Minds, hearts and deeds
SOLUTION AT Australian Expert Writers
Minds, Hearts and Deeds: Cognitive,Affective and Behavioural Responses toChangeROY KARK SMOLLANFaculty of Business, Auckland University of Technology, New ZealandABSTRACT When people are faced with changes to some aspect of their working lives they respondon a number of levels: cognitive, affective and behavioural. The behavioural responses are outcomesof the cognitive and emotional reactions, and are mediated and moderated by a number of variables,some of which lie in the context of the employee, some in the context of the change managers, andsome in the context of the organisation. In this article a model will be presented that identifies arange of reactions to change and a series of propositions that can be tested empirically.KEY WORDS: Organisational change, cognitive, affective, behavioural responsesIntroductionLeaders of change will hope, if not expect, that organisational members willcomply with the change initiative, and preferably enthusiastically support itwith appropriate action (Piderit, 2000). Duck (1993) suggests that organisationsthat introduce change need to gain the hearts and minds of their members if thechange is to be successful. A number of researchers into organisational behaviourhave criticised the neglect of emotion, both by managers and fellow researchers(e.g. Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995; Fisher and Ashkanasy, 2000). Studies oforganisational change in particular have also been criticised for excluding theaffective domain and focussing on cognitive and behavioural aspects (Mossholderet al., 2000). Since change is often an “affective event” (Weiss and Cropanzano,1996; Basch and Fisher, 2000) analysing its emotional impacts is critical.Journal of Change ManagementVol. 6, No. 2, 143–158, June 2006Correspondence Address: Roy Kark Smollan, Management and Employment Relations, Faculty of Business,Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail:email@example.com Print=1479-1811 Online=06=020143–16 # 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080=14697010600725400Gersick (1991) has distinguished between incremental and radical change andpoints to the resulting positive and negative emotions. While she did not differentiatebetween the emotions that are likely under different types of change it seemslogical that radical change will produce more emotional reaction than incrementalchange, since the ramifications of the former are much greater. It must also benoted that change is often a process that unfolds over time, sometimes years(Piderit, 2000; Isabella, 1990; Paterson and Cary, 2002), and that the humanresponses will be as dynamic as the changes themselves. Changes of greater complexityare likely to generate more negative and more intense emotions (Kiefer,2004) and more resistance (George and Jones, 2001), and therefore requiremore careful and sustained management. However, it will be suggested in thisarticle, that no matter what type of change is contemplated, leaders will need togauge how employees might respond on all three levels.In this article I will review literature on the relationship between cognition andemotion in the context of change, present a model of cognitive, affective and behaviouralresponses to change, analyse the variables that mediate and moderate theseresponses, and derive a related set of propositions that can be tested empirically.Cognition and Emotion in the Context of ChangeThe relationship between emotion and cognition has been debated for centuries byphilosophers, psychologists, novelists and organisational theorists, with a numberof different conclusions—emotion is the opposite of reason (Weber, 1946),emotion is deeply interwoven with reason (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995),emotion can occur independently of reason (Zajonc, 1980; Izard, 1992).Cognition is a process of thought in which a person first becomes aware ofstimuli, appraises the significance of those stimuli and then considers possiblebehavioural responses (Scherer, 1999). Emotions are immediate responses toenvironmental stimuli that are important to the individual and tend to be shortin duration (Frijda, 1988; Gray and Watson, 2001). Emotion needs to be distinguishedfrom moods, which are more diffuse in nature, not specifically linked toevents or objects, lower in intensity and longer lasting (Gray and Watson, 2001;Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996), and from temperament, which is a facet of dispositionand is a relatively stable and biologically-rooted pattern of individualdifferences (Bates, 2000). Affect comprises emotion, mood and temperament.Circumplex models of affect have analysed its dimensions along two main axes,pleasantness (positive and negative emotions) and arousal or activation (highand low) (Tellegen et al., 1999; Russell and Carroll, 1999).Lazarus (1991) suggests that the relationship between cognition and emotion isbidirectional—emotion influences cognition, cognition elicits emotion. He assertsthat while cognition does not necessarily lead to emotion, emotion cannot occurwithout cognition. Emotion alerts the individual to factors in the environmentwhich are potentially significant. For example, a feeling of anxiety may heightenawareness of the need to take action, while guilt and anger produce thoughts thatmay lead to redress of an injustice.In the