INFORMATION TO USERS

This rnanuscfîpt has been reprioduœd from the microfilm master- UMI films the

text direcüy from the odgïmi or copy submiued. Thw, wme lhesis and dissertation copies am in typwriter fa-, whib mers may be from any type of cornputer printer-

The quality of thb mploducdion b dependmt ugm the quility of the copy

submW. Broken or indistiMX print, cdorcid or poor q w i i i illustrations and photographs, pnnt bbed(hrough. substandard margins. and imprioger aïiiment

can adversely aff8Ct repmâucüm.

ln the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a amplete muscripf and

them am missi- pages, thew will be noted. Also, if unsuthofizd copyright

material had to be rernoved, a note will indicate the de(etiocr.

Ovenue materials (e-g-, mapst dMngs, cham) am reproduced by sectiming

the original, beginning at oie upper M-hand corner and continuing from left Éo

right in equal sections with small overfaps.

Photographs induded in the original r n a n ~ ~ p t have been reproduced

xerographically in mis copy. Higher quality 6* x Q blsa and white photogrophic

prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in îhis copy fw

an additional charge. Conîact UMI directly to order-

Bell 8 Houml Infonnaian and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbot, MI 481-1346 USA

ORGANlZATIONAL CHANGE INITIATIVES AS PREDICTORS OF

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Graduate S tudies

of

The University of Guelph

In partial fulfilment of requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts

August 4, 1999

O Anuradha S. Chawla, 1999

National Library Bibiïottièque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Senrices senrices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OîtawaON K I A W OctawaON K 1 A W Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence dowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distnbute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retauis ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèqpe nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur consewe la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation,

ORGANIZATIONAL CEFANGE INJTIATLVES AS PREDICTORS OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Anuradha Chawla University of Guelph, 1999

Advisor: Professor E, K. KeUoway

The current study developed and tested a model of the emergence of resistance to

change during an organizationai merger. Resistance to change was defined as any

attitude or behaviour that thwarts organizational goals. Based on a sample of 164

ernployees surveyed fkom two merged organizations (University of Guelph and the

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)) a paaiaily

mediated and a fdiy mediated model were compared with the former providing the best

fit to the data Communication and job security predicted openness and tmst ditectly and

indirectly, via justice. Participation predicted tmst both directly and indirectly but

predicted openness to change only indirectiy (via justice). Turnover intentions was

predicted by openness and trust. Finaliy, turnover intentions predicted neglect. These

results have impiications for future conceptualizations of resistance to change and its

development. Practical implications are discussed as weii as are the potential limitations

of the study.

A C K N O ~ E M E N T S

My sincere gratitude and thaoks go out to ML Beattk, Dr. Le Maguer and Dr.

Pettit who supported and expressed enthusiasm for the project. Without thek input, the

and encouragement, the project would not have been feasible. As weU, I would aiso Wce

to extend my appreciation to the employees whose participation and b d c responses on

this project helped maintain my excitement for my research.

Of course, none of this process codd have seen a beghnhg or an end without the

support and encouragement of my advisor Dr. Keiloway. He made the transition fiom

statistics in the classroom to application in the field so much easier (and yes, fuo!). His

cmdour always oEered a new perspective and his intellect chalienged me to challenge

mine. Not to mention, the challenge of his sense of humour - there was aiways the h o p

that one day, we (his students) would have the last word on a joke and yet, never the

doubt that we would not! Tt shail be a loss for the students, the department and our wits

to see Kevin leave.

As for my cornmittee members - Dean Nightingale was an invaluable mernber.

His cornmitment to this project out of respect for the academic process was infectious.

My sincere thanks to him. My thanks as well to Dr. Eam and Dr. Matthews for their

input on my thesis. The discussion each of them stimulated during the defence simply

served to spark a greater interest in me to continue in this field of work.

1 would also like to express my sincere respect for Dr. Cronshaw for his interest in

us as students, in seeing our potential and in creating an environment conducive to the

pursuit of knowledge.

My cohoa has to be credited for Iaughing both at me and with me during the

craziest of thes. Without Greg, Aaron, Micheue and Ancireas, this degree would not

have the signincance it has today. Each of you has become a special fnend to me,

offering me mernories of support and Iaughter, memories of one of the most inteilectuaiiy

stimdating and collaborative environmentsi ever expenenced but also memories of the

most ridiculous extrapo1ations of VO notions into everyday He.

My cherished fnends (Leslie, Karm, Trish, Majan and Ruth), though a vast

expanse of land away, have k e n compfetely present at this most critical inteLiectual and

persond juncture- 1 thank them fiom the bottom of my hem for taking every three-hour

crisis phone call with ulrimate grace and the best jokes! 1 feel very fortunate to have

expenenced their fkiendships in such abundance. One has never laughed with their whole

being as with a tme fiend!

A very special acknowledgement to my brother - his effortless intelligence and

creativity has aiways been a source of admiration for me. He has taught me much about

living life under duress but without complaining. Finaily, my deepest respect, regard and

gratitude to my parents who cuitivated the love and curiosity for knowledge within me-

Thank you for giving me your courage when 1 had none of mine lefi. You are my

mentors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...................................................... i ... ...................................................... TableofCouten B . iir

ListofTables ........................................................... v

ListofFigures ......................................................... vi

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

TheNatureofChange .............................................. 4

Diagnosing Resistance ............................................. - 5

...................................... The Nature of Resistmce 5

.......................... The Two-Component Conceptuakation 6

...................... Attitudhal Opemess to Change and Justice - 8

TurnoverIntentions .......................................... 9

................................................... Neglect 11

........................................................... Trust 13

......................................... TheNatureofTrust 14

........................................... TrustandJustice 16

.................... Exogenous Variables Predicting Resistance to Change 17

.................................................. Communication 18

............................ The Nature of Open Communication 19

................................... CommunicationandJustice 20

..................................................... Participation 22

............................. The Nature of Participative Conaol 22

... lll

ParticipationandJustice ..................................... 24

Jobinsecurity .................................................... 26

The Nature of Job hsecunty ..................... .. .......... -27

Job Insecurity and Justice ..... ,. ............................ -28

TheCurrentStudy ................................................ 30

TheMerger ................................................ 30

Method ............................................................... 34

Participants ................................................ 34

Procedures ................................................ 35

Measures ................................................. 38

.................................... Method of Data Analysis - 4 3

Results ............................................................... 48

Assumptions ............................................. -49

ModelEstimation ........................................... 50

Parameter Estimates ......................................... 51

Discussion ............................................................ 54

Potential Limitations of the Study ............................. -65

Implications ............................................... 70

FutureDirections ........................................... 72

................................... Summary and ConcIusions -75

References ............................................................ 77

Appendix ............................................................. 88

LIST OF TABLES

....................................... Table 1: Descriptive statistics for of ail study variables 39

........................ Table 2: Reliabilities and inter-correlations of ail study variables 40

Table 3: Frequency and descriptive statistics for management's

................................................... Perception of the degree of EPP change 49

Tabie 4: Fit Indices for Nested Sequence of Hypthesized Models ..................... 51

LIST OF FIGURES

.......................................... Figure 1: Hypothesized My-mediated path mode1 (1) 3

................ ................ Figure 2: Altemate partiaiIy-mediated path mode1 (2) .... 45

Figure 3 : Finai partially-mediated path mode1 (3) ........................ ... ................ 52

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE l M ï l A " S

AS PREDICTORS OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Introduction

Economic and politicai changes are occurring at an exponentially increasing and

unmanageable pace (Kahn, 1999; Tuliy, 1999). At Ieast five types of environmentai

factors seem to be the main cataiysts of change: diversity, globalization, consumer need,

economic health and information technology ( C o ~ o r & Lake, 1994). In order to survive,

organizations are adopting one of two major strategies. The first is to try to invade

aiternate markets and expand their customer base in order to maximize profit and

minimize hancial vulnerabiLity. This has contributed to the resurgence of expansion

through mergers and acquisitions (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994). An altemate strategy

involves the "downsizing" rather than the expansion of Company operations (Schmidt &

F i g a n , 1992). This latter strategy has k e n provoked by changing business

environments, market share distributions and govemment regdations that are

decelerathg financial performance.

Change management consultants are hopeful that proper planning and

implementation of these strategies will advance the organization to a desirable state of

equilibrium (Antonioni, 1994). Instead, these change strategies more often create

disequilibrium. Though change initiatives are not always complete failures, it is apparent

that many large-scale change efforts are either doomed for fdure or far fiom unquaWied

successes. This is often a result of a complex chah of events and perceptions that

culminate in resistance to change.

Therefore, the current study reviewed the literature on change management in

order to understand the precise nature and process of resistance in the context of

organizational change. Unfominately, p r o p s s in tbîs field has been W t e d by vague

conceptualizations of resistance to change. h respome, a more precise conceptualization

of resistance to change was proposed hem. According to this model, resistance was better

viewed in two components - an attitudinal response and behavioural reactions.

Attitudinal resistance precedes and predicts behaviourai resistance. Both are

characterized by their dysfunctional impact on the organization Le., the components were

manifestations of resistance in so far as they thwarted organizational goals. On the ba is

of this definition of resistance to change, a rnodel that illusmtes the developmental

process of resistance was tested (see Figure 1). The model considered change

management strategies such as communication and participation as weil as employee

perceptions of job insecurity, and the effect these factors may have on the attitudes and

behaviours of the employees in response to change. Additionaily, the mode1 attempted to

bridge the theoretical gaps evidenced in the Iiterature by investigating the mediating role

of organizational justice in predicting resistance to change. The model was tested on a

sample of employees who recently experienced a merger. Issues pertaining to job

insecurity, trust, justice, and perceptions of the specifiç change management strategy

undertaken were particularly salient for these employees.

At the outset, the rationale for the inclusion of the antecedents, the mediator and

the specific reactive resistance responses is presented. The review shall work backwards

in this process. First, the two-component nature of resistance is discussed. Next, it is

Fieure 1. Hypothesized fully-mediated path mode1 (1) - Influence of communication, participation and job security on predicting trust and attitudinal and behavioral resistance to change.

proposed that ûust develops out of the same pmcess as resistance, sharing the same

antecedents. Throughout, the pivotal mediating role of justice in the appeasement of

resistance and the development of trust is argued. Fiiaily, the review examines the

original antecedents of resistance that is, ineffective communication, ineffective

participation and job insecurity. Owing to its intrïcate relationship with these variables,

the role of procedural justice is discussed interchangeably throughout. FoiIowing the

review, an empirical test of the resistance to change mode1 is presented, based on an

organizational merger.

The Nature of Change

The importance of resistance to change can only be realized once the all-

encompassing nature of an organization7s change efforts is understood. There are various

conceptualizations of "organizational change". Two of the most common

conceptualizations are that of planned vs. unplanned change and that of large-scale

change. Typically, planned change is the nom, implying intentional change efforts on

the part of the organization (Porras & Robertson, 1990). In contrast, unplanned change is

the adaptive response to environmentai changes designed to focus on a clearly defined

and narrow segment of the organization (Porras & Robertson, 1990).

An altemate and more encompassing term that elucidates the scope of the change

is that of cclarge-systerns change" (Fiorelii & Margolis, 1993). Large-systerns change is "a

long-term, comprehensive intervention focussed on the realignment of multiple

subsystems to enable the organization to actively adapt to its extemal environment"

(Fiorelli & Margolis, 1993, p-1). It is such large-scaie and planned changes that affect

fundamental aspects of the culture and the design of the entire organization.

In many instances, resistance and conflict have become natural counterparts to

organizational change efforts. UnfortunateIy, in the case of large-scaie change,

resistance maaifats itself across ail organizational subsystems, undennining

orgaaizational goais and preventing the implementation of the change.

In spite of resistance k ing identined as the key culprit of the probiems

encountered by changhg organizations (Kotter & Schelsinger, 1979), it is largely

misconceived and poorly understood. It is a tenn that is often used fkivolously to describe

a cornucopia of attitudes and behaviours.

Diagnosing Resistance

The Nature of Resistance

One of the seminal articles on resistance to change fails to offer a

conceptualization of resistance (Coch & French, 1948). Iustead, the article cites only

behavioural examples of resistance. The article suggests that resistance is typicaliy

expressed in the form of grievances, higher turnover, low efficiency, restriction of output

and marked aggression against management (Coch & French, 1948). Others have

differentiated between passive resistance (e.g., not foilowing change initiatives, shirking

cornmitment to the change) and aggressive resistance (e.g., taking action to undemine

change initiatives) (Kotter & Schelsinger, 1979). Stili others have simply stated

resistance to be "willfùl opposition" (Goldstein, 1989).

Because resistance to change has not been contrasted against any altemate

organizationai change outcomes, greater ambiguity is introduced to the concept To

compound the problem, resistance to change has often ken used interchangeably with

terms such as a lack of change readiness (Armenakis et al., 1993). Fominately,

Armenakis et. al (1993) did attempt to differentiate between the two concepts of change

readiness and resistance to change. The researchers define 'thange readiness" as the

cosmîtive precursor to the behaviow of resistance. Although these researchers did not

address the exact nature of resistance, they do speciQ that change readiness is composed

of the attitudes, intentions, and beliefs regarding the extent to which the impending

changes are needed and the organization's capacity to successfully înstitute those changes

(Armenakis, et al., 1993). Thus, change readiness is akin to an intellectual openness to

change.

If attitudinal resistance towards change can be conceptualized as the precursor to

behavioural resistance, it follows that prescriptions to reduce resistance will be effective

to the extent that they fïrst create change readiness. In essence, acceptance of the change

wîil curtail behaviourai resistance (Armenakis, et al., 1993). In fact, in spite of

clifferences across change process models, the literature does concur that it is cntical for

organizations to persuade stakeholders of the need for change early in the process (e.g.,

Antonioni, 1994; Carson & Griffeth, 1990).

The Two-Comwnent Conce~tualization

It is important to note that change readiness is an attitude that is malleable during

the early, "preparation" stages of the change process (Armenakis, et al., 1993). However,

this study proposes that once change h a already occurred, it might be more beneficiai to

conceptualize a lack of attitudinai opemess to change as a component of resistance itseIf

and not as a precursor to resistance. Once change has taken place, maintaining attitudes

that do not accept the need for change are essentially, a fonn of resistance. Within this

framework, behaviourai resistance as weii as attitudinal resistance would be components

of resistance and not distinct principles as suggested by Armenakis, et- ai. (1993)-

Attitudes as a component of resistance wouid measure acceptance of the changed

organization. Opemess to change wouid entail a recognition of the need for the change, a

willingness to make improvements in behaviour as weU as a cornmitment to see the

organization through any resulting tumultuous times. As with Armenakis's model,

attitudes wouid remain as the antecedents of behavioural resistance. Thus, acceptance

would predict fewer behavioural manifestations of resistance like inefficient work

behaviours, turnover, hostility and lack of involvement in the organization (Coch &

French, 1948). In accordance with this interpretation, the current study defines resistance

as an adherence to attitudes or behaviours that thwart organizational goals.

The two-component nature of resistance is suppoaed by clinical research in the

area of resistant behaviours during alcohol abuse treamient. This research identifies

resistance to change during therapy in terms of its cognitive and behavioural facets

(Goodyear, 1990). Resistance to change is descnbed as 'cnon-compliance or non-

adherence to = directive" (Goodyear, 1990).

The rationale for the predictive nature of attitudes on behaviour is also in h e with

suggestions that organizational change wi l l lead to cognitive changes which, in tum. will

predict behaviow change and performance development (Porras & Robertson, 1990).

Accordingly, the Theory of Reasoned Action posits that an individuai's intention to

perform a behaviour will be the best predictor of behaviour and that attitudes will affect

behaviour through their more immediate innuence on behaviourd intentions. This theory

has demonstrated parsimony and a greater ability to account for variance when compared

to other theoretical h e w o r k s (Hinsz & Nelson, 1990)- For instance, research on

employee turnover indicates that thoughts of quitting are antecedents to intentions to quit

which, in him, directly predict turnover (Hom, et al., 1992). AccordlngIy, the Theory of

Reasoned Action befits the proposed twocomponent structure of resistance to change in

which behavioural resistance is predicted by behaviourai intentions to resist which are

predicted by attitudinal resistance.

