justice, cynicism, and commitment - citeseerx

303

Justice, Cynicism, and CommitmentA Study of Important Organizational Change Variables

Jeremy B. BernerthWashington, D.C.

Achilles A. ArmenakisHubert S. FeildH. Jack WalkerAuburn University

Recent theoretical and empirical studies have begun to address the commonalitybetween organizational justice and organizational change efforts. In the present study,the authors build on these efforts by investigating the interactive effects of three formsof organizational justice on affective change commitment following the spin-off of adurable goods manufacturer from its parent corporation. Results indicated interactionaljustice interacted with both procedural and distributive justice. The authors also foundprocedural and interactional justice predicted organizational cynicism, and each formof justice interacted with cynicism to predict change commitment. Implications fororganizations going through a change are discussed.

Keywords: organizational change; justice; cynicism; commitment; spin-off

The very nature of a global economy requires that organizations constantly improveprocesses and operations. Despite implementation being one of the most importantaspects of effective organizational change, many organizational leaders lack a clearunderstanding of the necessary steps leading to successful change implementation

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, Vol. 43 No. 3, September 2007 303-326DOI: 10.1177/0021886306296602© 2007 NTL Institute

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016jab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jab.sagepub.com/

(Armenakis & Harris, 2002). In response, researchers have suggested the conceptof organizational justice offers a promising perspective regarding actions organi-zational leaders should consider in planning and implementing organizationalchanges (e.g., Beugre, 1998; Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; Novelli, Kirkman, &Shapiro, 1995; Seo & Hill, 2005; Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999). Whether the organi-zation is going through a major change, such as a merger or acquisition, or a minoralteration in organizational benefits, resources are inevitably redistributed. Thisredistribution provides an opportunity to focus on employee fairness perceptions.Thus, organizational justice provides a natural link to study employees’ perceptionsof change.

Although previous investigations and proposals regarding change fairness per-ceptions are valuable, the present study differs in a number of ways. First, we docu-ment recent efforts to link organizational justice to organizational change. Albeitlimited, these efforts suggest organizational justice offers a promising avenue intounderstanding successful organizational change efforts (e.g., Beugre, 1998; Cobb,Wooten, & Folger, 1995; Novelli et al., 1995; Saunders, Thornhill, & Lewis, 2002);thus, documenting what is already known is important to both researchers and prac-titioners alike. Second, we attempt to further our understanding of change successby exploring the interaction between three forms of organizational justice and therole of organizational cynicism during change efforts. Understanding how fairnessperceptions of decisions, procedures, and interactions influence change outcomes isvital to change agents. Likewise, given the possibility of cynicism negatively impact-ing change outcomes, there is a real need to explore what role it may or may not playin getting employees committed to change efforts. As such, this article contributes tothe theory and practice of organizational change by offering an analysis of how dif-ferent perceptions impact change targets’ commitment to change programs.

OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

Although a plethora of research has been devoted to the topic of justice in the pasttwo decades, much of today’s current theoretical foundation began with Adams’s

304 THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE September 2007

After completing his PhD from Auburn University, Jeremy B. Bernerth accepted a position with McKinseyand Company in Washington, D.C. His professional research interests include developing psychometri-cally sound measurement scales, investigating fairness perceptions, and studying leader-member socialexchange.

Achilles A. Armenakis is the James T. Pursell, Sr. Eminent Scholar in the Department of Management atAuburn University. His current research efforts are focused on the readiness, adoption, and institutional-ization processes in organizational change.

Hubert S. Feild is Torchmark Professor of Management in the College of Business at Auburn University.His professional interests include human resource selection and research methods in human resourcemanagement.

H. Jack Walker is a PhD candidate at Auburn University. His primary research interests include organi-zational recruitment, applicant job choice, and organizational analysis and change.



(1965) introduction of the concept of equity theory. What eventually evolved into thenotion of distributive justice, Adams suggested perceptions of fairness were formu-lated through a comparison of an individual’s perceived inputs and outcomes andthose inputs and outcomes of a comparison other. Equity, or distributive fairness,occurs when an employee’s ratio of inputs to outcomes conceptually equal those ofa comparison other. The term conceptually equal is used because justice, or fairness,is in part a subjectively based construct susceptible to perceptual biases. In otherwords, it matters little whether individual justice perceptions are grounded in fact orare real in nature. Individuals react to what they define as real, regardless of whethertheir perceptions are accurate or inaccurate.

Although Adams (1965) and much of the early work on justice focused almostexclusively on outcome fairness, Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced a uniquetwist to the study of fairness perceptions with their introduction of procedural fair-ness. Having investigated litigation processes, Thibaut and Walker noted disputantsperceived litigation outcomes more fair when they were able to control at least someaspects of the outcome or process. As research into this new concept of proceduralfairness continued to grow, Leventhal (1980) and colleagues (Leventhal, Karuza, &Fry, 1980) distinguished fair procedures as those that (a) are applied consistentlyacross individuals and time, (b) are free of bias (i.e., decision makers are neutral),(c) use accurate and relevant information in making decisions, (d) allow participantsto take corrective actions if they disagree with the outcome, (e) conform to ethicalstandards, and (f) consider the opinions of those affected by the outcome.

A decade later, Bies and Moag (1986) modified the way justice researchers con-ceptualized overall fairness perceptions. Specifically, they began to focus attentionnot on the outcome or the amount of process control but rather on the quality of theinterpersonal treatment individuals receive while the procedures are being imple-mented. This new form of justice was collectively termed interactional justice.Today, interactional justice is conceptualized in two parts: The first, labeled inter-personal justice, is characterized by the politeness, dignity, and respect shown by thedecision maker. The second part, labeled informational justice, defines the type ofexplanation given by decision makers and addresses issues such as the extent towhich they (a) were candid in communications, (b) explained procedures thor-oughly, (c) offered reasonable explanations, (d) offered information in a timely man-ner, and (e) tailored information to specific individual needs (Colquitt, 2001).

LINKING JUSTICE AND CHANGE EFFORTS

As referenced earlier, recent studies have attempted to link organizational justicewith organizational change efforts (e.g., Beugre, 1998; Cobb et al., 1995; Novelli et al.,1995; Saunders et al., 2002; Seo & Hill, 2005). We believe the fundamental natureof change lends itself to assessment of fairness perceptions. For example, earlychange work by Lewin (1947) emphasized the importance of participation in organi-zational change. Fundamental to group dynamics is the acknowledgment that demo-cratic atmospheres are far superior to autocratic atmospheres. Autocratic atmospheres

Bernerth et al. / ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE VARIABLES 305



create higher degrees of tension, are less permissive, and lead to frustration of groupmembers (Lewin, 1947). In contemporary justice theories, an autocratic atmosphereis one that fails to address organizational justice issues. Moreover, Lewin argued,simply telling individuals “change is coming” is not an effective tool to get groupmembers to take action. One must consider the groups, subgroups, and individualsthat will be affected.