context of organisational change employees become aware of changethrough a variety of mechanisms, from formal communication, peer discussion144 R. K. Smollanand other observable cues. Through primary appraisal (Lazarus, 1999) employeesevaluate the significance of the change event for themselves (Weiss andCropanzano, 1996) and can extend this to the impact on others and the organisationitself. Secondary appraisal focuses on the causes and agents of change,and on possible coping strategies (Lazarus, 1999; Scherer, 1999; Paterson andHartel, 2002; Jordan et al., 2002). George and Jones’ (2001) model of resistanceto change delineates the steps that occur when employees use a combination ofcognitive and affective processes to make sense of the impending changes, particularlywhen the existing schemata (cognitive frameworks that help people tounderstand events) are challenged.Cognitive and affective responses create attitudes to change that may containpositive and negative elements (Piderit, 2000) and will be influenced by a rangeof factors, including perceived favourability of outcomes and fairness of outcomes,processes of decision making and communication (Weiss et al., 1999;Paterson and Hartel, 2002; Matheny and Smollan, 2005).The question that now arises is to what extent cognitive and affective processespredict behavioural responses. Do employees follow their minds and their heartswhen deciding how to respond to organisational stimuli, and specifically in thecontext of this article, change events? The model presented below depicts thenature of the responses and the factors that affect them.A Model of Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Responses to ChangeFigure 1 shows that organisational change triggers cognitive responses (positive,negative, neutral or mixed evaluations) which are mediated by perceptions of thefavourability of the outcomes, and the justice, scale, pace and timing of change.Cognitive responses impact on, and are impacted by, affective responses (positive,negative, neutral or mixed emotions) (Lazarus, 1991). Before behaviour occurs(positive, negative, neutral or mixed—from the view of the organisation),people usually consider the implications of behavioural choices. Piderit (2000),for example, suggests that employees rarely engage in resistant behaviourwithout considering the possible personal consequences. Some, however, maybe moved to act on affective impulses without considering the ramifications oftheir actions. Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses are moderated byfactors within the individual (emotional intelligence, disposition, previous experienceof change, change and stressors outside the workplace); factors within thechange manager/s (leadership ability, emotional intelligence and trustworthiness);and within the organisation (culture and context). Employee responses may altersome aspect of the change programme, highlighting the dynamic and circularnature of the process. The model is applicable to a wide spectrum of changeevents but the nature of the change will clearly have differing impacts on employees.An organisational restructuring to accommodate growth, accompanied by therecruitment and promotion of staff, will naturally evoke different emotions fromone that results in downsizing. The concept of the change context will be revisitedtowards the end of the paper as a moderating variable to cognitive, affective andbehavioural responses.Minds, Hearts and Deeds 145Positive responses: Employees may believe that the changes will be beneficial,to the organisation, some of its external stakeholders, to groups of employees orthe individual employee. Positive cognitions should lead to positive emotionsthat could range in intensity from exhilaration and enthusiasm to pleasure and contentment(French, 2001; Antonacopoulou and Gabriel, 2001). On the behaviourallevel employees willingly engage in the tasks expected of them and may evenattempt to exceed performance expectations. Organisational Citizenship Behaviours(Organ, 1988; Spector and Fox, 2002), which encompass a range of prosocialbehaviours, such as helping others, showing initiative, altruistic actions,loyalty and increased effort, may result.Neutral responses: The changes may have little perceived impact on someemployees including little, if any, emotional arousal. They are likely to demonstrateacquiescence or submissive collaboration (Bacharach et al., 1996).Negative responses: Employees who experience strong cognitive reactions,accompanied by strong negative emotions, such as fear or anger, will be likelyto reject the changes (Kiefer, 2004). Rejection is a term that encompasses but isnot confined to the term resistance, and manifests itself in many ways: disloyalty,neglect, exit or intention to quit (Turnley and Feldman, 1999), lower trust (Kiefer,2004; Brockner et al., 1997), active campaigning against the change (Mishra andSpreitzer, 1998), deception (Shapiro et al., 1995), sabotage (La Nuez and Jermier,1994; Spector and Fox, 2002), violence and aggression (Spector and Fox, 2002;Fox et al., 2001; Neuman and Baron, 1998), industrial action, such as strikes,go-slows and refusal to work or complete certain tasks (Skarlicki et al., 1999).Researchers have used the terms Organisational Resistance BehavioursFigure 1. Model of responses to organisational change146 R. K. Smollan(Skarlicki et al., 1999) and Counterproductive Work Behaviours (Spector and Fox,2002) to categorise a number of dysfunctional and anti-social behaviours, some ofwhich are targeted at organisational members, and some at the organisation itself.It should also be noted that negative cognitive and affective responses are oftenwell-intentioned (Piderit, 2000). They may result in action construed as appropriate,and which lead to further discussion and the implementation of more acceptable,and possibly more beneficial, organisational outcomes.The term resistance to change has been criticised by Dent and Goldberg (1999)and Piderit (2000). They allege that it is overused and inaccurately used. Resistanceis often seen as refusal to engage in the change or subverting it, but canalso be conceptualised as reluctance (Piderit, 2000) or inertia (George andJones, 2001). Anticipated resistance becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy wherebymanagers have been educated and trained to see resistance as inevitable, negativeand largely due to the ignorance or wilfulness of recalcitrant employees. Resistanceis not always confined to “workers”—managers themselves are oftensources of resistance too (Spreitzer and Quinn, 1996; La Nuez and Jermier, 1994).Mixed responses: Employees who have mixed cognitive evaluations of differentaspects of change, mixed positive and negative emotions, or, say, a positive cognitionbut a negative emotion, may demonstrate positive, negative, neutral or mixedbehaviours. For example, employees could consider an extended work scheduleto be in the interests of the customers, and therefore the organisation, but notbelieve that all employees should be required to work inconvenient shifts, andfeel anxiety and anger if they are forced to do so. The behavioural outcome couldbe to persuade management to change the schedule or a colleague to changeshifts. An employee may however simply accept new methods of record keepingthat accompany the change, and comply with them, yet simultaneously experiencehappiness in dealing with different customers and perform at a high level. Piderit(2000) notes the ambivalence within and among the three dimensions of attitudesto change. Behavioural responses in particular, can be contradictory, for exampleovert support for the change, accompanied by a covert rejection by means of ananonymous submission to a suggestion box. The need for a specific change mightbe accepted on a cognitive level but there could be emotional resistance. Thenature of the behavioural response is therefore not a simple outcome of cognitiveand affective reactions. There are a number of forces at work that prevent whatwould seem a logical, if not preferred, response (Piderit, 2000). Research propositionscannot automatically state, for example, that negative cognitive andemotional responses to change will lead to negative behavioural responses.Variables Mediating Cognitive Responses to ChangeBefore a judgement takes place (a cognitive evaluation), people use a number oflenses through which they view the changes:Perceived Favourability of OutcomesEmployees will analyse the favourability of outcomes for themselves, others andfor the organisation, and there may be differing outcomes for various stakeholdersMinds, Hearts and Deeds 147(Paterson and Cary, 2002). For example, Matheny and Smollan (2005) found thatindividuals saw different outcomes for themselves, for others and for the organisation.Where employees find it difficult to predict outcomes their responses willremain either neutral or ambivalent. Disposition (which will be considered inmore depth later) can play a significant role, with optimists and pessimistsexperiencing opposite forms of anticipation (Wanberg and Banas, 2000).Proposition 1: Cognitive responses to change are mediated by the perceived favourabilityof the outcomes of change.Perceived Justice of ChangeEmployees’ cognitive and affective responses to change are tempered by theirperceptions of fairness (Cobb et al., 1995; Skarlicki et al., 1999). A considerablebody of research on organisational justice has identified distinctive elements.Distributive justice refers to the fairness of outcomes (Homans, 1961). Proceduraljustice relates to perceptions of the fairness by which decisions aremade (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Leventhal, 1980; Tyler and Lind, 1992).This includes interactional justice (Bies and Moag, 1986), divided into interpersonaljustice and informational justice (Greenberg, 1993), and is manifested inthe ways in which managers communicate outcomes and procedures to staff.Systemic justice (Sheppard et al., 1992; Harlos and Pinder, 2000) is an overarchingterm for the perceived fairness of a wide variety of practices overtime, and is a facet of the organisational culture. In the context of organisationalchange employees may view announced changes against the backdrop of historicalpractices, including previous change initiatives.While perceptions of each form of justice have their own distinctive impact(Paterson and Cary, 2002; Matheny and Smollan, 2005) Lind’s (2001) FairnessHeuristic Theory suggests that people take a holistic view of events and issueswhen making fairness judgements. While perceptions of justice would tend toproduce positive emotions, perceptions of injustice will lead to more intensenegative emotions (Mikula et al., 1998; Weiss et al., 1999). Negative perceptionsand feelings are likely to lead to negative