Attitudinal O~enness to Channe and Justice

It seems that because researchers have often presurned that change WU be fairly

implemented they have failed to target justice perceptions for study during organizatiooal

change. One exception is the study by Kilboume, O'Leary-Keliy & Williams (1996)

which found that employees do make fairness judgements about the new system and

about the change itself. Particularly, employees judge the fairness of the procedures used

to implement the change (e.g., faimess of ailocation procedures of rewards, of layoff

procedures, of bias-suppression). These fairness judgements are affixted by the amount

of information shared by the organization, the degree of employee participation and

control ailowed or by employee sense of the need for change (Kilboume et al., 1996)-

Consequently, when employers wimhold information and do not offer oppornuiities to

participate, they violate employees' sense of psychological ownership (Kilboume et al.,

1996). Individuals whose sense of psychological ownership has been violated have been

postulated to perceive the change as unf& and to consequently, e s t change (Kilbourne

et al,, 1996).

However, even under conditions of adversity and Ioss (e-g., during an adjudication

process), as long as employees do see themselves as king treated fairly they will comply

voluntarily to davourable decisions ( Tyler & Lind, 1992)- For examplle, if employees

challenge the relevancy of change efforts, resolving the resulting conflict through fair

grîevance procedures cm boost cooperation and openness to the new decisions.

Unfortunately, the above mentioned researchen tested outcornes of unfaUnas

other than resistance, and instead only offered postdations that openness to change would

be the an altemate logical outcome of f a h e s s during change. So, the present study

attempted to fïll this gap and built upon their inferences by investigating the impact of

justice perceptions on openness to change. The current study hypothesized that opemess

to change would be positively predicted by perceptions of procedural justice. In this case,

justice mediated the effect of communication, participation and job security on openness

to change (see Figure 1).

Turnover Intentions

Because it is critical for organizations in transition to imbue long-term

commitment in their employees in order to hie1 organizational success, the concept of

turnover deserves special attention.

Employees who believe that they have a stake in organizational success and those

who believe that the organizational change will deal with existing problems are more

likely to be committed to and supportive of the organization in the long nui. In contrast,

resistant or dissatisfied employees will often express an increased detachment h m the

organization and higher turnover (Coch & French, 1948; Leck & Saunders, 1992).

Following this logic, a lack of commitment to endure through the change (Le, high

tumover intentions) would appear to demonstrate resistance - it indicates an employee's

willingness withdraw from the organization. a behaviour that could have potentiaüy

disruptive effects on the organization (Leck & Saunders, 1992). Turnover intentions that

are indicative of resistance to change are differentiated ftom similar intentions that are

predicted by low organizational morale or dissatisfaction. In the h t instance, turnover

intentions may arise in reaction to, during or after change implementation whereas in the

second instance, turnover intentions are a reaction to the general state of an organization

that is not experiencing a large-scale change. In both cases though, turnover intentions

are a destructive and active response to dissatisfaction (Leck & Saunders, 1992).

The proposed model taps a long-term commitment towards the changed

organization by measuring turnover intentions. This parallels research on the role of

tumover in resistance to change (Coch & French, 1948) and is line with the behavioural

component of our componential model of resistance. More specincaiiy, it is

hypothesized that, in accordance with the Theory of Reasoned Action, attitudinal

openness to change and the development of trust (to be discussed shortly) wiU directly

precede and predict tumover intentions (see Figure 1).

Neglect

Because performance decrements and unproductive behaviours are part of

resistance to change (Coch & F ~ n c h , 1948). the role of neglect is examined as a

behavioural outcome that can disable the progress of successful change irnplementation.

Early theorists disthguished between the causes and symptoms of resistance to

change. Specificaily, Zander (1950, cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999) defined resistance

to change as a behaviour that was intended to protect individuais fiom the effects of the

change- According to Zander's perspective, neglect is identined as the behaviourai

symptom of resistance. However, early theonsts always blamed the causes of resistance

upon the subordinates instead of at the system at large (eg , Zander,l950, as cited in Dent

& Goldberg, 1999). In contrast, Lewin's "systems concept" identified the organization as

a system and suggested that resistance would result fiom any one of these systems

(Lewin, 1947, as cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999). More in line with Lewin's "systems

concept", ineffective communication and participation are two of the three systems-based

causes of resistance identified in this modd. The de-motivating effect of working in an

unstable employment context is also Wrely to lead to inefficient work or performance

decrements. Thus, job insecunty is the third systems-based initiative likey to accelerate

the rise of neglecthil behaviours.

For the purposes of the current study, negligence was defined as the "a lack of

proper care and attention" to ones duties COxford Modem Enelish Diction-, 1992). The

definition incorporates dimensions such as ineniciency, restriction of output or disregard

of ones duties. A process that leads to neglect is proposed by this study. It is posnilated

that once employees reso1ve to leave their jobs, they are exhibiting a lack of commitment

to or identification with the organization (Meyer & AUen, 1990). Once tbis

psychological distance is created, employees may be neglectful on their job since they

anticipate withdrawal in any case.

Although there is currently a lack of research evidence to ground this assertion,

there is theoretical backing for it. The prediction is in h e with the Theory of Reasoned

Action which anticipates that intentions predict behaviour (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). As

well, Coch & French (1948) identified sloppy performance as an indicator of resistance;

Leck & Saunders (1992) found that turnover and neglect were related as were a lack of

loyaLty to the organization and neglect; Zanter (1950, as cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999)

specified behaviour as the ulthnate symptom of resistance. Fhaliy, by fiading that

neglect is a viable organizationai change outcorne, ihis study cm provide a long overdue

evidence to back up the behaviour-based and individual versus systems-based tenets that

have engrossed much of the theorizing on resistance to chauge but paralysed actuai

investigation.

Now that the nature of resistance has k e n discussed, the fundamentai ingredients

that contribute to its alleviation shall be postulateci. Early in the change implementation

process, cooperation to the change must be eniïsted by (1) ensuring psychological safety,

(2) by communicating effectively and, (3) by encouraging participation. These are the

three most commody cited keys to successful change initiatives (Antonioni, 1994;

Carson & Griffeth, 1990). A key link between these factors and behavioural resistance to

change, and a critical partner to attitudinai opemess to change, is the psychologicai

constmct of trust. h fact, this study postdates that trust is part of the same procas that

leads to the attitudinal acceptance of change and is hypothesized to be the immediate

precursor of the behavîoural intent to resist change (see Figure 1).

Trust

Trust can be a cntical component for the acceptance of change and in obviating

deaimental organizational resistance outcomes. Yet, few organizations can boast high

levels of trust between management and employees. 1t seems that distrust is pervasive,

seething under the surface and brought to the fore in the form of misunderstandings and

resis tance.

FioreIli & Margolis (1993) have suggested that resistance is reduced, and that

receptivity and cornmitment to the change are enhanced under conditions of trust. When

there is little or no trust towards management, employees display the strongest resistance

to change (Coch & French, 1948). Trust is particularly critical for large-scale change

because such a change effort is relatively hi@ in risk It necessitates a radical shift in the

noms of the orgaaization, and thus requires the support of everyone to ensure a smooth

transition (Armenakis, e t ai, 1993). Some researchers suggest that the need for trust only

arises in a risky situation (Mayer, et ai., 1995).

A lack of underlying trust is likely to undermine efforts to enlist participation and

to breed perceptions of injustice if combined with threats to job securïty (Daly & Geyer,

1994). An erosion of trust is found to negatively impact positive work initiatives such as

organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson Br Momson, 1995), just the type of extra-

role behavior imperative for a successful change imperative. Also, trust is supplanted by

suspicion when employees report receiving decreasing amounts of information once

change occurs (Napier, 1989). Unless the organization can be entnisted to communicate

honestiy and consistentiy, attitudes towards change are Wcely to be antagonistic (Mayer et

ai., 1995).

Along the same lines, the tnistwoahlness of the change agent is one of the key

components of a change readiness program (Armenakis, et. ai, 1993; Sachs, 1994). Trust

is established by cleady denaing and comrnunicating the process and parameters of

participation (Sachs, 1994). Clear Limits need to be established so that fdse expectations

are not created. If expectations are shattered, employees experience feelings of betrayai

and leam to mistrust the process (Sachs, 1994).

The Nature of Trust

The study of trust in organizations has remained problematic because of the

prevalence of vague definitions of trust and because trust is often confused with its

antecedents and coasequences (Mayer, et ai., 1995). For example, trust is often used

interchangeably with concepts such as cooperative or risk taking behaviours (Mayer, et

ai., 1995). In other instances, these concepts have been suggested as beiog the

consequences of trust. Such research would suggest that trust is predictive of a

wihgness to cooperate or a wiilingness to take a nsk (Mayer, et ai., 1995).

The assertion of the current study is that "tnist" is not any -of these concepts.

Instead, it is al1 encompassing. According to Mayer et, al. (1995), tmst requires

cooperation and confidence in the words and actions of others. However, it is

distinguishable fiom these two concepts because it requires one additionai and key

dimension - trust recognizes and assumes a degree ofrïsk and vuinetability (Mayer, et al.,

1995). For the purposes of the current study, a single definition has been chosen. Trust is

defïned as "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party

based on the expectation that the other wilI perfonn a particular action important to the

trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party" (Mayer, et al.,

1995, p. 712). This definition is panicdarly appropriate since there are often minimal

measures in place for the average employee to monitor or control management As weil,

the definition impIies that the trustee is wïihg to take a risk by making oneself

vulnerable (Mayer, et al., 1995) paaicularly in the face of the uncertainty that is inherent

d&g change,

The wilhgness of employees to be tnisting of management in the face of

potentially negative and risky changes parallels openness to change which accepts the

rationale and promises offered by management. Though the two concepts are not

synonymous they do both assume an implicit faith in management and both exude a

willingness to accept potentially n s Q ventures- However, whereas trust considers the

intent of the party in question, openness examines the legitimacy and rationale of the

specific changes. Unlike trust, openness to change does not make interpersonai

inferences about motives.

Trust, as conceived of here, is simplly a willinmess to assume risk but not to take

the risk per se. Thus, trust is an attitude and not a behaviour. However, it is postulated to

predict risk taking in a relationship (Mayer, et ai., 1995). More specifically, the current

study hypothesizes that employees might be willing to risk comrnitting themselves to the

organhation by not quitkg (i-e., low turnover intentions) because they have faith that

management wilI look out for their best interests.

Trust and Justice

Another weakness in the fiterature on trust is that its role during change

management has not been systematically investigated. The exception seerns to be a study

that inferred the positive impact of trust based on their hdings on perceptions of fairness

during the change process (Day & Geyer, 1994). Aithough this research fded to conhrm

the mediational effects of fainiess between participation and cornmitment to change, it

postdated that a lack of trust might be an interactional variable to consider (Day Br

Geyer, 1994). Unfortunately, in the Daly & Geyer study, trust was used interchangeably

with definitions of fairness @aIy & Geyer, 1994) confiising interpretation of the results.

This lack of clarity is not musual. Aithough some researchers do propowd that

trust could interact with variables such as the quality of communication to undermine

resistance (Greenhalgh, 1983), by far the most systematic research has confirmed that

trust is a consequence of various factors. For instance, investigators hypothesize mistrust

to be an outcome of perceptions of the violation of psychological contracts (Robinson Br

Morrison, 1995). According to this logic, when an employer reneges on a promise, trust

deches because the violation signais that the employer's original motives to build a

relationship were false or have changed (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).

Similarly, trust is theorized to be an outcome of concepts such as integrity*

htegrïty is the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to an acceptable set of

principles (Mayer, et al., 1995). This approach to integrity is closely aligned with a sense

of procedural justice which relies on perceptions that the tmstee has k e n fair during a

decision making process. Both integrity and justice are conditions necessary for the

establishment of trust. As such, trust is an outcome (Mayer et al., 1995; Tyler & Lind,

1992). Once trust has been undennined, employees increasingly consider Ieaving the

organization because the bond between the organization and the employee has been

broken (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994) and the sense of justice and integrïty has been

shattered (Mayer et al., 1995).

Vague conceptualizations and inconclusive hdings point towards the need for

change management researchers to draft explicit models delineating the role of trust in the

acceptance and success of change. To date, the precise postulations and tests of Robinson

& Rousseau (1994) provide the most encouraging directions for research on change

management and resistance to change. Using their approach and Mayer e t aL's (1995)

conceptuaiization of trust as a guide, the present research mode1 hypothesizes that trust

wiii be directly and positively predicted by perceptions of procedural justice and wiU

negatively predict the risk-taking intention of leaving the organization. As outlined

earlier, turnover intentions will then predict negleçt. As can be seen in Figure 1, this

process is identical to the process that predicts openness to change.

Exogenous Variables Predicting Resistance to Change

The popular literature suggests that resistance is virtuaiiy inevitable if employees

begin with misconceptions about the nature and implications of change (Kotter &

Schelsinger, 1979). Because of such miscommunicated or misunderstood information,

employees often beiieve that the change is unnecessary (Kotter & Schelsinger, 1979).

Resistance in the form of behaviourai inertia is said to be the direct outcome of a lack of

recognition for the need for change (ComeIi & Hermann, 1989). Aiso, employees are

often anaid that they are goùig to lose something of value (e.g., autonomy. job) (Kotter &

Schelsinger, 1979). Such reasons represent the conventional belief about why people

resist change m e r & Schelsinger, 1979).

Unfominately, these suggestions are tainted by a lack of grounding in empincai

data. The dearth of academic literanite does not increase confidence in assertions about

successful change strategies. A study by De Meuse & McDaris (1994) is one exception.

Their swey results indicated that successful change was characterized by fkequent

communication and the early involvement of employees in the process (De Meuse &

McDaris, 1994). These two factors will be examined in turn. As weU, job security wiil

be postulated to play an equaliy strategic role in the acceptance of change.

Communication

It has been argued that organizationai change is characterized by uncertainty about

the future (Schweiger & Walsh, 1990). Any uncertainty is exacerbated when the primary

source of information is the rumor mill or the media (Rentsch & Schneider, 199 1) rather

than management. As a solution, Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) found that the use of a

"redistic merger preview" was very effective in enhancing cornmitment and job

satisfaction during a merger changeover.

The Nature of ODen Communication

In order for such systems of open communication to be effective, issues pertaining

to discrepancies between desired and current organizational States and confidence that

change c m be achieved need to be addressed by the organization's communication

strategy (henak i s , et al., 1993). Employees must aiso M y comprehend the nature

and purpose of the change in order to M y commit themselves to it (Armenakis, et al,,

1993). They must be provided with compeliing reasons for the change. The

communication message must allay fears and ambiguity about the new state of the

organization and employees' role in it (Young & Post, 1993), equipping them with a

sense of seIf-efficacy. Also, top management's support for the change must be

cornmunicated. Most importandy, the communication must address employee needs by

enumerating direct fiiture benefits of the organizationd change (Armenakis, et ai., 1993).

Aside fiom the quality of comtnunication, the delivery of the communication is

also of concern. Communication must be fiequent, consistent, and delivered face to face

by management as ofien as possible (Young & Post, 1993).

The premise is that communication that educates employees enhances

cornmitment to the change (Daly, 1995). Consider that ifresistance is motivated by an

attempt to maintain old organizational structures, it might be because employees are

unconvinced by the message that communicates the need for change. In particular, when

higher order cognitive structures are chailenged, they strîke at the heart of the experience

of continuity. Higher order cognitive structures are core organizing principles that

provide continuity and coherence to experience (Goodyear, 1990). They may either

represent personal identity or role-relationship schemas and are quite resistant to change

unless convincing evidence is presented (Goodyear, 1990). In such situations, it is open

and reiïable communication that will estabiish sufficient credibility to change attitudes.