In furthering his discussion of participation, Lewin (1947) also contributed to theT-group learning movement in the 1940s and 1950s (Bradford, Gibb, & Benne,1964). T-group members learned about the dynamics of interpersonal, group, andsocial relations all in an effort to build a group that was ready for growth, a synonymfor change. Participants were invited to learn, think, and act as change agentsthrough self-awareness, sensitivity to the phenomena of interpersonal behavior, andunderstanding the consequences of behavior (Bradford et al., 1964). In addition,T-group members focused on learning about their environment from those aroundthem. Contextually, we believe T-groups were actually fostering climates of fairness.Seeking information from the environment, fostering trust and openness to promotegroup growth, engaging in collective decision making, and consensually validatingorganizational decisions are criteria that contemporary justice suggests contribute toprocedural, distributive, and interactional justice in changing situations.

In addition to the early work of Lewin, we also acknowledge the contributions ofCoch and French (1948). Traditionally seen as one of the first interventional studies inorganization development, Coch and French’s research in the Harwood ManufacturingCorporation was a classic study in resistance to organizational change efforts. Theresearchers found that groups with varying degrees of participation recovered faster(i.e., achieved prechange production levels, experienced no turnover, and were absentof acts of aggression toward management). These findings may have been the first todocument attention to change fairness. That is, demonstrating honesty, openness, two-way communication (especially explanations), participation, trust, and equitable dis-tributions can positively influence change outcomes.

With these examples of how early change pioneers emphasized the need toaddress fairness issues, it is easy to see why recent efforts have looked to organiza-tional justice as an answer of why and/or how organizational change efforts eithersucceed or fail. Results of earlier studies, albeit limited, are encouraging to changeagents. For example, Table 1 presents the results of noteworthy studies investigatingorganizational justice during times of change. Early results by Daly (1995) and Dalyand Geyer (1994) demonstrated that perceptions of outcome fairness were influ-enced by the justification given by the change agent and by the perceived appearanceof “voice” into change efforts. Likewise, Shapiro and Kirkman (1999) found per-ceptions of procedural justice and anticipation of distributive injustice predicted bothresistance and commitment to change efforts. Other results reported in Table 1 showdifferent forms of organizational justice related to organizational change andleadership acceptance, change commitment, citizenship behaviors, trust of manage-ment, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Fedor,Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Gopinath & Becker, 2000; Kernan & Hanges, 2002;Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002; Korsgaard, Sapienza, & Schweiger, 2002; Lipponen,




Olkkonen, & Moilanen, 2004; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005). Although these results areimportant, the potential interactive effects of the three forms of justice have been leftmostly unexplored. Thus, we explore the interaction among these forms of justiceand their relationship with affective change commitment.

Justice and Change Commitment

As reported in Table 1, a number of studies have linked justice to some type ofchange commitment. Although we want to focus more closely on the potential inter-action among the different forms, it is necessary to briefly discuss the theoretical rea-sons for such relationships. Thus, in terms of distributive justice, we can look at thefundamental nature of change. If nothing else, change suggests the reallocation oforganizational resources (e.g., future employment, job security, benefits, responsibil-ities, etc.). Equity theory suggests that when employees are faced with a change inwhich the outcome is beneficial, they must change the nature of their perceived inputs(Adams, 1965). One way in which employees can bring something more to the orga-nizational table following a beneficial change is to increase their commitment to theorganization or the change effort (cf. Adams, 1965; Cobb et al., 1995; Novelli et al.,1995). On the other hand, organizational decisions that are viewed as negative cantrigger feelings of anger, outrage, and even a desire for retribution (Folger, 1993;Greenberg, 1990a). Thus, there should be little surprise to find distributive injusticehas been negatively linked to change commitment (cf. Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999).

In addition to the link between distributive justice and change commitment, a fun-damental premise of procedural justice is that individuals who contribute or have avoice in the procedures are more likely to view the decision as fair and just (Lind &Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Thus, input into the change process presentschange agents a vehicle to create a sense of procedural fairness in the eyes of theiremployees (Cobb et al., 1995). Importantly, past research suggests the more partici-pation an employee engages in during the change or transition process, the morelikely he or she will be motivated to commit to the program (Neubert & Cady, 2001).Collectively, it is no surprise that the results reported in Table 1 found proceduraljustice to predict change commitment (cf. Daly, 1995; Fedor et al., 2006; Gopinath& Becker, 2000; Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).

Organizational change efforts and the transition period are inherently ambiguousin nature; thus, there seems to be a strong theoretical link between the final form oforganizational justice (i.e., interactional) and change commitment. As previouslyreferenced, interactional justice is composed of the explanations given by organiza-tional leaders and the sensitivity in which they give this information. Research intochange readiness and change commitment has demonstrated the importance of thechange message and the manner in which it is communicated (e.g., Armenakis &Harris, 2002). Accordingly, justice researchers have begun advocating the use ofsocial accounts to help shape the change effort (cf. Cobb et al., 1995; Wooten &White, 1999). Results indicate giving employees relevant and accurate informationand in a polite and respectful way ultimately helps employees buy into the changeeffort (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Kickul et al., 2002).


(text continues on p. 311)



308

Stud

y

Dal

y an

d G

eyer

(19

94)a

Dal

y (1

995)

Shap

iro

and

Kir

kman

(19

99)

Gop

inat

h an

dB

ecke

r (2

000)

Nof

Part

icip

ants

171

183

492

144

Type

of

Cha

nge

Rel

ocat

ion

of b

usin

ess

Rel

ocat

ion

of b

usin

ess

A c

hang

e to

sel

f-m

anag

edw

ork

team

s

Div

estit

ure

Key

Var

iabl

es

Voi

ce,j

ustif

icat

ion,

proc

edur

alfa

irne

ss,o

utco

me

fair

ness

,in

tent

ions

to r

emai

n

Just

ific

atio

n,ou

tcom

e fa

irne

ss,

proc

edur

al,f

airn

ess,

and

outc

ome

favo

rabi

lity

Lab

or c

ondi

tions

,ant

icip

atio

n of

dist

ribu

tive

inju

stic

e,pr

oced

ural

just

ice,

resi

stan

ce to

cha

nge,

orga

niza

tiona

l com

mitm

ent,

turn

over

inte

ntio

ns,o

rgan

izat

iona

lci

tizen

ship

beh

avio

rs

Proc

edur

al ju

stic

e of

layo

ffs,

proc

edur

al ju

stic

e of

div

estit

ure,

com

mun

icat

ion,

trus

t,or

gani

zatio

nal c

omm

itmen

t

Key

Fin

ding

s

Em

ploy

ees’

perc

eptio

ns o

fm

anag

emen

t's ju

stif

icat

ion

of th

ere

loca

tion

was

rel

ated

to in

tent

ions

to r

emai

n,an

d th

is r

elat

ions

hip

was

med

iate

d by

pro

cedu

ral a

ndou

tcom

e fa

irne

ss.

