04-The Role of Organizational Politics, Contextual Resources,

7/22/2019 04-The Role of Organizational Politics, Contextual Resources,

1/30

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC]On: 20 September 2012, At: 10:58Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal of Work and

Organizational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors

and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The role of organizational

politics, contextual resources,and formal communication on

change recipients' commitment

to change: A multilevel studyDave Bouckenooghe

a

aBrock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Version of record first published: 13 Oct 2011.

To cite this article:Dave Bouckenooghe (2012): The role of organizational politics,contextual resources, and formal communication on change recipients' commitment to

change: A multilevel study, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

21:4, 575-602

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.591573

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.

Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.591573http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.591573http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20


2/30

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


3/30

The role of organizational politics, contextual resources,and formal communication on change recipients

commitment to change: A multilevel study

Dave Bouckenooghe

Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Over the past decade there has been an increased interest in studying thefactors that affect peoples commitment to change. Drawing from the JobDemandsResources model, in this enquiry we explored the moderating role oftwo contextual resources (i.e., trust in top management, history of change) andformal communication in the relationship between perceived organizationalpolitics and commitment to change. Data were collected from 2543 employeesof 84 companies representing a wide variety of industry sectors. In a firstsurvey we collected data about the work context. Two weeks after the firstsurvey, in a second survey we captured data on peoples commitment to

change. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was used to analyse themultilevel character of the data. Consonant with our hypotheses, the findingsindicate that the negative relationship between perceived organizationalpolitics and commitment to change is moderated by trust in topmanagement, history of change, and formal communication. As agroup the Level 2 predictors account for 18%, 2.5%, and 10%, respectively, ofthe between-unit variance in continuance, normative, and affectivecommitment for change.

Keywords: Commitment to change; Multilevel analysis; Organizationalchange; Organizational politics.

Recent meta-analyses have shown that organizational politics have wide-

spread effects on employee attitudes and behaviours (e.g., performance

evaluation, resource allocation, managerial decision making, affective

commitment, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour) (Chang,

Correspondence should be addressed to Dave Bouckenooghe, Brock University, OBHREE,

500 Glenridge Avenue, Taro Hall, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2M4T6 Canada. E-mail:

[email protected]

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2012, 21 (4), 575602

2012 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.591573

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


4/30

Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter,

2002). In a similar fashion, despite the pivotal role of organizational politics

in influencing organizational effectiveness and efficiency (Kacmar & Baron,

1999), the literature of organizational change has been divided with regards

to the role of organizational politics in planned and strategic organizational

change. For example, the contextual approach to change and critical

management studies argue that politics is not only inevitable in the context

of organizational change but also a necessary driver and, therefore, should be

viewed more positively (e.g., Buchanan, 2008; Buchanan & Badham, 1999;

Kumar & Thibodeaux, 1990; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). In

contrast, the sociotechnical systems thinking approach and the organizational

development literature, variously deny, repress, or neglect the political

dimension of organizational functioning in general, and of organizationalchange in particular (Buchanan & Badham, 1999). Additionally, prior work in

the field of applied psychology on politics during change is scarce and

considers organizational politics mainly as a dysfunctional and negative aspect

of the work environment (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989). Despite some

literature suggesting organizational politics might be conceptualized as both a

challenge and a hindrance stressor (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, &

Boudreau, 2000; Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, 2010), in general, in the

mainstream change management literature organizational politics is viewed

as a detrimental factor that works against change and triggers negativeattitudes or resistance towards change (Ferris et al., 1989).

We take the perspective that organizational politics can both hinder or

push change depending on the level of coping resources. First, drawing from

the stress literature, and more specifically building on the principles of Job

DemandsResources model (JD-R; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &

Schaufeli, 2001; Karasek, 1979), we propose that the effect of politics on

peoples commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) depends on

the coping resources and other demand factors in the work context.

According to the JD-R model, employees who perceive that demands (i.e.,organizational politics) exceed their coping resources feel overwhelmed.

This strain requires additional coping efforts, which are taken away from

resources that could otherwise be devoted to building a positive attitude

towards change (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986). Further-

more, the JD-R model also assumes that when demands (i.e., organizational

politics) are high and the work context is favourable for change

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), employees are more likely to develop new

behavioural patterns and stronger commitment to change.

Second, unlike prior work that has focused on the frequently examined

role of process factors (e.g., change fairness, participation, and leadership),

we extend the current research on commitment to change by accounting for

the context characteristics under which change takes place (Herold, Fedor,

576 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


5/30

& Caldwell, 2007). Building further on this stream of research (e.g., van

Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008; Wanberg & Banas, 2000), we explore how the

work context affects commitment to change. Contextual factors are broad in

nature and involve the consideration of a multitude of specific areas. For the

purposes of this study, we consider perceived organizational politics, trust

in top management, history of change, and formal communication as key

aspects of the work context.

Third, this article assumes that commitment to change is a socially

constructed phenomenon (Ford, Ford, & DAmelio, 2008; Salancik &

Pfeffer 1978). This implies that the effect of perceived organizational politics

on commitment is not purely a process of individual reflection but also

depends on how co-workers perceive the presence of valued coping

resources in the work context. Hence, we take into account what co-workersthink about the way change is implemented or the conditions that

accompany the change effort. Basically, most research focused on the

individual-level perception of process and context factors, because it is most

proximal to commitment to change. However, since most changes are

directed at the unit or organizational level (Burke & Litwin, 1992), a better

understanding of commitment to change can be aided by assessing the

coping resources at the unit level.

COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

Every individual experiences change in a unique way. For some change

implies a source of joy, benefits, or advantages, whereas for others, it is a

source of suffering and stress, and yields disadvantages. This variety in

perceptions and reactions is also reflected in the work of scholars who use a

variety of ways to conceptualize peoples reactions to change (Oreg, Vakola,

& Armenakis, 2007). Some use positively laden terms such ascommitment to

change, whereas others use negative terms such as resistance; yet others

prefer the more all-encompassing termattitude towards change.We focus on commitment to change, because this is one of the few

concepts that has clearly delineated conceptual boundaries (Oreg et al.,

2007). Many of the recent studies on commitment to change (e.g., Chen &

Wang, 2007; Cunningham, 2006; Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky,

2007) are inspired by Herscovitch and Meyers work (2002). Building further

on their seminal work, commitment to change refers to a force that binds an

individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful

implementation of a change initiative, and argued that this mindset can

reflect (1) a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its

inherent benefits (affective commitment), (2) a recognition that there are

costs associated with failure to provide support for the change (continuance

commitment to change), and (3) a sense of obligation to provide support for

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITCS AND COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 577

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


6/30

the change (normative commitment to change). Commitment to change goes

beyond a favourable disposition towards change (Herold et al., 2007). It

includes the intention to support it as well as a willingness to work on behalf

of its successful implementation. Thus, commitment to change represents a

psychological alignment with, or attachment to the change.