When communication messages aiiay fears and convey a party's expertise and

cornpetence in making the change happen, attitude change is more likely (Mayer et al.,

1995).

Communication and Justice

Although the curent iiterature suggests a direct relationship between effective

communication and the acceptance of change, other research has suggested that the

positive effects of communication on acceptance of change and attenuation of turnover

are mediated by perceptions of faimess (Daly & Geyer, 1994). Justice theones state that

it is critical for organizational procedures to be based on conveying accurate information

and on identifying decision-making power in order to attain justice (Greenberg. 1987).

Extrapolating fkom these theories, the communication of accurate information will predict

positive perceptions of justice, which in turn would attenuate resistance. Not only WU

the communication have to be accurate, it wiil aiso have to provide sound justification if

it is to influence the affected party's judgements (Daiy, 1995) or to enhance perceptions

of procedural justice (Beugre, 1998)-

Note that justification has k e n tied to perceptions of procedural justice. Since

procedural justice pertains to judgements about the faimess of the process used in

decision making, it cm account for employee conclusions of the decision makers'

faimess (Daiy, 1995). If the decision maken are deemed to have been p r o c e d d y fair,

there will be greater trust in management (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). This is because

the employee can now tmst that management took their needs into account.

Other research has gone so far as to suggest that open communication cannot be

suggested as the panacea for positive outcomes of change. The blanket emphasis on

increased open communication has f d e d to account for idiosyncrasies of an

organization's subsystem needs Wogan & Over-Meyer Day, 1994). Because

communication varies in importance to meren t rnembers within an organization, those

closer to the centre of control require more information than those members in the

perïphery (Katz & Kahn, 1978, cited in Hogan & Over-Meyer Day, 1994). The results of

some investigations in merger activity even suggest a negative relationship between open

communication and degree of organizational integration (Hogan & Over-Meyer Day,

1994). This research suggests that when high-integration, large-scaie change occurs

between two merging organizations, workers undergo a great deal of anxiety and

uncertainty. In such a case, too much dissemination of information ~ C N ~ Y exacerbates

undesirable work attitudes and behaviours (Hogan & Over-Meyer Day, 1994)-

Such contradictions raise the question of whether these findings are simply the

outcome of more refined investigations or are a matter of the type of change king

investigated. For instance, the effectiveness of open communication might differ across

large scale versus small-scale change, in changes involving mergers venus downsizing or

depending on the content of the information king conveyed. Even if it is assumed that

open communication systems do deviate resistance to change and engender trust, the

function of justice still remains equivocai.

Drawing on previous research, the current study tested the assumption that

effective communication wÏii help empfoyees adapt to the change because the absence of

an explmation will be regarded as unfair? and thus will engender distrust and resentment

towards the change decision. An open communication strategy was postulated to have a

positive relationship with openness to change and development of trust This relationship

was believed to be fuiiy mediated by perceptions of justice. As weii, openness and trust

was hypothesized to be negatively related to turnover intentions. Turnover intentions was

hypothesized to be positively associated with negiect (see Figure 1).

Participation

The change management literature unanimously declares that employee

involvement during change is critical for success. If employees are encouraged to

partîcipate and their input is consistentiy and genuinely enlisted, it is supposed to reduce

resistance and increase cornmitment and performance (Comell & Hermann, 1989; Fiorelli

& Margolis, 1993). In fact, procedures aiiowing employees control of the change process

tend to enhance the acceptance of even unfavourable decisions (Greenberg, 1987). This

positive outcome is because involvement is a means of iafusing organizational members

with a sense of ownership of the change (Bronson, 199 1)-

The Nature o f Partici~ative Control

Research on the benefits of participation abound in the fiterature on participative

leadership styles and participative performance appraisal systems. For example, results

indicate that there is a strong relationship between participation during a performance

appraisal and subordhates' affective reactions (e.g., acceptance of the penormance

appraisal system, perceived fairness, perceived utility of the system) (Cawley et al.,

1998) - I

This literature makes the distinction between decision- versus process-control

(Tyler, 1987). Decision-controi is the control over actual decisions made whereas

process-control is the opportunity to simply state one's case (Tyler, 1987). This

distinction is critical because researchers disagree about which type of participation

results in more positive outcornes. According to an instrumental perspective, employees

prefer to maximize instnunentality by increasing decision control (Tyler, 1987). In

contrast, a more valueexpressive view of participation States that process-control is more

important because people value having the chance to state their case irrespective of

whether their statement influences decisions (Tyler, 1987). As yet, it remains unclear as

to why process-control would develop a heightened sense of justice even when what an

employee says has linle to do with what authonties might decide (Tyler, 1987). In fact,

these findings nui counter to common sense or to the literature on the role of trust in the

participation process.

This debate is mirrored in the organizational change literature on participative

change processes. The literature is unclear as to the nature or extent of participation

necessary to enlist employee support. Some researchers suggest that employees must

have active control in the formulation of strategic planning activities in the change

process (Armenakis, e t al, 1993). This is analogous to the desire to maximize decision

contr01 in jobs according to the job characteristics model. Employees who perceive

themselves to have high control will be more satidied, committed, involved and have

fewer intentions to quit (Spector, 1986). Non-significant findings in the participation

literature are often attributed to just this that is, a lack of control in the participative

process (Spector, 1986). Others suggest that psychoiogical participation is more critical

(Farell, 1983). Having the opportunity to articulate tactical concerns is suggested as

being sufficient for averthg unfavourable job situations such as turnover or poor

performance (Fareil, 1983).

A focus on tacticai versus strategic decision participation is another approach to

understanding participation. Tactical decisions concem what and how to change whereas

strategic decisions contemplate the initial decision of whether to even change at all (Sagie

& KoslowsIq, 1996). Involvement in making tactical decisions has k e n found to bring

employees closer to accepting change even when there is no guarantee that the decision

will advance their interests (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996). Again, there is an obvious

paralle1 between this view and that of a process-control view. Uafortunately, the debate

Partici~ation and Justice

Discussions on the benefits of participation assume that employee participation

engenders cornmitment to the change process. However, researchers lack an

understanding of why participation is likely to increase cornmitment. Emerging research

suggests that the key link lies in the 'faimess intespretation". According to this model.

when organizations change, they create certain expectations in their employees @aly &

Geyer, 1994). Employees f e l that they are entitled to certain outcomes fkom change

initiatives. This entitlement in the workplace is referred to as ccorganizational justice"

@aly & Geyer, 1994). Procedurai justice in particular is said to augment the effects of

participation on commitment and acceptance of change (Korsgaard, et al., 1995), because

it gives the participant process-control (Greenberg, 1987; Korsgaard, et ai., 1995). It is

because people simply value the opportunity to infiuence critical decisions (Le., process-

control) that their sense of pnxedural fairness is fortified (Beugre, 1998).

Some studies have found that the effects of employee involvement during change

on perceptions of faimess are contingent on expectations that the organization will

provide opportunities for training and wiU create a supportive atmosphere @aly & Geyer.

1994). Unless stakeholders are provided with the training to support change and unless

total involvement is eniïsted, participation is not Iikely to be constructive and

organization efforts to solicit participation are iikeiy to be interpreted as disingenuous

pronson, 1991). Korsgaard et al., (1995) do indeed suggest that perfunctory solicitation

of participation will not encourage acceptance of change or the development of a sense of

investrnent and commitment (Korsgaard, et al., 1995). As well, in accordance with the

communication literature, the need for employee training for purposes of participation

during change suggests that organkations must inculcate it's members with a sense of

self-efficacy if change is to be accepted.

In spite of the tremendous amount of research on employee participation outside

the context of organizational change, in actuality, there is minimal empirical research

determinhg the successful role that participation plays during change. In cases where it

has been investigated, the findings are ambiguous. Covin & Kilmann (1991) found that

increased organizational participation Ied to greater success as reported by the change

consultants and management. Coch and French (1948) also found that both total

participation and representative participation were inversely proportionai to behavioural

resistance. Yet, there are numerous change initiatives that are not successfbi despite

wide scale employee participation. Research needs to cl- and confkm this

relationship. Also, the fiterature fails to clarify whether participation alleviates

behavioural resistance, attitudinai resistance or both, or whether thk distinction is even

necessary. FinaiIy, the implications of process-control on the development of trust is an

unexplored arena The proposed mode1 aims to confirm the negative relationship

between proçess-control participation and both attitudinal and behavioural resistance to

change. In accordance with much of the research, perceptions of procedurai justice are

hypothesized to be directly and positively predicted by perceptions higher employee

process-control. Higher justice perceptions wiü positively predict trust and openness

which will negatively predict turnover intentions. In tuni, turnover intentions wiU

positively predict neglect (see Figure 1).

Job insecurity

The nature and role of job insecurity must be understood in the context of change.

Its detrimental effects on employee feehgs of justice and on organizationai outcomes

must be investigated.

Job insecurity has become almost synonymous with the fears awakened by

change. Traditional organizations have k e n founded on the premise of stability and

control. They were never designed for renewal or change (Fiorelli & Margolis, 1993).

hcreasingly though, downsizhg initiatives are resuiting in both job loss and changes to

the composition of people's jobs. Even when Iayoffs are not a factor, changing stmctures

within the Company threaten employee prestige, power, autonomy and careers (Kotter &

Schlesinger, 1979; Renstch & Schnieder, l99 1).

The Nature of Job Iiisecuritv

Issues pertaining to job security are the most powerful issues for employees.

Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) have narned large-scale change as the major source of

threat to an employees' sense of control in their jobs. It is notable that issues of job

security are relevant whether or not an objective threat to the job exists (Rosenblatt &

Ruvio, 1996). Job insecurity can be caused by the erosion of any employrnent condition,

not just the loss of a job. It can seethe in agencies high in stability (no recent layoffs) or

low in stability (O'quin & Lotempio, 1998). The subjective nature of job insecurity points

to the fact that it is grounded in perceptions of a discrepancy between the level of security

a person experiences and the level he or she might prefer (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991 as

cited in Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Specincally, job insecurity is defmed as "a

powerlessness to maintain desired conrinuity in a threatened job situation" (Ashford et. al,

1989, p.438). The 'Weatened job situation" pertains to various valued features on the

job and the dimensions of the total job. The extent of insecurity experienced is a product

of the importance and likelihood of losing features on the job, of losing dimensions of the

total job and powerlessness in counteracting those changes (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,

1984). Such threats to work flow, work roles, organizational structure and power

relationships WU increase resistance (Fiorefi & Margolis, 1993). Change initiatives that

increase power are Wrely to encounter less resistance than those that decrease power,

threatening the structure and influence of employee jobs (Rorefi & Margolis, 1993).

Job insecurity typicdy results in an increase in withdrawal behaviom (e-g.,

reduced commitment, engaging in negative work behaviours, higher turnover intentions),

threatens organizational stability, engenders mistrust and inhibits communication (O'quin

& Lntempio, 1998; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). When employees perceive an

organization to be undependable in its commitment to employees, they in tum become

less coxnmitted to the organization (AsMord et. al, 1989). These behaviourai and

attitudinal consequences of job insecurity are al I in line with our current twocomponent

definition of resistance to change.

Job Insecuritv and Justice

Responses to job insecurity are posited to be incited by perceptions of abrogation

of the informal psychological contract. An implicit psychological contract is fomed

when the employees perceive that their contributions to the job obligate the organization

to reciprocate (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Violation of the psychological contract is also

related to degradation in perceptions of justice (Robinson & Rousseau. 1994) because

expectations regarding career aspirations are shattered (Greenhalgh b Rosenblatt, 1984).

Deterioration in the quality of unbiased and consistent treatment fosters perceptions of

procedural injustice (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). This process-focussed view of

procedural justice makes the case that the procedures used to make decisions WU have a

profound innuence on the public's acceptance of those decisions, such as the acceptance

of the changes to job structures and roles (Greenberg, 1987). Recali that this rationale is

in line with the iiterature citing the link between process-control participation and

procedural justice.

It is evident that resistance as a reaction to loss of job security is considered to be

a result of the violation of the p ~ c i p l e s of justice (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Fried et.

al (1996) found a duect relationship between job insecurïty and perceptions of injustice

which, in tum, directly predicted the lack of belief in the benefits of the change (low

openness to change ) and an increase in turnover intentions. In turn Davy, et al., (1997)

found that attitudes such as cornmitment and satisfaction mediated the relationship

between perceptions of job security and withdrawal intentions.

Researchers caution against puttuig too much stock in postulations of a direct

relationship between justice and resistance to change. hstead, some contrary arguments

suggest a direct and negative relationship between job insecurity and resistance in the

form of unproductive job behaviours (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984)- Apparently, it is

believed that job security and complacency are related. Therefore, an employer might

fmd it more advantageous to have insecure employees who would, in tum, be motivated

to work harder in order to enhance their securïty. Aside fiom the inherent ethical violation

of such a suggestion, it makes p a t e r practical sense that change initiatives undermining

job securiiy are likely to meet with b t h attitudinal and behaviourai resistance

(Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984) because they undermine personal concems.

Though some research has failed to find any link between job insecurity and

supervisory ratings of job performance (AsMord et al., 1989), fiutber research could be

vital in Uustrating the conditions under which other forms of resistance would result

fkom job insecurity. To address this need the mode1 proposes the investigation of the

role of multiple mediators (justice, trust and aaitudùial openness to change) in capauing

the link between job security and behavioural resistance. More specificaily, perceptions

of job security will positively predict perceptions of justice (see Figure 1). In tum, justice

will enhance openness and trust both of which WU be ultimately, negatively related to the

intent to leave. Turnover intentions will then be positively related to the propensity to

neglect one's job.

The Current Study

A major weakness of the resistance to change liierature is that it is not Mced to

any particular theory of organizational resistance. Consequently, practitioners and

researchers are left with a peminctory understanding of the nature or causes of resistance.

Therefore, the current study proposed the utilization of a two-component

conceptualization of resistance to understand why and how people oppose change. Aiso,

the key assumption tested here is that organizational system factors are the champions of

successful organizational change, and that these infZuence employee attitudes and

behaviours that ultimately herald success or failure in the change endeavour.

The Merger

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) used to

be responsible for the delivery of agriculture and food research, education and laboratory

services. These responsibilities were met in partnership with the University of Guelph

and through OMAFRA-run colleges and research institutes. Effective April 1, 1997,

these programs and senices were consolidated, enhanced and delivered as one overd

program to be offered by the University of Gueiph. This new partnership has k e n cded

the Enhanced Partuership Project (EPP). OMAFRA continues to be responsible for

determining the program needs of their clients and for directing fiincihg to the University.

The University has, in tum, become responsïble for al l program management, operation

and administration. As OMAFRA provides transfer payment fûnduig for costs incurred

by the University in delivering its prescribed programs, the revenues generated by the

University will be re-invested in the same programs and services.

The impeais for the amalgamation was the imminent funclhg cut of 18% ($1 1.7

million) to OMAFRA's budget which wouid have resulted in the closure of several of

OMAFRA's research and educational programs (e-g., the Education, Research and

Laboratones Division (ERLD)) and reduced transfer payments to the University.

Oreanizational Characteristics. The plan for the EPP required a restructuring of

governance structures, management services, program strategies, physical and

information technology facilities and human resources and labour relations. The new

EPP's objective has been to centralize administration and adopt more aggressive

marketing strategies, thereby improving revenue generations. Though ultimately both

partners are meant to concur on al1 major issues to make the agreement work effectively,

OMAFRA and University side decisions are to be made independentiy, each by their

respective governing and research bodies.

Staffme. - Reductions in OMAFRA's budget and in transfer payments to the

University necessitated job losses at the University and at the ERLD institutions. Efforts

were made to offer contuiued employment to employees affected by the EPP. However,

staff were not informed of their "surplus status" until notices were issued. Information

and counselling were provided by OMAFRA at the time of the delivery of the notice. At

the same instance that surplus notices were issued, the University made offers of

employment but to only those OMAFRA members it wished to retain,

In blending stafnng arrangements, certain considerations and compromises had to

be made regarding job specificatioas, benefits, seniority Ievels, compensation, pension

arrangements and collective bargainhg arrangements. For example. in the transition,

many employees lost their tenure-track positions. As well, aü revised employment

benefits, compensation and job classifications were based on the University's existing

system.