Em

ploy

ees’

perc

eptio

ns o

fm

anag

emen

t’s ju

stif

icat

ion

ofth

e re

loca

tion,

and

whe

ther

empl

oyee

s vi

ewed

the

outc

ome

as f

avor

able

infl

uenc

edpe

rcep

tions

of

outc

ome

fair

ness

.

Ant

icip

atio

n of

inju

stic

e w

as r

elat

edto

cha

nge

resi

stan

ce,t

urno

ver

inte

ntio

ns,a

nd c

omm

itmen

t.Pr

oced

ural

just

ice

help

ed m

itiga

teso

me

of th

ese

rela

tions

hips

.

Proc

edur

al ju

stic

e pe

rcep

tions

of

the

dive

stitu

re w

ere

rela

ted

to tr

ust a

ndco

mm

itmen

t and

acc

ount

ed f

orun

ique

var

ianc

e ab

ove

and

beyo

ndpr

oced

ural

just

ice

of th

e la

yoff

s.

TA

BL

E 1

Key

Em

piri

cal S

tudi

es L

inki

ng O

rgan

izat

iona

l Jus

tice

Top

ics

to O

rgan

izat

iona

l Cha

nge

Eff

orts



309

Ker

nan

and

Han

ges

(200

2)

Kic

kul,

Les

ter,

and

Fink

l (20

02)

Kor

sgaa

rd,S

apie

nza,

and

Schw

eige

r (2

002)

Pate

rson

,Gre

en,

and

Car

y (2

002)

163

246

115

143;

84

Reo

rgan

izat

ion

Mul

tiple

org

aniz

atio

ns u

nder

goin

gdi

ffer

ent t

ypes

of

chan

ge

Ree

ngin

eeri

ng

Two

orga

niza

tions

:Stu

dy 1

:New

colle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

agr

eem

ent;

Stud

y 2:

Dow

nsiz

ing

Inpu

t,su

ppor

t for

vic

tims,

com

mun

icat

ion,

impl

emen

tatio

n,pr

oced

ural

just

ice,

inte

rper

sona

lju

stic

e,in

form

atio

nal j

ustic

e,or

gani

zatio

nal c

omm

itmen

t,jo

bsa

tisfa

ctio

n,tu

rnov

er in

tent

ions

,tr

ust

Psyc

holo

gica

l con

trac

ts,p

roce

dura

lju

stic

e,in

tera

ctio

nal j

ustic

e,jo

bsa

tisfa

ctio

n,in

tent

ions

to le

ave,

in-

role

per

form

ance

,citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

s

Plan

ning

,pro

cedu

ral j

ustic

e of

plan

ning

pro

cess

,org

aniz

atio

nal

oblig

atio

ns,e

mpl

oyee

obl

igat

ions

,tr

ust,

inte

ntio

ns to

rem

ain

Proc

edur

al,d

istr

ibut

ive,

and

inte

ract

iona

l jus

tice

Foun

d a

num

ber

of a

ntec

eden

ts to

fair

ness

per

cept

ions

; fai

rnes

spe

rcep

tions

in tu

rn r

elat

ed to

key

outc

ome

vari

able

s.

Bot

h fo

rms

of ju

stic

e re

late

d to

outc

ome

vari

able

s; p

roce

dura

lju

stic

e re

late

d m

ore

clos

ely

tofe

elin

gs o

f ex

trin

sic

cont

ract

brea

ch,w

here

as in

tera

ctio

nal

just

ice

was

mor

e cl

osel

y re

late

d to

feel

ings

of

intr

insi

c co

ntra

ctbr

each

.

Plan

ning

and

pro

cedu

ral j

ustic

ein

tera

cted

suc

h th

at e

mpl

oyee

oblig

atio

ns a

nd in

tent

ions

tore

mai

n w

ere

only

neg

ativ

ely

affe

cted

by

plan

ning

whe

n th

epr

oces

s w

as ju

dged

as

unfa

ir.

Took

the

firs

t ste

ps to

dev

elop

ing

just

ice

scal

es s

peci

fica

lly d

evot

edto

cha

nge

prog

ram

s.

(con

tinu

ed)



310

Stud

y

Cha

wla

and

Kel

low

ay (

2004

)

Lip

pone

n,O

lkko

nen,

and

Moi

lane

n (2

004)

Tyle

r an

dD

e C

rem

er (

2005

)

Fedo

r,C

aldw

ell,

and

Her

old

(200

6)

Nof

Part

icip

ants

164

189

540

764

Type

of

Cha

nge

Res

truc

turi

ng

Org

aniz

atio

nal m

erge

r

Mer

ger

and

rela

ted

chan

ge in

corp

orat

e st

ruct

ure

Org

aniz

atio

ns a

nd c

hang

es v

arie

d

Key

Var

iabl

es

Com

mun

icat

ion,

part

icip

atio

n,jo

bse

curi

ty,p

roce

dura

l jus

tice,

open

ness

to c

hang

e,tr

ust,

turn

over

inte

ntio

ns,n

egle

ct

Proc

edur

al ju

stic

e,in

tera

ctio

nal

just

ice,

chan

ge c

onte

nt,

orga

niza

tiona

l ide

ntif

icat

ion,

com

mon

in-g

roup

iden

tity,

in-

grou

p bi

as,e

xtra

role

beh

avio

r

Proc

edur

al ju

stic

e,ch

ange

out

com

e,ac

cept

ance

of

lead

er's

vis

ion,

mot

ivat

ion

to w

ork

for

new

com

pany

Wor

k un

it ch

ange

,cha

nge

favo

rabl

enes

s,ch

ange

fai

rnes

s,jo

ble

vel c

hang

e,ch

ange

com

mitm

ent,

orga

niza

tiona

l com

mitm

ent

Key

Fin

ding

s

Supp

ort w

as f

ound

for

a m

edia

ted

mod

el in

whi

ch c

omm

unic

atio

nan

d jo

b se

curi

ty r

elat

ed to

ope

nnes

san

d tr

ust t

hrou

gh p

roce

dura

lju

stic

e. P

artic

ipat

ion

was

als

ore

late

d to

ope

nnes

s vi

a pr

oced

ural

just

ice.

