 2

.40†

.60†

.13

.29†

.59†

-.18*

-.26†

.17*

-.07

.67†

.17*

.28†

.34†

.51†

.38†

-.08

.21†

.15*

.06

1.00

21. Fear of Known 3

.12

.26†

.06

.30†

.27†

.04

-.01

-.22†

-.04

.24†

.24†

-.12

.48†

.14*

-.04

-.06

.02

.39†

-.19†

.17*

1.00

22. Age

.04

-.11

.00

.01

-.13

-.27†

-.12

.06

.40†

-.12

-.01

-.09

-.20†

.14*

.12

.27†

.21†

-.19†

.03

-.05

-.26†

1.00

23. Education

.00

.24†

-.23†

.20†

.27†

.06

.14

-.07

.06

.21†

.06

-.06

.08

.23†

.16*

.13

.24†

.04

.00

.16*

.03

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

-.17*

.07

-.13

-.13

.03

.17*

.05

-.04

-.13

.05

-.04

.09

-.02

.05

-.12

-.14*

-.01

-.01

.09

.01

-.07

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




217


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PR 1

1.00

2.

PR 2

.45†

1.00

3.

PR 3

.28†

-.05

1.00

4.

Fear of Un 1

.08

.30†

.11

1.00

5.

Fear of Un 2

.35†

.30†

.00

-.05

1.00

6.

Fear of Un 3

-.05

.16*

-.20†

-.04

.22†

1.00

7.

Power 1

.13

.20†

-.18†

-.18†

.26†

.29†

1.00

8.

Power 2

.49†

.54†

.08

.17*

.27†

.21†

.37†

1.00

9.

Power 3

.33†

.54†

-.07

.14*

.17*

.06

.28†

.46†

1.00

10. Status 1

.28†

.19†

.06

.01

.17*

.02

.07

.17*

.20†

1.00

11. Status 2

.14*

.35†

-.17*

-.01

-.01

.29†

.33†

.39†

.36†

.31†

1.00

12. Status 3

-.12

-.33†

.09

-.22†

-.02

-.24†

-.18†

-.37†

-.26†

-.16*

-.49†

1.00

13. Pride 1

-.29†

-.58†

.10

-.25†

-.17*

-.18*

-.14*

-.54†

-.53†

-.18*

-.42†

.50†

1.00

14. Pride 2

-.18†

-.14*

-.01

-.23†

-.16*

.20†

.09

-.16*

-.18†

.07

.12

.09

.00

1.00

15. Pride 3

.16*

.34†

-.06

.39†

.23†

.11

.13

.33†

.25†

.18†

.20†

-.43†

-.34†

-.12

1.00

16. Job Satis 1

.14*

.38†

-.19†

.12

.21†

.39†

.38†

.43†

.41†

.07

.53†

-.43†

-.45†

.05

.49†

1.00

17. Job Satis 2

-.03

.21†

-.13

.21†

.19†

.04

-.25†

.04

.08

.00

-.15*

.08

-.17*

-.19†

.12

-.06

1.00

18. Job Sat 3

.18*

.15*

-.02

-.08

.27†

.04

-.12

.05

-.03

.34†

.01

.11

-.07

.04

.03

.13

.20†

1.00

19. Job Security 1

-.20†

-.16*

.03

-.12

-.27†

.01

.24†

-.02

.00

-.01

.32†

-.17*

.07

.20†

.00

.08

-.60†

-.29†

1.00

20. Job Security 2

-.24†

-.02

-.07

.05

-.23†

.13

.15*

.11

.06

.09

.43†

-.37†

-.13

.22†

.20†

.23†

-.45†

-.20†

.76†

1.00

21. Job Security 3

.05

-.06

.03

-.05

-.15*

.01

.15*

.06

-.01

.11

.20†

-.26†

-.07

.12

.01

.11

-.54†

-.09

.58†

.63†

1.00

22. Age

.04

-.11

.00

-.25†

-.07

.07

.12

.04

.05

.24†

.22†

-.08

-.05

.14

-.11

.05

-.41†

.02

.28†

.32†

.35†

1.00

23. Education

.00

.24†

-.23†

.10

.11

.21†

.12

.16*

.22†

.03

.24†

-.23†

-.31†

-.05

.27†

.26†

.04

-.04

.05

.21†

.05

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

-.17*

.07

-.13

.09

-.07

.03

.08

.01

-.03

-.06

.01

.17*

-.07

.02

.05

.04

.05

-.04

-.02

-.01

-.12

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




218


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1.

PS 1

1.00

2.

PS 2

.45†

1.00

3.

PS 3

.28†

-.05

1.00

4.

Job M

otivation 1

.45†

.23†

.23†

1.00

5.

Job M

otivation 2

-.19†

.05

-.09

.11

1.00

6.

Job M

otivation 3

.15*

-.16*

.15*

.20†

.53†

1.00

7.

Employability 1

.21†

.45†

-.18†

.15*

.33†

.17*

1.00

8.

Employability 2

.23†

-.07

.26†

.31†

-.07

.27†

.16*

1.00

9.