Communication and oarticioation. To support the implementation of the EPP, a

communication plan was outlined whereby special interest groups were established to

invite input and cornments. Ongoing communication via staff meetings, memorandums,

newsletters and intra-net systems was meant to offer timeiy sharing of information. Top

management support was highly visible at pianned promotional events. The strategic

approach to communications intended to involve stakeholders "wherever possible" that

is, by asking them to attend meetings, to provide input or to comment on work by the

subcornmittees (depending on the stage of the work).

Ultimately, the success of the enhanced partnership is meant to depend both on

performance delivery and in large measure on relatiooships established with the many

individuals and groups at ERLD, the University and stakeholders. The key objectives of

the partnership have k e n to establish a beneficial working relationship in an environment

of open communication, trust, integrity aud cooperation. As is apparent, almost ail of the

key variables of interest during change management (e-g., communication, pedormance.

trust) were key elements during the EPP's implementation, attesting to the

appropriateness of the data site.

Thus, the current study developed and empiricdy evaIuated a mode1 of openness

to change. In doing so, it relied on data fiom a field setting thereby enhancing the

ecological vaiidity of the findings. By surveying the network of rdationships, the study

also provides more precise insight into the effects of employee perceptions of

organizational change initiatives while simultaneously fùrthe~g conceptual clarification

of resistance to change and offering a suitable way of measuring individual adjustment to

change.

Method

Partici~ants

541 surveys were distri'buted to employees from the Ontario Agriculture CoUege

(OAC) (Guelph, A k d , Kemphrille and Ridgetown locations), Laboratory S e ~ c e s

Division &SD) of the University of Guelph, the University of Guelph Animai Health

Services. and from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and RuraI Affairs

(OMAFRA). Each of these units has undergone a large-scale change in the past two

years as a resuIt of their amalgamation into the University umbrella of research and

operations. The merger has k e n c d e d the Enhanced Partnership Pmject (EPP).

188 completed questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 34.75%.

Individuals choosing not to participate were asked to stiü retum their surveys to the

researcher by simply complethg Question 10 of the demographics questions (see

Appendix for cornplete survey package). This question asked them to disclose the reason

for their non-response. Responses on this question were meant to offer a means of

gauging the reasons for survey non-response because of the prospect that survey

nonresponse could be a means of expressing resistance. Usable information regarding

reasons for non-response could be secured from o d y 18 respondents (3%). These non-

respondents offered three common motivational reasons for non-participation. Some

people (n = 2) felt that the demographic information requested did not guarantee

confidentiality whereas others cited heavy workloads for their inability to participate (n =

4). The majority of these people (n = 12) had to terminate their participation because

they reaüsed that they had been employed elsewhere at the t h e of the merger thus, did

not meet the inclusion criteria specsed earlier.

Of the final participants, 58.8095 of respondents were part of the staff association

and 41.20% were either part of the professionaUmanagement group, facdty association,

or College Academic Research Group (CARG), With regards to their specific

employment positions, 26.6û% occupied professionaVmaaagerial positions, 1.90% were

in senior administration positions, 10.80% were coilege instructors, 5.70% were faculty

members. 22.20% were laboratory technicians and 16.50% were ofncelsupport staff.

Regarding the pemanency of their employment, 93 -20 % of the employees held full-the,

permanent positions, 1.9 % held part-time permanent positions and 4.90 % held

sessionaUcontract-based positions. These sampling ciifferences in employee groups,

employee positions and in employment permanency are fairly representative of the

employees at OMAFRA and the University and offers a heterogenous sample.

After elimination of missing data, the final sample size equalled 164. The sample

displayed a relatively equal gender-split (47.70 % males; 52.30 % fernales); the age range

of the respondents was between 18 - 65 years = 43.93; Se = 8.66).

Procedures

It is worthy of mention that initiaily, two merged organizations were solicited for

participation. In addition to surveying employees who were part of the OMAFRA and

University merger, surveys were also distributed to employees fiom two additional

divisions within the University of Guelph that had merged their academic and fiuiding

resources to f o m a new academic division called the Coilege of Social and Applied

Huma. Sciences (CSAHS), However, due to an hadequate sample size (N = 42)-

responses fiom thîs sample couid not be included The fact that the CSAHS merger was

a qualitatively different merger h m the merger between OMAFRA and the University

precluded the poohg of resuits. The former was an intemal merger between divisions

within the University. The latter was an extemal merger, between two separate entities.

AU potential participants were fïrst notined about the study through an e-mail

circulated by their division heads. This e-mail iterated the same information outIined in

the cover Ietter they wouId receive with their sunreys (see Appendix for compIete survey

package). A week later, the survey packages were mailed to employees directly via the

University's intemal mail system. The cover letter informed the participants that the

study was an investigation of their current attitudes and reactions towards the changes

that had occurred as a consequence of the EPP. They were asked to cornplete a package

of questionnaires.

The final questionnaire package contained the actual surveys, a cover letter

(signed by the principal investigators and by Senior Administration) (see Appendix for

cornplete s w e y package) and a self-addressed retum envelope. The cover letter

introduced them to the objectives and benefits of the study for the evaluation and

rehement of the change process at their respective divisions. The letter also indicated

management support for the project. It was anticipated that the letter wouid encourage

participation in the study and result in a higher response rate. As well, this letter provided

them with the instructions for the completion of the surveys, informing hem as

to the measures taken to parantee their anonymity and providing them with contact

names and addresses of the investigators.

Participants were given one and a half weeks to complete the surveys prior to

receivîng a foliow-up reminder notice in the mail. Demographic information about

employees' length of organizational tenure, gender, age, union/ernployee group

=iffiliation, department/division of employment and occupational position were colIected-

Any information specZying the identity of the participant was kept separate nom the

completed surveys to maintain conndentiality. For this purpose, surveys were identined

by subject number ody.

Participants who completed a questionnaire had to have been employed in a

position by one of the administrative divisions involved in the merger for at least one year

prior to the organizational change. Both managers and empIoyees were part of the sample

since resistance to change is theorized to impact both equdy (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).

Permanent full-tirne and

part-time employees and sessionals/contract-based employees were included due to the

salience of job security issues for al l their positions.

As part of the protocol, an interview was conducted with three directors, one each

fi-orn the OAC, LSD and OMAFRA. This interview was conducted to understand the

specifics of the change process and to corroborate intended implementation strategies

presented in the documentation on the merger.

Survey respondents who held management positions were also asked to ver@ that

the changes in their division did, in fact, qualify as a large-scale change. Only

management were asked to report their perceptions on scope of the change because, it has

k e n found that employee reports of specinc organizational characteristics are more emr

prone compared to top management reports Çromaskovic-Devey et al.. 1994). Managers

(n = 41) matched their perception of the scope of changes of the EPP to the foiiowing

operationakation of large-scale change (Fioreiii & Margolis, 1993):

The Esihanced Partnership Project can be described as a "long-term,

comprehensive intervention focussed on the realignment of multiple

subsystems (e.g., rewards, management style, structure, strategy, etc.) to

enable the organization to actively adapt to its extemal environment".

(Yes/No)

Mesures

The final survey package contained eight measuses and a demographics page.

These eight scales are described below and are presented in the Appendix (see Appendix

for complete survey package). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 and alpha-

reliabilities are presented in Table 2. Note that with the exception of the neglect and

turnover intentions scales, the wording of some of the questions in ail the scales has k e n

slightly modi£ied to better accommodate the context of the merger and to capture attitudes

towards the University and its management,

Demographic information was coilected on some general variables such as age

and gender. As weil, more specifk work status questions were assessed in order to be

able compile a summary report at the end of the project for the university. Questions

pertaining to current position, work location and employee group membership were

Table 1

Descri~tive Statistics of Ali Studv Variables

Variable - M - SD Range

Age 43 ,93 8,66

Tenure 4,lO 3.63

Turnover Intentions

Neglect

Openness to Change

Trust

Procedural Justice

Job Security

Participai ion

Communication

Table 2

Reliabilities and Inter-correlations of Al1 Studv Variables

Variable oc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Turnover intentions ,93 --

2 Neglect .68 ,15 - - 3 Openness to Change ,83 -.39** -* 12 -- 4 Trust ,87 - S I * * -+18* ,47** -- 5 Procedural Justice ,95 -,40** -,15 .39** .69** -- 6 Job Security ,81 -.16 -,O9 *45** .36** ,33** -- 7 Participation 8 2 -.14 -,20** ,25** ,44** ,38** *25** _- 8 Communication ,95 -.27** -,24** ,38** S2** ,47** .25** S 1**

Note. * = Cronbach's index of intemal consistency -

posed As weii, one question asked them to verify that they had k e n part of the

University or OMAFRA at the the of the merger.

Effectiveness of communication was measured using a 12-item seIfIfreport

instrument devised for the purposes of this study. The response format was a 7-point

Likert scale ranging h m strongiy disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Inclusion criteria for

items during the design of the instrument were based on the eariier findings reported on

the components of effective communîcation (Annenakis, et al., 1993; Young & Post,

1993). Also, some items were adapted fiom a communication scaie devised by Daly and

Geyer (1994). The scale was highly reliable (a = -99, with greater scores indicating

more effective communication.

Partîcioation in the form of process-control was measured using a 4-item self-

report instrument devised for the purposes of this study- The response format was a 7-

point Likert scaie ranging Iiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Items were

adapted from participation scales devised by Daly and Geyer (1994) and Vroom (1959).

Inclusion criteria for items had to meet the following process-control definition of

participation: "process-control is the opportunity to state one's case" (Tyler, 1987). This

scale was reliable (a = .82) with higher scores indicating greater participation.

Job security was measured using a 16-item scale combining Lahey and Kuhnert's

(1973) 13-item self-report instrument and the 3 items fkom Ashford, et al's (1989) Job

Insecurity sub-scale of Powerlessness. The response format was a 5-point Likert scale

ranging fiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This sixteen item scale was

diable (a = .8 l), with higher scores indicating greater job security.

Procedural iustice was measured using Moorrnan's (199 1) 7-item Procedurai

justice sub-scale. The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging h m

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The scale demonstrated high reliability (= =

-95). Higher scores on this scaie indicated stmnger perceptions of procedural justice.

Trust in management was measured usîng Cook and Wail's (1980) 6Item trust in

management sub-scale. The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging fiom

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The scale was diable (a = .87). Higher

scores on the scale indicated greater trust in management.

Susskuid et.al's (1 998) %item h e m e s s to change scaie was used to assess

attitudinai acceptance and cornmitment to the merger. The response format was a 5-point

Likert-type scale ranging fiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This eight item

scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability (= = 33) and higher scores indicated greater

openness to the change.

Two measures of behavioural resistance to change (i.e., turnover intent and

neglect) were examined. Turnover intentions was used as a proxy to resistance. It was

rneasured using a 7-item scaie with items fiom the Michigan Organizational Assessmeat

Questionnaire (Seashore, et al., 1982) and items fiom Barling et. al. (1999) scaie. The

response format was a 7-point Likert scaie ranging fiom strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (7). Higher scores on this scale were refiective of a higher intent to leave the

organization. This scale also demonstrated high reiïabiIity (a = -93).

Finaily, neylect was measured by using a 12-item scale with items from Withey &

Cooper's (1989) neglect scale, items fiom Hepburn & Barhg's (1996) partiai

absenteeism scaie and items fiom Barhg e t al. (in press) scale. The response format

was a 5-point Likert scaIe ranging from never considered this action (1) to engaged in

action frequentiy (5). Higher scores on this scale represented a greater tendency to be

neglecüüi on the job. This scale had a mhhaiiy acceptable alpha-reliabiiity of -68.

Method of Data Analvsis

Of the 188 retumed questionnaires, 24 (12.76%) had to be dropped due to

randomly distributed missing data Note that missing data were given special

consideration. As opposed to employing List-wise deletion, respondent scores were

included as long as they missed oniy one item on their scale. The exception was the Job

Security scaie. Owing to the large number of items on this scale, participant responses

were included as long as only two items per case had missing data This technique was

employed because it was noted that missing data was largely due to nonresponse on just a

single item on a scaie which was resultuig in large amounts of missing data if Est-wise

deletion was employed. To circumvent problems associated with mem estimation

(Tabachnick & Fideii, 1996), the curent strategy was preferred. The comparabfity of the

scores obtained through this alternate strategy for managing missing data was

corroborated by correlating them with scores obtalned via list-wise deletion. The

correlations ranged h m 1: = -99, E c .00 1 to = 1.00, E c .ûû 1.

Observed variable path analysis was used to assess the fit of the theoreticdy

derived model and to obtain parameter estirnates- However, obtaining an acceptable fit

for the proposed model is no assurance that the best model has k e n found The strongest

test of a proposed model is to iden- and evaluate cornpethg models (Hair, et al., 1992;

Kelloway, 1998). So, an altemate model was evaluated, As was apparent in the earlier

review, much of the fiterature on resistance to change has been vague and overly

simplistic, implying direct effects of communication, participation and job secwity on

resistance to change as opposed to a process-oriented approach. For instance. Mayer et

al., (1995) suggest that the credibility and content of the communication message wiil

initiate attitude change and engender trust. Similady, the seminal study on resistance to

change (Coch & French, 1948) found that total and representative participation deviated

behavioural resistance. FinaUy, research that tested only direct effects f o n d that job

insecurity predicted mistrust and inhibited communication (O'quin & Lotempio, 1998).

In line with these findings a paaiaUy mediated model is proposed (Mode1 2) (see Figure

2) whereby communication, participation and job security wîil predict opemess to change

and trust directly as well as indirectly, through procedural justice. Note that the

hypothesized model (Model 1) (see Figure 1) was identified by omitting parameters nom

an altemate, less parsimonious model (Model 2) as per the recommendations of Kelloway

(1998)- As such, Model 1 is nested within Mode1 2.

A nested model is one that can be considered to be a more specialized subset of

another model, differing only in the deletion of certain paths but composed of identical

constnicts. Thus, the model with fewer estimated relationships (Model 1) is "nested"

within the more general model (Mode1 2). A Chi-square (x2 ) ciifference test was used to

determine whether the additional relationships of Model2 are providing a better fit

relative to Model 1. A x2 Merence test provides a basis for comparing these competing

models, testing the nuIi hypothesis that both models are equivalent in spite of the

additional parameters king tested in the altemate model @entier & B o ~ e t t , 1980). If

the null hypothesis is rejected, it implies that the additional parameters in the aitemate

mode1 are accounting for crucial statistical idonnation and must be retained.

EquaUy important, however, is the evduation of the specific resulis of each

model. As suggested by academic consensus (Hair et al., 1992; Kelloway, 1988;

Tabachnkk & Fideil, 1996) several indices of model fit are utilized in the current study.

Consistency across measures verïfies the acceptability of the model. Two classes of fit

indices are assessed (a) absolute fit indices and (b) incrementai fit indices. Absolute fït

assess the degree of replication of the implied covariance matrix to the actual covariance

matrix (Kelloway, 1998). Absolute fit indices consist of the x2 signincance test, the

standardized root mean square residual @Mi&), the root mean square error of

approximation (EWSEA), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted Goodness of

Fit index (AGFI). The x2 significance test assesses whether the covariance matrix has

been reproduced. A non-significant iindiog is desirable, suggesting that there is no

difference between the actual and the implied matrices (Kelioway, 1998). The

standardized-RMR also identifies discrepancies between the implied and actual

covariance matrix. Values less than .OS are desirable. For the RMSEA, values less than

-10 indicate a good fit and values less than -05 indicate a very good Et to the data

(KeIioway, 1998). Both the GFI and the AGFL have a normed maximum of 1 with values

greater than -90 indicating good fit to the data A notable discrepancy between the GFI

and the AGFI, would indicate that trivial parameters were king assessed (KeIioway,

1998).

