Employees\' Attitudes Toward Organizational Change, A Literature Review, Human Resource Management PDF

Preview

Summary

sono gli articoli richiesti dall'insegnante per l'esame di cambiamento organizzativo. sono già tradotti è sono molto ottimali. nn c'è bisogno di integrarli. sono completi in tutti...

Description

EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: A LITERATURE REVIEW MYUNGWEON CHOI Organizations are increasingly required to improve their ability to enhance employees’ support or acceptance for change initiatives. In studies that have examined the conditions in which employees support organizational change, researchers have focused on various attitudinal constructs that represent employees’ attitudes toward organizational change. The constructs, which frequently serve as key variables in these studies, include readiness for change, commitment to change, openness to change, and cynicism about organizational change. These constructs have distinct meanings and emphases and therefore they can provide us with different information regarding employees’ evaluation of and concerns about particular change initiatives. In this literature review, the author discusses how the constructs are defined in the organizational change literature and synthesizes the antecedents of each construct. Based on the discussion, it is proposed that the constructs are susceptible to situational variables, and may change over time as individuals’ experiences change; therefore, they are better conceptualized as states than as personality traits. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: readiness for change, commitment to change, openness to change, cynicism about organizational change, change–individual, change– organizational, organizational development, attitudes

A

s previous research has widely acknowledged, many organizational change initiatives neither result in their intended aims nor foster sustained change. Although there is no official statistic, researchers such as Beer and Nohria (2000a, 2000b) and Burke and Biggart (1997) estimated that about twothirds of change projects fail, and Burnes (2004) suggested that the failure rate may be even higher. The causes of many organizations’ inability to achieve the intended aims of their change efforts are often considered as

an implementation failure rather than flaws innate in the change initiative itself (Klein & Sorra, 1996; Kotter, 1995, 1996; Schein, 1987, 1999). In particular, an increasing number of researchers have argued that many change efforts fail because change leaders often underestimate the central role individuals play in the change process (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; George & Jones, 2001; Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Hall & Hord, 1987; Isabella, 1990; Lau & Woodman, 1995). As an alternative to the macro, systems-oriented

Correspondence to: Myungweon Choi, 603 Education Information Building, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanakro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-748, Korea, Phone: 82-2-880-4484, E-mail: [email protected] Human Human Resource Resource Management, Management, July–August 2011, Vol. 50, No. 4, Pp. 479 – 500 © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI:10.1002/hrm.20434

480

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , JULY–AUGUST 2011

approach (Quinn, Kahn, & Mandl, 1994), these researchers have adopted a more microlevel perspective on change and focus on the individuals within the organization (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). These researchers claim that organizations only change and act In particular, an through their members, and successful change will persist over the increasing number long term only when individuals of researchers have alter their on-the-job behaviors in appropriate ways (Jones, Jimargued that many mieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007; change efforts fail Weeks, Roberts, Chonko, & Jones, 2004). Thus, according to this because change view, employees are at the center leaders often of organizational change (Porras & Robertson, 1992; Tetenbaum, underestimate 1998). If we agree with this idea, we the central role need to focus on the conditions under which employees support individuals play in organizational change. To this end, the change process. researchers have asked the question of what indicates employees’ support for organizational change. As a result, they have focused on various attitudinal constructs that represent employees’ attitudes toward organizational change. Constructs such as readiness for change, commitment to change, openness to change, and cynicism about organizational change are examples. These constructs are similar to one another in that they all reflect an individual’s overall positive or negative evaluative judgment of a specific change initiative. In addition, they are defined as the cognitive precursor to the behaviors of either resistance to or support for a change effort. Despite the similarities, however, the constructs have distinct meanings and emphases, and therefore can provide us with different information regarding employees’ evaluation of and concerns about a specific change initiative. This article synthesizes what has been discussed and discovered about the attitudinal constructs that frequently serve as key variables in the organizational change literature. For this purpose, this article is organized as follows. First, existing knowledge on the

origins, definitions, and uses of the aforementioned attitudinal constructs and the antecedents of each construct are reviewed. Next, whether the constructs are better conceptualized as states or as personality traits is examined. Based on precise understanding of these constructs, researchers and practitioners can better interpret employees’ reactions to particular change initiatives, improve organizations’ ability to increase the degree of support or acceptance displayed for the initiatives, and, eventually, increase the likelihood of successful change.