According to Ford et al. (2008), reactions towards change like

commitment to change should be conceived of as socially constructed

phenomena shaped by their context. Put differently, change recipients make

sense of change and develop a certain attitude towards change not only

through a process of individual reflection but also through collective sense

making, which comes from a series of interactions with colleagues and

change agents (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). To neglect this contextual level

in the conceptualization and development of research would lead toincomplete and misdirected modelling (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). There-

fore, it has been proposed that research on attitudes towards change will

benefit from adopting a multilevel perspective (Herold et al., 2007).

To conclude, employees or change recipients take information, interpret

it, and assign meanings to change through individual reflections about the

context and process of change; however, based on the previously mentioned

ideas, it is also widely accepted that they make sense of change through

the collective meaning attached to these factors. That assumption is at the

root of this research and should lead to a better understanding of how thedynamics between organizational politics and the organizations contextual

resources (i.e., history of change, trust in top management) and demand

factors (i.e., formal communication) yield a better understanding of

commitment to change.

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ANDORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Highly political organizational environments are commonly viewed as anegative fact of life in every organization (Miller, Rutherford, &

Kolodinsky, 2008) and researchers have suggested that they are responsible

for a variety of harmful work consequences including higher stress and

turnover intentions, and lower worker satisfaction, commitment, and

worker productivity (Ferris et al., 1989; Kacmar & Baron, 1999). Certain

meta-analyses have called attention to the detrimental effects of organiza-

tional politics on a set of job outcomes and attitudes (Chang et al., 2009;

Miller et al., 2008). The results from these meta-analyses show significant

negative relationships between perceived organizational politics and job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, task performance, and organiza-

tional citizenship, whereas positive relationships were noted with stress, and

turnover intentions.

578 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


7/30

Organizational Development scholars have viewed organizational politics

mainly as a collection of dirty tricks to be avoided and eradicated. Few

studies have looked into its effects on attitudes towards change, and those

that did supported the adverse and manipulative effects of organizational

politics in creating resistance to change (Buchanan & Badham, 1999). In

other words, many view organizational politics as a dysfunctional and

negative aspect of the work environment (Ferris et al., 1989).

Several scholars in the field of social constructivism and critical

management studies have raised concerns about this dominant view of

organizational politics as dysfunctional, arguing that politics can be useful

in times of change (e.g., Antal-Mokos, 1998; Buchanan, 2008; Buchanan &

Badham, 1999; Frost & Egri, 1991; Kumar & Thibodeaux, 1990; Pettigrew,

1973). These studies suggest that a stronger political involvement isnecessary in order to increase the probability of success in large-scale

organization-wide changes. According to this line of research political

behaviour is not only inevitable in the context of organizational change but

also necessary for stimulating creativity and debate, and, thus, should be

viewed positively (Frost & Egri, 1991). Finally, Pettigrew (1973) and

Margulies and Raia (1984) have advocated using all possible means

(including the use of coercive politics, hidden agendas, and manipulations)

to overcome any resistance to the successful implementation of change

efforts. In sum, these qualitative studies indicate that organizational politicsnot only contributes to feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, and stress during

change processes, but is also an important driver for change.

In this enquiry, we build further on both the destructive and constructive

view of organizational politics in shaping peoples commitment to change.

On the one hand, organizational politics is a stressor (i.e., destructive view

of organizational politics) that adds extra uncertainty to the already

precarious situations inherent to change, and entails less positive reactions

towards change (i.e., low commitment to change). Put differently,

organizational politics is a hindrance stressor (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984),a demand factor that is perceived as a constraint, a barrier, a roadblock that

unnecessarily hinders the progress towards change. On the other hand, it is

assumed that organizational politics can be an essential driver that pushes

change (i.e., constructive view of organizational politics) when the

organizational context offers resources to reduce the stressful character

inherent to large-scale transformations and, thus, are supportive towards

change.

In the following sections, we will highlight two contextual resources (i.e.,

trust in top management, history of change) and formal communication that

are considered as important facilitators/inhibitors of change. Furthermore

we will explain how the JD-R model (Karasek, 1979) contributes to our

understanding of the constructive and destructive effects of organizational


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


8/30

politics on peoples commitment to change through the role of these context

forces.

CONTEXTUAL RESOURCES: TRUST IN TOPMANAGEMENT AND HISTORY OF CHANGE

The way people feel, think, and act towards change is often the result of an

appraisal process that considers the demands and coping resources inherent

to the change and work context (Cunningham et al., 2002). To put it

differently, commitment to change is formed by an interplay between feelings

of uncertainty caused by the demands ensuing from change, and the resources

available to increase control over the uncertain character of change (Bordia,

Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, &Welbourne, 1999). It is well established that major organizational change

can be a formidable stressor in organizational life that reduces psychological

well-being, and increases work-life conflict, burnout, etc. Especially, the

uncertain character that accompanies change is a major source of strain that

causes people to act against or resist change (Ashford, 1988; Bordia et al.,

2004; Schweiger & Denisi, 1991).

Drawing on Ferris et al.s (1989) research, we propose that perceptions of

organizational politics represent a stressor that is directly related to

attitudinal and behavioural reactions. Organizational politics may addextra ambiguity to the work context by putting additional pressure onto

employees who already carry the burden of dealing with the uncertain

character of change. Building further on the ideas of the JD-R model

(Karasek, 1979), similar levels of perceived organizational politics may

produce different individual responses in terms of stress and reactions

towards change (i.e., weaker or stronger commitment to change) depending

on the presence of context-specific resources (i.e., trust in top management

and successful history of implementing changes) that help to cope with the

demands that emanate from the change.A vast amount of literature denotes that the trust of organizational

members in their leader is a salient antecedent of peoples cooperation in

implementing strategic decisions and an essential factor in predicting

peoples commitment to change (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000;

Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999).

Trust in top management is critical in shaping peoples responses to change.

According to McLain and Hackman (1999), trust can reduce the negative

feelings, such as uncertainty and ambiguity, that arise from stressful

situations because it is a resource for managing risk, dispersing complexity,

and explaining the unfamiliar through the help of others.

Commitment to change is also affected by an organizations track record

of dealing effectively with change (Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007;

580 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


9/30

Rafferty & Restubog, in press). Previous changes are accompanied by

sentiments that generate positive or negative expectancies, which in turn are

prompts for the efforts people invest in change. Thus, when a change

recipient embarks on organizational change, a schema of previous change

experiences is triggered and the sentiment (e.g., positive or negative) that

ensues from this processing will thereupon determine the effort put into

change (Lau & Woodman, 1995). If the experience is positive, people will

increase their effort, but when the experience is negative, they limit their

investments. In summary, a positive experience with previous change

projects will create positive attitudes towards change, whereas from negative

experiences more adverse reactions towards change are likely to emanate.

THE MODERATING ROLE OF CONTEXTUALRESOURCES

From previous studies it is evident that the context forces history of

change (Devos et al., 2007; Rafferty & Restubog, in press) and trust in top

management (Eby et al., 2000; Oreg, 2006; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999)

are both key resources that help buffer against the demands that arise from

change. Although the direct relationships between these contextual

resources and attitudes towards changeoften perceived and measured at

the individual levelare well established, we are more interested in thematch/mismatch between perceived organizational politics at the individual

level (demands/stressors) and the way the work unit considers history of

change and trust in top management affects commitment to change.

We assume that commitment to change (affective, continuance, and

normative) is the result of peoples efforts to manage (reduce, minimize, or

tolerate) the demands of the personenvironment transaction (i.e., perceived

organizational politics) that is appraised as taxing or exceeding the available

resources (i.e., trust in top management and history of change). Put

differently, we assume that the influence of organizational politics oncommitment to change is moderated by contextual resources. The JD-R

model (Karasek, 1979) advocates that high levels of demands or stressors

like organizational politics will have adverse effects on attitude formation

and well-being if the coping resources are exceeded.

In general, this model (Karasek, 1979) postulates that commitment to

change and psychological stress result not from a single aspect of the work

environment, but from the joint effects of the demands of a work situation

or change event, and the range of resources or control factors available

to the worker facing those demands. Strain or resistance (i.e., low or no

readiness) occurs when demands are high and resources are low. Because the

strain that ensues from change is a psychological state that people want to

avoid at all times, a lower commitment to change is likely to emerge in the


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


10/30

case of strong perceived demands (i.e., organizational politics) in combina-

tion with a low level of contextual resources (i.e., trust in top management

and history of change) to deal with those demands.

The combinations of organizational politics and the contextual resources

(trust in top management and history of change) contain several predictions

for commitment to change, as depicted in Figure 1. Diagonals A and B

represent two interactions. The first diagonal (A) suggests that commitment

to change will be lower as the levels of organizational politics are high,

relative to low levels of resources (low trust in top management and an

unsuccessful history in dealing with change). This also implies that as the

levels of organizational politics are lower and coping resources are present,

people are more likely to develop commitment to change because they

develop a feeling of control over a change situation that is characterized bylower organizational politics. More specifically, a match or consistency

between organizational politics (low or high) and history of change

(successful or unsuccessful), or organizational politics (low or high) and

trust in top management (high or low) will reinforce each others effects

(Bem, 1970). For example, when employees perceive the level of politics to

be high in an organization and co-workers show a lack of trust in top

management, those employees will feel supported in their perception of a

highly political environment and are more likely to resist the change.

The second diagonal (B) is what Karasek (1979) calls the job activitydiagonal. Change events characterized by low demands (i.e., low organiza-

tional politics) and low resources (i.e., low trust in management and

unsuccessful history) are defined as passive situations. Under the condition

of low demands and low resources, people will lack that level of stress that

is crucial to mobilizing them into action. Furthermore, the lack of urgency

and the limited opportunities to gain control over change often leave people

Figure 1. Interplay between organizational politics and contextual resources.

582 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


11/30

indifferent with regards to change. In active situations characterized by high

demands (i.e., high organizational politics) and high resources, workers will

experience a sense of urgency and be more confident in their ability to

manage change due to the increased levels of coping resources (Spreitzer,

1995). Consequently, along this activity diagonal we expect commitment to

change to be strong when both resources and demands are high. In

addition, the literature has also taught us that when people hold

contradictory perceptions (e.g., high organizational politics vs. high trust

in top management), they experience an averse state known as dissonance

(Bem, 1970; Kahle, 1984; Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991), a psychological

condition they want to avoid at all cost. For example, in a state of highly

perceived politics by the individual but high trust in top management, and a

successful past in handling changes, people are going to be motivated torestore consistency in perceptions by changing their attitudes and

behaviour, or adding new cognitions (Festinger, 1957). Because in our

example all co-workers are positive about the contextual resources, this

overall feeling of being able to deal with the change will provide a buffer

against the negative feelings nourished by organizational politics. People

might even put the organizational politics that accompany change into a

more positive perspective by viewing it as a necessary evil to accomplishing

change. Also, the case of low politics in combination with insufficient

contextual resources creates feelings of inconsistency between demandsand resources. When the stressors that accompany change are limited,

people are less likely to show any effort in support of change because the

unit does not believe there are enough resources available to cope with

change.

To conclude, in turbulent times like change, an individuals struggle to

make sense of the change is likely to be determined by his/her work context

(Ford et al., 2008; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Basically, commitment to

change is not the mere result of individual reflection or perception of

demands and resources but also a socially constructed phenomenon. Morespecifically, in this enquiry the context characteristics are suggested to have

cross-level effects on the individual-level relationship between perceived

organizational politics and commitment to change (Johns, 2006). These

unit-level context variables are usually derived by aggregating the responses

of individual group members. Because work units and organizations may

have different levels of contextual resources, we suggest that the impact of

organizational politics as a demand factor may vary across units. Based on

the earlier discussion, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: The relationship between organizational politics and

commitment to change will be moderated by the level of contextual

resources (i.e., trust in top management, history of change).


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


12/30

Hypothesis 1a: At low levels of contextual resources (i.e., low trust in

top management, and an unsuccessful history in dealing with change),

a negative relationship is expected between commitment to change and

organizational politics. (Diagonal A-hypothesis).

Hypothesis 1b: At high levels of contextual resources (i.e., high trust in

top management, and a successful history of dealing with change), a

positive relationship is expected between commitment to change and

organizational politics (Diagonal B-hypothesis).

THE MODERATING ROLE OF FORMAL ORPROGRAMMATIC COMMUNICATION

Apart from trust in top management and history of change a third

context characteristic formal or programmatic communication is con-

sidered in this enquiry. According to change management guru Kotter

(1995), a transformation effort can easily dissolve into a list of confusing

and incompatible projects when there is no transparent, clear, and accurate

communication. During and after changes such as mergers, effective

communication helps organizations deal with employee uncertainty (Bastien,

1987). Several studies observed that the quality of communication affectspeoples willingness to change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Miller, Johnson,

& Grau, 1994). The information gained from communication should

provide knowledge and increase the predictability of events and reduce the

uncertainty related to the change. Based on this literature, it could be argued

that communication is a crucial contextual resource that helps to better cope

with the stress engendered by organizational politics. However, past findings

with regards to communication and change need to be nuanced (Russ, 2008).

In some cases communication can also work as an extra stressor or demand

factor amplifying the negative effects of organizational politics.To explain this negative amplifying versus buffering effects of commu-

nication we draw on a framework that distinguishes between two types

of communication: participatory change communication and formal or

programmatic change communication (Russ, 2008). The first type, partici-

patory change communication involves more than simply hearing from the

top about the reasons for change. Stakeholders are brought into the folds of

change and invited to participate actively in the shaping, construction, and

implementation of organizational change (Lines, 2004). This type of change

communication operates like a contextual resource for coping with change.

The second type, however, formal or programmatic change communica-

tion, is focused on telling and selling. A key component of formal

approaches is the downward cascade of information about the change,

584 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


13/30

such as knowledge and facts about the change process, and directives for how

change should be implemented on the organizations frontlines (Armenakis

& Harris, 2002). This formal type of change communication is described as

planned organization efforts that mould corporate images, manage issues,

and articulate values (Fairhurst, 1993). Because of its top-down driven

character, this type of communication allows little space for participation

(Russ, 2008). Basically, the highly programmatic change communication is

perceived as persuasive and aimed at compliance and, thereby, is also

consonant with the characteristics of a political work environment.

Furthermore, the typical downward monologic efforts that characterize this

type of communication are likely to backfire by fostering disengagement

among employees, who may resist the planned change and even become

resentful of the change. Put differently, not only is communication a resourcefactor that strengthens the level of commitment (e.g., Bastien, 1987; Kotter,

1995), but also the literature we have discussed suggests it may operate as

a demand factor/stressor amplifying the negative effects of organizational

politics, and depleting the scarce coping resources of change recipients

(Hobfoll, 1989). Based on this we formulate a second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between organizational politics and

commitment to change will be contingent on the level of formal

communication, that is, the relationship will be stronger when theformal communication is strong.

METHOD

Sample and questionnaire administration

Similar to prior studies that have conducted research into commitment to

change (Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Herold et al., 2007), this enquiry

collected data from 2543 respondents with the assistance of 84 representa-tives from organizations participating in a 6-month-long change manage-

ment programme at a major business school in Belgium. For practical

reasons, we only asked for participation from those companies in the change

programme that had recently announced a major change (i.e., within

6 months of enrolling in the programme). We focused on recently

announced changes because this helps reduce the variability that is

attributable to data collection at different stages of the change process. In

total, 84 of the 138 organizations agreed to participate. Although the sample

is not representative of all sectors in Belgium, the 84 companies represent a

wide variety of industry sectors including hospitals (n 12), healthcare

services (n 4), pharmacy and biotechnology (n 3), IT consultancy (n 5),

banking and insurance (n 7), manufacturing (i.e., construction,


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


14/30

automotive, etc.) (n 10), consultancy (i.e., investment and market

research) (n 8), restaurant, food, and beverages (n 3), government and

government-related institutions (n 9), education, educational services,

and training (n 11), wholesale, logistics, and transportation (n 4), and

miscellaneous (n 8).

The majority of organizational representatives were the heads or

supervisors of the departments/units affected by the change. Each

representative was asked to administer two surveys to those in the affected

work unit(s) about the change. To focus respondents and provide a common

change referent within each participating company or work unit, the

representatives were instructed to remind the respondents of the specific

change initiative to which they were asked to respond. In addition, the

specific change was also typed at the top of each page of both surveys. Theprincipal investigator included with each survey a cover letter explaining

the nature of the project, and the voluntary and anonymous nature of

participation. To further ensure anonymity, respondents had the option not

to fill out personal identifiers like age or sex.

Both surveys were administered with a latency of 2 weeks between the

Time 1 (T1) survey and the Time 2 (T2) survey. Due to the anonymous

character of the survey participants were asked to develop and remember

their own personal code. They were asked to write down this code on the

title page of both questionnaires, so that T1T2 data could be matched. AtT1, data were captured about organizational politics and three context

characteristics (i.e., trust in management, history of change, and formal

communication). The T2 survey measured commitment to change. For

logistical reasons, representatives were told to limit their efforts to

approximately 30100 individuals depending on the size of the organization

or work unit. Smaller organizations or work units with only 30 employees or

less were asked to involve everybody affected by the change. For T2, it was

possible to compare the level of dropouts in comparison to T1. The response

rate at T2 was 81%. The number of respondents in each organization at T2ranged from 4 to 145, with a mean of 31 (SD 27.6). Although respondents

had the option not to fill out demographic information, about half of them

provided this information. Of the respondents who completed the

demographic information, 841 were male and 495 were female. With respect

to age, the following distribution was noted: 59 respondents were 24 years or

younger, 381 were between 25 and 34 years, 462 were between 35 and

44 years, and 379 were 45 years or older.

Contextual background: Types of changeIn this study we considered only organizational changes that were recently

proclaimedthat is, major changes that were announced within 6 months of

586 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


15/30

the participants enrolment in the change programme. Furthermore, the

representatives in each organization were given instructions only to include

respondents who were experiencing salient and immediate consequences of

change. Finally, with regards to the scale of change, we involved only large-

scale changes, changes that evoked transformations within the entire

organization. These large-scale changes were classified into three categories:

restructuring or reorganization (43%), introduction/implementation of new

technologies/IT systems (36%), and changes in culture (21%). Between

these categories of change, no significant differences were observed for

continuance commitment for change, F(2, 2540) 1.94, ns, affective

commitment for change, F(2, 2540) 1.21, ns, and normative commitment

for change,F(2, 2540) 0.97, ns.

Measures

We used an adapted version of Herscovitch and Meyer scales (2002) of

commitment to change. Instead of using the original 18-item scale, we relied

on a shortened version (nine items) to limit the length of the questionnaires

in the two-wave data collection. To measure trust in top management (three

items), we relied on a subscale from the OCQ-C, P, R (Organizational

Change Questionnaire; Bouckenooghe, Devos, & van den Broeck, 2009).

For the measurement of history of change (four items), we adopted a Dutchscale developed by Metselaar (1997). For measuring formal or program-

matic change, we developed a six-item scale based on Russs critical analysis

of formal and participatory approaches to communicating change (Russ,

2008; Rafferty & Restubog, in press). Finally, we chose a three-item scale

from the OCQ-C, P, R to measure organizational politics (Bouckenooghe

et al., 2009). All scales were measured using 5-point Likert-type scales that

range between strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Individual-level measures (Level 1). Confirmatory factor analysis wasconducted on all data to check the structure of our measurement model. The

data supported the structure of our eight scales, w2/df 5.97; RMR .02;

GFI .95; CFI .92. An alternative one-factor model presented much

poorer fit, w2/df 98.47; RMR .11; GFI .63; CFI .60.

The three subscales of commitment to change (i.e., continuance

commitment to change, affective commitment to change, and normative

commitment to change) are comprised of three items. Sample items are I

believe this change is positive for this organization (affective commitment

to change, a .82), I would feel guilty not putting enough energy into the

process of change (normative commitment for change, a .85), and

Overall I feel pressure to go along with the proposed changes

(continuance commitment for change, a .71). Prior to the inclusion of


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


16/30

these slightly modified commitment to change scales, these scales were pilot

tested on an independent sample of employees from a public sector agency

in Suffolk County (Great Britain). Changes were made to the political

structures of the agencys council and a range of initiatives had been taken

to promote a more corporate approach, to encourage partnership working,

and to develop locality arrangements. Confirmatory factor analyses in

data from 799 questionnaires that were collected supported the scales

three-factor structure, w2/df 3.93; RMR .01; GFI .97; CFI .94. An

alternative one-factor model presented much poorer fit, w2/df 47.56;

RMR .05; GFI .73; CFI .71.

A sample item of the three-item scale measuring organizational politics

(a .67) is: Within our organization, power games between the depart-

ments play an important role. To capture the contextual resource variabletrust in top management, we used a six-item scale (a .74). A sample item is:

The executive management fulfils its promises. The measurement of

history of change consists of a four-item scale (a .74). Sample items for

this scale are: Past changes were generally successful and Our company

has proven to be capable of major changes. Finally, the third context

characteristic or demand factor formal communication is measured by a

four-item scale (a .81). Sample items include: Information on change is

mainly provided by management and Management uses formal informa-

tion systems (i.e., memos, newsletters, formal staff meetings) to commu-nicate about the progress of change.

We used locus of control as a control variable in this enquiry because

previous studies have indicated that this personality characteristic influences

peoples response towards change (Devos et al., 2007; Judge et al., 1999; Lau

& Woodman, 1995). We measured locus of control using Rotters (1966)

locus of control scale, which participants rated on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Our locus of

control measure had good internal consistency (a .73).

Organization-level measures (Level 2). We constructed the collective

perceptions of history of change, trust in top management, and formal

change communication by aggregating employees scores at the work-unit

level. The ICC(2) values were computed to estimate the group mean

reliability for these variables at the organization level. The ICC(2) values

were respectively: history of change (.88), trust in top management (.83), and

formal communication (.89).

Data analysisBecause the dependent variable of this study, commitment to change, is a

variable measured at the individual level and the predicting variables span

588 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


17/30

the individual (i.e., organizational politics) and work-unit levels (i.e.,

history of change, trust in top management, formal communication), we

decided to adopt hierarchical linear modelling techniques (HLM; Bryk &

Raudenbush, 1992). First, we estimated a null model that had no predictors

at either Level 1 (individual level) or Level 2 (work-unit level) to partition

the commitment to change variance into within- and between-organizations

components. Second, in a Level 1 analysis, within each organization, the

three dependent variables were regressed on the grand-mean-centred Level

1 predictor organizational politics after controlling for locus of control. A

regression line was estimated for each of the 84 organizations in this step. In

the third step, we used intercept estimates obtained from Level 1 as

outcome variables and regressed these on the context characteristics (i.e.,

history of change, trust in top management, and formal communication) toassess the main effects of these factors. In the final step, the slope estimates

obtained for organizational politics were regressed on the contextual

resources (i.e., trust in top management and history of change) and formal

communication.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 reports the summary statistics, zero-order correlations, and

interrater agreement indices for the scales measured at the individual and

work unit level. As displayed in the upper half of Table 1, the correlations

between the Level 1 variables indicate moderate to strong correlations

between all three commitment to change scales. To assess the degree of

multicollinearity, VIF values were computed. None of these values exceeded

the cutoff value of 10, which indicates that multicollinearity had a limited

effect.

Shared constructs or not: Empirical evidence for aggregation

We computed rwg values for trust in top management, history of change,

and formal communication, and obtained median values higher than .80.

Theserwgvalues were well above the conventionally acceptable value of .70

(Lebreton & Senter, 2008). In addition to that, we obtained ICC(1) and

ICC(2) values.

The ICC(1) values can be interpreted in terms of effect sizes. A value of

.01 might be considered a small effect, a value of .10 might be considered a

medium effect, and a value of .25 might be considered a large effect. All

ICC(1) values were medium effect sizes with values ranging between .18 and

.24. Finally, the ICC(2) values all exceeded the recommended .70 level


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


18/30

TAB

LE1

Me

ans,standarddeviations,

inte

rrateragreementindices,and

correlationtableofindividual-levelandgroup-levelvariab

les

Variable

M

SD

ICC(1)ICC(2)rwg(j)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Individual

level(N

2543)

1.

Affect

iveCTC

3.5

7

0.7

6

.85

2.

ContinuanceCTC

3.4

9

0.7

1

.54***

.72

3.

Norm

ativeCTC

4.1

5

0.6

1

.57***

.

38***

.88

4.

Historyofchange

3.3

3

0.6

7

.33***

.

57***

.23***

.74

5.

Trust

intop

manag

ement

3.1

3

0.7

6

.32***

.

48***

.20***

.53***

.74

6.

Formal

comm

unication

3.4

1

0.7

1

.29***

.

45***

.23***

.38***

.46***

.86

7.

Organ

izational

politic

s

3.0

7

0.7

6

7.2

7***

7.

46***

7.1

6***

7.4

0***

7.50

***

7.4

4***

.67

8.

Locus

ofcontrol

2.9

3

0.5

9

.23***

.

19***

.13***

.16***

.22***

.18***

7.1

2***

.73

Groupleve

l(N

84)

9.

Historyofchange

3.3

6

0.3

4

.19

.86

.88

10.

Trustintop

manag

ement

3.2

6

0.3

7

.21

.87

.83

.48

***

11.

Form

al

comm

unication

3.5

2

0.3

2

.18

.85

.89

.25

*

.48***

Cronbachsalphaisonthediagonal.CTC

commitmenttochange.

*p5

.05,

**p5

.01,

***p5

.001.

590 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


19/30

(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). We thus concluded that aggregation was

justified for these variables.

HLM results for the antecedents of commitment to change

Null model. Using HLM, we estimated a null model in which no

predictors were specified for either Level 1 or Level 2. Basically, the null

model does not test hypotheses per se; however, it describes how much of the

total variance in affective, continuance, and normative commitment to

change can be attributed to the individual and work unit level. From these

three unconditional or null models, we inferred that there was considerable

variance residing between groups in affective commitment to change(ICC[1] .17), normative commitment to change (ICC[1] .12), and

continuance commitment to change (ICC[1] .13). This implies that,

respectively, 83%, 88%, and 87% of the variance in these commitment to

change variables is attributable to differences in individuals.

Individual level predictors only. Table 2 presents the estimated Level 1

and Level 2 coefficients that resulted from the hierarchical linear modelling

analyses. In Step 1, the random intercept with the control variable locus of

TABLE 2

Results HLM

Commitment to change

Normative Continuance Affective

Coefficients SE Coefficients SE Coefficients SE

Level 1 main effects

Constant (intercept) 4.33*** 0.09 4.01*** 0.09 3.69*** 0.11

Locus of control 0.07*** 0.02 0.13*** 0.02 0.21*** 0.02

Organizational politics 70.12*** 0.02 70.38*** 0.02 70.24*** 0.02

Level 2 main effects

History of change 70.32* 0.15 0.19 0.15 70.22 0.18

Trust in top management 0.38* 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.42* 0.19

Formal communication 70.11 0.15 70.37* 0.15 70.25 0.18

Cross-level interactions

Politics6History of change 0.11* 0.05 70.01 0.05 0.06 0.05

Politics6Trust in top

management 70.14** 0.05 70.05 0.05 70.11* 0.05

Politics6Formalcommunication 0.07 0.04 0.16*** 0.04 0.09 0.05

*p5 .05, **p5 .01, ***p5 .001.


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


20/30

control and the predictor variable organizational politics (Level 1) was

tested. In Step 2, the full model with the two contextual resource variables

and demand factor (i.e., formal communication) was tested (Level 1 and

Level 2). From these analyses we inferred that in a model without Level 2

variables, negative relationships were observed for the three commitment

to change variables with organizational politics. Furthermore, our control

variable, locus of control, had positive relationships with all three outcome

variables.

Adding Level 2 predictors. After controlling for the Level 1 variables,

trust in top management had a positive and significant effect on affective,

g .42,p5 .05, and normative commitment to change,g .38,p5 .05. As

for history of change, we found a negative effect on continuancecommitment to change, g.32, p5 .05. Finally, it is interesting to note

that formal communication had a negative effect on continuance

commitment to change, g.37, p5 .05. As a group, the context

characteristics account for 18%, 2.5%, and 10%, respectively, of the

between-unit variance in continuance, normative, and affective commitment

for change.

Testing cross-level interactions. Our first hypothesis posits that the

contextual resources will moderate the relationship between organizationalpolitics and commitment for change. More specifically, at lower levels of

contextual resources (i.e., trust in top management and history of change)

there will be a negative relationship between organizational politics and

commitment to change.

As displayed in Table 2, we found that trust in top management

moderated the organizational politicsnormative commitment to change

relationship, g.14, p5 .01, and the organizational politicsaffective

commitment to change, g.11, p5 .05). From Table 2 we also inferred

that history of change moderated the organizational politicsnormativecommitment to change relationship (g .11; p5 .05. To conclude, formal

communication moderated the organizational politicscontinuance commit-

ment to change relationship, g .16, p5 .001.

A more detailed examination of these cross-level effects in the context of

our subhypotheses (H1a and H1b) yields some interesting observations.

Figure 2 offers support for Diagonal A-hypothesis (H1a), which indicates

that higher levels of normative commitment to change were noted under

high levels of trust in top management and low organizational politics,

whereas lower levels of normative commitment to change were observed

under the opposite condition (low trust in top management and high

organizational politics). The same was noted when the outcome variable was

affective commitment to change (Figure 3). Furthermore, in both cases we

592 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


21/30

found support for the Diagonal B-hypothesis (H1b). Normative and

affective commitment to change were lower when organizational politics

and trust in top management were low in comparison to a situation where

organizational politics and trust in top management were high. The analyses

also show that organizational politics had no negative effect on normative

commitment to change when the organization had a highly successful

history of change, whereas a negative slope was observed between

organizational politics and normative commitment to change under the

condition of an unsuccessful history of change (Figure 4). Somewhat

surprisingly, our study indicated that the lowest levels for normative

commitment to change occurred when individuals reported high levels of

Figure 2. Moderating effect of trust on the politicsnormative commitment relationship.

Figure 3. Moderating effect of trust on the politicsaffective commitment relationship.


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


22/30

organizational politics and a successful history of change, whereas the

highest levels were observed under low levels of organizational politics

and an unsuccessful history of change. Basically, we found the opposite

of Diagonal B-hypothesis. Neither was support found for Diagonal

A-hypothesis; on the contrary, normative commitment to change was lower

in the case of a successful history of change and low organizational politics

in comparison to an unsuccessful history of change and high organizational

politics. Finally, Figure 5 shows support for H2, illustrating a more negative

slope for the relationship between perceived organizational politics and

continuance commitment to change when formal communication is strong.

Figure 4. Moderating effect of history of change on the politicsnormative commitment

relationship.

Figure 5. Moderating effect of formal communication on the politicscontinuance

commitment relationship.

594 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


23/30

So the negative effects of organizational politics get amplified when the level

of formal communication is high. Interesting also to note for this sample is

that on average under the condition of low formal communication people

tend to score lower on continuance commitment to change. But this is not

totally unexpected because in case of low formal communication employees

will feel less pressure to be committed towards change.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to examine the moderating role of three context

characteristics (i.e., trust in top management, history of change, and formal

communication) in shaping the relationship between perceived organiza-

tional politics and commitment to change. In keeping with Miller et al.s(2008) and Chang et al.s (2009) meta-analyses, the results of the current

enquiry demonstrated that perceptions of organizational politics, not

taking into account the effects of contextual resources and formal

communication, have strong negative relationships with employee attitudes.

Also, this study suggests that the relationship between commitment to

change and organizational politics is more complex than a simple negative

direct effect in that some of the components are moderated by the collective

perception of trust in top management, history of change, and formal

communication.Our analyses showed that commitment to change is partly a socially

constructed phenomenon (Ford et al., 2008). Actually, the three contextual

characteristics (Level 2 variables) explain a significant amount of variance in

continuance, normative, and affective commitment to change. As a group,

the context characteristics account for 18%, 2.5%, and 10%, respectively,

of the between-unit variance in continuance, normative, and affective

commitment to change. Basically, this observation supports the image that

individuals in organizations do not exist in a vacuum but that their attitudes

and behaviour are a function of both individual interpretations andcontextual effects (Lewin, 1951; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).

Consonant with our first hypothesis, the relationship between individual

perceived politics within an organization and commitment to change is

highly dependent upon the contextual resources present in the work unit or

organization. A scrutinized analysis of each of these moderating effects

shows the diversity of the impact of each of these resources. Support was

found for the JD-R-based hypothesis in the case of trust in top management.

The moderating role of trust in top management indicates that when the

demand factor in form of organizational politics is low, a situation where

co-workers have high trust in top management is likely to amplify

employees affective and normative commitment to change. However,

when the level of perceived politics is high and there is low trust in top


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


24/30

management, people will feel very uncertain about the change and are less

likely to show high levels of commitment to change. In alignment with the

Diagonal A-hypothesis, both affective and normative commitment will be

low if the levels of organizational politics are high, relative to low levels of

trust in management. Furthermore, under so-called active situations, that is,

high organizational politics and high trust in top management, people tend

to be more committed to change in comparison to people dealing with

passive situations (low organizational politics and low contextual resources).

This finding is in support of the Diagonal B-hypothesis and illustrates that

the effects of organizational politics are not necessarily destructive but can

also be constructive in shaping peoples commitment to change.

As for the moderating role of history of change, our findings indicate that

the deleterious impact of high organizational politics is limited when thehistory of change was perceived unsuccessful. Somewhat surprising and in

contrast with our main hypothesis is that normative commitment for change

was higher in work units that reported being less successful in dealing with

previous changes. This finding goes against the thesis of change routiniza-

tion wherein successful changes reinforce positive sentiments, expectancies,

and positive reactions towards these changes. On the contrary, our findings

suggest that unsuccessful change triggers more commitment to change. A

first explanation can be found in the behavioural concept idea discussed in

Beck, Bru derl, and Woywode (2008). This behavioural concept implies thatchange is more likely to happen if organizational members perceive previous

changes as unsuccessful in reaching the initial goals. It follows that past

failures lead to new searches until a satisfactory solution is reached

(Levinthal & March, 1993). Alternatively, it might be that a successful

history of change puts extra pressure on people because it creates the

expectancy of being successful again in the present and future. If a company

has always been successful in dealing with changes, failure is no longer an

acceptable option. In conclusion, instead of operating as a resource that

enables feelings of control over change, a successful history of changecan create additional pressure to perform and thus become an additional

demand factor.

Finally, the third context characteristic, formal or programmatic

communication, moderates the effect of organizational politics on

continuance commitment to change. The findings here are in support of

the second hypothesis. The negative relationship between organizational

politics and continuance commitment to change is stronger when formal

communication is high. Furthermore, the results show that continuance

commitment, on average, is lower when formal communication is low. This

might indicate that people are more likely to feel pressure to engage in

change, because continuance commitment to change is concerned with

possible losses or costs one may experience in case the change is not

596 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


25/30

supported. So, when management is not pushing the change downwards

through formal systems of communication, employees will experience less

pressure to support this change.

Study considerations

Like all studies, this study has both strengths and weaknesses. Regarding its

strengths, this enquiry is one of the very few studies that has acquired data

on generic work context factors (i.e., organizational politics, trust in top

management, history of change, and formal or programmatic communica-

tion), and commitment to change in a broad and heterogeneous cross

section of Belgian companies. Because data were collected in multiple

organizations, specific organizational characteristics may have impacted themeasured variables, making it more complicated to draw general conclu-

sions based on this sample. So there is a possibility that some of the

explained variance in commitment to change is due to some specific

organizational characteristic that was not accounted for in the studys

design. However, we strongly believe that the size and heterogeneity of our

sample is a better alternative than the idiosyncratic character of data

captured from a single organization. Actually the generalization of results is

improved in that they are based on data from multiple large-scale changes

(i.e., reengineering, changes in culture, . . .) occurring in different types oforganizations. One of the advantages of the heterogeneous and large

number of respondents over data captured from a single organization is that

it helps reducing the effects of individual biasing factors. Furthermore, the

studys cross-level interactions alleviate possible concerns for confounding

organizational context biases. In summary, in studying the effects of change

it is of absolute necessity that we collect data from multiple organizations

including multiple changes if we want to make cross-change comparisons

that help build our knowledge of change.

With respect to the used methodology, multilevel theory provides a set ofpowerful analytical tools to examine organizational phenomena that cut

across multiple levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Although single-level

models are important for identifying and exploring specific variables at some

point, the future of organizational science lies in approaches that are more

integrative and seek to understand phenomena from a combination of

perspectives (Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007). In this regard, the

findings of our study support the call for more mesolevel or multilevel

research perspectives in the area of organizational change (Fedor et al.,

2006; Herold et al., 2007).