Proc

edur

al ju

stic

e w

as r

elat

ed to

post

mer

ger

iden

tific

atio

n an

d in

-gr

oup

iden

tity.

If le

ader

s ac

t in

proc

edur

ally

fai

rw

ays,

they

are

vie

wed

as

mor

ele

gitim

ate

and

mor

e co

mpe

tent

,an

d em

ploy

ees

are

mor

e ac

cept

ing

of c

hang

e.

Mul

tilev

el s

tudy

in w

hich

sha

red

perc

eptio

ns o

f fa

irne

ss in

tera

cted

with

wor

k un

it ch

ange

to in

flue

nce

com

mitm

ent.

TA

BL

E 1

(co

ntin

ued)

a. D

aly

and

Gey

er (

1994

) an

d D

aly

(199

5) u

sed

data

fro

m th

e sa

me

data

col

lect

ion,

but d

ue to

mod

el-f

it co

nsid

erat

ions

the

num

ber

of p

artic

ipan

ts v

arie

d sl

ight

ly.



Interaction of Justice Components

Although the previously addressed findings linking justice and change commit-ment are important, we believe several key areas of investigation have been leftmostly unexplored. One such area is the potential interactive effects of distinct per-ceptions of organizational justice and resulting levels of change commitment.Indeed, Daly (1995) argued explanations can help the perceived fairness of bothdecisions and the processes, and importantly, Bies, Shapiro, and Cummings (1988)found explanations can mitigate negative reactions. Thus, when employees find theoutcome of change undesirable or the procedures used to make such changes asunfair, research suggests these perceptions can be mitigated by timely and thoroughexplanations given in a respectful manner (Cobb et al., 1995; Daly, 1995). Accordingly,we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1a: Interactional justice will interact with perceptions of distributive justice to predictchange commitment.

Hypothesis 1b: Interactional justice will interact with perceptions of procedural justice to predictchange commitment.

A second area to investigate is the interactive effects of procedural and distribu-tive justice. In fact, evidence suggests a likely interaction between these two formsof justice and change commitment. For example, Lind and Tyler (1988) found pro-cedural justice influences perceptions of the fairness and acceptability of outcomes.Similar findings have been reported by a number of other researchers (cf. Daly,1995; Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999). Collectively, it appears that when the results of anorganizational change outcome appear to be unfair (i.e., distributively unjust),employees turn to the procedures used to make those change decisions. Adams’s(1965) equity theory suggests employees who evaluate the procedures as fair willcognitively reassess their outputs and thus lessen the impact of distributive injustice.As such, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1c: Procedural justice will interact with perceptions of distributive justice to predictchange commitment.

Organizational Justice and Organizational Change Cynicism

In addition to looking at the potential interactive effects of justice components onchange commitment, we also feel a connection between organizational justice andorganizational cynicism is an important yet unexplored area of interest for changeagents. Because most change efforts are associated with uncertainty, workers feel con-fused about the roles in which they often find themselves. Researchers have suggestedin such situations employees may have feelings or perceptions of organizationalconspiracies in which they are intentionally given limited amounts of information(Colby, 1981; Folger & Skarlicki, 1999). Organizational cynicism—and in particularchange cynicism—is one way such feelings may develop. Organizational changecynicism has been defined “as a pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being




successful because those responsible for making change are blamed for being unmo-tivated, incompetent, or both” (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000, p. 133). Cynicalfeelings about change efforts can also form when previous change efforts have failedor when organizational leaders continually introduce new change programs (cf.Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). As such, cynics doubt the truth of what theirmanagers tell them (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). If true during times of change, inter-actional justice, in the form of respectful, timely, and reasonable explanations,should prevent feelings of cynicism from forming. Thus, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2a: Interactional justice will be negatively related to feelings of organizationalcynicism.

In addition to hypothesizing a relationship between interactional justice andchange cynicism, there also appears to be good reason to believe a relationshipbetween procedural and distributive justice and change cynicism exists. For example,research suggests that when changes are offered with advanced notice and based onestablished standards and merits (i.e., key components of procedural justice), changetargets are more likely to exhibit constructive responses (cf. Lind & Tyler, 1988;Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998). On the other hand, when change leaders’ actions are notfounded in the principles of justice, destructively active behaviors (e.g., sabotage) andattitudes (e.g., cynical responses) are more likely to take shape (Mishra & Spreitzer,1998). Indeed, Reichers et al. (1997) reported “People more likely to be cynical aboutchange were those who reported that they lacked meaningful opportunities to partic-ipate in decision making [and] felt uninformed in general about what was going on inthe workplace” (p. 52). Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2b: Procedural justice will be negatively related to feelings of organizational cynicism.

Adams’s (1965) equity theory is based on a ratio of inputs and outcomes thatshould be theoretically balanced. Thus, if employees do not understand the changeeffort or feel the change will hurt their outcomes, they may try to balance the equationby resisting or sabotaging the effort (i.e., engaging in cynical attitudes). Similarly,from a cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) perspective, an adverse experiencewill motivate employees to reduce the negativity. In the case of change, dissonancesuggests a reevaluation of cognitions, and if employees still do not believe or under-stand the results of the change, they will withdraw or manifest another active formof resistance, such as cynicism. As such, researchers suggest distributive justicefacilitates less threatening appraisals of organizational changes (Mishra & Spreitzer,1998). As such, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2c: Distributive justice will be negatively related to feelings of organizational cynicism.

Justice, Cynicism, and Commitment

In addition to the main effects of justice and change commitment as well as justiceand cynicism, we suggest a moderated relationship between justice and commitment




based on differing levels of cynicism. For example, organizational cynicism has beendefined as “a belief on the part of an individual that his or her organization lacksintegrity, and that principles such as fairness, honesty, and sincerity are” sacrificedin favor of organizational self-interest (Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, & Cartier, 2000,p. 279). If true, it seems likely that change cynicism would interact with each justicecomponent in predicting commitment to change initiatives. Accordingly, Vance,Brooks, and Tesluk (1995) proposed cynicism would breed apathy toward changeefforts and suspicion of change agents. Such apathy and suspicion would likely bediminished if change agents ensured procedural, distributive, and interactional fair-ness. In this sense, cynicism becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy (Wanous et al.,2000). In other words, lack of support of change initiatives brings about failure orlimited success. Failure then reinforces cynical attitudes, which further inhibitefforts during change initiatives. Collectively, we believe that fairness in the form ofinteractional, procedural, and distributive justice will likely lead to commitment tochange efforts, but this relationship will be in part dependent on feelings of cyni-cism. As such, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between interactional justice and change commitment will be mod-erated by cynicism such that lower levels of organizational cynicism will be associated with higherlevels of change commitment.

Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between procedural justice and change commitment will be moder-ated by cynicism such that lower levels of organizational cynicism will be associated with higherlevels of change commitment.

Hypothesis 3c: The relationship between distributive justice and change commitment will be moder-ated by cynicism such that lower levels of organizational cynicism will be associated with higherlevels of change commitment.

METHOD

Organizational Change Context, Participants, and Procedure

External environment. In response to a slowing U.S. economy and external envi-ronmental pressures, a bellwether in the manufacturing arena decided to spin off oneof its subsidiary manufacturers of durable goods. Splitting off the subsidiary was ahistorical move for the parent company, which for years has been a dominant forcein the manufacturing industry. For decades, the parent company’s high level of ver-tical integration gave it a competitive advantage in the industry, but that advantagehas dissolved over the past decade and ultimately grew into a liability. From the parentcompany’s perspective, both companies should become stronger and more durablein their individual businesses through focused growth. Management of the newlyspun-off organization believed autonomy from the parent company would enablethem to cut costs and expand business with other manufacturers who had been fear-ful of sharing product ideas and designs with a unit of a competitor. Organizationalleaders in the spun-off organization viewed the change as a value-creating transac-tion because they believed independence would enable the company to attract busi-ness from rival manufacturers.




Internal environment. Executives in both the parent and spun-off organizations con-sidered the current change as only a “paper change” and was described by managersin the plant as “business as usual.” The name of the plant under investigation waschanged, but as far as management was concerned, the jobs, production, and peoplewould remain the same. Plant managers hoped the change would bring in outside busi-ness and increase production levels. Essentially, job tasks had not changed, but man-agers believed products and production would eventually change for the better.

Communicating the change. Organizational efforts to communicate the changewere twofold: (a) through union newsletters and (b) through direct communicationwith manufacturing lines. Prior to the actual name change, the plant manager tookcommunications directly to the union workers. During the workday, two productionlines at a time were called in to talk with the plant manager. In this conversation, theplant manager specifically told union employees the change was coming but empha-sized the simplicity of the change. The meeting was very brief and employees con-tinued with their workday. From the organizational standpoint, the communicationwas brief, direct, and to the point.

Organizational communication efforts were rather brief, but information availablefrom the external environment may have also influenced employee perceptions or morespecifically, employee anxiety and fear. The parent organization is a staple in the com-munity and a leading employer of thousands of workers in the region. Understandablyso, a change in one of the plants affects not only the workers but also the community asa whole. As such, hundreds of stories leading up to the change and following the spin-off encompassed local television news, newspapers, radio stations, and the generalpublic. Additional information was also given by union representatives. With so manyexternal and uncontrollable news sources came an even greater need for managers toexplain how and why the change was occurring (i.e., address perceptions of fairness).

Procedure. Participation in the study was solicited from two production lines ofthe plant in question approximately 10 months after the spin-off became official.Employees were asked to complete a brief questionnaire that assessed their opinion ofthe recent change. Employees were given specific instructions that referenced the spin-off as the change in question. In addition, a number of questions specifically refer-enced the change in question (e.g., “The change from [parent company] to [spin-off]serves an important purpose”). In total, 117 of 125 employees returned the survey, fora response rate of 94%. Demographic statistics for the two participating productionlines were reflective of overall plant demographics. In particular, average age was 38.9(SD = 9.57), and average number of years with the organization was 11.9 (SD = 9.98).Likewise, 87 participants (74%) indicated they were men, whereas 26 (22%) indicatedthey were women (4 participants failed to indicate their gender).

Variables

All variables were assessed using a 7-point response scale. The scale ranged from1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).




Procedural change justice. A four-item scale by Daly (1995) and Daly and Geyer(1994) was used to assess perceptions of procedural justice. An example itemincludes “The steps that the company took to make the change decision were fair tome.” Both Daly and Daly and Geyer reported a coefficient alpha level of .88.Coefficient alpha for the present study was .85.

Distributive change justice. A four-item distributive justice scale by Elkins andPhillips (2000) was modified to assess perceptions of outcome fairness of thechange. In modifying the scale, we used the word change instead of selection deci-sion. An example item includes “Overall, I feel the outcome of this change was fair.”Elkins and Phillips reported a coefficient alpha level of .81. Coefficient alpha for thepresent study was .82.

Interactional change justice. Based on the conceptualization of interactionaljustice by Bies and Moag (1986), a four-item scale was developed for this study toassess perceptions of interactional change justice. Items included “Managementfully explained to me why the company was changing,” “Managers treated employ-ees with respect during the change,” “My manager interacted with me in a fair man-ner during the change,” and “I am satisfied with the way I was treated during thechange process.” Coefficient alpha for the scale was .74.

Cynicism. Organizational cynicism was measured using six items by Atwater et al.(2000). A sample item from this scale is “I’ve pretty much given up trying to makesuggestions for improvements in this company.” Coefficient alpha for this measurewas .81.

Change commitment. To assess organizational change commitment, we used asix-item scale of affective change commitment developed by Herscovitch and Meyer(2002). Example items include “I believe in the value of this change,” “I think man-agement is making a mistake by introducing this change” (reverse scored), and“Things would be better without this change” (reversed scored). Herscovitch andMeyer reported a coefficient alpha of .91. Coefficient alpha for the present study was.89.

Controls

Employee age and number of years with the organization. To help control for pos-sible differences due to expectations based on previous experiences with the organi-zation and organizational changes, we controlled for the employees’ self-reportedage and self-reported number of years with the company.

Data Analyses

The moderating effects of the three forms of organizational justice on changecommitment were tested using hierarchical regression. A three-step procedure was




used. In Step 1, the control variables were entered. In Step 2, the main effects of pro-cedural (PJ), distributive (DJ), and interactional justice (IJ) were entered into theregression equation. In Step 3, the interaction terms were entered. To reduce theeffect of multicollinearity between the interaction terms and the main effects, inter-action terms were centered on zero before estimating the model. The moderatingeffect was then tested by examining the interaction terms. This same process wasused to test the interaction between organizational justice and organizational cyni-cism. A simple regression equation in which the three forms of justice were enteredfollowing the control variables was used to test the hypothesized main effectsbetween justice and cynicism.