Employability 3

.04

.03

-.05

-.08

-.18*

-.25†

-.14*

-.23†

1.00

10. Learning 1

-.13

-.31†

.20†

.00

.32†

.40†

-.10

.16*

-.43†

1.00

11. Learning 2

-.28†

-.59†

.14*

-.10

.18†

.27†

-.35†

.13

-.11

.43†

1.00

12. Learning 3

-.05

-.36†

.17*

.02

.25†

.50†

-.06

.21†

-.28†

.51†

.48†

1.00

13. Commitment 1

.00

.02

-.01

.20†

.14*

.23†

.10

.27†

-.30†

.22†

.14*

.20†

1.00

14. Commitment 2

-.06

-.23†

.12

.09

.46†

.60†

.08

.16*

-.30†

.59†

.43†

.50†

.36†

1.00

15. Commitment 3

.20†

.44†

-.06

.37†

.15*

.00

.30†

.02

-.10

-.11

-.43†

-.10

.27†

-.06

1.00

16. Trust in M

gmt 1

.04

.03

.13

.26†

.15*

.19†

.01

.10

-.09

.01

.15*

.07

.10

.19†

.17*

1.00

17. Trust in M

gmt 2

-.18†

-.08

-.15*

-.27†

.30†

.16*

.21†

-.08

.02

.13

.20†

.10

-.15*

.25†

-.21†

.20†

1.00

18. Trust in M

gmt 3

.10

-.24†

.11

.14*

.32†

.58†

.05

.10

-.21†

.34†

.37†

.46†

.10

.51†

-.13

.22†

.21†

1.00

19. Col_Resist 1

-.28†

-.51†

.14*

-.10

.02

.17*

-.33†

.15*

-.05

.27†

.63†

.23†

.16*

.28†

-.36†

.21†

.22†

.27†

1.00

20. Col_Support

.43†

.41†

-.08

.25†

.12

.21†

.52†

.12

-.05

-.08

-.28†

.00

.18†

.07

.29†

.06

.06

.19†

-.17*

1.00

21. Col_Resist 2

.47†

.37†

-.04

.31†

.14*

.23†

.46†

.06

-.09

.04

-.22†

.07

.17*

.05

.35†

.03

.04

.21†

-.21†

.76†

1.00

22. Age

.04

-.11

.00

-.02

.34†

.44†

.24†

.11

-.08

.22†

.16*

.38†

.06

.41†

-.06

.06

.33†

.35†

.07

.15*

.18*

1.00

23. Education

.00

.24†

-.23†

.03

.25†

.02

.27†

-.11

.00

-.07

-.14

-.13

.00

-.02

.21†

-.02

-.01

-.09

-.27†

.09

.12

-.08

1.00

24. Gender

-.17*

.07

-.13

-.17*

-.03

-.15*

-.03

-.18*

.19†

-.19†

-.08

-.12

-.15*

-.10

-.08

-.01

.04

-.10

-.08

-.05

-.08

-.19†

.15*

Notes:




219

Appendix D: Additional Regression Analyses for Study 2

In addition to the number of regressions conducted in the main study, additional tests for

Study 2 were performed and presented in this appendix due predominantly to the fact that

many hypotheses were not supported by the findings in Study 2. Indeed, there existed some

significant relationships that were not consistent with expectations. Consequently, I re-

examined both the data and the methods used in the main study for purpose of identifying

potential explanations to the overall findings in the main study. Up to this point, the re-

examination of the data and the methods performed focused on the reliability of data by

exploring the relationships between measures of variables: that is, I tested whether it was

possible to observe better results using original indicators rather than aggregate indicators as

predictors and outcomes in the multinomial ordered probit regressions. One plausible reason

for re-examining the data is that there is observable evidence that the strength of

correlations among indicators for the study variables was generally low. Consequently, the

use of the aggregate indicators as the variables in regression analyses in the main study may

be attributable to the relatively surprising findings. It is possible that this occurred because

many, if not most, variables were measured using three items that measured different facets

of a certain construct. For example, to measure active resistance to change, three behaviors,

i.e., arguing, opposing, and objecting, which were theoretically defined as active resistance,

were measured using one question for each behavior. Thus, it is entirely possible that due to

the limitation to the questionnaire design, respondent-bias (e.g., within-person consistency)

may be significantly contributed to the low correlations among three behaviors.

Thus, I used another analytical approach to test whether the data would provide

different results to those of in Study 2. For the purpose of comparability and simplicity, a

multinomial ordered probit regression which was employed in the main study was also used

to test the hypotheses. The key difference between these new tests and those of in the main

study is that in the new tests, original indicators rather than aggregate indicators were used

as a predictor and an outcome in the regressions. That is, I separately regressed each of

measures of reactions to change on each of measures of independent variables. It is

important to note that, as with the main study, I did not include control variables in the

regressions. Also, I retained original scales (e.g., from 1 to 5) of measures of variables in the

regression analysis. In sum, the total number of 658 regression models was conducted. For

ease of presentation of the finding, only significant relationships are reported in Tables 41 -

52. Similarly, for ease of interpretation of the findings, Tables 39 and 40 present a summary

of the overall findings of the additional analyses.

220

Table 39 present an overview of the significant relationships for resistance to change

indicators tested in the models. The details of each significant relationship can be found in

Table 41 - 46. The results reported in Table 39 indicate several important findings. First,

several measures of independent variables were significantly predictive of employees’

opposition to the privatization (AR1). However, those relationships are not consistent with

the expectations. Nonetheless, as expected, the likelihood of having higher levels of

opposition to the privatization decreased with higher levels of perceived need for change 2.

Furthermore, higher levels of fear of known consequence of a change 3 increased the

likelihood of having higher levels of opposition to the privatization. Similarly, higher levels

of perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change 1 increased the likelihood of having

higher levels of opposition to the privatization.

But, as can be seen in Table 39, only job satisfaction was significantly predictive of

the extent to which employees argue against the change (AR2). Furthermore, several

indicators were significantly predictive of employees’ objection to the change. But the

results indicate that many, if not most, of the relationships were positive, implying that the

findings are not consistent with expectations. Two findings with regard to employees’

objection to the change deserve mention. First, higher levels of perceived organizational

support 2 decreased the likelihood of having higher levels of objection to the privatization.

Second, higher levels of fear of known consequences of change increased the likelihood of

having higher levels of objection to the privatization. It is interesting to note that these

results are contradictory to the findings shown in the main study. Recall that the original

findings suggest that higher levels of fear of known consequences of a change decreased the

likelihood of having higher levels of resistance to change (see Table 8). Given the fact that

no other measures of fear of known consequences of a change was significantly predictive

of any other measures of active resistance to change, I am cautiously optimistic that a

relatively firm conclusion about the relationship between fear of known consequences of a

change and active resistance to change can be made: that is, the negative relationship found

in the main study was attributable to differences in patterns of directions of measures of fear

of known consequences of a change and/or measures of active resistance to change.

It is interesting to note that many, if not most, relationships between measures of

passive resistance to change (i.e., PR1 = a measure of employees’ withdrawal, PR2 = a

measure of employees’ ignorance of a change and PR3 = a measure of employees’

ignorance of a change) on the one hand and measures of independent variables on the other

hand were consistent with expectations. Indeed, the aggregate indicator for passive

resistance to change used in Study 2 was derived from the aggregation between PR 2 and

PR 3, which measures degrees of employees’ ignorance of the privatization. The findings

221

here reaffirm the notion that both PR2 and PR3 can be used to measure employees’

ignorance of a change due to the fact that many, if not most, predictors that were

significantly predictive of PR2 were also significantly predictive of PR3, with same sign of

coefficients. But at the same time the findings suggest that many perceptions may have a

negative effect on employee’s ignorance of the change. In this view, many hypotheses

regarding resistance to change, at least for employee’s ignorance of the change, were

strongly supported by these findings.