Method This article is an integrative literature review, which is “a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way” (Torraco, 2005, p. 356). The synthesis of the existing research on employees’ attitudes toward organizational change can result in new understanding and reconceptualization of the topic, thereby expanding the knowledge base of researchers and practitioners interested in the topic. A literature search was conducted in two stages. First, to identify the attitudinal constructs to which researchers have paid scholarly attention in the organizational change context, a literature search was conducted using four electronic databases—Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, ERIC, and PsycINFO. “Attitude” and “organizational change” served as the keywords in this search, which resulted in 16,533 articles. From these articles, four attitudinal constructs that frequently serve as key variables were identified: (a) readiness for change (e.g., Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000), (b) commitment to change (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), (c) openness to change (e.g., Wanberg & Banas, 2000), and (d) cynicism about organizational change (e.g., Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). These constructs represent employees’ attitudes toward organizational change. To narrow down the 16,533 articles, a second literature search using the same four electronic databases was conducted with the four identified constructs serving as keywords Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

in article titles. This search returned 1,040 articles. To be included in this literature review, articles had to be peer-reviewed and relevant to organizational research. For example, literature from the health and medical fields that focused on individual behavior change (e.g., Block & Keller, 1998; Dunn, Neighbors, & Larimer, 2003; Joe, Simpson, & Broome, 1998; Morera et al., 1998; Prochaska, Redding, & Evers, 1997; Ramsey et al., 2000) was not included, even though those articles dealt with the four constructs of interest in this article. In total, 56 articles were selected and included in this literature review.

Key Attitudinal Constructs: What Is Being Studied? In the context of organizational change, some researchers have dealt with more general job attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and person–environment fit (e.g., Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004; Elias, 2009; Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Iverson, 1996; Judge et al., 1999; Meyer, Hecht, Gill, & Toplonytsky, 2010). For this literature review, however, only the constructs representing employees’ attitudinal reactions specific to organizational change are reviewed. As delineated above, the origins, definitions, and use of the four constructs—readiness for change, commitment to change, openness to a change, and cynicism about an organizational change—are reviewed below. Research findings concerning the antecedents of each attitudinal construct are also reviewed.

Readiness for Change Among the 56 articles selected for this literature review, 17 articles dealt with readiness for change. Based on these articles, this section discusses the origin, definitions, and use as well as the antecedents of readiness for change. Origin Initially, studies on individual readiness were published primarily in the health, Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

481

psychology, and medical literature (e.g., Block & Keller, 1998; Joe et al., 1998; Morera et al., 1998; Prochaska et al., 1997). These studies usually focus on ceasing harmful health behaviors such as smoking and drug abuse and starting positive ones such as exercising, managing weight, and eating nutritional meals. Readiness in this context is concerned with the extent to which an individual believes that a change at the individual level is needed and whether he or she has the capacity for it. Applications in the organizational change literature Recently, several researchers have focused on individual readiness in the context of organizational change. When the concept of individual readiness for Researchers change is applied to the organizational settings, it requires considhave suggested ering the organizational context (Choi & Ruona, 2011; Jansen, that openness to 2000). In a changing situation, change may be employees try to make sense of the new environment and draw a condition that conclusions about its possible outcomes by being actively in- creates employees’ volved in information seeking, readiness for meaning ascription, and assumption making about the change organizational process (J. D. Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Gioia, Thomas, change. Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994). As a result, employees form assumptions, expectations, and impressions regarding the need for organizational change and the extent to which such changes are likely to have positive implications for them as individuals and for the wider organization. It is these assumptions, expectations, and impressions that comprise individual readiness in the context of organizational change. Table I presents the definitions of readiness for change researchers have offered. As Table I shows, researchers have defined individual readiness for organizational change in slightly different ways. For example, Armenakis et al. (1993) and Jansen (2000) defined readiness for change in terms

482

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , JULY–AUGUST 2011

T ABL E

I

Definitions of Readiness for Change

Source

Definition

Armenakis et al. (1993) Backer (1995) Jansen (2000) Madsen, John, & Miller (2006) Rafferty & Simons (2006) Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Van den Broeck (2009)

Organizational members’ beliefs, feelings, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes. The cognitive precursor to the behaviors of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort.

Armenakis & Bedeian (1999) Holt et al. (2007) Neves (2009)

Expanding Armenakis et al.’s definition (1993) to include employees’ beliefs regarding the appropriateness of, support for, and value of the change.

Eby et al. (2000)

An individual’s perception of the extent to which the organization is perceived to be ready to take on large-scale change.

Jones et al. (2005) Kwahk & Lee (2008) Kwahk & Kim (2008)

The extent to which employees hold positive views about the need for organizational change, as well as the extent to which employees believe that such changes are likely to have positive implications for themselves and the wider organization.

of the need for a specific change initiative and the organizational capacity to implement it successfully. Similarly, Eby et al. (2000) contended that individual readiness for organizational change is about the belief that the changes are “both necessary and likely to be successful” (p. 422). On the other hand, Jones et al. (2005) also included employees’ belief in the benefits from the change. Nevertheless, they all agree that readiness for change in the organizational context involves individual impressions about the organization’s capacity to make a successful change, the extent to which the change is needed, and the benefits the organization and its members can gain from the change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Armenakis et al., 1993; Eby et al., 2000; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007; Jansen, 2000). Other important aspects of readiness for change include employees’ evaluation of the appropriateness of and organizational support for the change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Holt et al., 2007). Antecedents Researchers interested in readiness for change have found several factors that contribute to increasing the level of readiness for change.