RESULTS

Using confirmatory factor analysis we tested whether or not the procedural, dis-tributive, and interactional justice scales were indeed measuring separate con-structs. First, the three-factor correlated dimensions model was tested. Fit indicesfor this three-factor model were good; confirmatory fit index (CFI) = .95, Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI) = .93, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .91, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .85, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08,p = .09. In addition, we compared the fit of the three-factor model to an alternativemodel that loaded all justice items onto a global justice factor. Given that the twomodels were nested, we used the chi-square difference test to determine if the three-factor model fit the data significantly better than its alternative. The chi-square dif-ference revealed the three-factor model was a significantly better fit than theone-factor model (∆χ2 = 34.5, ∆df = 3, p < .001). Furthermore, the fit indices for theglobal dimension model were poor (CFI = .88, TLI = 84, GFI = .87, AGFI = 80, andRMSEA = .12).

After concluding the three justice scales were in fact measuring distinct con-structs, we investigated the hypothesized relationships. Table 2 reports the means,standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the study variables. As suspected, dis-tributive, procedural, and interactional justice were correlated with both affectivechange commitment (r = .70, p < .01; r = .63, p < .01; r = .30, p < .01) and organi-zational cynicism (r = –.36, p < .01; r = –.34, p < .01; r = –.44, p < .01), respectively.

Hypotheses Tests

Table 3 contains the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses usedto test the study hypotheses. Results from Table 3 show the interaction betweeninteractional justice and distributive justice (β = .31, p < .01) and the interactionbetween interactional justice and procedural justice (β = .35, p < .01) were both sig-nificant. To better interpret the interaction, we used procedures developed by Aikenand West (1991). Results indicated that change commitment was highest when bothforms of justice were rated positively. Contrary to what we expected, high levels ofone form of justice did not compensate for low levels of another form of justice.




Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b received only partial support. Hypothesis 1c stated therewould be an interaction between procedural and distributive justice; however, resultsreported in Table 3 fail to support our expectation (β = .05, ns).

Although the lack of interaction between procedural and distributive justice wassomewhat surprising, previous studies have found the relationship between proce-dural justice and outcome variables to be mediated by distributive justice (Daly &Geyer, 1994). Thus, to test whether or not distributive justice mediated the relation-ship between procedural justice and affective change commitment, we undertook aseries of simple regression equations (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, &Barron, 2004). In the first equation, we tested whether or not procedural justice wasa predictor of change commitment. Results indicated procedural justice was in facta predictor of change commitment (β = .63, p < .001). Next, we tested whether ornot procedural justice predicted perceptions of distributive justice. Results indicatedit was (β = .80, p < .01). In the third regression equation, we tested whether or notdistributive justice was a predictor of change commitment while controlling for pro-cedural justice. Our results indicated it was (β = .56, p < .01). Finally, we enteredboth distributive and procedural justice in the same step. If distributive justice fullymediated the relationship between procedural justice and change commitment, theeffects of procedural justice should be nonsignificant. Results indicated that distrib-uted justice was still a significant predictor of change commitment (β = .56, p < .01),whereas procedural justice was not (β = .18, ns). Thus, it appears that the effect pro-cedural justice has on change commitment is mediated, not moderated by distributivejustice. In contrast to a moderated relationship, in which the effect of procedural jus-tice on the outcome variable depends on the level of distributive justice, a mediated


TABLE 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, andCoefficient Alphas of Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age 38.91 9.57 —2. Years with 11.89 9.98 .78*** —

organization3. Gender — — –.10 .56***4. Distributive 2.77 1.12 –.11 –.14 –.10 (.82)

justice (DJ)5. Procedural 3.28 1.31 –.11 –.18 –.11 .79*** (.85)

justice (PJ)6. Interactional 3.86 1.19 –.02 –.13 –.02 .36*** .48*** (.74)

justice (IJ)7. Change 2.97 1.35 .01 –.01 .01 .70*** .63*** .30*** (.89)

commitment8. Organizational 5.31 0.91 .03 .14 .03 –.36*** –.34*** –.44*** –.47*** (.81)

cynicism

NOTE: N = 117. Coefficient alphas are in parentheses. ***p < .01.




TABLE 3

Results of Regression Analyses Used to Test Study Hypotheses

Results of Regression Analyses Used to Test Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c

Variable Change Commitment β

Step 1Employee age .12Years with organization –.12∆R2 after Step 1 .01

Step 2Distributive justice (DJ) .60***Procedural justice (PJ) .14Interactional justice (IJ) .07∆R2 after Step 2 .55***

Step 3DJ × PJ .05DJ × IJ .31***PJ × IJ .35***∆R2 after Step 3 .05**Overall R2 .60**Overall adjusted R2 .56


Variable Organizational Cynicism β

Step 1Employee age –.20Years with organization .29*∆R2 after Step 1 .03

Step 2Distributive justice –.32**Procedural justice –.12Interactional justice –.37***∆R2 after Step 2 .23**Overall R2 .27***Overall adjusted R2 .23



Step 1Employee age .12Years with organization –.12∆R2 after Step 1 .01

Step 2Distributive justice .53***Procedural justice .12Interactional justice .06Organizational cynicism –.18**∆R2 after Step 2 .59***



relationship suggests distributive justice is the mechanism through which proceduraljustice influences the outcome variable (Frazier et al., 2004).

Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c hypothesized a relationship between interactional, pro-cedural, and distributive justice and organizational cynicism. Results reported inTable 3 indicate interactional (β = –.37, p < .01) and distributive (β = –.32, p < .01)justice negatively related to organizational cynicism. Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2cwere supported. The relationship between procedural justice and organizational cyn-icism was nonsignificant (β = –.12, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

The final series of hypotheses suggested the relationship between organizationaljustice and affective change commitment would be moderated by organizationalcynicism. Results reported in Table 3 indicate that the interaction terms of DJ ×Cynicism, PJ × Cynicism, and IJ × Cynicism accounted for unique variance (∆R2 =.04, p < .05) above and beyond the main effects of each form of justice and organi-zational cynicism. Furthermore, the interaction terms between DJ and cynicism (β =–.30, p < .05) and between PJ and cynicism (β = –.37, p < .01) were significant. Theinteraction term between IJ and cynicism approached significance (β = –.18, p <.10). Interaction plots were made to test whether or not the interaction was in thehypothesized direction. As shown in Figure 1, results indicated that the positiveeffects of organizational justice were lessened when employees were cynical abouttheir organization. On the other hand, when employees were cynical about the orga-nization, it appears that making decisions in a fair and respectful way helped miti-gate cynical feelings. These results are consistent with Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c.Thus, we concluded Hypothesis 3a received partial support, whereas Hypotheses 3band 3c were fully supported.

It is interesting to note that in five instances, the simple correlations for some of ourjustice variables and dependent variables are significant and the betas in the multipleregression equations for the same variable pairs are not. For example, the correlationsfor change commitment and procedural justice (r = .63), change commitment andinteractional justice (r = .30), and organizational cynicism and procedural justice (r =–.34) are statistically significant (p < .01; see Table 2). However, in testing Hypothesis 1,


TABLE 3 (continued)



Step 3DJ × Cynicism –.30**PJ × Cynicism –.37***IJ × Cynicism –.18*∆R2 after Step 3 .04**Overall R2 .64**Overall adjusted R2 .60

NOTE: N = 117. β is the standardized regression coefficient. All βs represent the weight for that step ofthe model.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.



the betas for change commitment and procedural justice (β = .14) and change com-mitment and interactional justice (β = .07) are nonsignificant. Similarly, in testingHypothesis 3, the betas for change commitment and procedural justice (β = .12) andchange commitment and interactional justice (β = .06) are nonsignificant. Finally, intesting Hypothesis 2, the beta for organizational cynicism and procedural justice (β =–.12) is nonsignificant (see Table 3). These results were expected due to the high mul-ticollinearity (cf. Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) among our justice variables(i.e., DJ and PJ: r = .79; DJ and IJ: r = .36; and PJ and IJ: r = .48; see Table 2).

DISCUSSION

As seen in Table 1, organizational change and organizational justice researchershave begun examining the commonality between the two; however, closer examina-tion of the relationships studied in Table 1 reveals a lack of integration between fac-tors that may contribute to successful or unsuccessful change efforts. In this article,we have addressed this gap in empirical findings by presenting an interaction-basedmodel that specifically posits that to maximize commitment to change efforts,change agents need to focus not only on how the resulting change will impactchange targets but also how change agents implement change initiatives and howthey communicate and interact with change recipients. We also integrated researchfindings on organizational cynicism and found that justice perceptions negativelyrelated to feelings of cynicism in change targets.

Our framework has implications for both research and practice related to organi-zational change efforts. From a practical perspective, our results demonstrate that


FIGURE 1: Interaction Plot Between Distributive Justice (DJ), Organizational Cynicism, andOrganizational CommitmentNOTE: Although not shown, similar results were found for procedural and distributive justice as well.



simply engaging in fair change procedures or initiating change results that appear tobe fair is not enough. The interaction between interactional justice and both proce-dural and distributive justice suggest leaders also need to focus change efforts on sin-cerely explaining the reasons behind the change to maximize change commitment. Inthis sense, change targets assess whether or not unfortunate outcomes or procedurescan be explained in a reasonably sensitive manner. If they can, our results suggest atti-tudes may be more positive than if they were to stand alone. This finding suggests thatchange agents do not necessarily have to withhold information they perceive as poten-tially negative. Employees may still be willing to commit to change efforts if changecommunications are candid, seem reasonable, and are explained thoroughly in atimely manner. This finding is consistent with research that has shown a lack of com-munication during times of change may lead to uncertainty, and it is this uncertaintyrather than the change itself that causes problems during implementation (Schweiger& DeNisi, 1991). Thus, change agents need to focus on the change content and thechange process, specifically focusing on the evaluative criteria set forth by justice par-adigms (Gilliland, 1993; Greenberg, 1990b). To do otherwise will hinder maximiza-tion of change commitment.

Importantly, previous research has shown that leaders who engage in fair organiza-tional changes are viewed by change recipients as more legitimate, more competent,and more trustworthy than leaders who do not act fairly or equitably (Kernan &Hanges, 2002; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005). Thus, our finding that distributive and inter-actional justice were negatively related to organizational cynicism should not be sur-prising. Indeed, research suggests that not all employees affected by change initiativesexperience the emotional distress in the same way (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998).Although some employees will engage in active and constructive responses, others willengage in active and destructive responses. Thus, the actions change leaders engage incan help lessen feelings of cynicism (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005). Furthermore,results reported here found cynicism and fairness perceptions to relate. As such,change agents intending to garner positive feelings toward change initiatives shouldalso actively consider levels of cynicism within an organization. In fact, cynical feel-ings about changes have been found to form following failed change efforts in the past(cf. Reichers et al., 1997). Thus, future research would be well served to actively con-sider the organization and employees’ past experiences with change efforts. Couplingthese experiences with past and present fairness perceptions may unlock an evendeeper understanding of the change process. Alternatively, actively considering previ-ous experiences with change fairness may reveal generational differences. If such dif-ferences were found, change agents could more carefully tailor their message. In fact,researchers suggest tailoring information to individual/group needs is paramount indeveloping fair views of organizational actions (cf. Colquitt, 2001). Thus, such effortsseem to be both practically and theoretically important.

From a research perspective, our results show the importance of approaching thechange process in a systematic and integrative manner. Although we documented anumber of important studies investigating justice perceptions during times ofchange, few studies have looked at the interactive effects of all three justice con-structs. Furthermore, we examined the effect of feelings of organizational cynicism




on the relationship between justice perceptions and postchange feelings of commit-ment. Thus, this study adds to our understanding of the change process and suggeststhat future researchers need to be aware of the potential mitigating influence of cyn-icism. Similarly, this study also investigated justice perceptions during a fairlyunique organizational situation (i.e., an organizational spin-off; see Corley & Gioia,2004) and should also help generalize the impact of justice perceptions to an evenwider net.

Notwithstanding these contributions, several caveats need to be noted. First, ourmain criterion variable was the concept of change commitment. Although attitudessuch as change commitment are meaningful as they play a major role in various mod-els of behavior (e.g., Fishbein & Azjen, 1975), it nevertheless remains only a soft mea-sure of change success. More hard observable variables such as production numbers,turnover, or absenteeism would have allowed for more bottom-line conclusions.

Second, the study also collected both predictor and criterion-related variables atthe same time. Although we centered interaction terms to help lessen concerns overmulticollinearity, this action does not change the possibility that the results are at leastpartially attributable to response set bias. Thus, to test whether or not our conclusionsin this study were influenced by common method variance (CMV), we employedLindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable technique. Essentially, this techniquerequires researchers to identify a marker variable that should be theoretically unre-lated to other variables. Once identified, researchers can partial out the correlationbetween the marker variable and variables of interest. If the correlation between thevariables of interest remains significant after accounting for the marker, researcherscan conclude the relationships were not contaminated by CMV. Contextually, weneeded to test the relationships between the three forms of justice and change com-mitment, the relationships between the three forms of justice and organizational cyn-icism, and between cynicism and change commitment for the possibility of CMV.

