justice, cynicism, and commitment

8/16/2019 Justice, Cynicism, and Commitment

1/24

303

Justice, Cynicism, and Commitment

A Study of Important Organizational Change Variables

Jeremy B. BernerthWashington, D.C.

Achilles A. Armenakis

Hubert S. Feild

H. Jack Walker Auburn University

Recent theoretical and empirical studies have begun to address the commonality

between organizational justice and organizational change efforts. In the present study,

the authors build on these efforts by investigating the interactive effects of three forms

of organizational justice on affective change commitment following the spin-off of a

durable goods manufacturer from its parent corporation. Results indicated interactional

justice interacted with both procedural and distributive justice. The authors also found

procedural and interactional justice predicted organizational cynicism, and each form

of 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 important

aspects of effective organizational change, many organizational leaders lack a clear

understanding of the necessary steps leading to successful change implementation

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, Vol. 43 No. 3, September 2007 303-326

DOI: 10.1177/0021886306296602

© 2007 NTL Institute


2/24

(Armenakis & Harris, 2002). In response, researchers have suggested the concept

of organizational justice offers a promising perspective regarding actions organi-

zational leaders should consider in planning and implementing organizational

changes (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 minor

alteration in organizational benefits, resources are inevitably redistributed. This

redistribution provides an opportunity to focus on employee fairness perceptions.

Thus, organizational justice provides a natural link to study employees’ perceptions

of 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 into

understanding 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 success

by exploring the interaction between three forms of organizational justice and the

role of organizational cynicism during change efforts. Understanding how fairness

perceptions of decisions, procedures, and interactions influence change outcomes is

vital 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 play

in getting employees committed to change efforts. As such, this article contributes to

the 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 McKinsey

and Company in Washington, D.C. His professional research interests include developing psychometri-

cally sound measurement scales, investigating fairness perceptions, and studying leader-member social

exchange.

Achilles A. Armenakis is the James T. Pursell, Sr. Eminent Scholar in the Department of Management at

Auburn 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 resource

management.

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.


3/24

(1965) introduction of the concept of equity theory. What eventually evolved into the

notion of distributive justice, Adams suggested perceptions of fairness were formu-

lated through a comparison of an individual’s perceived inputs and outcomes and

those inputs and outcomes of a comparison other. Equity, or distributive fairness,occurs when an employee’s ratio of inputs to outcomes conceptually equal those of

a comparison other. The term conceptually equal is used because justice, or fairness,

is in part a subjectively based construct susceptible to perceptual biases. In other

words, it matters little whether individual justice perceptions are grounded in fact or

are real in nature. Individuals react to what they define as real, regardless of whether

their perceptions are accurate or inaccurate.

Although Adams (1965) and much of the early work on justice focused almost

exclusively on outcome fairness, Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced a unique

twist to the study of fairness perceptions with their introduction of procedural fair-ness. Having investigated litigation processes, Thibaut and Walker noted disputants

perceived litigation outcomes more fair when they were able to control at least some

aspects of the outcome or process. As research into this new concept of procedural

fairness continued to grow, Leventhal (1980) and colleagues (Leventhal, Karuza, &

Fry, 1980) distinguished fair procedures as those that (a) are applied consistently

across 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 participants

to take corrective actions if they disagree with the outcome, (e) conform to ethical

standards, 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 attention

not on the outcome or the amount of process control but rather on the quality of the

interpersonal 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 the

decision maker. The second part, labeled informational justice, defines the type of

explanation 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 justice

with 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 nature

of change lends itself to assessment of fairness perceptions. For example, early

change 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


4/24

create higher degrees of tension, are less permissive, and lead to frustration of group

members (Lewin, 1947). In contemporary justice theories, an autocratic atmosphere

is 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 individuals

that will be affected.

In furthering his discussion of participation, Lewin (1947) also contributed to the

T-group learning movement in the 1940s and 1950s (Bradford, Gibb, & Benne,

1964). T-group members learned about the dynamics of interpersonal, group, and

social relations all in an effort to build a group that was ready for growth, a synonym

for change. Participants were invited to learn, think, and act as change agents

through self-awareness, sensitivity to the phenomena of interpersonal behavior, and

understanding the consequences of behavior (Bradford et al., 1964). In addition,T-group members focused on learning about their environment from those around

them. Contextually, we believe T-groups were actually fostering climates of fairness.