Table 40 present an overview of the significant relationships for resistance to change

indicators tested in the models. The details of each significant relationship can be found in

Table 47 - 52. For ease of interpretation, I only mentioned the results that are new in these

analyses or significantly different to those of in the main study.

There is observable evidence that the results of AS1, which measured employees’

embracing of a change, are generally similar to those of AS2, which measured employees’

cooperation with the firm on the change. In contrast, the results of AS3, which measured

employees’ support for change, are generally opposite that those of AS1 and AS2. Up to this

point, the examination of the results reported here suggests that perceived participation in

decision-making 1 had a positive effect on AS1, and perceived participation in decision-

making 2 had a negative effect on AS1. These findings are contradictory to that of in the

main study which suggests that perceived participation in decision-making was not

significantly predictive of active support for change. One plausible explanation to this

difference is that perceived participation in decision-making 2 which was not significantly

predictive of AS1 was used as part of the aggregate indicator for this construct.

Consequently, the aggregate indicator for this construct was not significantly predictive of

active support for change. Further, the levels of job security 2 and job motivation 1

increased the likelihood of having higher levels of AS2. Another new finding is that

affective commitment 2 and 3 were significantly related to AS1 and AS2, respectively. The

results also indicate that perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change 1 were negatively

related to AS1 and AS2. Similarly, perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change 2 were

positively related to AS1 and AS2. Clearly, this is attributable to the insignificant

relationship between perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change and employees’

support for change in the main study. Given that there existed many negative significant

relationships between independent variables and AS3 in these analyses, it is entirely

possible to argue that AS3, which measured the extent to which the organization receives

support from employees, is better representative of levels of resistance to change than levels

of support for change.

222

The findings also indicate that higher levels of perceived procedural justice 1 increased

the likelihood of having higher levels of PS1, which measured the extent to which

employees agree with the organization on the change, and PS2, which measured the extent

to which employees feel that the change was acceptable. Similarly, higher levels of

perceived procedural justice 2 did increase the likelihood of having higher levels of PS1.

Taken together, these findings suggest that perceived procedural justice has a positive

significant effect on employee’s agreement with the organization on the change and

employees’ acceptance of the change.

The findings also indicate that higher levels of Perceived Change in Pride 1 increased

the likelihood of having higher levels of PS1 and PS2, and higher levels of Perceived

Change in Pride 2 increased the likelihood of having higher levels of PS2. Recall that the

findings in Study 2 indicate that perceived change in pride was not significantly predictive

of passive support for change. The new findings demonstrate that the original findings are

incorrect. Furthermore, the new findings indicate that all three measure of self-confidence

for learning and development were positively related to PS2, whereas the original findings

indicate that self-confidence for learning and development was not significantly related to

passive support for change. This finding is valuable as it demonstrates that the original

findings in Study 2 are incorrect. Moreover, the new findings indicate that the levels of trust

in management 2 and 3 were positively related to the levels of PS2. Additionally,

perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change 1 were positively related to PS 1 and PS 2,

whereas perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change 2 were negatively related to PS 1

and 2. Consequently, these findings clearly explain the insignificant relationship between

perceptions of colleagues’ resistance to change and employees’ passive support for change

originally found in Study 2.

In sum, these additional analyses provide further evidence that perceptions and/or

attitudes are related to reactions to change. As discussed, the main purpose of these

additional analyses was to find explanations to the unexpected relationships found in Study

2. This objective was partially achieved as a different result was obtained. Using a different

set of procedures, in particular the original measures rather than the aggregate indicators in

the multinomial ordered probit regressions, I found that the new results demonstrate that (1)

the sign of coefficients for some measures which was found to be not consistent with

expectations in the main study was consistent with expectations in these tests, and (2) some

relationships which were not found to be significant in the main study were significant in

these tests. One plausible reason for this difference is that the internal consistency level for

most variables in the main study was low.

223

Table 39: Summary of Regression Results of Indicators for Resistance to Change

AR1 AR2 AR3 PR1 PR2 PR3

Perceived Organizational Support 1 + - -

Perceived Organizational Support 2 - - -

Perceived Organizational Support 3 + -

Perceived Procedural Justice 1 + +

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making 1 - -

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making 2 + -

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making 3 + - -

Perceived Need for Change 1 + -

Perceived Need for Change 2 - - -

Perceived Need for Change 3 -

Attitude toward Organizational Change 2 - -

Attitude toward Organizational Change 3 +

Fear of known Consequences of a Change 2 - - -

Fear of known Consequences of a Change 3 + +

Perceived Change in Power 2 - - -

Perceived Change in Power 3 + - -

Perceived Change in Status 2 - -

Perceived Change in Status 3 - + +

Perceived Change in Pride 1 + + - + +

Perceived Change in Pride 2 + +

Perceived Change in Pride 3 + -

Job Satisfaction 1 - - -

Job Satisfaction 2 -


Job Security 2 -

Job Security 3 -

Job Motivation 1 + + -

Job Motivation 2 -

Perceived Employability 1 - -

Self-Confidence for Learning 2 + + - + +

Self-Confidence for Learning 3 + - -

Affective Commitment 1 -

Affective Commitment 2 +

Affective Commitment 3 + -

Trust in Management 1 + +

Trust in Management 2 + -

Trust in Management 3 + +

Colleagues’ Resistance to Change 1 + + + +

Colleagues’ Resistance to Change 2 - + - -

Colleagues’ Support for Change + - + - -

Notes: AR1, AR2, and AR3 = Indicators 1, 2 and 3 for Active Resistance to Change, respectively.

PR 1, PR2, and PR 3 = Indicators 1, 2, and 3 for Passive Resistance to Change, respectively.

A “+” sign stands for a positive relationship. A “-” sign stands for a negative relationship.