In addition to overail mode1 fit, incremental and parsimonious fit indices compare

the model to a baseline (null) model- The nuli model is the most simple mode1 without

any relationships between the variables and thus, fits the data poorly (Keiloway, 1998).

Of the incremental fit indices, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) and the Comparative Fit Index

(CFI) are quite idonnative. The former index can be interpreted as the percentage of

covariance explained by the given structurai model (compared to the null model)

(Kelloway, 1998). For both the NFI and the CFI, values greater than .90 indicate good

model fit (Keiloway, 1998). The parsimonious fit indices take the comparison one step

further by considering whether the additional parameters of the structural model justify

the loss of parsimony. Parsimonious indices such as the Parsimonious Normed Fit Index

(PNFI) adjust for the effects of estimating more parameters (Kelloway, 1998). Because

parsimonious indices do not have a standard for indicating ided parsimonious fit, it is

customary to compare the PNFI values of two cornpethg models and to choose the one

with the highest level of parsimonious fit (KeUoway, 1998).

Results

Based on the question asking managers to rate their perception of the scope of the

EPP change, 70.30% of managers did feel that the EPP was representative of a large scale

change. Further confirmation and details were achieved by inquiring about the extent to

which the following four elements of the organization were altered by the merger:

organizational strategy, organizationd structure, organizationai processes, organizational

culture. On a scde of 1 - 5, a ratkg of 3,4 and, 5 represents a moderate degree of

change, high degree of change, or a complete change, respectively. Using a cut-off of 3

and above, results indicated that management felt that organizational strategy experienced

the greatest amount of change (80.90%), organizational processes and structure were

perceived to have changed to an equal extent (73.10% and 73.80% respectively) and

organizational culture was impacted the least (63.30%). The mean rathg for aU the four

elernents varied around a rating of 3.0. Table 3 presents the fiequencies and descriptive

statistics for all levels of the perceived degree oforganizational change. Interestingly,

these statistics are in h e with the aim of EPP change-implementation strategy as cited in

the University's documentation.

Table 3

Freauencv and Descn~tive Statistics for Manaeement's Percention of the De- of EPP

Amt. of Change Stratew Culture Processes S tmcture

No change 0.00% 12.20% 7.30% 2.40%

S m d degree of change 19.0% 24.40% 19.50% 23,80%

Moderate degree of change 21.40% 17.10% 26.80% 26.20%

High degcee of change 38.10% 22.00% 26.80% 28,60%

Completely changed 21.40% 24.40% 19.50% 19.00%

SD - 1.04 1.39 1.21 1-13 Note. N =41

Assum~tions

Prior to model estimation, assumptions of multivariate analyses were analysed.

One multivariate outlier was detected and deleted @ < -001). No univariate outliers were

detected. Analyses confirmed multivariate normality, hearity and multicollinearity, with

one exception. There was a tendency for neglect to demonstrate multivariate non-

normality. In order to address this non-normality, Generalized Least Squares (GLS)

estimation has been selected for model estimation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

AU evaluations of this data were satisfactory with the exception of the Neglect

scale. This scde demonstrated range restriction, thereby limihg its linear associations

with other variables in the study and Wting its intemal consistency. However, four

49

considerations encouraged the retention of this scale. Firstly, the indispensable nature of

Neglect to the concept of "resistance to change" suggested its retention for M e r

analysis. Secondly, it was considered unlikely that negiectful behaviours would be

normally distributed in any working population. Thircüy, the GLS estimator

accommodates for evidence of non-norniality (Tabachakk & FideU, 1996). Finally. the

reliability of the scale was so close to the desirable cut-off of a = .70 that it was retained

for investigation,

Model Estimation

An obse~ed variable path analysis was conducted using LJSERL Wïï (Joreskog

& Sorbom, 1989) using GLS estimation and based on the covariance matrix. Descriptive

statistics, intercorrelations and interna1 consistency values for a i l study variables were

presented in Table 1 & Table 2.

Table 4 presents the fit indices for the two models under consideration. The

original model (Model 1) provides an adequate but not ideal fit to the data [x2 (17) =

55.75, 1; GFI = -91; AGFI = -82; RMSEA = -12; Standardized RMR = -09; NF1 =

-94; PNFI = -58; CF1 = -951. However, the, partially-mediated Model 2 provides a better

fit to the data [x~,,,, (6) = 36.49, g<.ûOl; x2 (1 1) = 19.26. g >.OS, n.~.; GFI = -97;

AGFI = -90; RMSEA = -07; S tandardized RMR = .06; NFï = -98; PNFI = .39; Cm = -991

As well, the standardized residuals for the partiaiiy-mediated model were centred around

zero and symmetricaily distributed, M e r veefying the adequacy of the fit to the data.

This suggests that most of the direct Links from communication, participation, and job

security to opemess to change and trust are necessary components of the model.

Table 4

Fit Indices for Nested Seauence of Hmthesized Models

Mode1 X' df GFI AGFI RMSEA Std. PNFI NFL CFï

RMR

Full y- 55.75* 17 -91 -82 -12 -09 5 8 -92 -95

mediated

mediated Note. GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; NF1 = normed - fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of

approximation; Std. RMR = standardized mot mean square residuai;

PNFI = parsimonious normed fit index.

*g<.m1.

Parameter Estimates

S tandardized parameter es timates for the partially-mediated model (Model 2) are

presented in Figure 3. One-tded sigaificance tests were used because the direction of the

relationship were predicted a prion (i.e., t = 1.65, < .OS, one-tailed). As hypothesized,

neglect was predicted by turnover intentions (P = .N, g c .OS). AIso, as hypothesized,

turnover intentions were predicted by both, opemess to change (P = -0.20, g < -05) and

trust (p = -0.42, g ç -05). In tum, tmst was predicted by the presence of procedural

justice (p = .53, g < -05) and directly by communication (P = .20, < .Os), by

51

participation (P = -13, g c .os) and by job security (P = -10, E <-OS). Similady, opemess

to change was predicted by procedural justice (P = -17, g < -05) and directly predicted by

communication (p = -24, p < .OS) and by job security (P = .35, E < -05). Contrary to our

hypothesis, openness to change was not directly predicted by participation (P = -.01, p >

-05, n.s.). Fially, procedurd justice was predicted by a i i three exogenous variables

[communication (p = .34, g < -05); participation (P = -18, g c .OS); job security (P = .22, p

< .OS)]-

The partially-mediated Mode1 2 explained 4% of the variance in neglect, 29% of

the variance in hlmover intentions, 33% of the variance in openness to change, 58% of

the variance in trust and 3 1% of the variance in procedural justice.

Discussion

The primary intent of this study was to develop and test a mode1 of the emergence

of resistance to change during an organizationai nerger. In order to aid this investigation,

the study also offered an operationalization of resistance to change composed of

attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. Specfically, this study identified communication,

participation, and job security as the antecedents of trust and attitudind and behaviourai

resistance to change, and identidied perceptions of procedurai justice as a crucial mediator

in the process,

As hypothesized in Mode1 2, the iïndings of this study point towards substantial

and multiple organizational outcomes of resistance to change. VirtuaiLy a l l hypothesized

paths were confirmed. Consistent with the partiafly-mediated modei, communication,

participation and job security ai I predict trust by two charnels (a) directly and (b)

indirectly via procedural justice. SimilarIy, communication and job security predicted

openness to change both directly and indirectiy, through the mediator, procedurai justice.

However, contrary to the hypothesis, participation ody predicted openness indirectly,

through justice. Direct prediction between participation and openness was d i s c o ~ e d .

Finally, as hypothesized, openness and trust directly predicted turnover intentions which,

in hini, directly predicted neglect.

The fïnding that openness and trust were directly predicted by communication is

consistent with research affiîrming communication's capacity to enhance the credibility of

management (Mayer et al., 1995)- If management is wiiling to be open, employees are

also likely to be receptive (Armenakis, et al., 1993; Young & Post, 1993). The direct link

between communication and opemess is also supported by previous researçh kdings

that the favourability of attitudes towards new innovations and an understanding of

innovations introduced to organizations account for significant amounts of variance in

employee coping responses (kw-s & Siebold, 1996). Once the communication message

succeeds at providing compelling justification for the change, at enhancing efficacy, and

at c1-g the chanps to the employee's role (Young & Post, 1993), employees will

understand the need for change and will shed reluctance that may be boni out of fear or a

lack of understanding.

The potency of communication in promoting multiple positive outcornes is

explained by its ability to simuitaneously address several concems of employees' - it

addresses their performance concems, their normative concems, and their uncertauity

concems (Lewis & Seibold, 1996). Even though each of these concems may be more or

less salient for different employees, the content of effective communication cm

eventually target each of their issues, By addressing these concems, communication

essentially clarifies the ambiguity and pacifies the fear that is inherent to change. An

excellent communication strategy may even circumvent the need for participation in

select situations. For example, it has k e n suggested that when the basic fallness of an

authority (e-g., management) is made very clear or when an authority figure makes

concessions in spite of king opposed to the interests of the other Party, the beneficial

effects of process-control disappear (Tyler & Linci, 1992). Evidence of such

tmstworthiness of an authority figure (i.e., their credibiiity, motivation, and intentions), is

precisely what detennines the fairness in a procedure (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Tndeed, as

the literature suggests (Mayer et ai., 1995; Young & Post, 1993) and this study contïrms,

the most highly effective communication strategies are those that estabiish expertise and

cl- intent.

Consistent with the hypothesis, participation had a mediated impact on opemess

to change via procedural justice. The rationale for the effect of process-control on

perceptions of justice has presented to be a bit of an anomaly for researchers. Recd that

process-control simply offers a voice to employees to air their standpoint This defies

logic which suggests that people should not consider a process that solicits yet ultimately

disregards their opinion as fair. Yet, reviews of the Literanire on process- vs. decisional-

control (e.g., Tyler & Lin& 1992) have dernonstrated the resilience of the iïnding that

processcontrol issues are associated with prediction of enhauced procedural justice. As

long as people are aliowed to express themselves, the effect isn't diminished even when

the decision-maker is seen as biased or when the outcome is of key importance (Tyler &

Lind, 1992). It appears that justice perceptions rest less on the legitimacy of the decision

per se and rely more on the judgements of the procedures, the process, and the quality of

interactions. In support, Tyler & Lind (1992) suggest that group-value concerns dominate

faimess judgements - these explain the value of selfexpression through process-control

on procedural justice perceptions.

The group-value mode1 suggests that people evaluate the process faimess of

procedures for its significance for their value to the group (e.g., the organization, their

department), their relations with authority (e.g., management), and their belief that the

group is functioning properly and fairly flyler & Lind 1992). There are three aspects in

particular that are evaluated as important in justice perceptions - standing, neutrality and

trust (Tyler & Lind, 1992)- Concems about standing Iead people to examine whether they

are king treated with dignity and politeness and whether their rïghts are respected in their

exc hanges with authority. The authority figure's tnistworthiness is assessed by looking

for signs of benevolence, ethical behaviour, and fair intentions- This information Uows a

person to assess the reliability of the authority figure. Finally, people are concerned with

the neuWty of authority figures that is, evidence of bias, dishonesty or incornpetence.

Evidence contradicting the neutrality of the party negates assumptions of trust It appears

then that it is not control over the decision outcome that is of primary value as much as

the message that expression of one's opinion conveys about stanis withio a group. These

three issues are prominent because they communicate information about the faùness of

the procedure and fairness in turn, conveys a person's value (Tyler & Lind, 1992). A fair

encounter (i.e., process-contro1) promotes feelings of f h e s s and self-worth. This group-

value belief, in tum, is a potent reinforcer of acceptance of the legitimacy of decisions,

obedience to authority and a shaper of attitudes (Tyler & Lind, 1992) (e-g., trust,

opemess). By extension, this suggests that any strategy that is unbiased, that makes an

employee feel valued and that establishes the tmstworthiness of authorïty and procedures

will encourage justice. Considering that communication and job security appear to

address similar needs, the group-value mode1 then, is quite effective at explainhg why ai l

three factors (participation, communication and job secUnty) are associated with fairness

perceptions.

Unfortunately, conirary to hypotheses, there was no direct effect of participation

on openness. This lack of effect can be attributed to both theoretical and methodological

reasons. Firstly, relative to the other scaies in the study, the smder number of items

comprising the participation scale could present an unfair cornparison (Cooper &

Richardson, 1986). Also, the scale had to be created for purposes of this study and thus,

did not have the advantage of king previously validated. At the same the, it would not

be fair to suggest that participation was not weil operationaiized at ail, A degree of

content validity can be inferred because the items on the participation scale are

constructed on the basis of theory and previous research. As weil, the current scaie

represents an advancement from previous process-control scaies that measure the de-

of participation using only a single item and a dichotomous response-option (e-g., Tyler,

1987).

Theoreticdiy, it is possible that the type of decision (tactical versus strategic) may

interact with the type of participation (process- versus decisional-control) in explainhg

direct and indirect effects of openness to change. Recali that decisional-control requires

employees to perceive that they c m actualiy control the outcome of decisions (Tyler,

1987). Process-control only aliows an employee self-expression (Tyler, 1987). Studies

on dispute resolution have repeatedly demonstrated that the benefits of process-control

have been largely independent of the impact of decision-control and often, the former was

the only type of control linked to judgements of faimess and satisfaction (Tyler, 1987).

But, perhaps because none of these studies demonstrated the impact of process-control on

openness to change, the £hdings have limited generalizabilitty in the change management

domain. It is possible that decision- and process-control mether are indispensable for

acceptance of change. Decisional-control may be relevant for job-based decisions

whereas process-control rnay be more relevant for strategy-based decisions. When

decisional-control is offered for issues pertaining to an employee's job, it wu have a

more direct impact on opemess because employees probably feeI more prepared to offer

infomed input - employees have more information about their jobs than their

supervisors. Also. there is less ambiguity in such tactical decisions (i.e., those that

involve working methods. processes etc.) than in strategic decisions (Le., those requuing

initiation of changes) (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994). Indeed, Sagie & Koslowsky (1994)

found that the positive effects of participation were dependent upon whether tactical or

strategic decisions had to be made. Greater involvement and cornmitment ensued during

the tactical decision making process. Also, participation was found to be beneficial when

subordinates were able to bring useN information to the task's strategy development

(Scuily, et ai., 1995).

In contrast, during strategic decision making, more directive leadership may be

desirable and appropriate (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994) because employees might feel U-

prepared to take total control or accountability in such decisions. As such, when

employees are offered process-control in such decisions, they would accede to the change

even if they are not guaranteed a favourable outcome because by acknowledging their

opinion in spite of their lack of expertise, management probably conveys an implicit

message about their importance to the Company (recall the group-value theory). hcreased

opportunity to voice one's opinions then increases the perceived fairness of the process

(Tyler & Lind, 1992) and then increases openness ( ' e r & Monge, 1986) and tmst in

management.

As with communication, a direct and indirect relationship has been confirmed

between job security and trust and openness. The Iink confirms that empioyees are

concerned about their security when they are immersed in an environment of job and

positionai insecuity. The direct relationship between job security and tmst and openness

is aiso informative. 1t could imply thaî assurauces of job security c d visceral reactions

of resistance that c m ensue in the presence of the fear of a loss of power or secmity. An

interesting and logical proposition about resistance to change has k e n put forth by

Dubrin & kland (1993) and can be extended to job security. Dubrin & lreland (1993)

suggest that "fear" is the common denominator behind resistance. They suggest that

employees are feamil of poor outcornes, feamil of the unknown and fearfbl of resulting

problerns. Each of these feus is raised in the event of job insecurity. 1t is not difncult

then to infer that job insecurity alarms employees which then arouses multiple reactions

dysfunctional for the organization. On a positive note though, the assumption appean to

be that strategies and attitudes that can aliay fears will be effective at overcoming

resistance. It is no wonder then that because effective communication addresses people's

uncertainty and performance concems and job secwity maintains equilibrium around

these issues, resistance is forestalled.