behavioural responses.Violations of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1988; Robinson andRousseau, 1989) also produce a sense of injustice and strong emotional reactions.The psychological contract, an employee perception of mutual obligations ofemployer and employee, is a distinct construct to that of organisational justicebut there are considerable overlaps (Cropanzano and Prehar, 2001). Violationsof the psychological contract lead to various negative behavioural responses,such as intentions to quit, neglect and a decrease in Organisational CitizenshipBehaviours (Turnley and Feldman, 1999; Kickul et al., 2002).Proposition 2: Cognitive responses to change are mediated by employees’perceptions of justice.148 R. K. SmollanThe Scale of the ChangeCognitive reactions to change will be influenced by the scale of the change(Mossholder et al., 2000). Dirks et al. (1996) propose that individuals with astrong sense of psychological ownership of some aspect of their jobs willfind revolutionary change threatening, and tend to resist it. George and Jones(2001) argue that changes to existing schemata will have a more profoundimpact on people than changes within the schemata themselves, a point alsomade by Gersick (1991). While welcome change outcomes may engender positivereactions (French, 2001) the sheer scale of the change or too many newevents occurring simultaneously (Blount and Janicik, 2001; Kiefer, 2004)may trigger negative reactions.Proposition 3: Cognitive responses to change will be affected by the perceived scaleof the change.Perceived Speed and Timing of the ChangeThere is little management literature dealing with individual responses to thespeed of change. Most research has focussed on organisational pacing from a strategicand tactical perspective (e.g. Gersick, 1994; Sastry, 1997) or the extent towhich an individual’s work pace is affected by schedule changes. For example,Blount and Janicik (2001) propose that an unwanted schedule delay will beviewed particularly negatively if it is unexpected, if the period of delay isunknown, and if impatience is a dispositional influence. Conversely, if the paceof change is deemed too fast employees may believe they cannot take the necessarysteps in time, or do so with severe disruption to normal routines, and they arelikely to react negatively (Blount and Janicik, 2001; Huy, 2001).Huy (2001) provides a useful model of how different styles of managementintervention impact on different types of change. For example, more radicalforms of change require a longer time frame for implementation. Since using aninappropriate approach creates negative employee perceptions he urges managersto be aware of individual responses to not only the pacing, but also the timing andsequencing of organisational changes. The introduction of a major change at thebusiest time of the year or month, or the announcement of a new executivebonus scheme following downsizing, are bound to be perceived negatively bymany employees.Proposition 4: Cognitive responses to change are mediated by the perceived speedand timing of the change.Variables Moderating Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Responses to ChangeA cognitive response triggers an affective response although the impact has alsobeen considered bi-directional (Lazarus, 1991). Perceived favourability of outcomes,justice, scale, and speed and timing of change, all have affective elements.Minds, Hearts and Deeds 149There are a number of variables that moderate cognitive, affective and behaviouralresponses. Some of the moderators lie within the individual, and some within themanager(s) leading or implementing the change, and some within the broadercontext of the organisation itself.Variables within the EmployeeEmployees’ Emotional Intelligence (EI)Competing models of emotional intelligence have focussed on EI as ability(Salovey and Mayer, 1990) and on EI as a combination of ability and disposition(Goleman, 1998; Bar-On, 1997). Goleman (1998), for example, identifies empathyand integrity as key characteristics of EI. Focussing on the ability model emotionalintelligence is seen as the ability to accurately perceive the emotions of oneselfand others, to regulate one’s emotions and respond appropriately to the emotionsof others (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). In the context of organisational changeemployees who are high in EI are able to discern and control the feelings theyexperience. Employees high in EI will be aware of the potential impact of theirbehaviour on their peers and managers and moderate their words and actions. Cognitiveprocesses are thus embedded in the affective processes and the two promoteor constrain behaviour. For example, Jordan et al. (2002) propose that employeeswith high EI are able to cognitively and affectively process issues pertaining to jobinsecurity, and devise appropriate coping strategies.Proposition 5: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderatedby employees’ emotional intelligence.Disposition of EmployeesIt is commonly believed by lay people that the way in which employees respond toorganisational change is directly related to disposition (Wanous et al., 2000).Change often involves uncertainty and those who have what French (2001,p. 482) refers to as negative capability are able to “tolerate ambiguity andparadox” since they have the “capacity to integrate mental and