224

Table 40: Summary of Regression Results of Indicators for Support for Change

AS1 AS2 AS3 PS1 PS2 PS3

Perceived Organizational Support 1 + - - -

Perceived Organizational Support 2 + - - -

Perceived Organizational Support 3 + + +

Perceived Procedural Justice 1 - + + +

Perceived Procedural Justice 2 +

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making 1 + - - -

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making 2 -

Perceived Participation in Decision-Making 3 - + +

Perceived Need for Change 1 + - -

Perceived Need for Change 2 - - -

Perceived Need for Change 3 + - - -

Attitude toward Organizational Change 1 -

Attitude toward Organizational Change 2 + -

Attitude toward Organizational Change 3 -

Fear of known Consequences of a Change 1 +

Fear of known Consequences of a Change 2 + - - - -

Fear of known Consequences of a Change 3 + + -

Perceived Change in Power 1 - +

Perceived Change in Power 2 + + - - -

Perceived Change in Power 3 + + - - -

Perceived Change in Status 2 - - -

Perceived Change in Status 3 - - + + +

Perceived Change in Pride 1 - - + + +

Perceived Change in Pride 2 + +


Job Security 2 +

Job Motivation 1 + - -

Job Motivation 2

Perceived Employability 1 + - - -

Self-Confidence for Learning & Development 1 +

Self-Confidence for Learning & Development 2 - - + +

Self-Confidence for Learning & Development 3 - +



Affective Commitment 3 + - -

Trust in Management 1 - +

Trust in Management 2 - +

Trust in Management 3 +

Colleagues’ Resistance to Change 1 - - + + +

Colleagues’ Resistance to Change 2 + + - - -

Colleagues’ Support for Change + + - - -

Notes: AS1, AS2, and AS3 = Indicators 1, 2 and 3 for Active Support for Change, respectively.

PS 1, PS2, and PS 3 = Indicators 1, 2, and 3 for Passive Support for Change, respectively.

A “+” sign stands for a positive relationship. A “-” sign stands for a negative relationship

225

Table 41: Regression Results of Active Resistance to Change 1

Estim

ates for Dependent Variable Threshold

Estim

ates for Independent Variable Location

Independent Variables Indicators

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2

Perceived Organizational Support 3

.702”

1.284†

1.916†

2.568†

.850†

.472

.806*

.958†

11.556*

Perceived Procedural Justice 1

.884†

1.538†

2.202†

2.869†

.333

1.309†

1.289†

1.339†

45.071†

Perceived Participation in Decision-M

aking 1

-1.248†

-.482*

.268

1.083†

-2.366†

-.808†

-.647*

-.727*

98.677†

Perceived Need for Change 2

-.726†

-.100

.574†

1.252†

-1.459†

-.422

-.618*

-.629*

33.350†

Fear of Known Consequences of a Change 3

.862†

1.553†

2.225†

2.896†

.131

.962†

1.416†

1.625†

59.082†

Perceived Change in Pride 1

1.047†

1.698†

2.370†

3.071†

1.686†

1.187†

1.419†

1.266†

49.019†


.638†

1.231†

1.855†

2.498†

.425

.976†

.715†

.750†

16.462†

Self-Confidence for Learning &

Development 2

.793†

1.474†

2.156†

2.860†

1.123†

1.280†

1.529†

.615*

56.759†

Affective Commitment 2

.450†

1.077†

1.754†

2.463†

2.108†

1.220†

.794†

.364**

34.815†

Trust in M

anagem

ent 1

.583*

1.162†

1.789†

2.427†

.508

.748*

.582*

.769*

7.580

Trust in M

anagem

ent 2

.610†

1.256†

1.955†

2.703†

-.153

1.641†

.908†

.843†

47.365†

Trust in M

anagem

ent 3

.442†

1.047†

1.694†

2.349†

1.114†

.819†

.805†

.467*

22.235†

Colleagues’ Resistance to Change 1

.789†

1.432†

2.101†

2.748†

1.077†

1.306†

1.168†

.687†

38.545†

Colleagues’ Support for Change 1

-.667†

-.066

.575*

1.263†

-1.715†

-.608*

-.678†

-.495**

26.501†

Notes:

N = 197. Variables have 5 L

evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param

eter for Independent Variable’s level 5 is set to zero because it is redundant; † p < .01, * p < .05, ** p < .10