Despite its many advantages, our study has some limitations. For

instance, we only focused on perceived context variables (i.e., organiza-

tional politics, trust in top management, history of change, formal


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


26/30

communication). Future research, however, would do well to include other

context variables like the impact of an organizations structure, its strategy

for dealing with change, market evolutions, etc. Also, future studies would

benefit from exploring the role of mediating variables. In particular, besides

demand and resource variables psychological control may be of great

explanatory power to how commitment to change is shaped. It has been

argued that when people feel in control of change, they are more likely to

engage in change as it mitigates the uncertainty and anxiety engendered by

change (Bordia et al., 2004; Brown & Leigh, 1996). According to Porras

and Robertson (1992), perceptions of psychological control play a

substantial role in attitude formation. Several studies pointed out that

several of our context variables are related to feelings of increased control.

For example, Bernerth (2004) suggested that a positive experience withprevious change projects will create a feeling of capability and control over

future changes, which creates positive attitudes towards change; a negative

experience will promote even stronger feelings of uncertainty, thereby

creating a more negative response towards change. Bordia et al. (2004)

found that the quality of communication is positively related to feelings of

control. Although a number of features of the changing organizational

context could lead to a perceived lack of control, effective communication

management is key to reduce the uncertainty that accompanies change. In

short, these findings would suggest that the effects of our contextual factors(history of change, trust in top management and communication) on

commitment to change are mediated by the level of perceived psychological

control.

Finally, another weakness of this enquiry is the cross-sectional nature of

the data making it more difficult to draw causal inferences. Because the

impact of change is dynamic and occurs over time, longitudinal studies

capturing the absolute levels of commitment at strategic points in time

would further enhance our understanding of how commitment to change

evolves.In conclusion, despite these strengths and weaknesses, we believe research

that attempts to understand the meaning of the different factors that

influence effective change is essential because organizational change remains

a necessary condition for survival in an ever more competitive and turbulent

business environment.

REFERENCES

Antal-Mokos, Z. (1998). Squeeze play: A case from Hungarian privatization. Journal for East

European Management Studies, 3, 117133.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational

readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 169183.

598 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


27/30

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational

transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 1936.

Bastien, D. T. (1987). Common patterns of behavior and communication in corporate mergers

and acquisitions. Human Resource Management, 26, 1733.Beck, N., Bru derl, J., & Woywode, M. (2008). Momentum or deceleration? Theoretical and

methodological reflections on the analysis of organizational change. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 51, 413435.

Bem, D. J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Bernerth, J. B. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human Resource

Development Review, 3, 3652.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during

organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 13, 345365.

Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational Change

QuestionnaireClimate of change, processes and readiness: Development of a newinstrument.Journal of Psychology, 143, 559599.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to

job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358368.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buchanan, D. (2008). You stab my back, Ill stab yours: Management experience and

perceptions of organization political behaviour. British Journal of Management, 19, 49

64.

Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (1999). Politics and organizational change: The lived experience.

Human Relations, 52, 609629.

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance andchange.Journal of Management, 17, 523545.

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical

examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 6574.

Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, E. P. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of

organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic

examination.Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779801.

Chen, J., & Wang, L. (2007). Locus of control and the three components of commitment to

change.Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 503512.

Crawford, E. R., Lepine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to

employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 93, 834848.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,

Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal

study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 75, 377392.

Cunningham, G. B. (2006). The relationships among commitment to change, coping with

change, and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

15, 2945.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499512.

Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). The contribution of content, context, and

process in understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation

studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 607630.


Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


28/30

Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational

readiness for change: Factors related to employees reactions to the implementation of team-

based selling. Human Relations, 53, 419442.

Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks totalquality.Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 331371.

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on

employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 129.

Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002).

Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research direction. In F. Dansereau &

F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (pp. 179254). Oxford, UK: Elsevier

Science/JAI Press.

Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. Gialcone &

P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),Impression management in the organization (pp. 143170).Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health

status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,

571579.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & DAmelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change. The rest of the story.

Academy of Management Review, 33, 326377.

Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. (1991). The political process of innovation. In L. L. Cummings &

B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 229295).Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A

multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees commitment tochange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 942951.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of

a three component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474487.

Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and

empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 50, 13851400.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The

American Psychologist, 44, 513524.

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 31, 386408.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping

with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,

107122.

Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to

related processes, and an agenda for future research. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in

personnel and human resource management(pp. 139). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kahle, L. R. (1984). Attitudes and social adaptation: A person-situation interaction approach.

Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for

job redesign.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285308.

Korsgaard, A. M., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment,

attachment and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice.

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 6084.

Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,

73, 5967.

600 BOUCKENOOGHE

Down

loa

de

dby

[b-

on:

Biblio

teca

docon

hec

im

en

toon

line

UC]a

t10:5

820

Sep

tem

ber

2012


29/30

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in

organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.

Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations,

extensions and new directions (pp. 39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Kumar, K., & Thibodeaux, M. S. (1990). Organizational politics and planned organizational

change: A pragmatic approach. Group and Organization Management, 15, 357365.

Lau, C., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A schematic

perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537554.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Lebreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and

interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815852. doi:10.01177/

1094428106296642

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management

Journal, 14, 95112.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational

commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 5, 221245.

Margulies, N., & Raia, H. P. (1984). The politics of organization development. Training and

Development Journal, 8, 2023.

McLain, D. L., & Hackman, K. (1999). Trust, risk and decision making in organizational

change.Public Administration Quarterly, 23, 152176.

Metselaar, E. E. (1997). Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the

DINAMO. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,

The Netherlands.

Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B., & Topolnytsky, L. (2007). Employee commitment and

support for an organizational change: Test of the three- component model in two cultures.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 185211.

Miller, B. K., Rutherford, M. A., & Kolodinsky, R. W. (2008). Perceptions of organizational

politics: A meta-analysis and outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 209222.

Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a

planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 11, 365386.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994).Psychometric theory.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73101.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2007). Organizational members reactions to

organizational change: A review of empirical findings.Paper presented to the annual

meeting of Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). Politics of organizational decision-making. London, UK: Tavistock.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change

and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44,

697713.

Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, and

research. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (pp. 719822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. (in press). The impact of change process and context on

change reactions and turnover during a merger. Journal of Management.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80.

04-The Role of Organizational Politics, Contextual Resources,

Documents

Transcript of 04-The Role of Organizational Politics, Contextual Resources,