Seeking information from the environment, fostering trust and openness to promote

group growth, engaging in collective decision making, and consensually validating

organizational decisions are criteria that contemporary justice suggests contribute to

procedural, distributive, and interactional justice in changing situations.

In addition to the early work of Lewin, we also acknowledge the contributions of

Coch and French (1948). Traditionally seen as one of the first interventional studies in

organization development, Coch and French’s research in the Harwood ManufacturingCorporation was a classic study in resistance to organizational change efforts. The

researchers found that groups with varying degrees of participation recovered faster

(i.e., achieved prechange production levels, experienced no turnover, and were absent

of acts of aggression toward management). These findings may have been the first to

document 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 to

address 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 either

succeed or fail. Results of earlier studies, albeit limited, are encouraging to change

agents. For example, Table 1 presents the results of noteworthy studies investigating

organizational justice during times of change. Early results by Daly (1995) and Daly

and Geyer (1994) demonstrated that perceptions of outcome fairness were influ-

enced by the justification given by the change agent and by the perceived appearance

of “voice” into change efforts. Likewise, Shapiro and Kirkman (1999) found per-

ceptions of procedural justice and anticipation of distributive injustice predicted both

resistance and commitment to change efforts. Other results reported in Table 1 showdifferent forms of organizational justice related to organizational change and

leadership 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,



5/24

Olkkonen, & Moilanen, 2004; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005). Although these results are

important, the potential interactive effects of the three forms of justice have been left

mostly unexplored. Thus, we explore the interaction among these forms of justice

and 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 of

change 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 the

fundamental nature of change. If nothing else, change suggests the reallocation of

organizational resources (e.g., future employment, job security, benefits, responsibil-

ities, etc.). Equity theory suggests that when employees are faced with a change in

which 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 the

organization 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 can

trigger feelings of anger, outrage, and even a desire for retribution (Folger, 1993;

Greenberg, 1990a). Thus, there should be little surprise to find distributive injustice

has 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 a

voice 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 presents

change agents a vehicle to create a sense of procedural fairness in the eyes of their

employees (Cobb et al., 1995). Importantly, past research suggests the more partici-

pation an employee engages in during the change or transition process, the more

likely 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 procedural

justice 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 ambiguous

in nature; thus, there seems to be a strong theoretical link between the final form of

organizational justice (i.e., interactional) and change commitment. As previously

referenced, interactional justice is composed of the explanations given by organiza-

tional leaders and the sensitivity in which they give this information. Research into

change readiness and change commitment has demonstrated the importance of the

change message and the manner in which it is communicated (e.g., Armenakis &

Harris, 2002). Accordingly, justice researchers have begun advocating the use of

social accounts to help shape the change effort (cf. Cobb et al., 1995; Wooten &

White, 1999). Results indicate giving employees relevant and accurate information

and in a polite and respectful way ultimately helps employees buy into the change

effort (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Kickul et al., 2002).


(text continues on p. 311)


6/24

308

S t u d y

D a l y a n d

G e y e r ( 1 9 9 4 ) a

D a l y ( 1 9 9 5 )

S h a p i r o a n d

K i r k m a n ( 1 9 9 9 )

G o p i n a t h a n d

B e c k e r ( 2 0 0 0 )

N o f

P a r t i c i p a n t s

1 7 1

1 8 3

4 9 2

1 4 4

T y p e o f C h a n g e

R e l o c a t i o n o f b u s i n e s s

R e l o c a t i o n o f b u s i n e s s

A c h a n g e t o s e l f - m a n a g e d

w o r k

t e a m s

D i v e s t i t u r e

K e y V a r i a b l e s

V o i c e , j u s t i f i c a t i o n , p r o c e d u r a l

f a i r n e s s , o u t c o m e f a i r n e s s ,

i n t e n t i o n s t o r e m a i n

J u s t i f i c a t i o n , o u t c o m e f a i r n e s s ,

p r o c e d u r a l , f a i r n e s s , a n d o u t c o m e

f a v o r a b i l i t y

L a b o r c o n d i t i o n s , a n t i c i p a t i o n o f

d i s t r i b u t i v e i n j u s t i c e , p r o c e d u r a l

j u s t i c e , r e s i s t a n c e t o c h a n g e ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t ,

t u r n o v e r i n t e n t i o n s , o r g a n i z a t i o

n a l

c i t i z e n s h i p b e h a v i o r s

P r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e o f l a y o f f s ,

p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e o f d i v e s t i t u r e ,

c o m m u n i c a t i o n , t r u s t ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t