To apply Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) technique, gender was designated as themarker variable. Accordingly, to test whether or not the relationships between the con-structs of interest were contaminated by CMV, we partialled out the influence ofemployee gender, a variable that should not be related to the constructs of interest (cf.Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). After partialling out the influence of gender, therelationships between each form of justice and change commitment remained signifi-cant, procedural justice, t(114) = 11.23, p < .01; distributive justice, t(114) = 14.15,p < .01; and interactional justice, t(114) = 4.49, p < .01. Likewise, the relationshipsbetween each form of justice and cynicism remained significant, procedural justice,t(114) = –4.92, p < .01; distributive justice, t(114) = –5.43, p < .01; and interactionaljustice, t(114) = –6.80 p < .01. Finally, we also checked to see if the relationshipbetween change commitment and cynicism was contaminated by method variance.Results indicated this relationship was still significant after accounting for employeegender, t(114) = –7.26, p < .01. Thus, although our data collection technique was notideal, our conclusions are apparently not influenced by method variance.

Although not significantly impacted by method variance, we should also acknowl-edge the correlational nature of collecting all study variables at the same time.Accordingly, results reported in this study and those in future studies could make more




causal conclusions if data collection took place pre- and postchange. Such a method-ology could help isolate causal relationships between fairness perceptions and changeoutcomes while limiting the impact of perceptual bias that may come from speculationon future events or reflecting on past occurrences.

A final study limitation was the null finding in the hypothesized relationshipbetween procedural justice and organizational cynicism. Although somewhat sur-prising, past research has suggested procedural fairness perceptions may be depen-dent on the situation (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Leventhal, 1980). As such,we can think of two possible explanations to account for this result. First, the proce-dures used to inform employees of the impending change were rather brief (as pre-viously described). Thus, asking respondents to judge the fairness of those stepstaken to come to the change decision may have elicited responses that do not accu-rately represent procedural justice. Alternatively, organizational members weremembers of a labor union. Therefore, cynical viewpoints may not have resulted fromthe procedures used given the constraints on management in labor-union situations.This possibility is particularly intriguing given the relatively high level of cynicism(M = 5. 31, SD = .91). It may be that employees’ previous experiences with changeefforts influenced their responses for the procedural justice items. As previouslyalluded to, this is a potentially valuable future line of research. Without further dataor comparative findings in this study, such a suggestion is only speculation and isintended to stimulate research into this area.

CONCLUSION

Despite being one of the most important aspects of organization development,many organizational leaders lack a clear understanding of the necessary steps to suc-ceed in implementing changes to the organization. A change effort consists of morethan the actual material changes to the job or operations; it is the emotional arousalthat generates most of the human distress (Bandura, 1982). Indeed, the mere men-tion of change is enough to set off emotional arousal, and as past researchers havesuggested, arousal increases attention to focal cues of the organization (Mossholder,Settoon, Armenakis, & Harris, 2000). Our findings suggest when organizationalleaders failed to address each type of justice concerns of employees, they also failedto get employees fully committed to the change program. In doing so, organizationalleaders left open the possibility of resistance to change. Although our data can onlysuggest such a relationship (i.e., as seen through organizational cynicism), pastresearchers have suggested employees experiencing the negative emotions of lowfairness will fail to take ownership of those organizational features being trans-formed (Mossholder et al., 2000). Dirks, Cummings, and Pierce (1996) proposedwithout ownership between self and an organizational change, key psychologicalprocesses will not be engaged. Ultimately, change agents want employees to committo the change and make every effort to ensure the success of the change program’sgoals. Our results suggest change efforts can be enhanced through an intentionalfocus on procedural, distributive, and interactional justice. Change leaders who fail




to recognize the vitality of organizational justice will likely be left with angry, frus-trated, confused, and cynical employees.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting Interactions. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness.Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 169-183.

Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment:Supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53, 275-297.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-

cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beugre, C. D. (1998). Implementing business process reengineering: The role of organizational justice.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 347-360.

Bies, R., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki,B. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich,CT: JAI.

Bies, R., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational con-flict: Is it enough to say it’s not my fault. Communication Research, 15, 381-399.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinaleffects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. TheJournal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733-753.

Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. D. (1964). T-group theory and laboratory method. New York:John Wiley.

Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadership andOrganization Development Journal, 25, 485-498.

Cobb, A. T., Wooten, K. C., & Folger, R. (1995). Justice in the making: Toward understanding the theoryand practice of justice in organizational change and development. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 8, pp. 243-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532.Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for

the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Colby, K. M. (1981). Modeling a paranoid mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515-560.Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a mea-

sure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173-208.Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze.

In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psy-chology (Vol. 12, pp. 317-372). New York: John Wiley.

Daly, J. P. (1995). Explaining changes to employees: The influence of justifications and change outcomeson employees’ fairness judgments. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 415-428.

Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: Employeeevaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,15, 623-638.




Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1996). Psychological ownership in organizations:Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 9, pp. 1-23). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Elkins, T. J., & Phillips, S. (2000). Job context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness ofselection tests: Biodata as an illustrative case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 479-484.

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employeecommitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 1-29.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and

research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in

organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161-183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as mistreatment.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 35-50.Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling

psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134.Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspec-

tive. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay

cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568. Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management,

16, 399-432.Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes:

Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63-83. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-

component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474-487.Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and conse-

quences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,916-928.

Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. (2002). Promise breaking during radical organizational change: Dojustice interventions make a difference. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469-488.

Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten before begun: The role of proce-dural justice in planning change. Journal of Management, 28, 497-516.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory: New approaches to the study of fair-ness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. InG. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, R. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional

research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121.Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M., & Moilanen, M. (2004). Perceived procedural justice and employee

responses to an organizational merger. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13,391-413.

Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The roles oftrust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy of Management Review, 23, 567-588.

Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2000). Emotion during organiza-tional transformations: An interactive model of survivor reactions. Group & Organization Management,25, 220-243.

Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. H. (2001). Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field investiga-tion of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421-448.





Novelli, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1995). Effective implementation of organizational change:An organizational justice perspective. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organiza-tional behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 15-36). New York: John Wiley.

Paterson, J. M., Green, A., & Cary, J. (2002). The measurement of organizational justice in organizationalchange programmes: A reliability, validity, and context-sensitivity assessment. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 75, 393-408.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about orga-nizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 48-59.

Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2002). Understanding employees’ reactions to the managementof change: An exploration through an organizational justice framework. Irish Journal of Management,23, 85-108.

Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A lon-gitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110-135.

Seo, M., & Hill, N. S. (2005). Understanding the human side of merger and acquisition: An integrativeframework. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 422-443.

Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employees’ reaction to change to work teams: The influence ofanticipatory injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 51-66.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organi-zational change. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 529-545.

Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. M., & Tesluk, P. E. (1995, April). Organizational cynicism, cynical cultures, andorganizational change efforts. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizingworkplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 132-142.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change:Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization Management, 25, 132-153.

Wooten, K. C., & White, L. P. (1999). Linking OD’s philosophy with justice theory: Postmodern impli-cations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 7-20.



justice, cynicism, and commitment - citeseerx

Documents