Estim


Estim


Independent Variables

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2

Job Satisfaction 1

-1.391†

-.818†

-.022

.691†

-.767†

-.524*

-.678†

-.600*

11.975*

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


226


Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-1.509†

-.846†

-.221

.674†

-1.771†

-.555*

-.616*

-.588**

65.739†


.453*

1.094†

1.681†

2.530†

.584*

1.452†

1.464†

1.310†

52.500†


aking 3

.140

.712*

1.262†

2.089†

.198

.871†

.968†

.925*

22.968†

Attitude towards Organizational Change 3

.303

.867†

1.418†

2.261†

.600*

.934†

.793†

1.263†

23.082†


.257

.856†

1.422†

2.270†

.411

.617*

1.214†

1.366†

35.947†

Perceived Change in Power 2

-1.180†

-.626†

-.060

.833†

-1.173†

-1.018†

-.587*

-.448**

26.044†


.454†

1.102†

1.713†

2.603†

1.722†

1.300†

1.487†

1.027†

60.669†


-.061

.476†

1.007†

1.841†

.080

.680†

.456*

.536*

10.598*


.211

.782†

1.355†

2.212†

.240

.673*

.922†

1.303†

27.126†

Job M

otivation 1

.504

1.050†

1.580†

2.435†

.540

1.249†

1.017†

1.316†

18.992†


Development 2

.289*

.955†

1.577†

2.434†

1.369†

1.363†

1.442†

.915†

59.227†


Development 3

.171

.781†

1.366†

2.269†

1.795†

1.173†

1.119†

.707†

47.730†

Trust in M

anagem

ent 3

-.111

.448†

.992†

1.834†

.109

.800†

.753†

.473*

19.308†


.273**

.873†

1.448†

2.316†

1.159†

1.200†

1.092†

.952†

40.587†


-1.172†

-.647†

-.101

.790†

-.683*

-.928†

-.822†

-.729*

14.102†


-1.176†

-.636†

-.082

.790†

-1.298†

-.576*

-.786†

-.629*

18.764†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


227

Table 44: Regression Results of Passive Resistance to Change 1

Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-.736†

.145

.767†

1.587†

1.554†

.774†

.848†

.113

46.337†


-2.090†

-1.330†

-.770†

.006

-.789†

-.653*

-.948†

-.835†

11.829*


aking 2

-.862†

-.065

.504†

1.270†

.914†

.527*

.606*

.286

16.336†


aking 3

-1.956†

-1.203†

-.659*

.097

-.678*

-.622*

-.716*

-.636**

5.467


-.272

.625

1.248†

2.113†

2.027†

1.613†

1.005†

.814†

60.623†

Fear of Unknown Consequences of a Change 2

-2.720†

-1.948†

-1.376†

-.586

-1.305*

-1.602†

-1.109*

-1.829†

18.423†


-.570†

.234

.822†

1.610†

.960†

1.128†

.759†

1.117†

23.021†

Perceived Change in Status 3

-2.113†

-1.330†

-.750†

.041

-1.178†

-.841†

-.817†

-.468**

21.599†


-1.791†

-.992†

-.386†

.427††

-1.236

-.473*

-.518*

.014

30.214†


-.746†

.032

.624*

1.434†

1.211†

.749*

.633*

.178

25.367†

Job M

otivation 1

.294

1.184†

1.798†

2.597†

2.126†

1.749†

2.057†

1.482†

41.903†

Perceived Employability 1

-.985†

-.224

.341*

1.106†

.583*

.618†

.296

.501*

9.416**


Development 2

-1.796†

-1.049†

-.459†

.354†

-.625*

-.861†

-.739†

-.282

20.841†


Development 3

-1.652†

-.912†

-.343*

.454†

-.752*

-.474**

-.631†

-.113

14.543†


-.583†

.294

.943†

1.794†

1.720†

.805†

.927†

.556**

54.461†

Trust in M

anagem

ent 1

-.769†

.041

.593†

1.339†

.395

.625*

.796†

.729†

11.779*

Trust in M

anagem

ent 2

-1.730†

-.921†

-.354*

.415†

-1.236†

-.522*

-.364*

-.267

19.185†


-.794†

.039

.640†

1.424†

1.123†

.224

.918†

.738†

27.377†


-.712†

.081

.658†

1.423†

.630*

.603*

.962†

.650*

14.873†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


228


Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-1.876†

-1.427†

-.633†

-.040

-2.347†

-1.418†

-1.301†

-.216

89.500†


-2.395†

-1.928†

-1.140†

-.596*

-2.520†

-1.821†

-1.373†

-1.535†

85.927†


aking 1

-2.362†

-1.907†

-1.127†

-.596*

-2.326†

-1.909†

-1.451†

-1.299†

75.805†


aking 2

-1.532†

-1.141†

-.452*

.059

-1.531†

-1.171†

-.980†

-.664*

39.915


-1.648†

-1.215†

-.502**

-.005

-1.818†

-1.303†

-1.018†

-.426

55.484†


-1.355†

-.969†

-.289

.174

-1.344†

-.821†

-.840†

-.534**

27.751†


-1.024†

-.648†

-.004

.444*

-.855†

-.348

-.646†

-.657†

12.362*


-1.006†

-.611†

.069

.534†

-1.501†

-.499*

-.674†

-.275

28.811†


-2.356†

-1.929†

-1.192†

-.682*

-2.382†

-1.780†

-1.679†

-1.306†

59.447†


-2.084†

-1.665†

-.896†

-.316

-2.331†

-1.662†

-1.644†

-1.078†

72.692†


-1.791†

-1.406†

-.712†

-.197

-1.557†

-1.602†

-1.195†

-1.194†

38.647†


-1.185†

-.812†

-.157

.312**

-1.001†

-.762†

-.794†

-.710†

17.086†


.844†

1.280†

2.039†

2.591†

2.609†

1.715†

1.407†

1.188†

73.764†


.038

.473†

1.237†

1.784†

2.321†

.865†

.737†

.304

71.783†


-1.537†

-1.098†

-.358

.156

-1.884†

-1.006†

-.939†

-.023

63.217†

Job Satisfaction 1

-1.126†

-.741†

-.069

.403*

-.955†

-.716†

-.812†

.015

23.871

Job M

otivation 1

-3.165†

-2.769†

-2.049†

-1.481†

-3.067†

-2.740†

-2.824†

-2.038†

59.975†


-1.28†1

-.901†

-.207

.288

-1.046†

-1.015†

-1.050†

-.479**

28.916†


Development 2

.075

.533†

1.242†

1.684†

.990†

1.411†

1.076†

.493*

46.111†


-2.487†

-1.974†

-1.112†

-.496*

-2.956†

-1.782†

-1.652†

-1.219†

120.098†


-.029

.381†

1.062†

1.512†

1.025†

1.103†

.564†

.336

28.766†


-1.891†

-1.500†

-.783†

-.247

-1.789†

-1.221†

-1.676†

-1.190†

46.204†


-2.870†

-2.468†

-1.716†

-1.108†

-2.263†

-2.418†

-2.689†

-2.227†

71.994†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


229


Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-2.375†

-1.763†

-.964†

-.410**

-1.824†

-1.615†