K e y F i n d i n g s

E m p l o y e e s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o

f

m a n a g e m e n t ' s j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e

r e l o c a t i o n w a s r e l a t e d t o i n t e n t i o n s

t o r e m a i n , a n d t h i s r e l a

t i o n s h i p w a s

m e d i a t e d b y p r o c e d u r a l a n d

o u t c o m e f a i r n e s s .

E m p l o y e e s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o

f

m a n a g e m e n t ’ s j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f

t h e r e l o c a t i o n , a n d w h e

t h e r

e m p l o y e e s v i e w e d t h e o u t c o m e

a s f a v o r a b l e i n f l u e n c e d

p e r c e p t i o n s o f o u t c o m e

f a i r n e s s .

A n t i c i p a t i o n o f i n j u s t i c e w a s r e l a t e d

t o c h a n g e r e s i s t a n c e , t u

r n o v e r

i n t e n t i o n s , a n d c o m m i t m e n t .

P r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e h e l p e d m i t i g a t e

s o m e o f t h e s e r e l a t i o n s

h i p s .

P r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e

d i v e s t i t u r e w e r e r e l a t e d

t o t r u s t a n d

c o m m i t m e n t a n d a c c o u

n t e d f o r

u n i q u e v a r i a n c e a b o v e

a n d b e y o n d

p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e o f t h

e l a y o f f s .

T A B L E

1

K e y E m p i r i c a l S t u d i e s L i n k i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n a l J u s t i c e T o p i c s t o O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C h a n g e E f f o r t s


7/24

309

K e r n a n a n d

H a n g e s ( 2 0 0 2 )

K i c k u l , L e s t e r ,

a n d F i n k l ( 2 0 0 2 )

K o r s g a a r d , S a p i e n z

a ,

a n d S c h w e i g e r ( 2 0 0 2 )

P a t e r s o n , G r e e n ,

a n d C a r y ( 2 0 0 2 )

1 6 3

2 4 6

1 1 5

1 4 3 ; 8 4

R e o r g a n i z a t i o n

M u l t i p l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s u n d e r g o i n g

d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f c h a n g e

R e e n g i n e e r i n g

T w o o r g a n i z a t i o n s : S t u d y 1 : N e w

c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t ;

S t u d y 2 : D o w n s i z i n g

I n p u t , s u p p o r t f o r v i c t i m s ,

c o m m u n i c a t i o n , i m p l e m e n t a t i o

n ,

p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e , i n t e r p e r s o n a l

j u s t i c e , i n f o r m a t i o n a l j u s t i c e ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t , j o b

s a t i s f a c t i o n , t u r n o v e r i n t e n t i o n s ,

t r u s t

P s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n t r a c t s , p r o c e d u r a l

j u s t i c e , i n t e r a c t i o n a l j u s t i c e , j o b

s a t i s f a c t i o n , i n t e n t i o n s t o l e a v e

, i n -

r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e , c i t i z e n s h i p

b e h a v i o r s

P l a n n i n g , p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e o f

p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

o b l i g a t i o n s , e m p l o y e e o b l i g a t i o n s ,

t r u s t , i n t e n t i o n s t o r e m a i n

P r o c e d u r a l , d i s t r i b u t i v e , a n d

i n t e r a c t i o n a l j u s t i c e

F o u n d a n u m b e r o f a n t e c e d e n t s t o

f a i r n e s s p e r c e p t i o n s ; f a

i r n e s s

p e r c e p t i o n s i n t u r n r e l a

t e d t o k e y

o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e s .