The process that leads job security towards withdrawal cognitions has support in

previous research. h Iine with research canied out by Davy et. ai. (1997) and congruent

with the Reasoned Action Theory (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975), job security has been found

to £irst predict work-related expectations (justice) and attitudes. which in tum predict

withdrawal intentions. The most Wrelyrationale for this process is that, during perïods of

organizationai change, employees are prompted to reassess their rofe in the organization,

to re-examine their psychological contracts, and to understand the organization in tenns

of its relational signincance for them (Le., the extent of loyalty and support felt for the

organization) (Davy, et al., 1997; Rousseau, 1989). With the abrogation of the

psychological contract due to employment insecwity, employees wilX retreat fkom their

relationship with the organization (e-g., become mistmstful) and will withdraw their

commitment to its welfare (i.e. adopt attitudinal resistance) (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). It is

such attitudes that are found to be the antecedents of withdrawal cognitions (Davy et al.,

1997)-

Indeed, just as hypothesized, trust and opemess to change did predict employee

intentions to withdraw from the job. In the absence of faith in or commitment to the new

organization. both psychological and physical withdrawal WU ensue (Shore & Tetrick,

1994). Such reactions are probably representative of the more extreme end of a

continuum of evaiuations of violation of the psychological contract. Shore & Tetrick

(1994) suggest that evaluation of the psychological contract may begin on a continuum

extending from relational to transactional. It is only when the psychological contract is

persistently broken that employees move fiom graduai emotional withdrawal (e.g.,

dissatisfaction and lack of commitment) towards complete renunciation of faith in the

organization and intentions to exit. Such an interpretation would suggest that in fact, the

mistrust, lack of openness and withdrawal intentions apparent in the current study are

ref3ective ofemployee perceptions of serious encroachments upon their rïghts.

On the surface, the construct of the psychologicai c'ontract might seem outdated-

The changing organizational environment c m obviously no longer promise the traditional

career or Iong-term guarantees. However, the survival of this constmct rests on the fact

that it is composed of issues other than job securîty or career trajectories (Guest, 1998).

The content of the psychological contract is composed of relational issues (e.g., social

exchange, faimess and interdependence) and transactional issues (e.g., benefits, work

conditions, job characteristics). As welI, the notion of the psychologicai contract has

sunrived because the construct is based on an interaction between an individuai and the

orcranization - rather in either party alone (Guest, 1998). In spite of changing market

conditions, employees and employers wili aiways be engaged in some form of an

exchange,

The interaction-based nature of psychological contracts ties the construct to

communication and participation (Guest, 1998). For instance, communication and

participation cm engage in an information exchange by conveying information about the

preservation of employee interests. Job secwity issues comprise another item in the

cluster of items that figure prominently into psychological contract issues. FinaIly, since

perceptions of good working conditions and fairness are key to the psychological contract

construct (Guest, 1998). it is no wonder that openness to changes to one's job m d trust

would be salient outcornes of preservation of the terms of the contract.

The current mode1 confimis the hypothesis that attitudes towards change and

towards management are associated with turnover intentions- In turn, turnover intentions

predict a reduction in work effort, an altemate form of withdrawal (Davy et al., 1997).

The confirmation that neglect is an outcome in the resistance process does not augur weil

for organizations in transition, Most change models now concede that organizational

outcornes are contingent upon the organizational mernbers' behaviour and that change

will only endure if members alter theïr dysfunctional or now-dehioct behaviours (e-g.,

Porras & Silver, 199 1). If the employees do indeed cease to perform desirable actions

and instead partake in dysfunctional behaviom, organizational performance WU suffer

immensely.

Most troublesome is that fact that these disaffected employees are no longer

committed to staying with the organization. So now, the organization has a group of poor

performers who want to leave and yet are not leaving. Instead, they are aeglecting their

jobs. McEvoy and Cascio (1987) have suggested that although there might not be a

relationship between performance and turnover before an employee decides to leave, once

the will to leave occurs, performance may decline. Previous research suggests that it is

the poor pedormers that are more likely to want to leave the organization (McEvoy &

Cascio, 1987). But, if these poor performers do not leave the organization imniediately

(e.g., because of a lack of options), they are not contributing to high performance either.

By extension, because poor performers are more dissatisfied with their jobs and with

management (McEvoy & Cascio, 1987), they are likely to be afÎaid of changes that might

disrupt their position, dernanding more of them. As a result, they are likely to be less

open to changes to their job role and will be less receptive towards management (Le., lack

of trust in management).

An alternate explanation can be extrapolated nom research by Bcockner et al.

(1992). The researchers found that job security and productivity have an inverted-U

relationship such that high threat of job insecmîty combined with low ability to

counteract negative consequences (i.e., low control) were associated with demotivation

and learned helplessness amongst the employees, which in hun promoted complacency in

work effort. By extrapolation, if employees perceive a threat to theû jobs but realise that

the threat is inevitable, they wiil Wrely assume that they lack the control necessary to

rectm their demise even though they do want to leave (hi& turnover intentions).

Decreased motivation and higher Ieamed helplessness will then reduce work effort (Le.,

neglect).

The mode1 explahed only 4% of the variance in neglect. Though this figure may

appear trivial, its consequences for a changing organization that requires employees to

perform at their peak during a risky period of its Life may be substantial. Even minuscule

performance decrements are Likely to have long-term consequences for financial and

individual outputs.

At the same tirne, it is not entirely surprishg that neglect accounts for relatively

iittle variance. There were a number of constraints that could be potentialiy attenuating

the importance of neglect. Fiirstly, the organizational literature to date suggests that

relations between work characteristics and attitudinal outcomes are generaliy higher than

relations to behaviourai outcomes because behaviour cm, to a large part, be constrained

by numerous orgaaizatioaal factors that do not seem to constrain attitudes (Spector,

1992). For instance, orgaLzizationai systems such as performance checks and individuai

accountability are likely to constrain display of sloppy w o k Extreme dereliction of duty

might result in suspension or other consequences. It is possible that such negligent

employees were simply not retained d u h g the rnerger process.

Arguably, it is also conceivable that neglect is better conceptualized as an index,

As such, an employee would only carry out select negligent behaviours from a range of

possible behaviours instead of endorsing ail behaviours to varying degrees. In any case, if

negligence is not normaily distributed in the population and if it is indeed better captured

as an index, there will be range restriction. This range restriction will, in turn attenuate

the correlations and reliability of the scale. The implication is that, if anything, the

prediction of negligence is underestimated in the current sample and actualiy plays a more

serious and weighty role in the change process than appears to be the case here.

Potential Limitations of the Studv

In spite of discussing the importance of neglect, due to &air cornparisons (Le.,

distributional nonequivalence and some procedurail non-equivalence) (Cooper &

Richardson, 1986), precise answers about the relative magnitude of the effects of the

variables in this study would be misieading and erroneous. Still, with this caution in

mind, the study does present some interesthg trends about the comparative strengths of

the variables. Amongst the three change initiatives, co~~llllunication was better at

predicting procedural justice relative to participation and job security (see Figure 3).

Similady, communication had the strongest direct affect on trust. Job securïty and

participation were virtudy equivdent in their success at engende~g trust. h contrast,

relative to communication, job security had the strongest impact on predicting openness

to change directiy. Participation did not p ~ d i c t openness to change duectly at aU, as

discussed previously. Looking M e r dong the process, the strongest relationships

appeared between procedurai justice and trust and then, between trust and turnover

intentions. It appears then that communication might be of primary importance in

instigating resistance. In turn, the role of fairness and trust are of importance if people are

to eventuaüy support the organizations goals- Still, a l i the other factors also add

legitimacy to the concept of resistance and suggest that there is a iink between

organizational change strategy and attitudinal and behavioural outcornes that thwart

strategic goals. Nonetheless, in the interests of encouraging faim comparisons, strong

conclusions must be forestalied.

Ali measures in this study are seIfIfreport scdes of organizational attitudes and

perceptions. The self-report method was appropriate for studying organizational

resistance to change because it is ultimately the percevtions of the organizationai change

that would weigh heavily on the attitudes held and behavioun conducted by employees.

As well, our fiadings converge with research from organizational as weli as social theory

(Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Lewin, 1947, as cited in Dent Br Goldberg, 1999; Sagie &

KoslowsS., 1996; Tyler, 1987; Tyler & Lind, 1992) lending support to the current

hdings. At the same time, future research might consider borrowing ideas of social

psychology's laboratory analogue experiments to simulate conditions of organizational

change to invoke resistance.

Of course, at no point c m causality be inferred because alternate explmations for

the relationships between variables and altemate models of resistance to change are

plausible with structural equation modehg (Kelloway, 1998). For instance, it is

possible that the direction of inferences to be reversed or shifted. It is also feasible that

trust interacts with any of the varïabIes in predicting procedural justice. As weli the

finding that the original fully-mediated mode1 did not fit as well as the alternative

partially-mediated does suggest that, if future theoreticai advances are made, other

models rnight offer a better fit.

Considering that survey research is inevitably plagued with method variance,

concems regarding its potentiai impact were contemplated. A source of method bias, the

influence of preceding questions, was not considered to be a source of method bias

because the attitudes king tapped are chronically accessible, and thus, context-

independent and stable (Schwarz, 1999). Though negative affectivity has been implicated

in the distortion of perceptions of the job, it is not a source of method bias. Rather, it

aHects the traits of the respondents (Spector & Brannick, 1995).

It is possible that social desirability is a source of method variance in this study

because the study investigated interpersonally sensitive information. With regards to

responses on the neglect scale, it is essential to acknowledge the probability that

respondents did underplay the hequency with which they are negligent. In order to lessen

the possible effects of social desirability, participants were assured of their anonymity and

confidentiality. Despite these assurances, the interpersonai sensitivity of some questions

(e-g., neglect) may have elicited inaccurate and edited behavioural reports. At the same

t h e , method variance in at least some instances of social desireability is as much a

function of the trait of the respondents as of the rnethod. It is difficuit to contrd for the

traits of the respondents. Spector and Brannick (1995) also report hdings from studies

suggesting that partialling social desireability nom correlations between self-report

rneasures have little effect on the magnitude of correlations. Generaiiy speaking, though

common method variance is ubiquitous in survey research, the degree of inflation of

correlation between variables is generdy quite s d (Spector & Brannick, 1995).

Because it is not the ovemding cause of observed relations, method variance, in itself,

cannot account for the consistency of the present hdings.

Some of the scales of reference and the range of possible scores varied across

measures. These clifferences were maintained to facilitate comparability across studies.

This comparability is paaicularly salient when frequency scales are used as referents

because variation in frequency scales cm greatly influence the reporting of behavioural

responses, degrading comparability across studies (Schwarz, 1999). At the same tirne,

the differences in response scales within the study are not expected to introduce rnethod

bias. The use of varied scales of reference is justined since the innuence of response

alternatives is more pronounced ody when respondents are asked to recaIi behaviours

that are poorly represented in their memory (Schwarz, 1999). That was not the case for

any of the measures utilized in this study.

Finally, a potentiai limitation to the generalizability of the present findings is the

low retum rate (34.75%). As is common with survey studies, without concrete

knowledge of reason for the low response rate, survey non-respondents could potentially

differ fÎom respondents in non-trivial ways, limitiag generalizability. Some clues as to

the demographics of the non-respondents and respondents are present that ailow

inferences about the extemal validity of the current study. hcomplete s w e y s that were

returned (3%) indicated that the primary reasons for non-response were either a lack of

eligibility to the inclusion criteria, heavy workloads that precluded completion of surveys

or doubts regarding confidentiality of the surveys. These findings of s w e y non-response

are in line with research that suggests that organizationai members are often skepticai of

academic promises of confidentiality (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 1994) or that employees

working in downsized environments might be feeiing disempowered and thus, are less

rnotivated to perfonn beyond their job descriptions maskovic-Devey et al., 1994).

Score distributions for the variables were also examined to detennine the characteristics

of participating employees. Typicaliy, very few participants perceived extreme threats to

their job securit., extremely high solicitation of participation or extreme breaches of

procedural faimess. As weii. none of the employees reported being very negligent. At

the same t h e , distributions spanned the range of possible scores for all the variables

(except neglect). Although it is diEcult to acquire knowledge of the distribution of these

organizational characteristics, there appears to be adequate representation at ail levels of

the variables under study, diminishing the possibility of a severe threat to extemai

validity. As weU, by virtue of the fact that survey research does measure change

outcomes as they actuaily exist in the field (i.e. perceptions), the current study has tested

exactly what it wants to generalize to.

Irn~Iications

The current study does not propose any new strategies for overcoming resistance

to change that generations of change strategists have not already postulated and practised.

Instead, this study lends credence to their theorizing by virtue of presenting one of the

b t direct empirîcal studies on resistance to change. As well, it advances the state of

current research by filüng in the gaps as to the precise process by which resistance can

rise and the specific organizationai outcomes that result.

The results of this study have implications for organizationai theory. The shidy

links resistance as a psychologicai concept that resides within the individuai to resistance

as a systems-based concept. On the surface, the current study appears to imply that it is

the employees who react with resistance to certain organizational change initiatives. At

f i t , this stance might appear to mn contrary to Lewin's force-field aoalysis (Lewin,

1947, as cited in Dent & Goldberg, 1999) which suggests that it is systems-based forces

that raise barriers to change and that resistance resides within these systems and not

within the individual. However, similar to individuais, systems are essentiaIly orgaaized

sets of social roles and patterns of attitudes and behaviourai nomis. Nso, systems and

individuals share a common need for equilibrium and a desire to reinstate order in the

face of disequilibrium (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). With such overlap, perhaps systems-

based and psychologicaUy-based theories are not far removed fiom each other hplying

that resistance could corne fiom both employees and the system.

It is interesthg to recognize that employees in the current sample were harboring

sentiments that are counter-productive even one year after the merger has taken place.

Additionally, these sentiments are related to eady change initiatives. Such evidence

points organizations towards the importance of change preparation at the early stages and

cautions organizations agauist becoming lackadaisical af'ter "go-iive" festivities. During

the preparation stage, it must become customary to include employees (not just

management) in a stakeholder anaiysis to detennine where and why resistance is

onginating. If the nse of resistance can be stemmed in its formative stages of

development, post-implementation resistance c m be curtaiied. Carson and Gnffeth

(1990) have pointed out that the pst-implementation stage of change is the most strongly

associated with success. Therefore, cons ide~g that resistance can s u ~ v e for a long

time, follow-up evaluation strategies must also be planned to apprise institutions of

unresolved issues.

The current mode1 offers the possibility that there are actions that can curtail

resistance. An organization in transition could intemene at any one of the links in the

mode1 for instance, by initiating participative management, enhancing its trustworthiness

or dealing openly with job loss issues. Intervention though, must enhance efficacy of its

employees. For instance, organkations might need to prepare their employees to

participate in job-relevant decisions if employees are to make both process and

decisional-control. Furthemore, if a systems-based approach is embraced, employers

would need to scmtiuize their organkation for potential barriers to change acceptance

(e-g., prevalence of contradictory standards). By weakening these barriers equilibrÎum is

returned and resistance overcome.

This study also demonstrated the importance of procedural justice concerns in the

evaluation of various change initiatives and strategies. If the group-value theory is to be

accepted, there are implications for practice. This theory propounds that employers can

secure acceptance of change by king more considerate and fair. Tt has also been

suggested that procedurd concems supercede individual outcome concerns possibly

because they remain constant across repeated encounters (Tyler & Luid, 1992). However,

some encounters do not require repeated interactions, and yet procedural fairness of such

interactions have been shown to make a clifference in the voluntary acceptance of

decisions (Tyler & Lind, 1992). 1t would be worth investigating the role of procedural

justice concems in single-shot encounters.

As outlined eariier, the concept of resistance is tightly linked to organizational

goals. Any outcornes that thwart organizational goais can be interpreted as resistance.