emotionalstates” and consequently adapt their behaviour. Watson and Clark (1997) specificallyidentified a predilection for change in various facets of life as representativeof people with high positive affectivity, a characteristic which will also be found inorganisational contexts (Spector and Fox, 2002).In an empirical study Judge et al. (1999) found seven personality factors predictedreactions to change, which they grouped into two main categories. Positiveself-concept included locus of control, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positiveaffectivity, while risk tolerance included openness to experience, tolerance ofambiguity and risk aversion. In particular, tolerance for ambiguity and positiveaffectivity were strongly correlated to self-reported ability to deal with change.Wanberg and Banas (2000) revealed that self-esteem, optimism and perceivedcontrol were related to acceptance of change. Jimmieson et al. (2004) reportedchange-related efficacy to be a significant variable in determining responses to150 R. K. Smollanorganisational change. In developing and testing a scale to measure dispositionalreactions to change, Oreg (2003) found four major relevant personality factors:need for routine, emotional responsiveness, short-term focus on outcomes andcognitive rigidity. In a number of empirical studies he found that dispositionpredicted reaction to change, regardless of context.Proposition 6: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderatedby employee disposition.Employees’ Previous Experience of ChangePrevious experience of change has the potential of producing two opposingresponses to a newly announced change. An employee who has previouslyexperienced a positive change, or who has coped well with a negativechange, may respond positively, while an employee with a negative experiencewould view the new change with unease. Past failures in organisational changebreed cynicism, which, according to Wanous et al. (2000), becomes a selffulfillingprophecy. In this context the employees are pessimistic about outcomes,attribute blame to management (Wanous et al., 2000), and their lackof commitment can undermine the changes (Abraham, 2000). Even if previousinitiatives have been successful frequent changes will trigger negative reactions(Kiefer, 2004).Proposition 7: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderatedby employees’ previous experience of change.Change and Stress Producing Events Outside the WorkplaceAn organisational change impacts on one part of an employee’s life. The mannerin which an employee reacts to the change depends on the broader context of his/her life. The Holmes-Rahe Social Readjustment Rating scale, developed in 1967,and other instruments that have followed, have over the years demonstrated highcorrelations between recent life changes and physical and psychological symptoms(Rahe et al., 2000). An individual faced with a major change outside ofwork, or a number of minor changes, may react negatively—on cognitive, affectiveand behavioural levels—to an organisational change. Any stress-inducingissue outside of work can trigger negative responses to change at work, as employees’coping resources are depleted. Employee disposition is a related factor—those with higher resilience are better able to cope with additional demands(Wanberg and Banas, 2000).Proposition 8: Employees responses to organisational change are moderated bychanges and any stress-producing event outside of work.Minds, Hearts and Deeds 151Variables within the Change Manager(s)Two or more levels of management may be involved in designing and implementingorganisational change and the perceptions of employees of the contributions ofdifferent managers will produce different evaluations.Leadership Ability of Change Manager(s)The links between leadership and successful organisational change have beendocumented in many works (e.g. Eisenbach et al., 1999). Two major types ofleadership have been associated with change, transformational leadership (Bass,1999; Yukl, 1999) and charismatic leadership (Conger et al., 2000; Yukl, 1999).These literatures have emphasised the ability of leaders to drive change and motivatefollowers to higher levels of performance. While there are many other types ofleadership successful change managers have to adopt styles that engage followers(Huy, 2001). Participative forms of leadership (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979;Chawla and Kelloway, 2004) have long been considered to have considerableimpact in overcoming resistance to change and simultaneously affecting perceptionsof organisational justice (Thibaut and Walker, 1975).Propositian 9: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderatedby the leadership ability of the change manager(s).Emotional Intelligence of Change Manager(s)Transformational leadership has been associated with emotional intelligence(Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000). Leaders with high EI demonstrate both empathyand integrity (Parry and Proctor-Thomson, 2002) which are key qualities in developingemployee trust since leaders are able to influence people on both the cognitiveand affective levels (George, 2000; Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000). Leaders needto be particularly adept at discerning the emotional reactions of employees tochange and providing the necessary support, especially given the uncertaintyand