B o t h f o r m s o f j u s t i c e r e l a

t e d t o

o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e s ; p r o c e d u r a l

j u s t i c e r e l a t e d m o r e c l o

s e l y t o

f e e l i n g s o f e x t r i n s i c c o n t r a c t

b r e a c h , w h e r e a s i n t e r a c t i o n a l

j u s t i c e w a s m o r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o

f e e l i n g s o f i n t r i n s i c c o n t r a c t

b r e a c h .

P l a n n i n g a n d p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e

i n t e r a c t e d s u c h t h a t e m

p l o y e e

o b l i g a t i o n s a n d i n t e n t i o

n s t o

r e m a i n w e r e o n l y n e g a t i v e l y

a f f e c t e d b y p l a n n i n g w h e n t h e

p r o c e s s w a s j u d g e d a s u n f a i r .

T o o k t h e f i r s t s t e p s t o d e v

e l o p i n g

j u s t i c e s c a l e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e v o t e d

t o c h a n g e p r o g r a m s .

( c o n t i n u e d )


8/24

310

S t u d y

C h a w l a a n d

K e l l o w a y ( 2 0 0 4 )

L i p p o n e n , O l k k o n e

n ,

a n d M o i l a n e n ( 2 0 0 4 )

T y l e r a n d

D e C r e m e r ( 2 0 0 5 )

F e d o r , C a l d w e l l ,

a n d H e r o l d ( 2 0 0 6 )

N o f

P a r t i c i p a n t s

1 6 4

1 8 9

5 4 0

7 6 4

T y p e o f C h a n g e

R e s t r u c

t u r i n g

O r g a n i z

a t i o n a l m e r g e r

M e r g e r

a n d r e l a t e d c h a n g e i n

c o r p o r a t e s t r u c t u r e

O r g a n i z

a t i o n s a n d c h a n g e s v a r i e d

K e y V a r i a b l e s

C o m m u n i c a t i o n , p a r t i c i p a t i o n , j o b

s e c u r i t y , p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e ,

o p e n n e s s t o c h a n g e , t r u s t , t u r n o v e r

i n t e n t i o n s , n e g l e c t

P r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e , i n t e r a c t i o n a l

j u s t i c e , c h a n g e c o n t e n t ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,

c o m m o n i n - g r o u p i d e n t i t y , i n -

g r o u p b i a s , e x t r a r o l e b e h a v i o r

P r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e , c h a n g e o u t c o m

e ,

a c c e p t a n c e o f l e a d e r ' s v i s i o n ,

m o t i v a t i o n t o w o r k f o r n e w

c o m p a n y

W o r k u n i t c h a n g e , c h a n g e

f a v o r a b l e n e s s , c h a n g e f a i r n e s s , j o b

l e v e l c h a n g e , c h a n g e c o m m i t m

e n t ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t

K e y F i n d i n g s

S u p p o r t w a s f o u n d f o r a m e d i a t e d

m o d e l i n w h i c h c o m m u n i c a t i o n

a n d j o b s e c u r i t y r e l a t e d

t o o p e n n e s s

a n d t r u s t t h r o u g h p r o c e

d u r a l

j u s t i c e . P a r t i c i p a t i o n w a s a l s o

r e l a t e d t o o p e n n e s s v i a

p r o c e d u r a l

j u s t i c e .

P r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e w a s r e l a t e d t o

p o s t m e r g e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d i n -

g r o u p i d e n t i t y .

I f l e a d e r s a c t i n p r o c e d u r a l l y f a i r

w a y s , t h e y a r e v i e w e d a s m o r e

l e g i t i m a t e a n d m o r e c o m p e t e n t ,

a n d e m p l o y e e s a r e m o r e a c c e p t i n g

o f c h a n g e .

M u l t i l e v e l s t u d y i n w h i c h

s h a r e d

p e r c e p t i o n s o f f a i r n e s s

i n t e r a c t e d

w i t h w o r k u n i t c h a n g e

t o i n f l u e n c e

c o m m i t m e n t .

T A B L E 1 ( c o n t i n u e d )

a . D a l y a n d G e y e r ( 1 9 9 4 ) a n d D a l y ( 1 9 9 5 ) u s e d d a t a

f r o m t h e s a m e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , b u

t d u e t o m o d e l - f i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

t h e n u m b e r o f p a r t i c i p a n t s v a r i e d

s l i g h t l y .


9/24

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 left

mostly 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 both

decisions and the processes, and importantly, Bies, Shapiro, and Cummings (1988)

found explanations can mitigate negative reactions. Thus, when employees find the

outcome of change undesirable or the procedures used to make such changes as

unfair, research suggests these perceptions can be mitigated by timely and thorough

explanations 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 predict

change commitment.

Hypothesis 1b: Interactional justice will interact with perceptions of procedural justice to predict

change 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 forms

of 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 an

organizational 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 will

cognitively 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 on

change commitment, we also feel a connection between organizational justice and

organizational cynicism is an important yet unexplored area of interest for change

agents. Because most change efforts are associated with uncertainty, workers feel con-

fused about the roles in which they often find themselves. Researchers have suggested

in 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 particular

change cynicism—is one way such feelings may develop. Organizational change

cynicism has been defined “as a pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being



10/24

successful because those responsible for making change are blamed for being unmo-

tivated, incompetent, or both” (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000, p. 133). Cynical

feelings about change efforts can also form when previous change efforts have failed

or when organizational leaders continually introduce new change programs (cf.Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). As such, cynics doubt the truth of what their

managers 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 organizational

cynicism.

In addition to hypothesizing a relationship between interactional justice and

change cynicism, there also appears to be good reason to believe a relationship

between procedural and distributive justice and change cynicism exists. For example,

research suggests that when changes are offered with advanced notice and based on

established standards and merits (i.e., key components of procedural justice), change

targets are more likely to exhibit constructive responses (cf. Lind & Tyler, 1988;

Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998). On the other hand, when change leaders’ actions are not

founded in the principles of justice, destructively active behaviors (e.g., sabotage) and

attitudes (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 about

change 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 in

the 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 that

should be theoretically balanced. Thus, if employees do not understand the change

effort or feel the change will hurt their outcomes, they may try to balance the equation

by resisting or sabotaging the effort (i.e., engaging in cynical attitudes). Similarly,

from a cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) perspective, an adverse experience

will motivate employees to reduce the negativity. In the case of change, dissonance

suggests 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 form

of resistance, such as cynicism. As such, researchers suggest distributive justice

facilitates 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 justice

and cynicism, we suggest a moderated relationship between justice and commitment



11/24

based on differing levels of cynicism. For example, organizational cynicism has been

defined as “a belief on the part of an individual that his or her organization lacks

integrity, and that principles such as fairness, honesty, and sincerity are” sacrificed

in favor of organizational self-interest (Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, & Cartier, 2000,p. 279). If true, it seems likely that change cynicism would interact with each justice

component in predicting commitment to change initiatives. Accordingly, Vance,

Brooks, and Tesluk (1995) proposed cynicism would breed apathy toward change

efforts and suspicion of change agents. Such apathy and suspicion would likely be

diminished 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 or

limited success. Failure then reinforces cynical attitudes, which further inhibit

efforts during change initiatives. Collectively, we believe that fairness in the form of interactional, procedural, and distributive justice will likely lead to commitment to

change 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 higher

levels 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 higher

levels 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 higher

levels 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 one

of its subsidiary manufacturers of durable goods. Splitting off the subsidiary was a

historical move for the parent company, which for years has been a dominant force

in 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 advantage

has dissolved over the past decade and ultimately grew into a liability. From the parent

company’s perspective, both companies should become stronger and more durable

in their individual businesses through focused growth. Management of the newly

spun-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. Organizational

leaders 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.



12/24

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 managers

in the plant as “business as usual.” The name of the plant under investigation was

changed, 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 change

were twofold: (a) through union newsletters and (b) through direct communication

with manufacturing lines. Prior to the actual name change, the plant manager took

communications directly to the union workers. During the workday, two production

lines 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 communication

was brief, direct, and to the point.

Organizational communication efforts were rather brief, but information available

from the external environment may have also influenced employee perceptions or more

specifically, 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. Understandably

so, 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 general

public. Additional information was also given by union representatives. With so many

external and uncontrollable news sources came an even greater need for managers to

explain how and why the change was occurring (i.e., address perceptions of fairness).