Specifically, studies have shown that employees’ belief in organizational ability to accommodate changing situations (Eby et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2005), policies supporting change (Eby et al., 2000; McNabb & Sepic, 1995; Rafferty & Simons, 2006), trust in peers and leaders (Rafferty & Simons, 2006), and participation at work (Eby et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2005) could increase individual readiness for organizational change. In addition, individual-level variables such as change self-efficacy (C. E. Cunningham et al., 2002; Kwahk & Lee, 2008; Rafferty & Simons, 2006), organizational commitment (Kwahk & Kim, 2008; Kwahk & Lee, 2008; Madsen, Miller, & John, 2005), perceived personal competence (Kwahk & Kim, 2008), and job satisfaction (McNabb & Sepic, 1995) were also reported to increase individual readiness for change.

Commitment to Change Commitment to change has received more attention from researchers than the other three constructs. The discussion in this section is based on the 22 articles that addressed commitment to change among the 56 articles discovered through the search conducted for this literature review. Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Origin Commitment has been considered as one of the most important aspects in explaining employees’ behavior and desirable work outcomes (Benkhoff, 1997; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Most often, it has been conceptualized in terms of organizational commitment, which is a wellestablished construct in the psychology and management literature. Although organizational commitment has been defined in diverse ways, one of the most accepted definitions is “the relative strength of an individual’s linkage to the organization” (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979, p. 226). Organizational commitment, especially affective commitment, has been reported to be related to workplace outcomes such as turnover intention and turnover; on-the-job behaviors such as attendance, organizational citizenship behavior, and performance; and employee health and well-being (Meyer et al., 2002). Recently, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed a more general concept of commitment, which they define as “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets” (p. 301). With this broader definition of commitment, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) made the construct applicable to different targets, such as an occupation, an organizational subunit, a union, a supervisor, and even a particular program or event. Their work has received much empirical support (Meyer et al., 2002) and provides useful frameworks for organizational researchers to study employees’ commitment to various targets. Applications in the organizational change literature Building on their general theory of workplace commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) proposed a new model in which they defined commitment to change as “a force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative” (p. 475). Consistent with the previous literature on organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

483

1997; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993), Herscovitch and Meyer further differentiated among three types of commitment to change: affective, normative, and continuance. Affective commitment to change entails a desire to provide support for a change initiative based on the belief in its inherent benefits. Normative commitment to change reflects a sense of obliga- Building on their tion to provide support for the general theory change. Finally, continuance commitment to change involves supof workplace porting the change because of the recognition of the costs associated commitment (Meyer with failure to support the change & Herscovitch, (G. B. Cunningham, 2006; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Through 2001), Herscovitch empirical studies, researchers have demonstrated that commitment and Meyer (2002) to change is conceptually distinct proposed a new from organizational commitment and that the three components of model in which they commitment to change can be distinguished from one another defined commitment (Fedor et al., 2006; J. K. Ford, to change as “a Weissbein, & Plamondon, 2003; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). In force (mind-set) that addition, researchers have also shown that commitment to binds an individual change is a better predictor of support for change than the broader to a course of action organizational commitment (J. K. deemed necessary Ford et al., 2003; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2007). for the successful This finding is consistent with Lewin’s (1943) idea that the com- implementation of mitment that exerts the strongest a change initiative” influence is that which has the greatest psychological proximity. (p. 475). As Table II summarizes, even before Herscovitch and Meyer’s (2002) conceptualization of commitment to change, a few researchers were already using the construct (e.g., Conner & Patterson, 1982; Jaffe, Scott, & Tobe, 1994; Klein & Sorra, 1996). Their use of the construct, however, had some limitations. Conner and Patterson (1982) based their arguments on anecdotal evidence and consulting experiences and did not offer any specific conceptualization of commitment. In addition,

484

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , JULY–AUGUST 2011

T ABL E

II

Definitions of Commitment to Change

Source

Definition

Conner & Patterson (1982)

When a change has been internalized, participants engage in goal-oriented activities to satisfy their own needs and those of the organization. Enthusiasm, high-energy investment, and persistence characterize commitment at the internalized level.

Jaffe et al. (1994) Devos et al. (2001)

As change unfolds, organizational members’ attitudes toward change evolve as follows: denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment. Commitment is the final stage of the 4-stage model and takes place as organizational members embrace a proposed change.

Klein & Sorra (1996)

Employees’ commitment to the use of an innovation is a function of the perceived fit of the innovation to employees’ values, w...