negative emotions that accompany many changes (Kiefer, 2004).Proposition 10: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses of employees tochange are moderated by the emotional intelligence of the change manager(s).Perceived Trustworthiness of the Change Manager(s)Perceptions of the trustworthiness of the managers will also influence employees’responses to change. Leventhal (1980) and Tyler and Lind (1992) noted trust to bea significant factor in the formation of employee perceptions of procedural justiceand that this impacts directly on their choice of behaviour. Brockner et al. (1997)demonstrated empirically that employees’ trust in managers derives from perceptionsof procedural justice and has a significant impact on their acceptance ofchanges, particularly when the outcomes are unfavourable, a link which was152 R. K. Smollanconfirmed by Paterson and Cary (2002) in a study on downsizing. Chawla andKelloway (2004) found trust to be related to procedural and informationaljustice during a merger. Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) discovered that integritycontributes strongly to transformational leadership ability, while Conger et al.(2000) found a similar relationship with charismatic leadership. Kiefer (2004)demonstrated that negative emotions during periods of change lead to reducedtrust in leaders.Proposition 11: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderatedby employees’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of the change manager(s).Variables within the Context of the OrganisationOrganisational CultureThe ways in which individuals interpret organisational events, including changeevents, depend to a large extent on their previous history with the organisation.An organisation where speedy response to change is a major driver will encounterdifferent individual responses to one that is more bureaucratic and less agile. Paradoxically,an organisation that seldom consults staff may find that a unilateralchange, even an unpalatable one, is accepted as the norm, whereas an organisationthat invites participation as general rule, but fails to do so during a change, mayfind a surprised and somewhat hostile reception. Perceived systemic injustice(Sheppard et al., 1992; Harlos and Pinder, 2000) will nevertheless lend weightto views that an announced change is unfair.Where the culture itself is the object of change, there may be more resistance asthe “deep structure” (Gersick, 1991) or schemata (Bartunek and Moch, 1987;George and Jones, 2001) are dismantled, and the implications and mechanismsare complex (Porras and Robertson, 1992). There is a strong emotional undertoneto organisational culture (Porras and Robertson, 1992) and if this is damaged theconsequences can be severe (Huy, 2001).In an empirical study Kabanoff et al. (1995) found that organisations with differentvalue structures depicted and communicated change differently, but theauthors did not specifically address individual responses. Turnbull (2002),however, studied the ways individuals responded to an organisation’s attemptsto deliberately change its culture to one of trust, openness, innovation andloyalty, in workshops laden with emotional appeals. She found that employeesdid experience both cognitive and affective reactions, but often in unintendedways, with mistrust, anger and embarrassment often eventuating. Employeesreported the need to hide their feelings and in many cases pretended to complywith the changes.Proposition 12: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change aremoderated by organisational culture.Minds, Hearts and Deeds 153Organisational Change ContextTo return to a point made during the introduction of the model, the context of thechange underpins many of the responses. The mostly frequently cited example ofnegative change is downsizing, which has a profound affect on victims (Patersonand Cary, 2002) and a lesser, but noticeably significant, impact on survivors(O’Neill and Lenn, 1995; Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). A merger (even withoutany redundancies) may create winners and losers, as some people are givengreater responsibilities and more status while others may experience the opposite(Kiefer, 2002). Office relocations may also produce perceived winners and losers(Daley and Geyer, 1994). An expansion programme will generally produce positivereactions. Naturally, with any change there is the possibility of mixedresponses within individuals. A person who gains promotion from a change, ora bigger department to manage, or who may need to travel more, will considerthe extra demands that these changes will bring. Heightened anxiety and asense of regret may exist alongside the more joyous outcomes.Proposition 13: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderatedby the change context.ConclusionChange is a potentially affective event (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) and themodel and propositions advanced above extend the literature on organisationalchange, and in particular, the impact of cognitive and affective reactions on behaviour.Testing of these propositions by means of quantitative and qualitativeresearch will uncover the complexities of these relationships and the myriad ofvariables involved, and add to knowledge of how organisational change can bebetter understood and managed.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER