Content uploaded by Mel Fugate
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mel Fugate on Jun 10, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
2 Capturing the positive experience of change:
antecedents, processes, and consequences
Mel Fugate
Capturing the positive experience of change:
antecedents, processes, and consequences
New ownership, downsizing, restructuring, mergers, virtual relation-
ships, and outsourcing are just a few common types of organizational
change employees now experience throughout their careers. The impact
on employees is often extreme, as many of these changes result in job
loss and career dislocations. And whatever the source of change, the
situation has been seriously exacerbated by the Great Recession
that began in late 2007. For instance, in the US more than 8 million
jobs were eliminated, and as of May 2011 more than 11 million people
25 years and older were unemployed (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011).
Unofficial estimates put this number over 14 million (Zuckerman, 2011)!
While the situational (e.g., competitive and economic) sources of change
greatly vary, the differences in individual reactions to change exhibit even
greater diversity. For any given change in a particular organization, some
employees react negatively and suffer tremendous stress and negative
health consequences (e.g., upset stomach and trouble sleeping –Begley
and Czajka, 1993;andChapter 4 in this volume), while others react
positively and view change as an opportunity for development and advance-
ment (Oreg, 2003). The overarching focus of this chapter, and a major
theme of this book, is to explain the causes of differences in individual’s
reactions to change. This is done by exploring positive person and situation
antecedents of change, and explaining how these are then linked to
specific outcomes via employees’cognitive appraisals of organizational
change (see Figure 2.1). The antecedent→process→outcome perspective
utilized in this chapter is in part based on classic notions of systems
theory and management (e.g., Kast and Rosenzweig, 1972). The premise
is that control over inputs (and processes) is a means for managing
outcomes. Considering these factors collectively also provides a compre-
hensive and practical understanding of employees’experience of organiza-
tional change.
15
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
To this end, appraisal of change is presented as a fundamental under-
lying cognitive process that links change-related antecedents, both person
and situation, and change-related outcomes (see Fugate, Prussia, and
Kinicki, 2012). A person’s cognitive appraisal of organizational change
is important because it represents an evaluation of a person–situation
transaction in terms of its meaning for personal well-being (see Dewe,
1991). Such transactions and associated appraisals represent the inter-
section of a person’s unique characteristics and situational demands that
must be “predicted and interpreted”(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984, 24).
This cognitive interface of person and situation factors is a means by
which individuals assess their goals and commitments in relation to the
demands and opportunities of a situation. Appraisals thus give meaning to
experiences and are powerful predictors of affective, behavioral, and
physiological responses to organizational change (e.g., Cooper, Dewe,
and O’Driscoll, 2001; Fugate, Kinicki, and Scheck, 2002; Fugate et al.,
2012). Rafferty and her colleagues, in Chapter 7 in this volume, also
utilize the transactional model. They describe appraisals of uncertainty
as key mediators between leadership and employee adjustment to change.
A transactional perspective of change-related
appraisals: contributions to research and practice
Numerous research streams utilize the transactional perspective to illu-
minate the critical roles of person and situation factors. In the coping
literature, for example, Moos, Holahan, and Beutler (2003) posit that
characteristics of both the person (e.g., self-efficacy and attitudes) and
the situation (e.g., sources of support, resources, and relationships) influ-
ence appraisals and ultimately coping behaviors and outcomes. This
conceptualization of appraisal also is consistent with the seminal transac-
tional theory of stress and coping presented by Lazarus (e.g., Lazarus
INPUTS
Person Factors
Positive change orientation
Positive psychological capital
Employability
Situation Factors
Change-related fairness
Trust in management
Perceived organizational
support
Harm
PROCESSES
Cognitive Appraisals of Change
Threat
Challenge
OUTPUTS
Employee Reactions
Employee emotions
(retrospective and prospective)
Employee withdrawal
(absenteeism, intentions to quit,
voluntary turnover)
Figure 2.1 Antecedents, processes, and outcomes of organizational
change
16 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
and Folkman, 1984), which underscores the importance of contextual
elements and the central role of appraisal. Lazarus and Folkman state:
“only when we can specify the person and environment antecedent factors
determining the nature of the appraisal process ... can cognitive appraisal
theory go beyond pure description”(1984, 48). The transactional approach
to appraisal is evident in the organizational stress literature as well, where
theory and research contend that person–situation transactions produce
stress appraisals when something valuable is at stake and an individual
perceives an inability to meet necessary demands. Accordingly, stress
does not reside purely within the individual or the situation, but rather it
is generated by the interplay of the two (Cooper et al., 2001)suchthat
appraisal cognitively integrates individual and situational factors to shape
one’s experiences and guide adaptation.
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) presented three core types of appraisals:
harm, threat, and challenge. These forms of appraisal provide different
and very important details about employees’experiences of change. Harm
appraisals are assessments of retrospective or past losses. Threat apprais-
als are anticipatory of possible loss, while challenge appraisals represent
assessments of anticipatory or possible gain. As such, both threat and
challenge appraisals provide insights into employees’expectations or
concerns for potential consequences. And the intensity of all forms of
cognitive appraisal is a function of the importance of what is at stake and
the probability of its occurrence (see Donovan et al., 2002). More gen-
erally, appraisals inform the valence, temporal nature, and intensity of
employee experience, and are fundamental determinants of employees’
reactions to organizational change.
A focus on cognitive appraisals as a linking mechanism between ante-
cedents and outcomes provides several contributions to the organizational
change literature. First, knowledge of employee appraisals fills a void in that
existing organizational change research is scarce regarding cognitive
appraisals. This is notable given the important implications explained
above and shown in the limited research that does exist (e.g., Fugate,
Kinicki, and Prussia, 2008). Second, appraisals represent a fundamental
underlying cognitive process that connects antecedents and outcomes of
employees’reactions to change. The vast majority of organizational change
research examines bivariate antecedents and outcomes but is relatively
silent on underlying linking processes (e.g., Fugate et al., 2012). Third,
understanding the temporal aspects of appraisals in the organizational
context has great practical significance. On the one hand, knowledge of
harm appraisals allows researchers to more precisely identify the negative
aspects (e.g., outcomes and processes) of changes that have already
occurred. This enables managers to take appropriate and precisely directed
Capturing the positive experience of change 17
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
remedial actions to attenuate employees’negative reactions. On the other
hand, knowledge of threat and challenge appraisals informs employees’
forward-looking or future concerns and hopes. Such insights provide man-
agers of change the ability to proactively ameliorate perceived threats
(i.e., manage employee reactions to change) and/or realize perceived oppor-
tunities. Fourth, and as illustrated in Figure 2.1, the antecedents of
change appraisals included in this chapter –person (positive change ori-
entation, positive psychological capital, and employability) and situation
(trust in management, change-related justice, and perceived organizational
support) –are malleable, amenable to managerial influence, and thus may
serve as levers to affect change-related appraisals and outcomes. Finally,
this chapter presents a decidedly positive perspective on employee reactions
to change. The valence and implications of each element of employees’
experience included in this chapter –antecedents, appraisals, and outcomes –
are either overtly optimistic or at least constructive. This perspective
starkly contrasts with the vast majority of change research that focuses on
undesirable behaviors and consequences (e.g., burnout and disengagement;
De Cuyper et al., 2010).
The next section describes each antecedent and presents propositions
for relationships with three types of change appraisals (see Figure 2.1 and
Table 2.1). This is followed by an explication of proposed relationships
between appraisals and important change-related outcomes –positive and
negative emotions and various forms of employee withdrawal.
Person and situation antecedents of employee
appraisals of organizational change
Before presenting specific antecedents, the theoretical rationale for their
selection is provided, along with a brief review of literature related to the
three forms of cognitive appraisal in the context of organizational change.
This review is intended to frame and give meaning to the discussion of
antecedents, highlight the importance of context, and serve as a guide for
future research.
Systems theory explains how inputs influence outcomes via intervening
processes (see Figure 2.1). When applied to organizational change the
implication is that flexible antecedents of change-related appraisal pro-
cesses are fundamental means for guiding change outcomes. This rationale
supports the selection of antecedents of change-related appraisals in this
chapter. Specifically, malleable person and situation antecedents allow
managers to affect employee appraisals of change and thus their reactions
and change-related outcomes (Fugate et al., 2012). Beyond this theoretical
justification, antecedents of change-related appraisals were selected based
18 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
on existing organizational change literature that shows positive effects
for each, although few to none have been explicitly linked to change-related
appraisals. Selection also was guided by the relevance of a given antecedent
(and consequence) to the organizational change context. Context is impor-
tant when selecting antecedents (of appraisal) because it provides con-
straints and opportunities for behavior and powerfully influences
relationships and outcomes (see Griffin, 2007). This argument is consistent
with the interactional psychology literature which states that person and
situation elements combine to define contexts (see Schneider, 1987), and it
is the relationships within a particular constellation of these elements that
powerfully affect outcomes (Chatman, 1989). Given this rationale, each
form of appraisal is defined and reviewed.
The existing organizational change research involving harm appraisal
typically combines harm appraisals with other forms, such as threat
appraisal, to create a negative appraisal construct (e.g., Fugate et al.,
2002; Fugate et al., 2008), or with threat and challenge to create a stress
appraisal construct (Scheck and Kinicki, 2000). Fugate and his colleagues
(2002) found that negative appraisals during organizational restructurings
changed over time, and that employees’negative appraisals were negatively
Table 2.1 Proposed relationships between antecedents, processes,
and outcomes of organizational change
Harm
appraisal
Threat
appraisal
Challenge
appraisal
Person factors
Positive change orientation P1a(−) P1b(−) P1c(+)
Positive psychological capital P2a(−) P2b(−) P2c(+)
Employability P3a(−) P3b(−) P3c(+)
Situation factors
Change-related fairness P4a(−) P4b(−) P4c(+)
Trust in management P5a(−) P5b(−) P5c(+)
Perceived organizational support P6a(−) P6b(−) P6c(+)
Outcomes
Negative retrospective emotions: guilt, anger,
frustration, disappointment, depression,
and sadness
P7a(+)
Negative prospective emotions: worry, fear,
anxiety, and helplessness
P7b(+)
Positive prospective emotions: confidence,
exhilaration, eagerness, and hopefulness
P7c(+)
Withdrawal: absenteeism, intentions to quit,
and voluntary turnover
P8a(+) P8b(+) P8c(−)
Capturing the positive experience of change 19
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
related to control coping and positively related to escape coping. Scheck
and Kinicki (2000) found perceived control, coping self-efficacy, and envi-
ronmental conditions predicted stress appraisal, which was associated with
subsequent negative emotions, confrontive coping, and planful problem
solving for employees of an acquired company. This research helps illumi-
nate employees’experience of change, but it is limited with regard to the
role of harm appraisals specifically. A preliminary attempt to close this gap is
provided later in this chapter.
A rare study of threat appraisals of an organizational change (a restruc-
turing) showed that both individual differences and contextual factors
influenced employees’threat appraisals (e.g., Fugate et al., 2012).
Mishra and Spreitzer (1998) provided a conceptual explication of the
deleterious effects of management trust and justice on employees’threat
appraisals during downsizing.
The only study found of organizational change that included challenge
appraisals showed that five sources of change –job role, work relation-
ships, job context, facility, and career –were all positively related to
employees’challenge appraisals at five Veterans Association medical cen-
ters (Kohler et al., 2006). These results demonstrated that a host of
situational factors influence employees’perceptions of threat. Also helpful
is non-organizationally based appraisal research that distinguished chal-
lenge from threat appraisals. Schneider, Rivers, and Lyons (2009) argued
that the principal difference is that people feel challenged instead of
threatened if they perceive adequate efficacy to meet the pertinent
demands. This review clearly shows that organizational change research
is very sparse with regard to cognitive appraisals. To overcome this short-
coming, proposed relationships between particular person and situation
antecedents and change-related appraisals are explicated next (see also
Table 2.1).
Person antecedents of change appraisals
Person antecedents of change –positive change orientation (Fugate et al.,
2012), psychological capital (Avey, Wernsing, and Luthans, 2008), and
employability (Fugate and Kinicki, 2008)–were selected. Each was
chosen for its clear relevance for the change context and support in earlier
research, albeit limited. These particular antecedents also represent a
distinctively positive perspective of change.
Positive change orientation Orientations are typically conceived
as situation-specific and malleable personal characteristics that predict
behavior (see Frese, Garst, and Fay, 2007). Surprisingly little research
20 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
exists regarding change orientation. Fay and Frese (2001) provided a rare
example and found positive change orientation to be positively related to
personal initiative. Fugate et al. (2012) extended their work and defined
positive change orientation as a constellation of malleable individual
characteristics that affects how individuals perceive and respond to
change. Those who possess a high level of positive change orientation
view changes optimistically, are confident in their abilities to meet the
demands presented by changes, and take a more confident and active
approach toward changes (see Jones, Jimmieson, and Griffiths, 2005).
Defined in such a way, they argued, makes positive change orientation a
“state-like”construct, one that is situation specific and amenable to
development and change (see Avey et al., 2008). This means a positive
change orientation is more malleable than “traits”(e.g., gender) and
“trait-like”characteristics (e.g., analytical skills), but less malleable than
“states”(e.g., emotions). This therefore suggests that an individual’s
change orientation has important implications for employees’appraisals
of and reactions to organizational change.
Positive change orientation is composed of three component dimen-
sions –positive change self-efficacy, positive attitudes toward change, and
perceived control of change (Fugate et al., 2012). As Fugate and his
colleagues reasoned, given their “state-like”(i.e., malleable) nature,
such characteristics make positive change orientation a practical lever
for managers implementing change. Specifically, change-related self-
efficacy represents the belief that one has the ability to effectively deal
with change-related demands (Jimmieson, Terry, and Callan, 2004).
Efficacy is likely to prompt individuals to actively engage change processes
and influence their course, resulting in better change outcomes for
employees. Positive attitudes toward change, like positive attitudes more
generally, have been associated with desirable affect, cognitions, and
behaviors (Jimmieson, White, and Zajdlewicz, 2009). Positive attitudes
toward change were related to higher job satisfaction and lower intentions
to quit (Wanberg and Banas, 2000). Employees with positive attitudes
toward change therefore are likely to frame changes more favorably, which
in turn may influence their appraisals of and reactions to changes. Finally,
perceived control of change pertains to an individual’s belief that s/he can
assert influence over the change process. This differs from efficacy, which
speaks to one’s perceived ability to achieve desirable outcomes. For
example, a manager may have the ability to determine which employees
are terminated in a downsizing (high control), however the manager may
feel that regardless of who is cut and how it is done that the morale of
the department will suffer irreparably (low efficacy). Perceived control of
change thereby reduces the negative effects of uncertainty inherent in most
Capturing the positive experience of change 21
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
change contexts and has been associated with numerous beneficial
employee reactions, such as openness to change (Wanberg and Banas,
2000) and effective coping (Terry, Callan, and Sartori, 1996). Perceived
control is thus an important aspect of one’s positive change orientation.
Considered together, these concepts represent the underlying dimensions of
a higher-order positive change orientation construct. In this way it is akin to
an organizational change-specific form of core self-evaluations (e.g., Judge
and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).
Because employees with a positive change orientation are likely to frame
changes more positively (positive attitudes), believe they can influence
changes (perceived control), and be effective doing so (efficacy), they are
likely to experience fewer or muted negative appraisals. Specifically, even
if significant change-related losses occur (e.g., expected promotion is
delayed) these employees’harm appraisals should be attenuated, as they
perceive the ability to create and realize new opportunities in the changed
environment. Similar benefits are likely for threat appraisals, given that
such individuals feel they have the ability to influence change to align with
their own interests (see Ozer and Bandura, 1990). These same individuals
are expected to perceive and seek opportunities due to the changes, and
thus appraise them as challenging instead of threatening. Combined,
these arguments lead to the following propositions:
Proposition 1a: Positive change orientation is negatively related to harm
appraisal.
Proposition 1b: Positive change orientation is negatively related to threat
appraisal.
Proposition 1c: Positive change orientation is positively related to challenge
appraisal.
Positive psychological capital Positive psychological capital
(PCAP) is defined as a “state-like construct that has a positive perform-
ance impact... can be measured, developed, and effectively managed”
(Avey et al., 2008,52–53). It is a higher-order construct composed of
hope, optimism, efficacy, and resiliency. Avey and his colleagues explain
that each of these component factors is associated with positive framing
(i.e., cognitive appraisals) of change and productive actions (e.g., coop-
eration and support). Hopeful individuals, for instance, believe not only
that changes will produce positive outcomes for them personally, but also
that they have the means to affect such outcomes. This aspect clearly
reinforces one’sefficacy, or belief that he or she is capable of realizing
the goals that are hoped for. This form of efficacy is more general than
the situation-specific change self-efficacy that is a component of positive
22 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
change orientation (see Avey et al., 2008). Resilience further enhances
employee positive psychological capital by fostering hardiness in the face
of adversity. Those with high resiliency are likely to “bounce back”from
disappointments experienced during organizational change (Luthans,
2002). Avey et al. (2008) found that PCAP was associated with increased
positive emotions, attitudes, and behaviors in a sample of employees
experiencing a variety of changes across multiple organizations. This
supports the following propositions:
Proposition 2a: Psychological capital is negatively related to harm appraisal.
Proposition 2b: Psychological capital is negatively related to threat appraisal.
Proposition 2c: Psychological capital is positively related to challenge appraisal.
Employability Numerous perspectives of employability exist in
the literature (e.g., Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006; Rothwell
and Arnold, 2007), but only one has been tested in the context of organ-
izational change, Fugate and Kinicki (2008). They defined employability
as a constellation of individual differences that foster (pro)active adapt-
ability toward work and careers. Individuals with high levels of employ-
ability are more likely to realize job and career opportunities both within
and between organizations (see also Fugate, 2006; Fugate, Kinicki, and
Ashforth, 2004). Employability is a higher-order construct comprising
several component dimensions: openness to changes at work, work
and career resilience, work and career proactivity, career motivation,
and work identity (for a detailed explanation, see Fugate and Kinicki,
2008). As such, employability is likely to mitigate the uncertainty inherent
in organizational change in many potential ways. For one, employees with
high levels of employability are more likely to define themselves in terms of
their work (work identity) and proactively pursue identity-consistent
interests. In the context of change this means that such individuals often
will be tuned into or anticipate changes and then do what is necessary to
position themselves to benefit from the change. For another, those with
high employability likely have other opportunities outside of their current
employer (e.g., social capital, see Fugate et al., 2004), and thus may leave
if the changes negatively affect them or are less desirable than external
opportunities. In short, employability fosters adaptability, and such indi-
viduals are well suited for effectively managing change at work. They likely
see themselves as more valuable in the marketplace and are likely seen
as more valuable. Therefore those with high levels of employability
should react to change more positively. This argument was supported
by research that showed employability predicted increased positive
Capturing the positive experience of change 23
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
change-related emotions and greater affective commitment (Fugate and
Kinicki, 2008). The above discussion leads to the following:
Proposition 3a: Employability is negatively related to harm appraisal.
Proposition 3b: Employability is negatively related to threat appraisal.
Proposition 3c: Employability is positively related to challenge appraisal.
Situation antecedents of change appraisals
Selection of situation antecedents considered the criticism noted by
Chatman (1989) regarding interactional organizational research. She
claimed that “situation characteristics have not been as accurately con-
ceptualized as they, perhaps, could be”(334), and this shortcoming
limits the precision of both person- and situation-focused research.
Based on this claim, the situation antecedents discussed in this chapter
are descriptive of the relationship between individual employees and
their employers: change-related fairness (e.g., Fugate et al., 2012), trust
in management (e.g., Mishra and Spreitzer, 1998), and perceived organ-
izational support (Self, Armenakis, and Schraeder, 2007). By tapping the
relational characteristics between employees and their employers, the
conceptual basis for these relationships closely parallels social learning
and interactional perspectives on person–situation relationships. These
particular variables also capture the dynamism and complexity inherent
in organizational change, and they are amenable to influence by managers
actually enacting changes. This notable practical utility differs from situa-
tional characteristics that are beyond influence and control of employers
and their managers, such as employees’job alternatives (e.g., Feldman
and Bolino, 1998) and more general economic conditions. These specific
antecedents also represent important means for encouraging positive
employee reactions to change.
Change-related fairness When employers and their managers
are perceived as considerate and just in their planning and implementation
of change then employees are likely to experience change-related fairness.
Employees commonly assess fairness heuristically, using observations
of their own and others’experiences. Change-related fairness reduces uncer-
tainty related to both current and future changes (see Colquitt et al., 2006),
and thus is an important tool for managers of change (Fugate et al., 2012).
Judgments of change-related fairness are based on the combination of
distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness perceptions. More
specifically, change commonly involves both winners and losers, and
distributive justice is determined in part by “who wins”and “who loses”
24 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
(e.g., Fugate et al., 2012). How these decisions and outcomes are deter-
mined consequently affects perceptions of procedural fairness. Moreover,
how managers and others who influence the change process and outcomes
communicate with and treat employees (i.e., interactional justice) can
meaningfully impact their reactions to change. Conceived in this way fair-
ness is an important antecedent of employees’appraisals of organizational
change. For instance, research showed that change-related fairness reduced
employees’appraisals of threat during an organizational restructuring
(Fugate et al., 2012). Spreitzer and Mishra (2002) also argued that pro-
cedural fairness reduces employees’threat appraisals and increases their
change-related engagement and commitment, interactional fairness was
positively related to downsizing survivors’attachment to the organization
and support for change. Fairness therefore is likely to reduce the sense of
and actual loss felt by employees experiencing change (harm appraisals),
while at the same time it is likely to cause employees less appraisals of threat
and more of challenge. These arguments are evident in the following
propositions:
Proposition 4a: Change-related fairness is negatively related to harm appraisal.
Proposition 4b: Change-related fairness is negatively related to threat appraisal.
Proposition 4c: Change-related fairness is positively related to challenge appraisal.
Trust in management Trust describes an individual’s willingness
to be vulnerable to others (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). In the context of
organizational change, trust in management represents the belief that man-
agers will act in employees’best interests. This construct is composed of
four dimensions: concern for employees’interests, management’sstrategic
competence, management reliability, and openness and honesty (Mishra
and Spreitzer, 1998). Management trustworthiness in each dimension
reduces employee uncertainty related to change. In particular, a belief that
management is concerned for employee well-being implies that manage-
ment actions will consider implications for employees. Trust in manage-
ment competence fosters the belief that change-related decisions and
outcomes will be of high quality and in the organization’s and employees’
best interests. Management’s reliability gives employees confidence that
what is said will be done (e.g., promises kept). Finally, openness and honesty
in communication helps employees feel in control so that they can better
plan their own futures. Conceived this way, trust in management is an
important determinant of employees’appraisals of change. Specifically:
Proposition 5a: Trust in management is negatively related to harm appraisal.
Proposition 5b: Trust in management is negatively related to threat appraisal.
Proposition 5c: Trust in management is positively related to challenge appraisal.
Capturing the positive experience of change 25
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Perceived organizational support Perceived organizational sup-
port (POS) is an employee’s belief that his/her employer is concerned
and committed to his/her well-being (for a review, see Rhoades and
Eisenberger, 2002). A positive perception of support is important during
organizational change as it gives employees confidence they are valued
and that management will implement change in a just fashion. Positive
expectations are likely to make employees more receptive and supportive
of change-related goals (Self et al., 2007). POS is positively related to
a host of outcomes, such as job satisfaction, positive mood, affective
commitment, and performance (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
Conceptually, these relationships are supported by social exchange theory
(e.g., Bateman and Organ, 1983) wherein positive attitudes and behaviors
are exchanged for demonstrations and perceptions of organizational sup-
port. POS also is a cognitive precursor to employee evaluations of their
well-being –harm, threat, and challenge appraisals. It contributes to the
peace of mind that changes will not cause unnecessary disruptions in
one’s daily work life, and in the extreme case, mitigates employee con-
cerns of job loss (see Rosenblatt and Ruvio, 1996). As such, POS acts as
an antecedent that reduces uncertainty and thereby decreases concerns of
future losses and bolsters perceptions of potential gains. These arguments
suggest the following relationships:
Proposition 6a: Perceived organizational support is negatively related to harm
appraisal.
Proposition 6b: Perceived organizational support is negatively related to threat
appraisal.
Proposition 6c: Perceived organizational support is positively related to challenge
appraisal.
It is important to make one additional and more general point
before moving to a discussion of outcomes associated with change-related
appraisals. That is, the patterns of the proposed relationships are consis-
tent, particularly for harm and threat appraisals (Table 2.1). The impor-
tant difference, however, is found in the temporal distinction rather than
the pattern. To elaborate, if employee appraisals of harm are more
prevalent or stronger than those of threat, then managers can conclude
that employees are more concerned with what already happened instead
of what might happen. Managers of change can then determine and
implement the appropriate interventions, such as explanations and
acts of compensation (to remedy past losses) instead of greater commu-
nication and assurances of job security to mitigate potential threats.
The implications are similar for the converse.
26 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Outcomes of employee appraisals of change
While change-related appraisals undoubtedly predict a multitude of
subsequent outcomes relevant to both employees and employers, two
particular categories are explored in this chapter –employee emotions
and withdrawal. Emotions provide greater detail of an individual’s expe-
riences of change than more molar appraisals. Put another way, and
described below, multiple emotions are associated with each form of
appraisal. Emotions thereby provide the affective color of employees’
experiences of organizational change (e.g., Fugate et al., 2008). They
also have been found to predict employee engagement with change
(e.g., Smollan and Sayer, 2009). Employee withdrawal is another impor-
tant outcome, because it is often a clandestine cost of change, such as the
voluntary turnover of key employees or the decreased engagement and
commitment of downsizing survivors (Fugate et al., 2012). Relationships
between change appraisals and these outcomes are described next and
included in Table 2.1.
Change appraisals and emotions
Emotions are episodic states with a particular focus or target and provide
very useful, granular details about individuals’experiences (Watson and
Clark, 1994). Organizational researchers in the past several years have
substantiated the importance of emotions in the context of organizational
change, particularly negative emotions. Kiefer (2005) found that percep-
tions of future insecurity, perceptions of inadequate working conditions,
and perceptions of inadequate treatment were associated with negative
emotions for employees of merged companies. Scheck and Kinicki (2000)
also found negative appraisals of an acquired company’s employees gen-
erated both anger and sadness. Negative appraisals of change were asso-
ciated with negative emotions during a restructuring (Fugate, Harrison,
and Kinicki, 2011). While rare, other organizational research shows that
change often generates both positive and negative emotional reactions for
affected individuals (e.g., Fugate et al., 2002). This is consistent with
other emotions research. Larsen, McGraw et al. (2004) showed that
people experience both positive and negative (i.e., mixed) emotions
when they “win”and when they “lose.”They convincingly show that
even wins often have a measure of disappointment or negativity, and
losses commonly include some amount of relief. These findings have
especially important implications for employees’change-related emo-
tions. For example, employees whose jobs are restructured such that
they must collaborate with different people may simultaneously be sad
Capturing the positive experience of change 27
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
about no longer working with their former colleagues, but excited about
the new relationships. Moreover, considering both negative and positive
emotional reactions provides a more comprehensive account of the “affec-
tive color”of individual experiences of change (see Fugate and Kinicki,
2008). It therefore is useful in both theory and practice to consider
the relationships between change appraisals and negative and positive
emotions.
Consistent with the research reviewed in the previous paragraph, neg-
ative appraisals (harm and threat) of change are likely positively related to
negative emotions and negatively related to positive emotions (see also
Fugate et al., 2008). Although not substantiated by organizational change
research, with the exception of Kohler et al. (2006), it is reasonable to
expect that challenge appraisals of change are negatively related to neg-
ative employee reactions, such as negative emotions, and positively
related to positive emotions (see Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). These
concurrent relationships are well established in multiple literatures, and
while they are informative, a significant gap in research and practice still
exists. Notably, emotions not only have valence (positive and negative),
but they also have a temporal aspect (Giaever, 2009).
Negatively and positively valenced emotions are either retrospectively
or prospectively focused. Folkman and Lazarus (1985) describe this in
some detail in their study of students taking exams, but no organizational
scholars to my knowledge have explored this distinction conceptually or
empirically. For example, fear and anger are both negatively valenced.
However, people are fearful of potential future events (prospective focus)
and are angry about past (non) events (retrospective focus). These neg-
ative emotions therefore represent very different experiences beyond their
negative valence. This parallels the retrospective and anticipatory nature
of appraisals of change noted earlier –harm is retrospective while threat
and challenge are prospective. Such temporal aspects are especially
important in the context of organizational change, as change is a process
that unfolds over time (Giaever, 2009). And research shows that as the
process unfolds employees’experiences and reactions also unfold or
change. It was shown that in the context of a merger employees’change-
related appraisals, coping, and emotions all changed significantly over a
ten-month time period (e.g., Fugate et al., 2002).
This chapter therefore lays the conceptual groundwork for future
research and practice regarding the temporal focus of change-related
appraisals and emotions. A broad survey of the literature revealed eight-
een commonly studied discrete emotions (e.g., Carver and Scheier, 1994;
Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). Positive retrospective emotions are: pleas-
ure, happiness, and relief. Positive prospective emotions are: confidence,
28 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
exhilaration, eagerness, and hopefulness. Negative retrospective emo-
tions are: guilt, anger, frustration, disappointment, depression, and sad-
ness. Negative prospective emotions are: worry, fear, anxiety, and
helplessness. Drawing on the above research and the work of Folkman
and Lazarus (1985) and Carver and Scheier (1994), the following rela-
tionships are expected between change appraisals and emotions:
Proposition 7a: Harm appraisals of change are positively related to guilt, anger,
frustration, disappointment, depression, and sadness.
Proposition 7b: Threat appraisals of change are positively related to worry, fear,
anxiety, and helplessness.
Proposition 7c: Challenge appraisals of change are positively related to confi-
dence, exhilaration, eagerness, and hopefulness.
These proposed relationships are especially important for both research
and practice. For research, adding this temporal aspect provides more
precision to the appraisal theory of emotions. Whether emotions precede,
are caused by, or are reciprocally related to appraisals, the prospective–
retrospective nature allows researchers to make more specific predictions
between particular appraisals and discrete emotions. Including these
temporal characteristics enables future researchers to refine and extend
theory. Doing so also will better inform practice. As noted previously,
anticipatory or prospective emotions provide managers of change insights
into employees’concerns about the future, and retrospective emotions
can guide remedies for past change-related losses. In both cases, emotions
provide greater fidelity and richness regarding employees’experience of
change (see Fugate et al., 2011,2012).
Change appraisals and employee withdrawal
Cognitive and behavioral forms of employee withdrawal (Hanisch and
Hulin, 1991) are important organizational change-related outcomes.
Since appraisals are cognitive precursors of behavior, it is valuable to
address the relationships between employee change-related appraisals
and different forms of withdrawal, such as absenteeism (behavioral),
intentions to quit (cognitive), and voluntary turnover (behavioral).
Understanding these relationships is important because withdrawal
(e.g., voluntary turnover) is a common and potentially very costly negative
consequence of organizational change (e.g., Kiefer, 2005; Probst, 2003).
The theory of reasoned action (TRA; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) is the
conceptual basis for the relationship between change-related appraisals
and employee withdrawal (cognitive and behavioral). TRA is a motiva-
tional theory based on expectancy theory and posits that behavior is a
Capturing the positive experience of change 29
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
function of one’s intentions which are determined by individual differ-
ences and situation factors (Miller and Grush, 1988). Applied to employee
withdrawal, individuals are motivated to avoid or mitigate harm or threats
due to changes at work, or conversely motivated to pursue or realize
benefits and challenges. In either case, avoidance or approach motivations
related to organizational change often manifest as intentions and actual
behaviors (see Jimmieson et al., 2009). Supporting research in the context
of a restructuring showed employees’threat appraisals were positively
related to absenteeism and intentions to quit (Fugate et al., 2012).
Fugate and his colleagues (2012) describe various forms of employee
withdrawal from change “as a matter of degree, with voluntary turnover
the most extreme and absenteeism less dramatic or complete”(898).
Applying the approach/avoidance motivation perspective (e.g., Park and
Hinsz, 2006) leads to the following propositions:
Proposition 8a: Harm appraisals of change are positively related to employee
withdrawal (absenteeism, disengagement, intentions to quit, and voluntary
turnover).
Proposition 8b: Threat appraisals of change are positively related to employee
withdrawal (absenteeism, disengagement, intentions to quit, and voluntary
turnover).
Proposition 8c: Challenge appraisals of change are negatively related to employee
withdrawal (absenteeism, disengagement, intentions to quit, and voluntary
turnover).
The nature of change-related antecedents and outcome relationships
The discussion to this point includes only direct and fully mediated
relationships between antecedents, processes, and outcomes. While
space precludes a detailed explication of other feasible relationships
and structures (e.g., partially mediated structural models), it is important
to acknowledge at least a couple of possibilities for researchers to consider
in the future. Specifically, assume that the person and situation antece-
dents are higher-order latent constructs, which may be dubious to con-
struct validity purists but reasonable given their clear positive nature
(see Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Then, both antecedents
are expected to have beneficial relationships with employees’change-
related emotions and withdrawal. Alternatively, many or even most of
the antecedents are likely to have individual relationships with the partic-
ular outcomes. Existing research helps inform such predictions. For
instance, Fugate et al. (2008) showed that both positive and negative
change-related emotions were directly related to employee withdrawal
30 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
(absenteeism and intentions to quit), but the relationship with voluntary
turnover was fully mediated via intentions to quit. They also showed that
the relationship between negative appraisals of change and voluntary turn-
over was fully mediated through coping, emotions, and intentions to quit.
Discussion
This chapter presents a conceptual explication of key components that
represent employees’experience of organizational change. The intent is to
highlight important person and situation antecedents, explain their effect
on the cognitive appraisal process of change, and describe subsequent
relationships with affective (emotions), cognitive (intentions to quit), and
behavioral (absenteeism and voluntary turnover) outcomes. The antece-
dents include only those that are positive, malleable or amenable to
change, and thereby provide greater practical utility for managers of
change than relatively uncontrollable variables often studied in previous
research, such as personality traits and economic conditions. In so doing,
this chapter presents a decidedly positive perspective on organizational
change research and practice.
Central to the systems approach to change explained herein are change-
related appraisals. As described, appraisals are critical underlying cogni-
tive processes that capture the intersection of person and situation factors,
ascribe meaning to changes, and predict subsequent outcomes. The out-
comes selected inform well known but largely ignored (for exceptions
see Fugate et al., 2012; Kiefer 2005) implications of change –emotions
and withdrawal. Emotions not only represent very telling manifestations
of underlying appraisals, but they also provide keen insights into the
variability and affective color of employees’experience of change
(Fugate et al., 2011; Fugate et al., 2008). As for withdrawal, this chapter
explores several forms that separately or together are critical determinants
of the success of organizational change. The best laid plans for change are
executed by employees. Thus any degree of withdrawal can impede
change success. In the following sections, some of the key implications
of the proposed relationships are described, as well as some important
considerations for future organizational change research and practice.
Relative strength of person and situation antecedents of change
appraisals
If individual behavior is a function of both the person and the situation,
then it is of practical utility to determine which more strongly predicts
change appraisals. Why? Because the distinction enables employers to
Capturing the positive experience of change 31
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
more effectively allocate resources and manage employee reactions.
(To the author’s knowledge, no previous research addresses this question
in any setting.) To elaborate, if person factors are more important (i.e.,
stronger) than situation factors in predicting appraisals of organizational
change, then employers might focus on employee attributes and conven-
tional human resource management tools (e.g., selection, placement, and
training) to manage employee reactions to change. For instance, selecting
employees that possess a positive change orientation, positive psycholog-
ical capital, and high employability may be an effective long-term strategy
to simultaneously boost employees’challenge appraisals and reduce neg-
ative appraisals (harm and threat) of change. Conversely, if situation
factors such as change-related fairness, trust in management, and per-
ceived organizational support account for more variance in harm, threat,
and challenge appraisals then management might instead focus on how it
relates to employees and tend to other factors, such as management styles,
change-related communication, and supportive employee policies.
Taking the above assertion a step further, it is likely that situation factors
will have a greater impact on appraisals than person factors. This suppo-
sition is justified using the threat–rigidity perspective (Staw, Sandelands,
and Dutton, 1981), attributes of work transitions (Ashforth and Fugate,
2001), and the transactional theory of stress and coping (Lazarus and
Folkman, 1984). The threat–rigidity thesis is based on the notion that
organizations often respond to demanding or crisis situations by con-
straining communications and asserting more control and becoming
less flexible (Staw et al., 1981). Organizations do this to reduce environ-
mental uncertainty (e.g., employee and competitor reactions), control
what they can (e.g., information), and to serve their own interests
more generally (e.g., prevent blocking coalitions). Organizational rigidity,
however, in turn causes employees to feel threatened as a lack of commu-
nication increases their own uncertainty, and organizational constraints
limit their own control and options for responding to demands. For
example, a common change scenario is one in which a small group
of senior leaders reacts to an undesirable piece of information (e.g.,
decreased profits); the leaders then decide change is needed to remedy
the situation; formulates a high-level, less-than-detailed plan (e.g., reduce
headcount by 20 percent to manage costs); and then hands ‘marching
orders’to lower-level managers who must execute the prescribed change.
Information flows and employee involvement are minimal, employees feel
they have little influence or control, and challenge appraisals are muted
and negative appraisals amplified (see Brockner et al., 2004). This sce-
nario represents very powerful situational influences on change appraisals
(largely) independent of any person effects.
32 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Above and beyond the threat rigidity effects imposed by the situation,
organizational changes often include a number of transition attributes
noted by Ashforth and Fugate (2001). Many attributes either facilitate
or impede change effectiveness, such as change magnitude (large differ-
ences between old and new states), (in)voluntariness (amount of personal
discretion or influence), and (ir)reversibility (permanent or not and to
what degree). Obviously any change that results in involuntary turnover
represents the highest magnitude and likely the most harm appraisal
inducing change scenario, while those that provide new and desirable
opportunities have the potential to support challenge appraisals.
In a similar vein, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) described several situa-
tional determinants of appraisal, such as novelty, imminence, and duration.
Novel situational demands are those with which employees have no prior
experience. They thus require more effort and generate greater threat for
some employees and challenge for others. The difference is the extent to
which individual employees value new experiences and their perceptions of
their ability to meet the novel demands (secondary appraisal; Skinner and
Brewer, 2002). Imminence refers to the urgency of the demand or the
time between the initial announcement and subsequent implementation of
changes. Imminence is exacerbated when employees have little or no
involvement in the change formulation. Finally, duration describes the
amount of time that employees are exposed to the demands of change.
Undesirable consequences that are short-lived are likely to be less harm
(and threat) inducing. It is much easier for employees to cope with unpleas-
ant changes if they know they are finite. Again, these characteristics are
embedded in the situation, are beyond employee influence, offer little or no
choice to employees, and thus are likely to intensify threat appraisals regard-
less of individual differences (see Mischel, 1999).
Collectively, threat rigidity behaviors, change transition attributes, and
relevant situation characteristics constitute potentially powerful determi-
nants of change appraisals. That said, both person and situation factors
are expected to influence appraisals of organizational change, and under-
standing the various malleable antecedents can provide practical levers for
influencing employee reactions and outcomes. Future research needs to
empirically validate these assertions. It also is important to determine
whether any particular variable moderates, mediates, or directly affects
change-related appraisals and/or outcomes.
Causality, timing, and consequences
Empirical research is needed to determine the appropriate structure of the
relationships between the antecedents, processes, and outcomes included
Capturing the positive experience of change 33
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
in this chapter. Such evidence is necessary to establish both the research
and practical relevance of the propositions presented. To guide such
future efforts, some notable considerations are highlighted here.
Methodological details aside (e.g., experimental designs and structural
relationships), it first is crucial to consider the context of a particular study
and the sequence of change events. The timing of change-related com-
munications, actual changes, and measurement of study variables are
essential determinants of the appropriate causal sequence of the antece-
dents, processes, and outcomes noted in this chapter. For instance,
emotions may be predictors of subsequent withdrawal behaviors but
concurrent with intentions to quit (withdrawal cognitions). Emotion–
outcome relationships may be moderated by individual and/or situation
factors. Researchers also have long debated the sequence of the appraisal–
emotions relationship –some arguing that appraisal precedes emotions
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) and others that emotions generate appraisal
(Zajonc, 1980). More recent research, in both neuroscience (Schulkin,
Thompson, and Rosen, 2003) and organizations (Fugate et al., 2011),
however shows that appraisals and emotions are reciprocally related.
Therefore researchers are urged to carefully consider the context and
timing of measurement in their hypotheses and tests of variables relevant
to employees’experience of change. Collectively, these elements deter-
mine the structure and nature of relationships between focal variables.
Applying research to practice
The plastic or changeable nature of the state-like antecedents discussed
in this chapter provides practical levers for managers of change. Positive
change orientation, for example, consists of change self-efficacy, which
research has shown can be increased via interventions in the workplace
(Bandura, 1977). Managers of change can involve employees in the
change process, planning, and implementation (see Korsgaard et al.,
2002), which research shows fosters more positive employee reactions.
Building efficacy builds control and helps mitigate the pervasive uncer-
tainty that afflicts many change initiatives. Developing and communicat-
ing a vision for change, and articulating individual employees’roles
during and after the change process, can enhance positive reactions.
This includes communicating potential consequences (positive and neg-
ative) for compliance and resistance (e.g., Jimmieson et al., 2004).
Positive psychological capital and employability are both opportunities
for employers to develop employees and positively affect change reactions
and outcomes. Multiple avenues are available. Employers, for instance,
may choose to select individuals with high levels of employability
34 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
(see Fugate and Kinicki, 2008), as they are proactive and adaptable.
Or, they may choose to develop employability competencies once
onboard and build employees’occupational expertise (e.g., relevant job
and industry knowledge) and job optimization (e.g., making the most of
one’s skills and opportunities in a given job) (Van der Heijde and Van der
Heijden, 2006). Doing so serves to build employee efficacy and reduce
change-related uncertainty. Additionally, optimism and resilience –facets
of positive psychological capital –can be fostered by framing and commu-
nicating change initiatives in a positive manner. Articulating clear roles
and responsibilities for individual employees in the new, changed organ-
ization should promote optimism. Similar actions are likely to help
employees cope effectively and bounce back from adversity, especially
when changes are drastic and many employees are terminated (Avey et al.,
2008). More generally, employability and positive psychological capital
are modern forms of human capital in the new employee–employer
contract. And like more typical forms of capital, investment in human
capital is likely to pay dividends to employers in the form of higher
engagement, productivity, and retention.
References
Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Ashforth, B. E. and M. Fugate (2001), “Role transitions and the lifespan,”in
B. E. Ashforth (ed.), Role Transitions in Organizational Life (Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum), ch. 8.
Avey, J. B., T. S. Wernsing, and F. Luthans (2008), “Can positive employees help
positive organizational change?,”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44,
48–70.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change,”Psychological Review, 71, 191–215.
Begley, T. M. and J. M. Czajka (1993), “Panel analysis of the moderating effects of
commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organiza-
tional change,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 552–556.
Brockner, J., G. Spreitzer, A. Mishra, W. Hochwarter, L. Pepper, and J. Weinberg
(2004), “Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on
survivors’organizational commitment and job performance,”Administrative
Science Quarterly, 49, 76–100.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), at www.bls.gov/cps (downloaded June 6, 2011).
Carver, S. and C. Scheier (1994), “Situational coping and coping dispositions
in a stressful transaction,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
184–195.
Chatman, J. A. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: A model
of person–organization fit,”Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349.
Capturing the positive experience of change 35
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Cooper, C., P. Dewe, and M. O’Driscoll (2001), Organizational Stress: A Review
and Critique of Theory, Research, and Application (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Colquitt, J. A., B. A. Scott, T. A. Judge, and J. C. Shaw (2006), “Justice and
personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110–127.
De Cuyper, N., H. Witte, T. Van der Elst, and Y. Handaja (2010), “Objective
threat of unemployment and situational uncertainty during a restructuring:
Associations with perceived job insecurity and strain,”Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25, 75–85.
Dewe, P. (1991), “Primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and coping: Their role in
stressful work encounters,”Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 331–351.
Donovan, R. J., G. Egger, V. Kapernick, and J. Mendoza (2002), “A conceptual
framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport,”
Sports Medicine, 32, 269–284.
Fay, D. and M. Frese (2001), “The concept of personal initiative: An overview of
validity studies,”Human Performance, 14, 97–124.
Feldman, D. C. and M.C. Bolino (1998), “Moving on out: When are employees
willing to follow their organization during corporate relocation?,”Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 275–289.
Folkman, S. and R. S. Lazarus (1985), “If it changes it must be a process: Study of
emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination,”Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150–170.
Frese, M., H. Garst, and D. Fay (2007), “Making things happen: Reciprocal
relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-
wave longitudinal structural equation model,”Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 1084–1102.
Fugate, M. (2006), “New perspectives on employability,”in J. Greenhaus and
G. Callanan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Career Development (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage), 267–270.
Fugate, M., S. Harrison, and A.J. Kinicki (2011), “Thoughts and feelings about
organizational change: A field test of synchronous reciprocal relationships in
appraisal theory,”Journal of Organizational and Leadership Studies, 18, 421–437.
Fugate, M., and A. J. Kinicki (2008), “A dispositional approach to employability:
Development of a measure and test of its implications for employee reactions
to organizational change,”Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 81, 503–527.
Fugate, M., A. J. Kinicki, and B. E. Ashforth (2004), “Employability: A psycho-
social construct, its dimensions, and applications,”Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 14–38.
Fugate, M., A. J. Kinicki, and G. P. Prussia (2008), “Employee coping with
organizational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives
and models,”Personnel Psychology, 61, 1–36.
Fugate, M., A. Kinicki, and C. Scheck (2002), “Coping with an organizational
merger over four stages,”Personnel Psychology, 55, 905–928.
Fugate, M., G. E. Prussia, and A. J. Kinicki (2012), “Managing employee with-
drawal during organizational change: The role of threat appraisal,”Journal of
Management, 38, 890–914.
36 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Giaever, F. (2009), “Looking forwards and back: Exploring anticipative versus
retrospective emotional change-experiences,”Journal of Change Management,
9, 419–434.
Griffin, M. A. (2007), “Specifying organizational contexts: Systematic links
between contexts and processes in organizational behavior,”Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28, 859–863.
Hanisch, K. A. and C. L. Hulin (1991), “General attitudes and organizational
withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model,”Journal of Vocational Behavior,
39, 110–128.
Jimmieson, N. L., D. Terry, and V. J. Callan (2004), “A longitudinal study of
employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related
information and change-related self-efficacy,”Journal of Occupational Health
and Psychology,9,11–27.
Jimmieson, N. L., K. White, and L. Zagadlewicz (2009), “Psychosocial predictors
of intentions to engage in changed supportive behaviors in an organizational
context,”Journal of Change Management, 9, 233–250.
Jones, R. A., N. L. Jimmieson, and A. Griffiths (2005), “The impact of organiza-
tional culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success:
The mediating role of readiness for change,”Journal of Management Studies,
42, 361–386.
Judge, T. A. and J. D. Kammeyer-Mueller (2012), “General and specific meas-
ures in organizational behavior research: Considerations, examples, and
recommendations for research,”Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33,
161–174.
Kast, F.E. and J.E. Rosenzweig (1972), “General system theory: applications for
organization and management,”Academy of Management Journal, 14, 447–465.
Kiefer, T. (2005), “Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative
emotions in ongoing change,”Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 875–897.
Kohler, J. M., D. C. Munz, and M. J. Grawitch (2006), “Test of the dynamic stress
model for organizational change: Do males and females require different
models?,”Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 168–191.
Korsgaard, M. A., S. E. Brodt, and E.M. Whitener (2002), “Trust in the face of
conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy behavior in organizational
contexts,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 312–319.
Larsen, J. T., A. P. McGraw, B. A. Mellers, and J. T. Cacioppo (2004), “The
agony of victory and thrill of defeat,”Psychological Science, 15, 325–330.
Lazarus, R. and S. Folkman (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping (New York:
Springer).
Lewis, J. and A. Weigert (1985), “Trust as a social reality,”Social Forces,63,967–986.
Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organizational behav-
ior,”Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Miller, L. and J. Grush (1988), “Improving predictions in expectancy theory
research: Effects of personality, expectations, and norms,”Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 107–122.
Mischel, W. (1999), “Implications of person–situation interaction: Getting over
the field’s borderline personality disorder,”European Journal of Personality,
13, 455–461.
Capturing the positive experience of change 37
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Mishra, A. and G. Spreitzer (1998), “Explaining how survivors respond to down-
sizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign,”
Academy of Management Review, 23, 567–588.
Moos, R., C. Holahan, and L. Beutler (2003), “Dispositional and contextual
perspectives on coping: Introduction to the special issue,”Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 59, 1257–1259.
Oreg, S. (2003), “Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences
measure,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680–693.
Ozer, E. and A. Bandura (1990), “Mechanisms governing empowerment effects:
A self-efficacy analysis,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472–486.
Park, E. S. and V. B. Hinsz (2006), “‘Strength and safety in numbers’: A theoretical
perspective on group influences on approach and avoidance motivation,”
Motivation and Emotion, 30, 135–142.
Probst, T. M. (2003), “Exploring employee outcomes of an organizational
restructuring,”Group and Organization Management, 28, 416–439.
Rhoades, L. and R. Eisenberger (2002), “Perceived organizational support:
A review of the literature,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Rosenblatt, Z. and A. Ruvio (1996), “A test of a multidimensional model of job
insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers,”Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17, 587–605.
Rothwell, A. and J. Arnold (2007), “Self-perceived employability: Development
and validation of the scale,”Personnel Review, 36, 23–41.
Scheck, C. and A. Kinicki (2000), “Identifying antecedents of coping with an
organizational acquisition: A structural assessment,”Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 627–648.
Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place,”Personnel Psychology, 40,
437–453.
Schneider, T. R., S. E. Rivers, and J. B. Lyons (2009), “The biobehavioral model
of persuasion: Generating challenge appraisals to promote health,”Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1928–1952.
Schulkin, J., B. L. Thompson, and J. B. Rosen (2003), “Demythologizing the
emotions: Adaptation, cognition, and visceral representations of emotion in
the nervous system,”Brain and Cognition, 52, 15–23.
Self, D. R., A. A. Armenakis, and M. Schraeder (2007), “Organizational change
content, process, and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reac-
tions,”Journal of Change Management, 2, 211–229.
Skinner, N. and N. Brewer (2002), “The dynamics of threat and challenge
appraisals prior to stressful achievement events,”Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 678–692.
Smollan, R. K. and J. G. Sayers (2009), “Organizational culture, change, and
emotions: A qualitative study,”Journal of Change Management, 9, 435–457.
Spreitzer, G. and A. Mishra (2002), “To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover
following an organizational downsizing,”Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23, 707–729.
Staw, B., L. Sandelands, and J. Dutton (1981), “Threat–rigidity effects in organiza-
tional behavior: A multilevel analysis,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 26,
501–524.
38 Mel Fugate
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Terry, D. J., V. J. Callan, and G. Sartori (1996), “Employee adjustment to an
organizational merger: Stress, coping, and intergroup differences,”Stress
Medicine, 12, 105–122.
Van der Heijde, C. M. and B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden (2006), “A competence-based
and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability,”
Human Resource Management, 45, 449–476.
Wanberg, C. and J. Banas (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing workplace,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
132–142.
Watson, D. and L. A. Clark (1994), “Emotions, moods, traits, and tempera-
ments: Conceptual distinctions and empirical findings,”in P. Ekman and
R. J. Davidson (eds.), The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions (New
York: Oxford University Press), 89–93.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980), “Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences,”
American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
Zuckerman, M. B. (2011), “Why the jobs situation is worse than it looks,”
US News and World Report, June 20 (downloaded August 27, 2011 from:
www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2011/06/20/why-the-jobs-
situation-is-worse-than-it-looks).
Capturing the positive experience of change 39
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change : Viewing change from the
employee’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from aul on 2019-12-18 05:33:46.
Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