-1.223†

-1.254†

43.211†


-2.437†

-1.819†

-1.014†

-.464**

-1.702†

-1.601†

-1.185†

-1.377†

43.145†


aking 1

-2.058†

-1.462†

-.687†

-.162

-1.232†

-1.271†

-.972†

-.660**

27.213†


aking 3

-1.614†

-1.047†

-.301

.194

-.760*

-.651*

-.683*

-.412

7.217


-1.919†

-1.279†

-.435*

.105

-1.464†

-1.067†

-.491**

-.584**

42.151†


-1.927†

-1.311†

-.508†

.032

-1.769†

-.903†

-1.025†

-.851†

39.684†


-2.403†

-1.807†

-1.014†

-.483**

-1.596†

-1.453†

-1.487†

-1.050†

30.114†


-2.647†

-2.034†

-1.191†

-.575*

-1.812†

-2.112†

-1.700†

-1.267†

62.825†


-2.041†

-1.445†

-.658†

-.122

-1.310†

-1.332†

-.981†

-.696*

31.815†


-2.093†

-1.447†

-.598†

-.030

-1.881†

-1.292†

-.965†

-.620*

56.185†


-.236

.387**

1.189†

1.726†

1.716†

.933†

.867†

.554*

40.149†


-.579†

.048

.890†

1.467†

1.938†

.920†

.443*

.315

55.391†

Job Satisfaction 1

-1.989†

-1.380†

-.571†

-.016

-1.476†

-1.077†

-1.066†

-.334

41.311†

Job Satisfaction 2

-2.170†

-1.607†

-.855

-.351

-1.071*

-1.387*

-1.216*

-1.421*

9.064**

Job Satisfaction 3

-1.843†

-1.265†

-.505

.004

-.886*

-.405

-1.035†

-.946*

15.975†

Job Security 2

-1.625†

-1.000†

-.181

.364†

-1.384†

-1.330†

-.715†

-.610†

42.195†

Job Security 3

-1.519†

-.951†

-.183

.353*

-.575

-.677†

-.806†

-.720†

21.998†

Job M

otivation 2

-1.426†

-.810†

-.026

.484†

-1.319†

-.702†

-.512†

-.307

27.475†


-2.187†

-1.560†

-.709†

-.124

-1.846†

-1.328†

-1.262†

-.835†

56.847†


Development 2

-.666†

-.062

.702†

1.214†

1.300†

.806†

.523†

.223

24.820†


-1.863†

-1.293†

-.533*

-.016

-.862†

-.750*

-1.068†

-.823†

16.492†


-.670†

-.057

.733†

1.253†

1.412†

.662†

.407*

.135

31.036†


-2.568†

-1.962†

-1.114†

-.522*

-1.373†

-1.801†

-1.863†

-1.244†

52.516†


-2.715†

-2.116†

-1.297†

-.714*

-1.806†

-1.861†

-1.941†

-1.324†

48.627†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


230

Table 47: Regression Results of Active Support for Change 1

Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-.208

.547*

1.247†

1.704†

2.287†

1.261†

1.114†

1.166†

63.377†


-.112

.614†

1.379†

1.971†

2.558†

1.190†

1.075†

.801*

108.239†


-2.361†

-1.760†

-1.100†

-.599†

-.707†

-1.566†

-1.465†

-1.089†

49.885†


aking 1

-.169

.510*

1.232†

1.764†

2.103†

1.153†

.881†

.874

77.089†


aking 3

-1.858†

-1.260†

-.648*

-.211

-.172

-.748*

-.953†

-.926*

20.801†


-.588†

.096

.778†

1.288†

2.907†

.456**

.752†

.988†

79.660†


-.729†

-.054

.595†

1.025†

1.491†

.325

.591*

.923†

33.592†


-.402

.229

.907†

1.410†

1.833†

.829†

.594*

.549**

59.055†


-.385**

.334

1.002†

1.444†

1.687†

1.403†

1.085†

.609*

48.277†


-.424*

.256

.907†

1.352†

1.620†

1.163†

.681†

.785†

42.262†


-2.495†

-1.793†

-1.124†

-.684†

-1.919†

-.825†

-1.180†

-1.128†

44.124†


-2.597†

-1.886†

-1.148†

-.630†

-2.353†

-1.016†

-1.446†

-1.276†

80.287†


-.537†

.200

.873†

1.321†

2.016†

1.064†

.944†

.791†

55.165†


Development 2

-2.183†

-1.543†

-.843†

-.336

-1.239†

-1.472†

-1.362†

-.565*

58.974†


Development 3

-1.756†

-1.136†

-.506†

-.073

-1.155†

-.907†

-.728†

-.371**

23.122†


-.666†

-.020

.583*

.983†

.838†

.426

.628*

.987†

12.524*

Trust in M

anagem

ent 1

-1.956†

-1.354†

-.760†

-.346

-.518

-.707*

-.823†

-.877†

11.025*

Trust in M

anagem

ent 2

-1.523†

-.910†

-.294*

.142

.988†

-.650*

-.440*

-.449**

25.891†


-2.339†

-1.663†

-.961†

-.468†

-1.578†

-1.767†

-1.036†

-.809†

63.268†


-.240

.489*

1.143†

1.565†

1.681†

1.153†

1.429†

1.000†

40.062†


-.229

.484*

1.135†

1.564†

1.941†

1.013†

1.398†

.960†

41.676†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


231


Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-.752†

.214

.788†

1.570†

1.323†

.761†

.602*

-.179

43.623†


.130

1.161†

1.743†

2.571†

2.260†

1.811†

1.565†

1.000†

65.718†


-.923†

.004

.564†

1.383†

1.746†

.529*

.486*

.064

45.990


-2.032†

-1.115†

-.593*

.154

-1.277†

-.999†

-.458

-.783*

25.143†


-.452**

.460**

.992†

1.765†

1.252†

.883†

.814†

.192

30.323†


-.639†

.297

.856†

1.655†

1.455†

.813†

.723†

.125

42.028†


-.647†

.233

.748†

1.484†

.852†

.766†

.655*

.338

14.744†


-2.440†

-1.540†

-.996†

-.201

-1.568†

-1.368†

-1.249†

-1.133†

36.123†


-1.722†

-.851†

-.319*

.459†

-1.107†

-.732†

-.621†

-.289

24.286†

Job Security 2

-1.032†

-.161

.355†

1.090†

1.071*

.535*

.011

.417*

12.730*

Job M

otivation 1

-.318

.599**

1.141†

1.894†

1.499†

.835*

1.129†

.518

26.877†


Development 2

-1.764†

-.909†

-.366†

.442†

-.555**

-1.019†

-.893†

-.470*

28.199†


-.479*

.448*

1.026†

1.860†

1.574†

.637*

.862†

.495**

48.224†

Trust in M

anagem

ent 1

-.746†

.122

.624†

1.339†

.694*

.369

.554*

.579*

6.997


-1.593†

-.707†

-.186

.563†

-.618*

-.839†

-.128

-.590*

19.310†


-.498*

.426**

.982†

1.745†

1.291†

.495**

1.101†

.747†

30.277†


-.371

.544*

1.086†

1.839†

1.057†

.733*

1.253†

.853†

25.348†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


232


Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-1.987†

-1.379†

-.694†

-.173

-2.617†

-1.603†

-1.378†

-.356

102.307†


-2.620†

-1.980†

-1.299†

-.812†

-2.826†

-2.103†

-1.689†

-1.405†

103.586†


.317

.803†

1.364†

1.763†

1.114†