Consequently, the specific indicaton of resistance are Iikely to Vary depending on the

specific goals of each change initiative. For example, in the absence of trust, an

organization might find its employees rallying for unionization in reaction to an

organizational change. This would be strong indicator of resistance. Research must take

care to select indicators of resistance that are tailored to the change king studied.

Future Directions

By its very nature, resistance is dehed as a latent construct with multiple

manifestations (e-g-, a lack of attitudinal openness, withdrawal cognitions, few extra-de

behaviours, turnover or negligence). As such, the multifaceted and two-component

nature of resistance would be ideai for future latent variable modelling. The use of latent

variables with multiple indicators wodd help iden@ dimensions of resistance and would

allow a powerfid and more accurate test of the relations among the antecedents,

consequences, and moderators of resistance. More information about the measurement

structure of resistance could contribute to an understanding of the process. Perhaps

different dimensions of resistance have different antecedents and consequences.

Research on resistance must ensure that altemate expressions of resistance are

investigated. For instance, the antithesis of negligence is prosociaüy motivated,

organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Obviously, OCB is the ideal expression of

dedication that would help organizations meet their objectives. It has been linked to the

enhancement of trust (Robinson & Momson, 1995) and organizational cornmitment

(Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Participation in decision makuig has also been Iinked to the

emergence of OCB (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Incorporation of O C ' into the definition

of resistance could greatly advance research and identification of its antecedents would

benefit organizational effectiveness,

With one exception, the modification indices generdy failed to suggest any major

mode1 respecifications, implying that the current mode1 was successfd in capniring most

of the relationships in the variables being examined. The exception was the suggestion

that communication should directly predict neglect. The fact that simple efforts to

maintain forthnght and ongoing communication could alleviate productivity problems is

promising and must be investigated fuaher. If this relationship is corroborated, it would

imply that organizations must invest in efforts more impactfid than quarterly newsletter-

type publications to keep employees informed of changes in their environment because

the results are tangible enough to affect the output of the organization.

Another positive step in the advancement ofresearch on resistance wouid be to

compare and contrast the current mode1 across groups such as management and

employees. As Dent & Goldberg (1999) suggest, both managers and employees are going

to be impacted equaily by organizational change. Yet, even if the resistance process

remains identicai for the two groups, the relative importance of the organizational

systems has been known to m e r across interest groups (Covin & Kilmann, 1990)

because of differential fiames of reference. Divergent interests might have implications -

management might stand to lose more power whereas employees might feel the effects of

a lack of leadership or training more strongly. Management might not be as cognizant of

the need for participation whereas participation may be primary on employee agendas.

Even investigations of the comparative effectiveness of change management strategies in

general would be very Uuminating. However, in order to ensure clear interpretation

regarding magnitude effects, such studies would have to ensure that procedural and

distributional equivalence are maintained (Cooper & Richardson, 1986).

Longitudinal saidies could be initiated for stage-based investigations of the

process of resistance to change. It has been suggested, for instance, that resistance should

be perceived as a positive reaction to change because it stimulates critical thinking and

innovation, thereby increasing chances that unwise endeavours will be flagged and

terminated prior to implementation (Merron, 1993). However, perhaps the positive

effects of resistance are only relevant during the initial "dieezing" stages of a change

when key sbategic decisions need to be made. In such a context, questioning the need for

change (aka, 6cresistance'') could lead to idea generation. Once the "refteezing" stage is

set in motion though, a lack of acceptance of the change is more subversive, as seen in the

current study.

A simiiar interpretation could apply to decisional- versus process-control. In the

eady stages, when large strategic decisions need to be made, employees might feel ill-

equipped to participate, prefe- to simply offer an opinion and instead to get more

directive feedback fiom its leadership (Le., psocesscontrol). However, once decisions

relatuig to their jobs corne to the forefiont in later stages of a large-scale change,

employees could justifiably want to have greater control (i-e., decisional-controI). This is

where differences in participative style and resistance could be notable. A longitudinal

study would be ideal for tackhg such stage-based questions.

Sumrnarv and Conclusions

There has never been a better tirne to corroborate the harsh effects of resistance to

change. Each week, merger announcements abound. The European economy is itching

to form collaborative economic relationships even as the North American economy forges

towards new industrial agreements. However, if history is a good forecaster, only a

fraction of these mergers will be successful. As well, analysts have noted that the

harmonization of worldwide accounting standards is going to Limit the retum on equity

gained fkom mergers (Tully, 1999).

Perhaps the reason success has remained elusive for changing organizations is

because of their exclusive concentration on economic, financial or strategic factors.

Instead, companies should reaiise that their change strategies have perpetuated huge

changes in stakeholder perspectives; that, in the context of fundamental and involuntary

change, employees are also changing theIr beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. By

increasing spending on employee-focussed initiatives, an organization cm gain great

competitive strength. Indeed, an organization such as Wd-Mart îs spending more on best

practices and democratic employee initiatives as it invades the European market (Fortune,

1999)- It is such accommodations that are accomting for its success more than the

acquisition of big chahs. Despite market skepticism about such tactics, competitive

advmtage is ofien gained through productivity gains (Kahn, 1999)-

References

Men, N.J. & Meyer, IP- (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment in the organization. Journal of Occu~ational

Psvcholow. 63, 1-1 8.

Antonioni. D. (1994). A new mode1 for organizational change. Oreankation -

Develo~ment Journal. 12 (32 17-22,

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creatuig readiness

for organizational change. Human Relations. 46 (a, 68 1-703.

Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of

job insecurity: a theory-based measure and substantive test. Academv of Management

Journal. 32 (42 803-829.

Barling, J., Roger, A.G. & Kelloway, EX. (manuscript submitted for

publication). Behind closed doors: organizational and personal consequences of sexual

harassrnent and workplace violence for in-home workers.

Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Signincance tests and goodness of fit in

the analysis of covariance structures. Psvcholo~cal Bulletin. 88 (32 588-606.

Beugre, CD- (1998). Irnplementing business process re-engineering: the role of

organizational justice. Journal of A ~ d i e d Behavioural Science. 34 (3), 347-360.

Brief, A.P. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviours.

Academv of Management Review. 1 1 (4), 7 10-725.

Brocher, J., Grover, S., Reed, T E & &Witt, RL. (1992). Layoffs, job

insecurity, and survivors' work effort: evidence of an inverted-U relationship. The

Academv of Management JoumaI. 35 (21,413425.

Bronson, L. (199 1). S trategic change management. Organization Deveiooment

Journal. 9 (3),61-67.

Carson, KD. & GGriffeth, R.W. (1990). Changing a management information

system: Managing resistance by attending to the rights and responsibilities of employees.

Emalovee Reswnsibilities and Riehts JournaI. 3( 1 ), 47-58.

Cartwright, S. & Cooper, CL. (1994). The human effects of mergers and

acquisitions. Io C L Cooper & DM. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizationai

Behavior. 1, 47-6 1. West Sussex, UK: John Wiiey & Sons Ltd.

Cawley, B.D., Keephg, L.M. & Levy, PB. (1998). Participation in the

performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a meta-analytic review of field

investigations. Journal of A ~ d i e d Psvcholow. 83 (41,6 15-633.

Coch, L. & French, I.R.P. (1948) Overcoming resistance to change. Human

Relations. 1 (41,512-532.

Combs, A.W. (198). New assumptions for educational reform. Educational

leaders hi^. 45 (s), 38-40.

Comor, P.E. & Lake, L.K. (1994). ManaPine organîzational chance* Westport,

CT: Praeger.

Cook J. & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organlzational

cornmitment and personal need non-fiilnlment. Journal of Occumtional Psvcholow. 53,

39-52.

Cooper, WH. & Richardson, A.J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of

A ~ ~ i i e d PsvchoIoev. 7 1 (21, 17% 184.

Corneii, JE. & Herman, S.M. (1989). Change or get changed. Oreanization

Deveio~ment Journd, 7 (4),76-8 1,

Covin, T.J., & Kilmann, R.H. (199 1). ProWg large-scale change efforts.

0 0 1-90..

Daly, J.P. (1995). Explaining changes to employees: the influence of

justifications and change outcomes on employees' faimess judgements. Journal of

A ~ ~ l i e d Behavioural Science. 3 1 (42 415-428.

Daly, J.P. & Geyer, P.D. (1994). The role of fairness in irnplementing large-scde

change: employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations.

Journal of Ormnizational Behaviour. 15,623-638-

Davy, LA., Kinicki, A.J- & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A test of job security's direct

and mediated effects on withdrawd cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 18,

323-349.

DeMeuse, K.P. & McDarïs, KK (1994, February). An exercise in managing

change. Traînin~ - & Develo~ment, 55-57.

Dent, EB. & Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change".

Journal of A ~ ~ l i e d Behavioiual Science. 35 (11,2541,

Dubrin, A.I. L kland, RD. (1993). Management and Or~anization, (2"6 ed.)

Cincinnati, OH: South Western.

Fioreilï, J.S. & Margolis, H. (1993). Managing and understanding large systems

change: Guidelines for executives and change agents. Or~anization Develooment

JoumaI. 11 (31, 1-13,

Fishbein, M. & Azjen, 1. (1975)- Beiief. Attitude. Intention and Behaviour: an

Introduction to Theorv and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Folger, R & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distnîutive

justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academv of Manaeement Journal. 32, 115-

130.

Goldstein, J. (1989). The affirmative core of resistance to change. Organization

Develo~ment Journal. 7 (I),32-38.

Goodyear, B.S. (1990). Resistance to change, expectancies and dimensions of

personaiity in psychoactive substance abuse disorders: a construct validity study of the

Concems About Change scale. Dissertation Abstracts International. 5 1 (1 1 8 ) 5574.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academv

of Manarrement Review. 12 (1),9-22.

Greenhalgh, L. (1983). Managing the job insecurity crisis. Human Resource

Management. 22,43 1-4-44

Greenhaigh, L. & Rosenblatt, 2. (1984). Job insecuity: toward conceptual

clarity. Academv of Manaeement Review. 9 (3), 438-448.

Guest, DE. (1998). k the psychologicai contract worth taking seriously?

Journal of Or~anizational - Behaviour. 19,649-664,

Hepburn, C.G. & Barling, J. (1996). Eldercm responsibiüties, interrde codiict

and employee absence: a daily study. Journal of Occu~ational Heaith P s v c h o l o u 3 1 1-

3 18.

Hinsz, VB. & Nelson, L.C. (1989). Testing modds of turnover intentions with

university faculty. Journal of A~alied Social Psvchology. 2 21 11 ), 68-84.

Hogan, E.A. & Overmeyer-Day, L. (1994). The psychology of mergers and

acquisitions. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), htemational Review of Industriai

and Orizanizational Psvcholow. 9,247-28 1. West Sussex, UK: John WiIey & Sons.

Hom, P.W., Caranilcas-WaLker, F, Prussia, GE. & Griffeth, R.W. (1992). A

meta-anaiytical Structural Equations analysis of a mode1 of employee turnover. Journal

of A ~ ~ l i e d Psvchology. 77 (a, 890-909.

Jacobson, D. & Hartiey, J. (199 1). Mapping the context. In J. Hadey, D.

Jacobson, B. Klandennans, & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.) Job insecuritv: co~ine with iobs at

risk, (chap. 1). London: Sage.

Kahn, 1. (1999, June 7). Wal-Mart Shops in Europe. Fortune, 105-1 12.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psycholow of Or9anizations. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kilboume, L.M., O'Leary-KeUy, AM. & Williams, S .D. (1996). Employee

perceptions of fairness when human resource systems change: The case of employee

layoffs. Io R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (Eck.) Research in Or~anizaîional Chans

and Deveio~ment. 9,49-80. Greenwich, JAI Press.

Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, DM, & Sapienza, H.J. (1995). Building

cornmitment, attachent and trust in strategic decision-making tearns: the role of

procedural justice. Academv of Management Journal. 38 11 ),60-84-

Kotter J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard

Business Review. Mar/A~r.= 106-1 14.

Lahey, M.A. & Kuhnert, W. (1988). The m e d g and measure of job security.

In R. Sims (Chair), TechnoIonical innovation and its im~act on todav's em~lovees.

Symposium conducted at the National Meeting of Operations Research Society of

Americf ie Institute for Management Science, Washington, DC.

Leck, J.D. & Saunders, DM. (1992). Hirschman's loyalty: attitude or behaviour?

Ern~lovee Reswnsibilities and Riehts Journal. 5 (3), 2 19-230.

Lewis, L.K & Seibold, D R (1996). Communication during intra-organizationai

innovation adoption: predicting users' behaviourai coping responses to innovations in

organizations. Communication Monogra~hs. 63, 13 1-157.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative mode1 of

organizational trust. Academv of Management Review. 20 (3), 709-734.

McEvoy, G.M. & Cascio, WF. (1987). Do good or poor performers leave? A

rneta-analysis of the relationship between performance and turnover. Academv of

744-762.

Merron, K. (1993). Let's bory the term resistance. Oreanization Develooment

Journal, 11 (42 77-86-

Miller, ELL & Monge, PB. (1986). Participation. satisfaction and productivity: a

meta-analytic review. Academv of Management - Journal. 29 (42 727-753,

Moorman, R.H- (199 1). Relationship between organizational justice and

organizational citizenship behaviours: do faimess perceptions innuence employee

citizenship? Journal of A ~ d i e d Psvchologv. 76,845-855.

Napier, N.K. (1989). Mergers and acquisitions, human resource issues and

outcornes: a review and suggested typology, Journal of Management Studies. 26 (32

27 1-289.

O'Quinn, K. & Lo Tempio, S. (1998). lob satisfaction and intentions to turnover

in human services agencies perceived as stable or non-stable- Perce~tual and Motor

Skills. 86, 339-344.

Oxford Modem Endish dictionarv (1992). Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

Porras, LI., & Robertson, P.J. (199 1). Organization development: Theory,

practice an research. In M. D. Dumette & LM. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial

and Organizational Psvcholow. 3, (20d ed.), 7 19-822. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psyc hologists Press.

Rentsch, J.R. & Schneider, B. (199 1). Expectations of post-combination

organizational life: A study of responses to rnerger and acquisition scenarios. Journal of

A ~ ~ i i e d Social Psvcholow. - - 21 (31,233-252,

Robinson, S.L. & Momson, E.W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: the

effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic vimie behaviour. Journal of Oreanizational

Behaviour. 16,289-298.

Robinson, SL. & Rousseau, DM. (1994). Violating the psychological contract:

not the exception but the nom. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 15,245-259.

Rosenblatt, 2. & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensionai modd of job

insecurity: the case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 17,587-

605.

Sachs, S M. (1994). Building trust in democratic organizations- P s y c h o l o ~

Journal of Human Behaviour. 3 1 (22 35-44.

Sagie, A. & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizationai attitudes and behavioun as a

function of participation in strategic and tacticai change decisions: an application of path-

goal theory. Journal of Or9anizational Behaviour. 15,3747.

Sagie, A. & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision Type, Organisational control, and

acceptance of change: an integrative approach to participative decision making. A~oiied

Psvcholoev: an International Review. 45 (l), 85-92.

Schmidt, W.& & F i g a n , I.P. (1992). The race without a finish line. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwarz, N. (1999). How the questions shape the answers. American

Psvcholorrist, 54 (2), 93-105.

Schweiger, DM. 8r DeNisi, AS. (1991). Communication with employees

following a rnerger: a longitudinal field expeiment. Academv of Management Journal,

34 (1). 1 10-135.

Schweiger, DM. & Walsh, J.P. (1990). Mergers and acquisitions: an

interdisciplinary view. In G.R. Fems & K-M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and

Human Resources Mana~ement. - 8,4t-107. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc-

Scully, J.S., Kirkpahick, S.A. & Locke, EA. (1995). Locus of knowledge as a

determinant of the effects of participation on performance, affect and perceptions.

Orrranizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 6 1,276-288 -

Seashore, SE., Lawler, EE., Mirvis, P., &Cammann, C- (Eds.) (1982)

Observin~ and measurine - oreanizational change: A mide to field oractice. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Shore, L.M. & Tetrick, L- (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory

h e w o r k in the employment relationship. In C. Cooper, & D. Rousseau (Eds.) Trends

in Oreanizational Behaviour. 9,91-109. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spector, P.E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies

conceming autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations. 39 (1 1). 1005-10 16.

Spector, P.E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report

measures of job conditions. In C L Cooper & LT. Robertson Gds.), International

Review of Industrial and Or~anizational Psvcholo~;~~ 7,123-152. West Sussex, UK: John

Wiley & Sons.

Spector, PB. & Brannick, M.T. (1995). The nature and effects of method

variance in organizational research- Io CL, Cooper & LT. Robertson (Eds.), International

Review of industrial and Or~anizationd Psvcholow. 10,249-274. West Sussex, UK:

John Wiley & Sons.

Susskind, A.M., Miller, V.D. & Johnson, J D . (1998). Downsizing and structural

holes: their impact on Iayoff survivors' perceptions of organizational chaos and openness

to change. Communication Research. 25 (11,30-65.

Tomaskovic-Devely, D., Leiter, J. & Thompson, S. (1994). Orgaaizational

survey non-response. Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 39.439457.

Tuily, S. ( 1999, Iune 7). It's time for merger mania II. Fortune, 23 1-232.

Tyler, T.R. (1987). Conditions leading to valueexpressive effects in judgements

of procedurai justice: a test of four models.

52 (2). 333-344.

Tyler, TP. & Lind E.A. (1992). A relational mode1 of authority in groups. In

M.P. Zama (Ed.), Advances in ex~erimental social ~svcholow. 25, 1 15- 19 1. San Diego,

USA: Academic Press.

Vroom, V. (1959). Some Personalitv Determinants of the Effects of

Partici~ation. Englewood Clif fs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Whithey, M. J. & Cooper, WH. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and

neglect. Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 34,52 1-539.

Young, M.. & Post, JE. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to

manage: How Leading companies communicate with employees. Or~anizational

Dvnamics. 22(1), 3 143.

Appendix

Complete S w e y Package Ad-stered to Sample

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL AND APPTED HUMAN SCIENCES Depumient of Psychology

Dear Sir/Madam:

M y name is Anuradha Chawla 1 a m a Master's student at the University of Guelph. 1 am currently conducting research in coilaboration with the University to assess employees' perceptions of change within their organization and the aspects that they believe to be crihcai for making the change successfiil, Specifically, the merger between CSS and FACS and the Enhanced Parinership Project involving 0MAF;RA and the University might have required you to make adjustrnents in your work environment, As weU, the mi-versity wouId Eilre to*use this tool to assess the strengths and short£omings of the changes instituted. This survey allows you the opporRmity to provide feedback on issues tbat mïght be of continuhg concem for you-

Please be assured that the data-king coliected wiii be kept compIetedy anonyrnous and confidential (please do NOT ut vour narne anvwhere). Only my advisor and 1 sball have access to the completed questiomaires. The data will be used for research purposes ody. The Monnation reported by you d l NOT be used for pirrposes of performance evaluation, negotiatioos, etc. Ln a brief fmal report to the university, analysis of the data wiU be reported in the fonn of group totais ody - individual attitudes will NOT be reported. Also, you may acquire a copy of the report at any t h e for your information. Thus, 1 hope you wiii feel free to be completely honest in your evaluation of the &anges and your work attitudes.

The survey will take 45 minutes for you to cornplete, PIease retum the survev within ONE week A r e m envelope is enclosed in the package. Of course, participation is completely voluntary, CompIeting and returnïng the survey will be taken as consent to have your data used in the study. Although I hope that you feel cordortable answerïng all the questions, feel fiee to disregard any question that you are uncomfortable answering. If you prefer to opt out of participation, 1 would greatly appreciate it if you could at Ieast complete Question 10 on the demopphics page (page 1) and return the package. Thank you so much for taking this study into consideration. 1 sincerely appreciate it.

Should you require fiirther information about the study or would like a of the results (avdable in May, 1999), p!ease feel free to contact me at (5 19) 824-4120 Ext 893 1, or by e-mail (achawla@uoguelph,ca)~ Altemately, the project supervisor, Dr- Kevin Kellowajr may also be contacted at (519) 824-4120 Ext, 4475 or via e-mail (kelIoway@css,uoguelph~ca),

Sincerely, _

M.A, Candidate Indus~aVOrganizational Psychology

OAC Dean's Office Act. Director Lab Semkes

/ ~ g e c t b f ~ . &rifood Resource Program .

G U W H O N T . CANADA NIG 2Wl (5 191 8244120 FAX <S 19) 837-8629

Demographks

Please complete the foilowing demographic information. Please be assured that none of this

information will breach confidentiaiity- If you prefer not to participate, couid you piease at ieast

complete Ouestion 10 and retum the package to the researcher. Thank you!

Age 2) Gender M F -

PIease indicate your employee group:

Exempt S tafF Association Professionai/ManageriaI

Faculty Association CoIlege Academic Research Group (CARG)

Other

Department/Division you work for?

Location at which you currently work?

AIfred- KemptviUe Ridgetown U. of Guelph m.IO

Other

Current Position:

Office/Support Staff Lab Tech

Facuity College Instructor

Senior Administration Unit Head (e-g. of department)

ProfessionaVManageriaI Other

Number of years under current supervisor? years

Regular Full-Time position Reguiar Part-time

SessionaLIContracüTemp.

Before the changes, were you working for a department and/or division affected by either

the merger between CSS & FACS OR by the creation of the Enhanced Partnership

Projec t between OMAFRA and the University?

a) YES - in the same job b) YES - but in a different job

Demographics (continued)

NO - 1 was working in a completely different department/division

NO - I was employed elsewhere

you do not need to proceed hicther. If TES'', please complete the remainder of

the questiomaire. Thank you for your co-operation!).

10) Reason for not participahg in study (if choosing to opt out)?

Opemess to Change scale

Note that the questions specificaily refer to the Merger of CSS & FACS or the EPP that occurred

recently. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following scde items.

1 2 3 4 5 S trongiy Disagree Neither agree nor AfPe Strondy Disagree Disagree Agre

1 would consider myself "open" to the recent changes brought to my work role by the

MergerEPP.

Right now, 1 am somewhat resistant to any changes in my work role.

1 am quite reluctant to consider changing the way 1 now do my work

1 think the irnplementation of the recent changes (MergerEPP) positively effects how I

accomplish my work

From my perspective, the recent change (Merger/EPP) was for the better.

The changes (MergerIEPP) are for the worst in accomplishing my work.

The changes (MergedEPP) are negatively impacting how 1 perfonn my work role.

Note. Reproduced £iom "Downsizing and structural holes: their impact on layoff survivoa'

perceptions of organizational chaos and openness to change," by A.M. Susskind VD. Miller, &

J-D. Johnson, 1998, Communication Research. 25 (1),30-65.

Negiect scale

The statements below describe actions employees take h m time to time in the workplace.

Indicate your own fkauencv of exbenence with each action.

1 2 3 4 5 Never Considered Considered Engaged in Engaged in Engaged in this action but reiected action very action action

this action infrequenty occasionaUy fkquentiy

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9-

10.

II.

12.

Note.

Waited, hoping any problems would solve themselves-

Cded in sick in order to not deal with what was happening.

Came in late to avoid some problems-

Left early,

Took unauthorized, extended lunch breaks.

Said nothing to others if 1 noticed a problem, assuming things would work out.

Became less interested and made more errors.

Didn't pass on messages to others.

Foiiowed rules to the letter of the law of "work to de" .

Covered up my mistakes.

Stayed out of sight to avoid work.

Intentionaiiy worked slowly.

Adapted £iom "Behind closed doors: organizational and personal consequences of sexual

harassrnent and workplace violence for in-home workers," by J. Barling, A.G. Roger, & E.K.

Kelloway, (manuscript submitted for publication).

Note. Adapted from 'Eldercare responsibilities, interrole conflict and employee absence: a daily

study," by C.G. Hepburn, Br J. Barling, 1996, Jownd of Occuvational Health Psvcholow. 1,

3 11-3 18.

Note. Adapted from "Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect," by M.J. Whithey & WH.

Cooper, 1989, Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 34, 52 1-539.

Job Security scale

The following statements are designed to measure your current job. Please indicate the extent to

which you a m or disame with each statement by circhg the number that you fed best

represents your views. Please c h i e one and odv one number for each item on the swev.

1 2 3 4 5 S tron& Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree A-

I can keep my current job for as long 1 want it.

If 1 wanted to, 1 could easily find a comparable job elsewhere.

This job has retirement security-

1 have been actively recniited by other employers in the past year.

Management has been threatening to close the organization 1 work at for so long now

that no one listens anyrnore.

If 1 lost my job, 1 would be employed elsewhere within a short tirne.

1 am not really sure now long rny present job wîli last.

If my particular job were phased out, the university would try very hard to place me in

another position.

Rumors that the department/division 1 work for wiU close are just rumors.

1 can be sure of my present job as long as 1 do good work.

If 1 were laid off £tom my current job, 1 would probably have to relocate to find

comparable employment.

There would be obvious signs if the department/division 1 work for were going to close.

There is a real need for my position at this university.

I have enough power at thïs university to control events that might affect my job.

1 can prevent negative things from affecting my work situation.

1 understand this university well enough to be able to control things that affect me.

Job Security scale

Note. Reproduced h m "Content, causes and consequences of job insecurity: a theory-based - measure and substantive test," 1989, by S.J. Ashford, Cs Lee & P. Bobko, 1989, Academv of

Management Journal. 32 (4h 803-829.

Note. Reproduced fiom "The meaning and measure of job secunty," by M. A- Lahey & K.W.

Kuhnert, 1988, in Technolo~cal innovation and its im~act on todav's em~lovees, Symposium

conducted at the National Meeting of Operations Research Society of A m e n c f i e hstitute for

Management Science, Washington, DC-

Participation ScaIe

PIease Note That AU the Foilowing Scaies Are to Be S c o d on a 7 4 n t Sde.

Referring to the Merger of CSS & FACS or the Enhanced Partnership Project (EPP) that has

taken place, please recall the degree and nature of partici~ation enlisted h m you and indicate

the extent to which you agree or disagree with the foIIowing .

2 3 4 5 6 S trongly Disagree SLightly Neither agree Slightly A p e S ~ W ~ Y 1 1 Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree I

1. 1 felt that 1 had input in the decisions made drrring the change process.

2. My opinion had been solicited regarding problems involving the change process.

3. If1 had a suggestion to make about improving the change, it was easy for me to get my

ideas across.

4. 1 feel that the university took my concems about the changes seriously.

Note. Adapted from 'The roIe of faimess in implementing large-scale change: employee - evduations of process and outcome in seven faciLity relocations," by J.P. Daly & PD. Geyer,

1994, Journal of Oreanizational Behaviour. 15,623-638.

Note. Adapted fkom Some Personalitv Determinants of the Effects of Particioation, by V. - Vroom, 1959, Englewwd Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail.

Conununication sale

Referrïng to the Merger of CSS & FACS or the Enhanced Partnership Ekject (EPP) that has

taken place, please recd the degree and nature of information communicated to you about the

change and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the foIIowing statements.

I Disa- Disagree nor Disagree I

The need for the change (MergerEPP) was M l y explained.

Importaut information about the changes(Merger/EPP) that were to take place was

communicated.

The information communicated clarified any ambiguiîy about the impending chaages.

Information about the change (MergedEPP) has k e n consistent.

Mormation about the change has been communicated continually.

Questions that employees have had about the changes (Merger/EPP), have been answered

cleariy . In general, it was clear why change (MergedEPP) was necessary.

The benefits of the change for aII em~Iovees have been communicated.

The benefits of the change for my iob have been clearly communicated.

In general, 1 have had a clear understanding of the change process.

The means by which the change (MergerEPP) would take place were clearly

communicated.

From the information commmicated during the Merger/EPP, it was apparent that we

would be able to carry out the changes,

Procedurai Justice sale

Indicate the degree to which you aaee or disasme with the foliowing statements.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S trongly Disagree Siightiy Neither agree Slightly Al?= Smn@y Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree APee

If 1 laid a cornplaint about a work issue, the university would ... 1. CoUect accurate information necessary for decision making.

2. Provide opportunities to appeal or challenge the decision.

3. Have ai i sides affecteci by the decision represented.

4. Follow standards or policies so that decisions could be made consistentiy.

5. Hear the concems of al i those affected by the decision.

6. Provide useful information regarding the decision and its implementation.

7. AUow for requests for clarification of additional information about the decision.

8. Ensure that privacy of ail those involved was protected.

Note. Reproduced fiom "Relationship between organizational justice and organizational - citizenship behaviours: do fairness perceptions innuence employee citizenship?," by R.H.

Moonnan, R.H., 199 1, Journal of A~alied Psycholow. 76,845-855.

Turnover Identions scale

Indicate the degree to which you aeree or d i s a m with the following statements:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S trongly Disagree Slightiy Neither agree Slïghtly AiFe S trongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree A-

1 often think about leaving rny current job.

It is quite Uely that 1 will look for another job in the next year.

Over the last few months, 1 have spent some tune looking for a new job.

1 expect to leave my job in the near future.

I have discussed the possibiiity of leaving my job with a fkiend or famüy member (e-g.

spouse, sibling),

1 have discussed the possibility of my leaving my job with a professional (e-g- human

resowce professional, recruiting company) . I often think that 1 would enjoy leaving the university.

Note. Reproduced fkom Observin~ - and measurin~ oreanizationd change: A a i d e - to field

practice, by S.E. Seashore, EE. Lawler, P. Muvis & C. Cammam, 1982, New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Note. Adapted fiom 'CBehind closed doors: organizational and personal consequences of sexual

harassrnent and workplace violence for in-home workers," by I. Barling, A.G. Roger, & E.K.

KelIoway, (manuscript submitted for publication).

Tmst scaie

Indicate the de- to which you aeree or disaeree with the foliowing statements.

2 3 4 5 6 Disagree SIightly Neither agree Slightly A- S trongiy ' 1

I Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree A w e I 1. The university is sincere in its attempt to meet the employees' viewpoint

2. This university has a poor fûture uniess it can attract better management.

3. The university c m be tmsted to make sensible decisions for the future.

4. The university seems to do an efficient job.

5. 1 feel quite confident that the University will aiways try to treat me fairly.

6. The univeaity would be quite prepared to gain advantage by deceiving the workers.

Note. Reproduced fiom "New work attitude measures of trust, organizational cornmitment and

personal aeed non-fulfilment," by J. Cook & T. Wail. 1980, Journal of Occuoational

Scope of Change questions

If you are in a mana~erial msition or are a unit head, please complete the following. Thank you.

1. Please corroborate whether you would consider the Merger between FACS and CSS OR

the changes brought about by the Enhanced Partnership Project to match the foilowing

statement:

The Merger/Enhanced Partnership Project can be described as a "lone-tem,

com~rehensive intervention focussed on the realimment of muiti~le submstems

(e.g. rewards, management style, structure, strategy, etc.) to enable the

organization to actively adapt to its extemal environment".

YES NO

2. Please indicate the extent to which foIIowîng five types of environmental change did take

place as a result of the Merger 1 Enhanced Partnership Project:

1 2 3 4 5 No Change Small degree Moderate degree High Degree Compie tely

of change of change of change changed

1, Organizational S trategy

2 . Organizational S tmcture

3 . Organizational Processes

4. Organizational Culture

REMINDER NOTICE!!!!! Dear Sir/Madam:

HeUo! This is just a fiïendly reminder to those of you who were willing to complete the swey on the organizational changes that resulted fiom the merger between CSS & FACS or the Enhanced Partnership Project between OMAERA and the University. If you could please complete and retum the survey as soon as possible, it would be greatiy appreciated. If you have already done so, please know that 1 sincerely appreciate your support and participation.

MA. candidate IndusaiavOrganizational Psychology University of Guelph