Procedure. Participation in the study was solicited from two production lines of

the plant in question approximately 10 months after the spin-off became official.

Employees were asked to complete a brief questionnaire that assessed their opinion of the 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, for

a response rate of 94%. Demographic statistics for the two participating production

lines 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%) indicated

they were women (4 participants failed to indicate their gender).

Variables

All variables were assessed using a 7-point response scale. The scale ranged from

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).



13/24

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 item

includes “The steps that the company took to make the change decision were fair to

me.” 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 and

Phillips (2000) was modified to assess perceptions of outcome fairness of the

change. 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 the

present study was .82.

Interactional change justice. Based on the conceptualization of interactional

justice by Bies and Moag (1986), a four-item scale was developed for this study to

assess perceptions of interactional change justice. Items included “Management

fully 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 the

change 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 make

suggestions for improvements in this company.” Coefficient alpha for this measure

was .81.

Change commitment . To assess organizational change commitment, we used a

six-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-reported

age and self-reported number of years with the company.

Data Analyses

The moderating effects of the three forms of organizational justice on change

commitment were tested using hierarchical regression. A three-step procedure was



14/24

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 the

regression equation. In Step 3, the interaction terms were entered. To reduce the

effect of multicollinearity between the interaction terms and the main effects, inter-action terms were centered on zero before estimating the model. The moderating

effect was then tested by examining the interaction terms. This same process was

used to test the interaction between organizational justice and organizational cyni-

cism. A simple regression equation in which the three forms of justice were entered

following the control variables was used to test the hypothesized main effects

between 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 indices

for 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 alternative

model 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 the

one-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, and

RMSEA = .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 affective

change 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 used

to test the study hypotheses. Results from Table 3 show the interaction between

interactional 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 Aiken

and West (1991). Results indicated that change commitment was highest when both

forms of justice were rated positively. Contrary to what we expected, high levels of

one form of justice did not compensate for low levels of another form of justice.



15/24

Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b received only partial support. Hypothesis 1c stated therewould be an interaction between procedural and distributive justice; however, results

reported in Table 3 fail to support our expectation (β = .05, ns).Although the lack of interaction between procedural and distributive justice was

somewhat 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 a

series 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 fact

a predictor of change commitment (β = .63, p < .001). Next, we tested whether ornot procedural justice predicted perceptions of distributive justice. Results indicated

it 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 fully

mediated the relationship between procedural justice and change commitment, the

effects 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 distributive

justice. 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, and

Coefficient 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*** —

organization

3. 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)

commitment

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

cynicism

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


16/24


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 1

Employee age .12

Years with organization –.12

∆ R2 after Step 1 .01

Step 2

Distributive justice (DJ) .60***

Procedural justice (PJ) .14

Interactional justice (IJ) .07

∆ R2

after Step 2 .55***Step 3

DJ × PJ .05

DJ × IJ .31***

PJ × IJ .35***

∆ R2 after Step 3 .05**

Overall R2 .60**

Overall adjusted R2 .56


Variable Organizational Cynicism β

Step 1

Employee age –.20

Years with organization .29*


Step 2

Distributive justice –.32**

Procedural justice –.12

Interactional justice –.37***

∆ R2 after Step 2 .23**

Overall R2

.27***Overall adjusted R2 .23


Variable Change Commitment β

Step 1

Employee age .12

Years with organization –.12


Step 2

Distributive justice .53***

Procedural justice .12

Interactional justice .06

Organizational cynicism –.18**

∆ R2 after Step 2 .59***


17/24

relationship suggests distributive justice is the mechanism through which procedural

justice 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 in

Table 3 indicate interactional (β = –.37, p < .01) and distributive (β = –.32, p < .01) justice negatively related to organizational cynicism. Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2c

were 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 organizational

justice and affective change commitment would be moderated by organizational

cynicism. 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. The

interaction term between IJ and cynicism approached significance (β = –.18, p


18/24

the betas for change commitment and procedural justice (β = .14) and change com-mitment and interactional justice (β = .07) are nonsignificant. Similarly, in testing

Hypothesis 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 researchers

have 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-based

model that specifically posits that to maximize commitment to change efforts,

change agents need to focus not only on how the resulting change will impact

change targets but also how change agents implement change initiatives and how

they communicate and interact with change recipients. We also integrated researchfindings on organizational cynicism and found that justice perceptions negatively

related 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, and

Organizational CommitmentNOTE: Although not shown, similar results were found for procedural and distributive justice as well.