.740*

.989†

.582**

17.138†


-.050

.489†

1.058†

1.423†

-.082

.909†

.700†

.662†

26.798†


aking 1

-2.190†

-1.612†

-.975†

-.529*

-2.201

-1.734

-1.433

-.910*

70.950†


aking 2

-1.218†

-.716†

-.135

.282

-1.289†

-.831†

-.587*

-.373

30.575†


aking 3

.450

.957†

1.509†

1.878†

.755*

1.043†

1.149†

1.308†

15.907†


-1.731†

-1.167†

-.555*

-.131

-1.993†

-1.352†

-1.107†

-.599**

58.514†


-1.599†

-1.067†

-.459*

-.041

-1.653†

-1.286†

-1.009†

-.745*

41.445†


-1.086†

-.599†

-.043

.349**

-1.020†

-.452**

-.733†

-.724†

15.839†


-1.007†

-.490†

.098

.505†

-1.702†

-.537*

-.634*

-.286

34.535†

Fear of known Consequences of a Change 2

-1.953†

-1.399†

-.801†

-.391

-2.082†

-1.262†

-1.278†

-1.077†

51.967†


-2.068†

-1.502†

-.856†

-.363

-2.503†

-1.636†

-1.553†

-1.159†

79.454†


-1.614†

-1.089†

-.482*

-.046

-1.479†

-1.636†

-.906†

-.715*

46.032†


-1.065†

-.590†

-.031

.373*

-.810†

-.829†

-.701†

-.487**

14.041†


.790†

1.349†

1.984†

2.444†

2.464†

1.574†

1.357†

1.023†

68.076†


.184

.745†

1.379†

1.837†

2.270†

1.047†

.833†

.521

68.839†


-.018

.488†

1.048†

1.425†

.683*

.924†

.343

.590*

17.455†

Job M

otivation 1

-3.166†

-2.642†

-1.998†

-1.486†

-3.194†

-2.865†

-2.82†9

-1.896†

68.696†


-1.255†

-.757†

-.178

.243

-1.020†

-1.224†

-.885†

-.602*

29.549†


Development 2

.201

.775†

1.364†

1.745†

1.371†

1.158†

1.214†

.773†

46.812†


-2.114†

-1.505†

-.833†

-.334

-2.557†

-1.536†

-1.205†

-1.307†

96.624†


.190

.732†

1.313†

1.699†

1.301†

1.171†

.874†

.742†

36.982†


-1.707†

-1.203†

-.603†

-.159

-1.620†

-1.059†

-1.530†

-1.030†

39.542†


-1.763†

-1.270†

-.678†

-.234

-1.069†

-1.422†

-1.606†

-1.097†

35.052†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


233

Table 50: Regression Results of Passive Support for Change 1

Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-1.675†

-1.219†

-.441**

-.092

-1.154†

-1.087†

-1.170†

-.823†

21.376†


-2.545†

-2.008†

-1.142†

-.764†

-2.335†

-1.611†

-1.582†

-1.874†

68.507†


.314

.820†

1.738†

2.196†

2.338†

1.071†

.761*

.678*

80.910†


.182

.696†

1.566†

1.929†

1.554†

1.447†

.947†

.887†

50.197†


.125

.637†

1.458†

1.791†

.218

1.425†

1.092†

.870†

36.411†


aking 1

-1.932†

-1.399†

-.556*

-.211

-1.722†

-.844†

-1.141†

-.760*

50.636†


-1.509†

-1.035†

-.240

.096

-1.110†

-.756*

-.937†

-.591*

20.050†


-1.838†

-1.342†

-.491*

-.120

-1.870†

-1.190†

-1.251†

-.880†

46.698†


-2.304†

-1.785†

-.940†

-.589*

-2.086†

-1.370†

-1.549†

-1.141†

48.951†


-.264

.242

1.035†

1.355†

.011

.920†

.586*

.861†

27.585†


-2.271†

-1.723†

-.836†

-.443*

-2.539†

-1.460†

-1.403†

-1.352†

78.195†


-1.695†

-1.203†

-.390**

-.045

-1.557†

-.834†

-.963†

-.887†

34.816†


-1.267†

-.815†

-.037

.302

-.677†

-.499*

-.843†

-.613*

13.786†


-.283**

.222

1.062†

1.421†

1.790†

.147

.445*

.657†

46.649†


.055

.588†

1.420†

1.751†

.203

.956†

1.369†

.798†

44.462†


-1.273†

-.805†

-.020

.316**

-.876†

-.490*

-.899†

-.455**

19.184†


-1.261†

-.791†

-.040

.278

-.806†

-.734†

-.563*

-.477

12.340*


-.263**

.225

.996†

1.310†

.996†

.696†

.542†

.454**

18.416†


-1.957†

-1.424†

-.540*

-.173

-2.162†

-1.517†

-.881†

-1.032†

60.527†


-2.410†

-1.888†

-1.001†

-.618*

-2.508†

-2.008†

-1.435†

-1.682†

62.277†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


234


Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-1.585†

-.973†

-.336

.060

-2.281†

-1.496†

-1.251†

-1.049†

60.297†


-2.708†

-1.915†

-1.157†

-.603*

-3.523†

-2.316†

-1.757†

-2.212†

145.894†


1.036†

1.730†

2.324†

2.634†

.868†

1.883†

1.753†

1.662†

67.733†


aking 1

-1.984†

-1.174†

-.496*

-.102

-2.789†

-1.410†

-1.132†

-.885*

121.275†


aking 3

.449

1.083†

1.655†

1.961†

.003

.960†

1.203†

1.203†

43.382†


-1.282†

-.633†

-.012

.347

-2.043†

-.930†

-.936†

-.449†

64.453†


-1.035†

-.417*

.161

.501*

-2.296†

-.542*

-.744†

-.920†

54.623†


-2.033†

-1.273†

-.617*

-.251

-2.958†

-1.394†

-1.380†

-1.244†

106.490†


.439**

1.077†

1.655†

1.968†

.042

.750*

1.096†

1.395†

47.941†


-.791†

-.234

.330**

.657†

-1.199†

-.602*

-.798†

-.276

17.679


-1.742†

-1.079†

-.393**

.041

-2.433†

-2.082†

-1.241†

-1.138†

84.000†


-1.619†

-.944†

-.302

.093

-2.454†

-1.593†

-.951†

-1.063†

83.108†


-.943†

-.353**

.240

.593†

-1.839†

-.712†

-.760†

-.439**

42.910†


.738†

1.330†

1.922†

2.292†

1.943†

.741*

1.073†

.730*

46.318†


.983†

1.696†

2.352†

2.751†

2.778†

1.578†

1.588†

1.183†

98.277†


.316**

.886†

1.430†

1.727†

.401

.793†

.502*

.818†

14.302†

Job Satisfaction 1

-.910†

-.314

.281

.634†

-1.634†

-.817†

-.635†

-.033

43.733†


-1.201†

-.574†

.039

.412*

-2.343†

-1.146†

-.959†

-.817†

63.948†

Self-Confidence for Learning and Development 1

.402*

1.000†

1.540†

1.834†

.138

.982†

1.029†

.514*

27.832†


.868†

1.670†

2.325†

2.662†

1.512†

2.007†

2.119†

.971†

105.032†


.303*

.904†

1.441†

1.721†

1.044†

.934†

.842†

.430*

24.274†

Trust in M

anagem

ent 2

.104

.693†

1.239†

1.527†

-.579**

.662*

.532†

.582*

20.781†

Trust in M

anagem

ent 3

.156

.749†

1.281†

1.556†

-.125

.581*

.812†

.473*

18.159†


.869†

1.549†

2.148†

2.470†

1.867†

1.778†

