Perceptions of Organizational Change: A Stress and Coping Perspective

Page created by Louis Hansen
 
CONTINUE READING
Journal of Applied Psychology                                                                                      Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 91, No. 5, 1154 –1162                                                                                   0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1154

    Perceptions of Organizational Change: A Stress and Coping Perspective

                            Alannah E. Rafferty                                                                 Mark A. Griffin
                   Queensland University of Technology                                  The University of South Wales and The University of Sydney

                               Few organizational change studies identify the aspects of change that are salient to individuals and that
                               influence well-being. The authors identified three distinct change characteristics: the frequency, impact
                               and planning of change. R. S. Lazarus and S. Folkman’s (1984) cognitive phenomenological model of
                               stress and coping was used to propose ways that these change characteristics influence individuals’
                               appraisal of the uncertainty associated with change, and, ultimately, job satisfaction and turnover
                               intentions. Results of a repeated cross-sectional study that collected individuals’ perceptions of change
                               one month prior to employee attitudes in consecutive years indicated that while the three change
                               perceptions were moderately to strongly intercorrelated, the change perceptions displayed differential
                               relationships with outcomes. Discussion focuses on the importance of systematically considering indi-
                               viduals’ subjective experience of change.

                               Keywords: organizational change, individual perceptions, appraisal, survey research

   Although there are many studies of organizational change, few                       have investigated specific changes such as job loss resulting from
identify the aspects of change that are salient to individuals and                     downsizing (Gowan, Riordan, & Gatewood, 1999), mergers
that inluence employee attitudes. We address two key questions                         (Armstrong-Stassen, Cameron, Mantler, & Horsburgh, 2001; Fu-
about organizational change in this article. First, what are the                       gate, Kinicki, & Scheck, 2002; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996), and
salient dimensions of organizational change that individuals per-                      acquisitions (e.g., Scheck & Kinicki, 2000). These studies are
ceive in their workplace? Second, how do perceptions of change                         important, but do not identify the properties of change events that
characteristics influence individual outcomes? We use Lazarus and                      lead to negative employee outcomes. This is a critical limitation of
Folkman’s (1984) cognitive phenomenological or transactional                           existing work because without knowing what features of change
model of stress and coping to identify three distict change char-                      situations are perceived negatively and that are associated with
acteristics: the frequency impact, and planning of change. We                          poor outcomes, it is difficult to manage the implementation of
describe why these characteristics are salient to individuals and                      change. The lack of research attention on the characteristics of
how they can influence employees attitudes and well being. Spe-                        change is not an omission of the transactional model itself. Lazarus
cifically, we use the model to propose ways that individuals’                          and Folkman described a number of formal properties of situations
subjective understandings of these characteristics influence ap-                       that make them potentially damaging or negative for individuals.
praisals of change, and, ultimately, job satisfactions and turnover                    We draw on this work, and derive three specific characteristics of
intentions. This study has important practical applications as it is                   change events that are salient to individuals and that are likely to
currently difficult for managers and practitioners to implement                        influence employees’ responses to change.
change effectively in the absence of information about what char-
acteristics of change eventsd influence employees’ reactions to
change.                                                                                The Frequency of Change
                                                                                          Lazarus and Folkman (1984) identified a number of temporal
                            Change Characteristics                                     properties of situations that can have a negative impact on indi-
  Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model has been                            viduals including the imminence, duration, and temporal uncer-
used to investigate the impact of organizational change on coping                      tainty surrounding events. Other authors have argued that individ-
and well-being from a number of perspectives. Most often, studies                      uals are concerned with the timing of change in the workplace, and
                                                                                       make judgments about whether change occurs very frequently or
                                                                                       infrequently (Glick, Huber, Miller, Harold, & Sutcliffe, 1995;
                                                                                       Monge, 1995). We identify the frequency of change, which cap-
   Alannah E. Rafferty, School of Management, Queensland University of                 tures individuals’ perceptions regarding how often change has
Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Mark A. Griffin, Australian               occurred in their work environment, as an important characteristic
Graduate School of Management, The University of New South Wales, Sydney,              of change that is salient to individuals. Glick et al. argued that the
New South Wales, Australia, and The University of Sydney, Australia.
                                                                                       more infrequently change occurs the more likely it is to be per-
   This study was supported by an Australian Research Council Large
Grant A79601474.
                                                                                       ceived as a discrete event, and employees will be able to identify
   Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alannah               a clear beginning and end point of change. In contrast, when
E. Rafferty, School of Management, Queensland University of Technol-                   changes are frequent, organizational members are less likely to
ogy, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4001. E-mail:                    perceive change as a discrete event and are likely to feel that
a.rafferty@qut.edu.au                                                                  change is highly unpredictable. When change occurs very fre-

                                                                                1154
PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE                                                      1155

quently, individuals are likely to feel fatigued by change and          et al. (1999) examined how individuals cope with job loss after
experience an increase in anxiety due to the unpredictability of        downsizing, and operationalized cognitive appraisal in terms of
change in that setting.                                                 reversibility, or an individual’s perception that he or she can gain
                                                                        reemployment. In contrast, Terry et al. (1996) stated that the extent
The Impact of Change                                                    to which an event is considered stressful is central to a person’s
                                                                        appraisal of a situation. However, many researchers have found
   There is considerable agreement in the organizational change         that an important outcome of change is employee uncertainty (e.g.,
literature that people are concerned with what the impact of change     Davy, Kinicki, Kilroy, & Scheck, 1988; Marks & Mirvis, 1985;
will be on themselves, their job, and on their work colleagues (e.g.,   Miller & Monge, 1985; Nelson, Cooper, & Jackson, 1995). Laza-
Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Lau & Woodman, 1995; Weber &                 rus and Folkman also identified uncertainty as a property of
Manning, 2001). When discussing the impact of change in the             situations that makes them harmful or negative for individuals. We
workplace, authors have drawn a fundamental distinction between         propose that uncertainty is a critical cognitive appraisal resulting
incremental, or first-order change and transformational, or second-     from change. Uncertainty refers to the psychological state of doubt
order change (e.g., Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Levy, 1986). We              about what an event signifies or portends (DiFonzo & Bordia,
argue that the impact of change is salient to individuals, and use      1998). The following hypotheses have been proposed:
the term transformational change, which refers to an individual’s
perception regarding the extent to which change has involved                 Hypothesis 1A: The perception that change has been imple-
modifications to the core systems of an organization including               mented after deliberation and planning will display a sig-
traditional ways of working, values, structure, and strategy. Levy           nificant, unique negative relationship with psychological
stated that transformational change, by its very nature, involves a          uncertainty.
dramatic shift in basic aspects of an organization. Lazarus and
Folkman (1984) identified the novelty of an event as a property of           Hypothesis 1B: The perception that change is very frequent
situations that makes them harmful or threatening for individuals.           will display a significant, unique positive relationship with
A novel situation is one in which a person has not had previous              psychological uncertainty.
experience. Periods of transformational change are likely to be
                                                                             Hypothesis 1C: The perception that change has resulted in
experienced as highly novel events as people are required to act in
                                                                             significant modifications to core aspects of an organization
completely new ways and to adopt new values.
                                                                             will display a significant, unique positive relationship with
                                                                             psychological uncertainty.
Planning Involved in Change
   Empirical research suggests that the planning that accompanies       Change Perceptions and Outcomes
change efforts is of major concern to employees (Armenakis,                Two measures of well-being—job satisfaction and turnover
Harris, & Field, 1999; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000;               intentions—are examined in the present study. Job satisfaction
French & Bell, 1999; Korsgaard, Sapienza, & Schweiger, 2002;            refers to an individual’s global feeling about his or her job (Spec-
Levy, 1986; Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997; Porras & Robertson,              tor, 1997), and is the most commonly studied short-term outcome
1992; Weingart, 1992). Authors have reported that when planning         of research on occupational health (Kinicki, McKee, & Wade,
precedes organizational change efforts, individuals’ well-being is      1996). Turnover intentions refer to an individual’s desire or will-
enhanced (e.g., Korsgaard et al., 2002). Lazarus and Folkman            ingness to leave an organization. In many models, turnover inten-
(1984) argued that a property of situations that makes them po-         tions are the immediate precursor to turnover (e.g., Hom,
tentially damaging or negative for individuals is how unpredictable     Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Mobley, 1977), and
they are, or the extent to which there is some type of warning that     the relationship between turnover intentions and turnover has been
something painful or harmful is about to happen. We identify the        well documented (e.g., Hom, Griffeth, & Sellaro, 1984).
extent of planning that accompanies the introduction of change as          Empirical evidence indicates that psychological uncertainty is
salient to individuals. Planned change is defined as individuals’       associated with a range of outcomes including job satisfaction and
perception that deliberation and preparation have occurred prior to     turnover intentions (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Moyle &
the implementation of change. When efforts are made to plan             Parkes, 1999). Importantly, a number of studies indicate that
change in advance, change becomes more predictable as people are        psychological uncertainty is a critical factor that mediates relation-
provided with information about the imminence of change and the         ships between organizational change and well-being (Moyle &
likely duration of change. In addition, when planning occurs prior      Parkes, 1999; Pollard, 2001; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Thus,
to change implementation, the novelty of a change event is likely       the following hypotheses have been proposed:
to be reduced.
                                                                             Hypothesis 2A: Psychological uncertainty will be positively
Appraisal                                                                    related to turnover intentions and negatively related to job
                                                                             satisfaction.
  Cognitive appraisal, or the meaning that individuals give to a
particular event, plays a central role in the transactional model            Hypothesis 2B: The perception that change has occurred after
(Dewe, 1991; Fugate et al., 2002; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).                  deliberation and planning will be indirectly positively related
Authors have examined a range of different cognitive appraisals              to job satisfaction and indirectly negatively related to turn-
when testing Lazarus and Folkman’s model. For example, Gowan                 over intentions mediated through psychological uncertainty.
1156                                                      RAFFERTY AND GRIFFIN

     Hypothesis 2C: The perception that change has occurred very         high level of leader support can be regarded as a coping resource
     frequently will be indirectly negatively related to job satis-      as a supportive leader provides information and advice that an
     faction and indirectly positively related to turnover intentions    individual can draw on when confronted with change (Russell,
     mediated through psychological uncertainty.                         Altmaier, & Van Velzen, 1987; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-
                                                                         Glaser, 1996). Conscientiousness reflects dependability or being
   In addition, it is proposed that transformational change and the      thorough, responsible, and organized (Costa & McCrae, 1989).
frequency of change are likely to display direct relationships with      Conscientiousness is likely to be a coping resource as people high
job satisfaction and turnover. We do not make any hypotheses             on this personality dimension are likely to persevere when faced
concerning direct relationships between planned change and out-          with change (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
comes as we argue that this change perception primarily acts
through positively influencing psychological uncertainty. In con-                                         Method
trast, we argue that an individual’s perception regarding the extent
of transformational change that has occurred in his or her work          Procedure and Participants
environment is likely to impact how an individual performs his or           This study was conducted in a large Australian public sector organiza-
her job and the very nature of the job. As such, it is likely that the   tion, whose primary task involves the strategic development of road infra-
perception that a great deal of transformational change has oc-          structure and the management of an extensive road network. A repeated
curred will reduce job satisfaction. In addition, the unfolding          cross-sectional design was adopted. That is, an organizational change
model of turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, &          survey was administered one month prior to an employee attitude survey in
Fireman, 1996) posits that one factor that contributes to turnover is    consecutive years. The data collected in the first year of the study are
                                                                         referred to as Sample 1, while the data collected in the second year of the
“shocks to the system,” which are distinguishable events that jar
                                                                         study are referred to as Sample 2. For the two change surveys, three
employees toward deliberate decisions about their jobs and, per-         employees and at least one manager from each work group in the organi-
haps, to voluntarily quit their jobs. We propose that transforma-        zation were randomly selected to receive the survey. In Sample 1, the
tional change is likely to cause individuals to deliberate about their   change survey was distributed to 745 employees and 599 were returned
job and will increase intentions to turnover. Thus, the following        (response rate ⫽ 80.4%). In Sample 2, the change survey was administered
hypotheses have been proposed:                                           to 945 employees and 700 were returned (response rate ⫽ 74.1%).
                                                                            One month after the change survey was administered, an employee
     Hypothesis 3A: The perception that change has resulted in           attitude survey assessing the coping resources, two control measures, and
     significant modifications to core aspects of an organization        the two outcomes was distributed to all staff. Three thousand two hundred
     will display a unique negative relationship with job satis-         forty-five surveys were returned in Sample 1 (response rate ⫽ 77%). Two
     faction and a unique positive relationship with turnover            thousand eight hundred and sixty-four surveys were returned in Sample 21
     intentions.                                                         (response rate ⫽ 63%). Not all survey respondents provided the informa-
                                                                         tion required to match the change and employee attitude surveys. As a
  We further propose that when change occurs very frequently,            result, the organizational change survey and employee attitude survey were
                                                                         only able to be matched for 207 respondents in Sample 1 (34% of the
individuals are likely to feel mentally fatigued by needing to
                                                                         change surveys could be matched at Time 1) and 168 respondents in
constantly adapt to change, which will reduce job satisfaction and       Sample 2 (24% of change surveys could be matched at Time 2). Respon-
increase intentions to leave the organization.                           dents could not be matched between Sample 1 and Sample 2.

     Hypothesis 3B: The perception that change is very frequent
                                                                         Context of the Study
     will display a unique negative relationship with job satisfac-
     tion and a unique positive relationship with turnover                  When the data from Sample 1 were collected, the Director–General of
     intentions.                                                         the organization had just moved to another public sector agency after a
                                                                         five-year period with the company. The Director–General was replaced by
                                                                         an internal candidate who faced a difficult task as the previous leader was
Coping Resources                                                         an extremely popular individual who was often spoken of as a charismatic
   The transactional model proposes that coping resources, or the        leader. At the time that the Sample 2 data were collected, there had been
                                                                         a number of additional dramatic and wide-reaching changes in the public
resources that people draw upon in order to deal with a given
                                                                         sector in the state. In particular, the government had called for voluntary
situation, directly influence an individual’s cognitive appraisal        redundancies that resulted in more than 500 individuals leaving the public
about a situation. Authors have examined a variety of coping             service. In addition, at this time, the government also began to amalgamate
resources including social support (Scheck & Kinicki, 2000) and          all of the human resource functions in the separate public sector agencies
dispositional optimism (Chang, 1998). A number of coping re-             into a single entity. This amalgamation resulted in wholesale changes in the
sources are examined in our study including neuroticism, consci-         human resource function in the public service.
entiousness, and leader social support. We did not develop specific
hypotheses for the different coping resources. Rather, we included       Development of Organizational Change Measures and
coping variables as controls to provide a more complete test of our      Psychological Uncertainty
hypotheses about the relationships among change perceptions,
                                                                           Items to assess individuals’ perceptions of change were developed after
uncertainty, and outcomes.                                               conducting semistructured interviews with employees. Next, the change
   A low level of neuroticism can be regarded as a coping resource
in stressful situations as individuals high in neuroticism tend to
focus on the associated level of distress rather than engaging in          1
                                                                              The Sample 2 employee attitude data reported in this article (n ⫽ 168)
goal-directed behavior (Parkes, 1986; Terry, 1994). Similarly, a         is a subset of the data reported in Rafferty & Griffin (in press).
PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE                                                              1157

items were administered to more than 200 employees in two pilot studies.          Properties of the change scales. To test whether the measures of
A process of iterative item development was adopted such that items that       change and uncertainty were distinct, we conducted a series of confirma-
did not load onto their hypothesized factor in the first pilot study were      tory factor analyses (CFAs; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Three nested
removed or modified (Hinkin, 1995, 1998). The modified set of items was        CFA models were estimated in Sample 1 (n ⫽ 207) and Sample 2 (n ⫽
then administered to employees participating in the second pilot study. The    168). All model tests were based on the covariance matrix and used
result of this process was three three-item change measures and a four-item    maximum likelihood estimation as implemented in LISREL 8.3 (Jöreskog
measure of psychological uncertainty.                                          & Sörbom, 1996). We tested a one-factor model in which all items loaded
                                                                               onto one factor, a two-factor model in which the uncertainty items loaded
Change Surveys                                                                 onto one factor and change items loaded onto a single factor, and a
                                                                               four-factor model with three change measures plus uncertainty. Table 2
   A 7-point Likert scale was used for all of the change scales (see Table     reports the fit indices for these different models in both samples. The
1) and the uncertainty scale. For the transformational change and planned      results show that the four-factor model was the best fit to the data, with
change scales, responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal). For   adequate fit indices in both samples. All of the items loaded onto their
the frequency of change and the psychological uncertainty scale, responses     hypothesized factors ( p ⬍ .001; see Table 1), and the latent factors
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Employees were        explained a substantial amount of variance in the items (R2s ranged from
asked to respond to the change items, keeping in mind the changes that         .28 to .77 for Sample 1 and .32 to .96 for Sample 2).
occurred in their work environment in the past three months.
   Transformational change. An example of an item on this scale is as          Employee Attitude Surveys
follows: “To what extent have you experienced changes to the values of
your unit.” This scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 in Sample 1 and an           Job satisfaction, neuroticism, and conscientiousness were assessed using
alpha of .87 in Sample 2.                                                      a 7-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
   Planned change. An example of an item on this scale is the following:       7 (strongly agree). Turnover intentions was assessed using a 5-point scale
“Change has involved prior preparation and planning by my manager and          with responses ranging from 1 (definitely not) to 5 (definitely yes). Leader
work group.” This scale had an alpha of .76 in Sample 1 and an alpha of        support was assessed on a 5-point scale with responses ranging from 1
.90 in Sample 2.                                                               (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
   Frequent change. An example of an item on this scale is as follows:            Job satisfaction. Three items assessed this construct (Hart, Griffin,
“It feels like change is always happening.” This scale had a Cronbach alpha    Wearing, & Cooper, 1996). An example item is the following: “Overall, I
of .76 in Sample 1 and in Sample 2.                                            am satisfied with my job.” This scale had an alpha of .89 in Sample 1 and
   Psychological uncertainty. The psychological uncertainty items were         in Sample 2.
developed on the basis of work by Milliken (1987). An example item is the         Turnover intentions. This construct assesses an individual’s intentions
following: “I am often uncertain about how to respond to change.” This         to leave his or her job, and was assessed by three items (Hart et al., 1996).
scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 in Sample 1 and .91 in Sample 2.           An example of an item is as follows: “I seriously intend to seek a transfer

Table 1
Factor Loadings for the Four-Factor CFA in Sample 1 and Sample 2

                                                                                            Frequent      Planned       Transformational
                                          Items                                              change       change            change             Uncertainty

 1. Change frequently occurs in my unit                                                        .82
                                                                                               .80
 2. It is difficult to identify when changes start and end                                     .53
                                                                                               .57
 3. It feels like change is always happening                                                   .84
                                                                                               .80
 4. Change has involved prior preparation and planning by my manager or unit                                 .56
                                                                                                             .82
 5. Change has been the result of a deliberate decision to change by my manager/unit                         .81
                                                                                                             .98
 6. Change has occurred due to goals developed by my manager or unit                                         .76
                                                                                                             .80
 7. Large scale changes significantly changing your unit’s goals                                                               .85
                                                                                                                               .85
 8. Changes that affect my work unit’s structure                                                                               .86
                                                                                                                               .83
 9. Changes to the values of my work unit                                                                                      .87
                                                                                                                               .84
10. My work environment is changing in an unpredictable manner                                                                                      .76
                                                                                                                                                    .74
11. I am often uncertain about how to respond to change                                                                                             .80
                                                                                                                                                    .85
12. I am often unsure about the effect on change on my work unit                                                                                    .88
                                                                                                                                                    .91
13. I am often unsure how severely a change will affect my work unit                                                                                .81
                                                                                                                                                    .93

Note. Sample 1 results are presented above Sample 2 results. All items are significant at p ⬍ .001. CFA ⫽ confirmatory factor analysis.
1158                                                            RAFFERTY AND GRIFFIN

Table 2
Model Fit Indices for the Measurement Models in Sample 1 and Sample 2 (Including All Items)

Model comparison                        ␹2                      df              GF1                 RMSEA                   CFI                 NNFI

One-factor model                       985.68                  65                .57                   .26                   .51                 .42
                                     1,085.61                  65                .55                   .28                   .51                 .41
Two-factor model                       437.44                  64                .75                   .17                   .74                 .68
                                       546.13                  64                .66                   .21                   .67                 .59
Four-factor model                      146.37                  59                .90                   .09                   .93                 .91
                                       140.53                  59                .90                   .08                   .95                 .93

Note. Sample 1 results are presented above Sample 2 results. n ⫽ 207 in Sample 1. n ⫽ 168 in Sample 2. GFI ⫽ Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA ⫽ Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI ⫽ Comparative Fit Index; NNFI ⫽ Nonnormed Fit Index.

to another job in the future.” This scale had an alpha of .76 in Sample 1 and   of Fit Index (GFI) ⫽ .90, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ⫽ .93,
in Sample 2.                                                                    Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI) ⫽ .90, root mean square error of
   Neuroticism. Five items assessed neuroticism, and three of these items       approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .06 and Sample 2, ␹2(124, N ⫽
were reverse scored (Costa & McCrae, 1989). An example item in this
                                                                                168) ⫽ 246.42, p ⬍ .001; GFI ⫽ .89, CFI ⫽ .93, NNFI ⫽ .89,
scale is as follows: “I often feel tense and jittery.” A higher score on this
                                                                                RMSEA ⫽ .07. The fit of the hypothesized model was also not
scale indicates higher neuroticism. This scale had a Cronbach alpha of .67
in Sample 1 and Sample 2.                                                       significantly different to the fit of the measurement model in
   Conscientiousness. Five items assessed conscientiousness (Costa &            Sample 1, ⌬␹2(2, N ⫽ 207) ⫽ 0.21, ns, or in Sample 2, ⌬␹2(2, N ⫽
McCrae, 1989). An example item is the following: “I try to perform all the      168) ⫽ 1.09, ns. Therefore, we accepted the hypothetical model as
tasks assigned to me conscientiously.” This scale had an alpha of .75 in        an adequate representation of the variances and covariances among
Sample 1 and an alpha of .71 in Sample 2.                                       the measures.
   Leader support. Three items assessed supportive leadership (Rafferty            We next tested whether the key structural paths in the hypoth-
& Griffin, 2004). An example of an item used in the current study is the        esized model and key correlations between measures, including the
following: “My work unit leader sees that the interests of employees are
                                                                                relationships among the change factors and uncertainty and the
given due consideration.” This scale had an alpha of .92 in Sample 1 and
.93 in Sample 2.                                                                two outcomes measures, were different across the two samples.
   Control measures. Two control measures were assessed including               We used a multigroup comparison in which the structural paths of
seniority in the organization and age. Seniority is a measure of an individ-    interest and the correlations among latent variables were con-
ual’s position in the organizational hierarchy as assessed by his or her job    strained to be equal in both samples. The constrained model was
classification. A higher score on this measure indicates that an individual     not significantly different to the unconstrained model, ⌬␹2(46,
is in a more senior position in the organization. Age was assessed in years.    N ⫽ 207 in Sample 1 and N ⫽ 168 in Sample 2) ⫽ 59.54, ns. This
                                                                                result suggests that differences in values of the structural paths and
                                 Results                                        correlations of the two samples can be attributed to sampling error.
                                                                                Therefore, we tested the final model using the paths from the
   First, we estimated an 11-factor CFA model that included latent
variables for the three change measures and uncertainty, and that               constrained model. The hypothesized paths between the change
included all other measures as single indicators. This model be-                perceptions, psychological uncertainty, and outcomes are depicted
came the basis for subsequent model tests. Table 3 displays the                 in Figure 1. The structural paths between the coping resources and
means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study                    control measures and the substantive measures are reported in
variables in Sample 1 and Sample 2 for the 11-factor measurement                Table 4.
model.                                                                             Hypothesis 1A was supported as the planning of change was
   Next, we examined the structural paths between the study mea-                significantly negatively associated with psychological uncertainty
sures in Sample 1 and Sample 2. In this model, regression paths                 (␤ ⫽ ⫺.17, p ⬍ .01). Hypothesis 1B was also supported as the
from the three change perceptions to psychological uncertainty                  frequency of change was positively associated with uncertainty
were estimated, and, in turn, uncertainty was related to job satis-             (␤ ⫽ .55, p ⬍ .001). In contrast, Hypothesis 1C was not supported
faction and turnover intentions. In addition, direct relationships              as transformational change was not significantly associated with
were estimated between transformational change and satisfaction                 uncertainty (␤ ⫽ .10, p ⬎ .05).
and turnover intentions and between the frequency of change and                    Hypothesis 2A was supported as uncertainty was negatively
turnover intentions. The three change characteristics were allowed              related to satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.15, p ⬍ .01), and positively related
to intercorrelate as were the outcome measures. The coping re-                  to turnover intentions (␤ ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01). Hypothesis 2B was
sources (neuroticism, conscientiousness, and leader support) and                supported by results from the Sobel Test (Sobel, 1982), which
control variables (age and seniority) were all intercorrelated. Di-             showed the indirect path from planning to satisfaction was signif-
rect relationships were estimated from these five measures to                   icant (Sobel ⫽ 1.20, p ⬍ .05; indirect effect ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .05), as
uncertainty, the three change perceptions, and the two outcome                  was the indirect path from planning to turnover intentions (So-
measures.                                                                       bel ⫽ ⫺2.04, p ⬍ .05; indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.03, p ⬍ .05). Hypoth-
   The hypothesized structural model was a good fit to the data in              esis 2C received partial supported as the frequency of change was
both Sample 1, ␹2(124, N ⫽ 207) ⫽ 221.88, p ⬍ .001; Goodness                    indirectly related to both satisfaction (Sobel ⫽ ⫺2.25, p ⬍ .05;
PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE                                                                                                                                                                                                        1159

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 indirect effect ⫽ ⫺.05, p ⬍ .05) and turnover intentions (Sobel ⫽

                                                                                                                                                   .33***

                                                                                                                                                   .27***
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.17**
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.18**

                                                                                                                                                   .19**

                                                                                                                                                   .21**

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.18**
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 2.30, p ⬍ .05; indirect effect ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .05). However, transfor-

                                                                                                                                       11

                                                                                                                                                    —
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.02
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.06

                                                                                                                                                   .03
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 mational change was not significantly related to either outcome via
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 uncertainty.

                                                                                                                                                   .24***
                                                                                                                                                   .24***

                                                                                                                                                   .58***
                                                                                                                                                   .45***

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.33***
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Hypothesis 3A was partially supported. There was a significant

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.23**
                                                                                                                                       10

                                                                                                                                                    —
                                                                                                                                                   .06

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.03
                                                                                                                                                   .15
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 direct path from transformational change to turnover intentions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01), but not to satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .02, ns). Hypothesis
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 3B was not supported as the frequency of change was not directly

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.33***
                                                                                                                                                   .41***

                                                                                                                                                   .56***

                                                                                                                                                   .27***
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.18**                                                                                                                                                                                         negatively related to satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .07, ns) or turnover inten-

                                                                                                                                                    —
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.03
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.05
                                                                                                                                                   .03

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.06

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.13
                                                                                                                                       9

                                                                                                                                                                              Note. Sample 1 correlations are reported above the diagonal and Sample 2 correlations are reported below the diagonal. n ⫽ 207 in Sample 1. n ⫽ 167 in Sample 2.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 tions (␤ ⫽ ⫺.07, ns).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Table 4 indicates that the control measures and the coping
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 resources accounted for 7% of the variance in perceptions of the
                                                                                                                                                   .60***

                                                                                                                                                   .66***
                                                                                                                                                   .28**

                                                                                                                                                   .17*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 frequency of change, 3% of the variance in perceptions of the
                                                                                                                                                    —
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.07
                                                                                                                                                   .10
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.03
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.13
                                                                                                                                                   .13

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.10
                                                                                                                                       8

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 planning in change, and 4% of the variance in the transformational
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 change perceptions. Figure 1 shows that the control measures,
                                                                                                                                                   .18*

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 coping resources, and the change perceptions accounted for 48%
                                                                                                                                                   .07

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.09
                                                                                                                                                   .10

                                                                                                                                                              .32

                                                                                                                                                              .16
                                                                                                                                                             ⫺.10
                                                                                                                                                              .12
                                                                                                                                                              .02
                                                                                                                                                              —
                                                                                                                                       7

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 of the variance in uncertainty. Finally, the control measures, cop-
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Intercorrelations for Sample 1 and Sample 2 for the 11-Factor Measurement Model

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ing resources, and the change perceptions accounted for 37% of
                                                                                                                         Correlation

                                                                                                                                                   .67***
                                                                                                                                                   .43***

                                                                                                                                                   .26***

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 the variance in job satisfaction and 23% of the variance in turnover
                                                                                                                                                    —
                                                                                                                                                   .08
                                                                                                                                                   .13
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.12
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.02
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.02

                                                                                                                                                   .15

                                                                                                                                                   .03
                                                                                                                                       6

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 intentions.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Discussion
                                                                                                                                                   .29***

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.21***

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.29***
                                                                                                                                                   .44***
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.28***
                                                                                                                                                   .20**
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.18*
                                                                                                                                                    —
                                                                                                                                                   .01
                                                                                                                                                   .13
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.09
                                                                                                                                       5

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     A key contribution of this study is the identification of three
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 characteristics of change events that influence individuals’ re-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 sponse to change and, ultimately, their job satisfaction and turn-
                                                                                                                                                  .24***

                                                                                                                                                  .42***
                                                                                                                                                  .18**

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 over intentions. Our study shows that individuals perceive and
                                                                                                                                                    —
                                                                                                                                                  .14*

                                                                                                                                                  .17*
                                                                                                                                       4

                                                                                                                                                  .14

                                                                                                                                                  .13
                                                                                                                                                  .06
                                                                                                                                                  .03
                                                                                                                                                  .03

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 differentiate the frequency of change, the planning involved in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 change, and the impact of change, and provides a new way of
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.28***

                                                                                                                                                   .34***

                                                                                                                                                   .28***

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 conceptualizing and measuring salient features of change that
                                                                                                                                                   .22**
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.15*

                                                                                                                                                   .16*

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.18*
                                                                                                                                                     —
                                                                                                                                       3

                                                                                                                                                   .00

                                                                                                                                                   .03

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.06

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 individuals encounter in organizations. Because these constructs
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 describe general features of change in an environment, we expect
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 them to be relevant in most organizations experiencing change.
                                                                                                                                                   .38***

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.34***

                                                                                                                                                   .19**

                                                                                                                                                   .22**
                                                                                                                                                   .15*

                                                                                                                                                   .17*

                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.16*

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Individuals’ perceptions of these three aspects of change were
                                                                                                                                                    —

                                                                                                                                                   .08

                                                                                                                                                   .06
                                                                                                                                                  ⫺.06
                                                                                                                                       2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 related, in expected and meaningful ways, to job satisfaction and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 turnover intentions. Specifically, the planning of change was in-
                                                                                                                                                         .27***

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 directly positively related to job satisfaction and indirectly nega-
                                                                                                                                                   1.03 ⫺.18**
                                                                                                                                                           —
                                                                                                                                       1

                                                                                                                                                         .02
                                                                                                                                                         .14
                                                                                                                                                         .01
                                                                                                                                                         .14
                                                                                                                                                         .14
                                                                                                                                                         .07
                                                                                                                                                         .06
                                                                                                                                                         .08

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 tively related to turnover intentions, mediated through psycholog-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ical uncertainty. The frequency of change was indirectly
                                                                                                                                                  10.95
                                                                                                                                                   2.23
                                                                                                                                                   1.13
                                                                                                                                                   0.83
                                                                                                                                                   1.08
                                                                                                                                                   1.64
                                                                                                                                                   1.48
                                                                                                                                                   1.44
                                                                                                                                                   1.54
                                                                                                                                                   1.25

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 negatively associated with satisfaction and positively associated
                                                                                                                                       SD
                                                                                                                         Sample 2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 with turnover intentions via uncertainty. In contrast, transforma-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 tional change was not significantly associated with uncertainty.
                                                                                                                                                  39.14
                                                                                                                                                   4.63
                                                                                                                                                   3.47
                                                                                                                                                   5.48
                                                                                                                                                   3.36
                                                                                                                                                   3.36
                                                                                                                                                   3.48
                                                                                                                                                   4.03
                                                                                                                                                   3.84
                                                                                                                                                   4.90
                                                                                                                                                   2.27

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Rather, transformational change displayed a direct positive rela-
                                                                                                                                       M

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 tionship with intentions to turnover. This result provides support
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 for the unfolding model of turnover (Lee et al., 1996), which
                                                                                                                                                  10.67
                                                                                                                                                   2.35
                                                                                                                                                   1.01
                                                                                                                                                   0.95
                                                                                                                                                   0.95
                                                                                                                                                   1.70
                                                                                                                                                   1.24
                                                                                                                                                   1.41
                                                                                                                                                   1.42
                                                                                                                                                   1.20
                                                                                                                                                    .99
                                                                                                                                       SD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 suggests that “shocks to the system” jar employees toward delib-
                                                                                                                         Sample 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 erate decisions about their jobs and, perhaps, to voluntarily quit
                                                                                                                                                                              * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 their jobs. Transformational changes represent modifications to
                                                                                                                                                  36.42
                                                                                                                                                   4.51
                                                                                                                                                   3.34
                                                                                                                                                   5.37
                                                                                                                                                   3.51
                                                                                                                                                   3.44
                                                                                                                                                   4.12
                                                                                                                                                   3.94
                                                                                                                                                   3.84
                                                                                                                                                   5.01
                                                                                                                                                   2.11

                                                                                                                                                                              M ⫽ mean; SD ⫽ standard deviation.
                                                                                                                                       M

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 core aspects of a firm, and such changes appear to encourage
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 people to carefully consider their position in an organization.
                                                                                                                                                  Psychological uncertainty

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Results also suggest that supportive leadership had a strong
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 impact on all three change perceptions. This finding suggests that
                                                                                                                                                  Frequency of change

                                                                                                                                                  Turnover intentions
                                                                                                                                                  Transform. change

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 it is important to ensure that leaders understand the need to provide
                                                                                                                                                  Planned change

                                                                                                                                                  Job satisfaction
                                                                                                                                       Variable

                                                                                                                                                  Leader support

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 support and consider individuals’ needs in a changing environ-
                                                                                                                                                  Neuroticism

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ment. Specifically, employees with supportive leaders reported
                                                                                                                                                  Seniority

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 less transformational change and less frequent change, and also
                                                                                                                                                  Consc.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 reported that more planned change had occurred. Individuals with
Table 3

                                                                                                                                                  Age

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 supportive work unit leaders also reported experiencing less psy-
                                                                                                                                                   1.
                                                                                                                                                   2.
                                                                                                                                                   3.
                                                                                                                                                   4.
                                                                                                                                                   5.
                                                                                                                                                   6.
                                                                                                                                                   7.
                                                                                                                                                   8.
                                                                                                                                                   9.
                                                                                                                                                  10.
                                                                                                                                                  11.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 chological uncertainty than individuals who did not report that
1160                                                          RAFFERTY AND GRIFFIN

                      Figure 1.    Standardized structural paths in the constrained multigroup model. * p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍
                      .001.

their leader was supportive. In addition, individuals in more senior           coping strategies, and emotional responses. In addition, while job
positions within the organization reported more planned change                 satisfaction and turnover intentions are important outcomes, a
and that change was more frequent than did individuals lower in                range of other indicators of adjustment should be assessed includ-
the hierarchy. The findings regarding seniority are not surprising             ing psychological well-being (Terry et al., 1996) and distress
as individuals at a higher level in the organization are more likely           (Gowan et al., 1999), in addition to the coping strategies selected
to be involved in planning and deliberating about organizational               in response to change (Terry, 1994; Terry et al., 1996).
changes. In addition, more senior employees are also more likely
to receive more information about key strategic events occurring in                                Strengths and Limitations
the company, including organizational change.
   Another contribution of this study was the development of                      An important strength of this article was the separate measure-
multi-item measures of change perceptions, which were found to                 ment of change perceptions and employee attitudes so as to reduce
be reliable and can be used in future studies when assessing                   the effects of common method variance. Ostroff, Kinicki, and
characteristics of change that influence employees’ attitudes. It is           Clark (2002) reported that the temporal separation of administra-
important that researchers use a standard set of measures to assess            tion of measures is a valid approach to reducing response bias
individuals’ perceptions of the change context so as to enable                 associated with common method variance. In addition, this study
comparison of findings across studies.                                         utilizes a repeated cross-sectional design that allows us to deter-
   One area for future research concerns examining additional                  mine the extent to which results are replicable and enhances our
elements of the transactional model including secondary appraisal,             confidence in the findings.

Table 4
Standardized Paths for the Relations Between the Control Measures and Coping Resources and the Change Perceptions and
Outcomes in the Constrained Multigroup Model

                                  Transformational          Planned          Frequency                                     Job           Turnover
 Variable/Resource                    change                change           of change            Uncertainty          satisfaction      intentions

Control variable
  Age                                   .07                   .04              ⫺.06                  .05                 .07             ⫺.20***
  Seniority                             .10                   .12*              .16*                ⫺.05                 .08             ⫺.06
Coping resource
  Neuroticism                          .01                  ⫺.02                .09                  .08                 .01              .25***
  Conscientiousness                    .05                   .03               ⫺.05                 ⫺.03                 .41***           .10*
  Leader support                      ⫺.15**                 .10*              ⫺.18**               ⫺.14**               .31***          ⫺.07
Variance explained                     .04                   .03                .07                  .03                 .28              .12

* p ⬍ .05.   ** p ⬍ .01.   *** p ⬍ .001.
PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE                                                            1161