19/24

simply engaging in fair change procedures or initiating change results that appear to

be 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 procedures

can 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 that

change 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 change

communications are candid, seem reasonable, and are explained thoroughly in a

timely 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 uncertainty

rather than the change itself that causes problems during implementation (Schweiger& DeNisi, 1991). Thus, change agents need to focus on the change content and the

change 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 initiatives

experience the emotional distress in the same way (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998).

Although some employees will engage in active and constructive responses, others will

engage in active and destructive responses. Thus, the actions change leaders engage in

can 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 should

also 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. Coupling

these experiences with past and present fairness perceptions may unlock an even

deeper 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 in

developing fair views of organizational actions (cf. Colquitt, 2001). Thus, such efforts

seem to be both practically and theoretically important.From a research perspective, our results show the importance of approaching the

change process in a systematic and integrative manner. Although we documented a

number of important studies investigating justice perceptions during times of

change, few studies have looked at the interactive effects of all three justice con-

structs. Furthermore, we examined the effect of feelings of organizational cynicism



20/24

on the relationship between justice perceptions and postchange feelings of commit-

ment. Thus, this study adds to our understanding of the change process and suggests

that 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 even

wider net.

Notwithstanding these contributions, several caveats need to be noted. First, our

main criterion variable was the concept of change commitment. Although attitudes

such 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 at

the same time. Although we centered interaction terms to help lessen concerns over

multicollinearity, this action does not change the possibility that the results are at least

partially attributable to response set bias. Thus, to test whether or not our conclusions

in this study were influenced by common method variance (CMV), we employed

Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable technique. Essentially, this technique

requires researchers to identify a marker variable that should be theoretically unre-

lated to other variables. Once identified, researchers can partial out the correlation

between the marker variable and variables of interest. If the correlation between thevariables of interest remains significant after accounting for the marker, researchers

can conclude the relationships were not contaminated by CMV. Contextually, we

needed 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 the

marker variable. Accordingly, to test whether or not the relationships between the con-

structs of interest were contaminated by CMV, we partialled out the influence of

employee 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, the

relationships 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 relationships

between 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 interactional

justice, t (114) = –6.80 p < .01. Finally, we also checked to see if the relationship

between 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 not

ideal, 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



21/24

causal conclusions if data collection took place pre- and postchange. Such a method-

ology could help isolate causal relationships between fairness perceptions and change

outcomes while limiting the impact of perceptual bias that may come from speculation

on future events or reflecting on past occurrences.A final study limitation was the null finding in the hypothesized relationship

between 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 steps

taken 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 from

the 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 change

efforts influenced their responses for the procedural justice items. As previously

alluded to, this is a potentially valuable future line of research. Without further data

or comparative findings in this study, such a suggestion is only speculation and is

intended 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 more

than the actual material changes to the job or operations; it is the emotional arousal

that 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 organizational

leaders failed to address each type of justice concerns of employees, they also failed

to get employees fully committed to the change program. In doing so, organizational

leaders left open the possibility of resistance to change. Although our data can only

suggest such a relationship (i.e., as seen through organizational cynicism), past

researchers have suggested employees experiencing the negative emotions of low

fairness 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 psychological

processes will not be engaged. Ultimately, change agents want employees to commit

to the change and make every effort to ensure the success of the change program’s

goals. Our results suggest change efforts can be enhanced through an intentional

focus on procedural, distributive, and interactional justice. Change leaders who fail



22/24

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 social

psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

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

Park, 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 Social

Psychology, 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: Longitudinal

effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. The

Journal 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 and

Organization Development Journal, 25, 485-498.

Cobb, A. T., Wooten, K. C., & Folger, R. (1995). Justice in the making: Toward understanding the theory

and 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 outcomes

on 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: Employee

evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior ,

15, 623-638.



23/24

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 of

selection 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 employee

commitment: 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: Do

justice interventions make a difference. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23, 469-488.

Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten before b

justice, cynicism, and commitment

Documents