1.399†

1.143†

69.320†


-1.462†

-.873†

-.276

.096

-1.720†

-1.560†

-1.391†

-.866†

44.295†


-2.047†

-1.425†

-.798†

-.385

-2.743†

-1.941†

-1.972†

-1.527†

68.325†

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


235


Estim


Estim



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

χ2


-1.923†

-1.193†

-.597*

-.166

-1.028†

-.738*

-.994†

-.945†

12.810*


-1.310†

-.582†

.013

.445†

-.929*

-.439*

-.542*

-.104

11.966*


-1.743†

-1.020†

-.416*

.026

-.741†

-.552*

-.827†

-.973†

15.163†


-.581*

.162

.758†

1.176†

.688*

.210

.596*

.692*

9.722*


-1.598†

-.859†

-.270

.147

-.631*

-.704*

-.604*

-.238

8.148**


-1.968†

-1.227†

-.608*

-.155

-1.030†

-.535**

-1.097†

-1.201†

23.855†


-.685†

.050

.637†

1.056†

.853*

.499*

.437*

.172

8.565**

Job M

otivation 1

-3.041†

-2.280†

-1.675†

-1.225†

-2.393†

-2.056†

-1.941†

-1.937†

31.195†


-.555*

.188

.791†

1.211†

.638*

.362

.498*

.891†

10.400*

Notes:


evels: 1 = L

ow; 2 = R

elatively L

ow; 3 = M

edium; 4 = R

elatively H

igh; and 5 = H

igh.

Param


236

Curriculum Vitae

Chaiporn Vithessonthi

PERSONAL DATA

Date of Birth: 26 September 1975

Nationality: Thai

EDUCATION

University of St. Gallen (HSG), Dr.oec., Concentration in Strategy and Organizational Change, 2003-2005

University of St. Gallen (HSG), Lic.oec. and M.Sc. in International Management, 2001-2003

Erasmus University Rotterdam (RSM), Certificate of International Business, 2002

Western Illinois University, M.A. in Economics, Concentration in Macroeconomic Theory, 1999-2000

Assumption University, B.B.A., Concentration in Finance and Accounting, 1993-1997

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland, 2003-Present

Consultant

� Engaged in a process redesign project at Novartis Pharma A.G. in Basel, which aimed at simplifying

and improving planning processes related to Strategy, Finance, Marketing, and R&D.

� Carried out activities related to the analysis, design, implementation and active support of the

organizational change required for the successful implementation of the new processes.

� Carried out activities related to global financial management reporting, monthly management analysis.

Heineken International, Zoeterwoude, the Netherlands, 2002

Consultant, in conjunction with the Rotterdam School of Management

� Managed a team (of four members) that engaged in a supply sourcing strategy project aimed at

ensuring the sustainability of key strategic packaging materials.

� Carried out activities related to the analysis, design and implementation of a framework for Heineken

to analyze the packaging industry in Europe and North America and its suppliers.

Accenture, Bangkok, Thailand, 2001

Experienced Analyst: Client Financial Management

� Worked with engagement executives to set-up and coordinate the engagement work; financial

management processes, tools and reporting structure; and responsible for deal financial analysis for

business process management (BPM) projects.

� Prepared project pricing models; reviewed proposals; monitored engagement profitability.

� Responsible for financial management reporting and analysis of IT ONE Company (Accenture’s first

joint-venture company in Asia).

Accenture, Chicago, IL, USA, 2000

Financial Analyst

� Responsible for monitoring and analyzing financial results of operating units: Financial Services North

America Client Group

� Recommend ways to maximize profitability and enable predictable financial results.

Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, USA, 1999-2000

Graduate Assistant

� Tutored undergraduate courses in economics (e.g., microeconomics, macroeconomics, econometrics,

international trade theory).

237

Laufen Asia Ltd. (a member of the Keramic Laufen Group of Switzerland), Hong Kong, 1998-1999

Business Analyst and Special Assistant to Managing Director

� Assisted the work involving financial analysis and planning.

� Assisted managing director focusing on activities related to marketing analysis and planning.

UMI-Laufen (a member of the Keramic Laufen Group of Switzerland), Bangkok, Thailand, 1998

Business Analyst

� Assisted purchasing and planning manager focusing on materials planning.

� Worked with top management team to set up and implement efficiency improvement projects aimed at

redesigning and improving inventory and production planning processes.

Standard Chartered Bank, Bangkok, Thailand, 1997

Staff Accountant

� Responsible for monitoring accounting transactions and performing reconciliation processes.

� Ensured accuracy of accounts for the credit card department.

Jaques (Thailand) Ltd. (a member of Clyde Industry Group of Australia), Bangkok, Thailand, 1995-1996

Project Assistant

� Assisted project managers focusing on project management of two rock-quarrying-plant projects.

� Worked with project managers to prepare project financial reports.

SELECTED GRANTS, AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS

International Business Consulting Project, First Prize, Rotterdam School of Management, 2002

ERASMUS Scholarship, 2002

Mercuria San Gallensis 100th Jubilee Scholarship, University of St. Gallen, 2001-2002

Graduate Assistantship, Western Illinois University, 1999-2000

a perception-based view of the employee: a study of ...file/... · a perception-based view of the...

Documents