   A number of limitations of our study should also be noted. In                uncertainty during organizational change. Human Resource Manage-
particular, we focused on processes at the individual level of                  ment, 37, 295–303.
analysis, Further research should investigate processes at other             Eby, L. T., Adams, D., M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000).
levels. For example, it will be important to obtain measures of                 Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to
                                                                                employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Hu-
change events at the group and organization level that are inde-
                                                                                man Relations, 53, 419 – 442.
pendent of respondent perceptions. A limitation of the study was
                                                                             French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization development: Behav-
that uncertainty was measured in the same survey as the change                  ioral science interventions for organizational improvement (6th ed.).
characteristics. As a result, we have not eliminated the common                 Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
method variance issue in regard to the relationships between the             Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (2002). Coping with an
change characteristics and the cognitive appraisal of uncertainty.              organizational merger over four states. Personnel Psychology, 55, 905–
   Another limitation is the issue of reverse causality. We have                928.
argued that perceptions of change influence uncertainty and satis-           Glick, W. G., Huber, G. P., Miller, C. C., Harold, D., & Sutcliffe, K. M.
faction as well as turnover intentions. However, it is possible that            (1995). Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness:
the reverse relationship is in operation. For example, it may be that           Retrospective event histories and periodic assessments. In G. P. Huber &
high levels of job dissatisfaction and uncertainty are responsible              A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Longitudinal field research methods: Studying
                                                                                processes of organizational change (pp. 126 –154). Thousand Oaks, CA:
for people reporting that change is very frequent, that a great deal
                                                                                Sage.
of transformational change has occurred, and that change has
                                                                             Gowan, M. A., Riordan, C. M., & Gatewood, R. D. (1999). Test of a model
involved little preparation and planning prior to implementation.               of coping with involuntary job loss following a company closing.
To distinguish whether change perceptions influence uncertainty                 Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 75– 86.
and outcomes or whether job dissatisfaction and uncertainty influ-           Hart, P. M., Griffin, M. A., Wearing, A. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996).
ence change perceptions, there is a need to conduct a longitudinal              QPASS: Manual for the Queensland Public Agency Staff Survey. Bris-
examination of these relationships. Finally, a further limitation of            bane, Queensland, Australia: Public Sector Management Commission.
this study was that both samples of respondents were obtained                Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational
from the same public sector organization. As such, any findings                 change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied
obtained may reflect unique characteristics of the organization                 Psychology, 87, 474 – 487.
under study.                                                                 Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study
                                                                                of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
                                                                             Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for
                              References                                        use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1,
                                                                                104 –121.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in    Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. E. (1992).
  practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological           A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee
  Bulletin, 103, 411– 423.                                                      turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890 –909.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (1999). Making change        Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. (1984). The validity of
  permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W.         Mobley’s (1977). model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior
  Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and            and Human Performance, 34, 141–175.
  development (Vol. 12, pp. 97–128). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.                Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide.
Armstrong-Stassen, M., Cameron, S. J., Mantler, J., & Horsburgh, M. E.          Chicago: Scientific Software International.
  (2001). The impact of hospital amalgamation on the job attitudes of        Kinicki, A. J., McKee, F. M., & Wade, K. J. (1996). Annual review
  nurses. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18, 149 –162.            1991–1995: Occupational health. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and conse-        190 –220.
  quences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test.    Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten
  Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803– 829.                                  before begun: The role of procedural justice in planning change. Journal
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimen-          of Management, 28, 497–516.
  sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,      Lau, C., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change:
  1–26.                                                                         A schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537–
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and           554.
  third-order change and organization development interventions: A cog-      Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
  nitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483–500.          York: Springer.
Chang, E. C. (1998). Dispositional optimism and primary and secondary        Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The
  appraisal of a stressor: Controlling for confounding influences and           unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Manage-
  relations to coping and psychological and physical adjustment. Journal        ment Review, 19, 51– 89.
  of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1109 –1120.                      Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO-PI/FFI: Manual supplement.            model of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
  Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.                               5–36.
Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., Kilroy, J., & Scheck, C. L. (1988). After the   Levy, A. (1986). Second-order planned change: Definition and conceptu-
  merger: Dealing with people’s uncertainty. Training and Development           alization. Organizational Dynamics, 15, 5–20.
  Journal, November, 57– 61.                                                 Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1985). Merger syndrome: Stress and
Dewe, P. J. (1991). Primary appraisal, secondary appraisal and coping:          uncertainty. Mergers and Acquisitions, 20, 70 –76.
  Their role in stressful work encounters. Journal of Occupational Psy-      Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee
  chology, 64, 331–351.                                                         anxiety about organizational change. Human Communication Research,
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing          11, 365–386.
1162                                                           RAFFERTY AND GRIFFIN

Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the           consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive
  environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Man-          leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
  agement Review, 12, 133–143.                                                 Russell, D. W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress,
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between          social support, and burnout among classroom teachers. Journal of Ap-
  job satisfaction and job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,          plied Psychology, 72, 269 –274.
  237–240.                                                                     Scheck, C. L., & Kinicki, A. J. (2000). Identifying the antecedents of
Monge, P. R. (1995). Theoretical and analytical issues in studying orga-         coping with an organizational acquisition: A structural assessment. Jour-
  nizational processes. In G. P. Huber & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.),                nal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 627– 648.
  Longitudinal field research methods: Studying processes of organiza-         Schweiger, D., & DeNisi, A. (1991). Communication with employees
  tional change (pp. 267–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.                          following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Man-
Moyle, P., & Parkes, K. (1999). The effects of transition stress: A reloca-      agement Journal, 34, 110 –135.
  tion study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 625– 646.                Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural
Nelson, A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst           equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982
  change: The impact of privatization on employee job satisfaction and           (pp. 290 –312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,           Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes,
  68, 57–71.                                                                     and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Hofman, J. D. (1997). An improvisational model for        Terry, D. J. (1994). Determinants of coping: The role of stable and
  change management: The case of groupware technologies. Sloan Man-              situational factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
  agement Review, Winter, 11–21.                                                 895–910.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. (2002). Substantive and            Terry, D. J., Callan, V. C., & Sartori, G. (1996). Employee adjustment to
  operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis: An example      an organizational merger: Stress, coping and intergroup differences.
  of climate–satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,      Stress Medicine, 12, 105–122.
  355–368.                                                                     Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The
Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual       relationship between social support and physiological processes: A
  differences, environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Jour-     review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for
  nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1277–1292.                       health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488 –531.
Pollard, T. M. (2001). Changes in mental well-being, blood pressure and        Weber, P. S., & Manning, M. R. (2001). Cause maps, sensemaking, and
  total cholesterol levels during workplace reorganization: The impact of        planned organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-
  uncertainty. Work and Stress, 15, 14 –28.                                      ence, 37, 227–251.
Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development:          Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity,
  Theory, practice and research. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),         effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
  Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 719 – 822).          ogy, 77, 682– 693.
  Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational
  leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quar-                                                  Received June 18, 2004
  terly, 15, 329 –354.                                                                                           Revision received May 17, 2005
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (in press). Refining individualized                                                     Accepted June 6, 2005 䡲
You can also read