Updating Theory on Organizational Stress: the Asynchronous Multiple Overlapping Change (AMOC) Model of Workplace Stress

Abstract

This article examines the plausible interactions and ramifications of chronic and acute stressors in the workplace. Our position is that current organizational change and work stress models inadequately address the subjective experience of employees. We use existing physiological adaptation paradigms as starting points to illuminate the psychological responses to multiple and simultaneous environmental demands. A new framework is developed, the Asynchronous Multiple Overlapping Change (AMOC) model, to account for the complexity of contemporary work settings. We suggest that the net effect of employee response to continuous major and minor organizational changes is a primary contributor to employee resistance to change: The cumulative impact of multiple and sometimes conflicting change initiatives eventually overwhelms cognitive appraisal and coping mechanisms. Other theoretical, empirical, and practical implications of the proposed framework are also discussed.

Full text

10.1177/1534484303261912 ARTICLE
Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004
Updating Theory on Organizational
Stress:The Asynchronous Multiple
Overlapping Change (AMOC)
Model of Workplace Stress
PATRICIA B. SIKORA
E. DAVID BEATY
JOHN FORWARD
dajopa, LLC, Denver, CO
This article examines the plausible interactions and ramifications of
chronic and acute stressors in the workplace. Our position is that current
organizational change and work stress models inadequately address the
subjectiveexperienceofemployees.Weuseexistingphysiologicaladapta-
tion paradigms as starting points to illuminate the psychological
responses to multiple and simultaneous environmental demands. A new
framework is developed, the asynchronous multiple overlapping change
model, to account for the complexity of contemporary work settings. We
suggest that the net effect of employee response to continuous major and
minor organizational changes is a primary contributor to employee resis-
tance to change: The cumulative impact of multiple and sometimes con-
flicting change initiatives eventually overwhelms cognitive appraisal and
coping mechanisms. Other theoretical, empirical, and practical
implications of the proposed framework are also discussed.
Keywords: organizational stress; organizational change; adaptation;
chaos theory
Life is largely a process of adaptation to the circumstances in which we
exist . . . the secret of health and happiness lies in the successful adjustment
to the ever-changing conditions on this globe.
Seyle, 1956
To comment on change in today’s postindustrial workplace has become
almost cliché. Numerous authors and investigators have noted, editorially
and empirically, that not only has the pace of change in today’s organiza-
tions picked up appreciably, but the nature of change has transformed from
Human Resource Development Review Vol. 2, No. X Month 2004 1-
DOI: 10.1177/1534484303261912
© 2004 Sage Publications

that of quantitative overload or increased volume of work to that in which
managers and employees must fundamentally redefine what work is and
who they must be in the 21st century workplace (Barr, Stimpert, & Huff,
1992;Goffee& Scase, 1992;Levy,1996;Sviokla, 1996). Today’sworkeris
faced with numerous minor daily stressors related to changes in technology
andworkplacepracticesaswellas major upheavalsofmergers,downsizing,
restructurings, and wholesale re-engineering of how work is accomplished
(Morris,Cascio, & Young,1999).Temporalwindowsofdowntimebetween
acutestressoreventsappeartobeshrinkingandareplaced,increasingly,ina
context of chronic pressures to learn and adjust to the day-to-day demands
of technology and competitiveness in an increasingly global marketplace
(Bahrami, 1992; Chakravarthy, 1997; Zohar & Morgan, 1996).
Despite the availability of alternative models of organizational change,
that is, those tapping contemporary theories of complexity (Dooley, 2002;
Hunt & Ropo, 2003), chaos (Dooley & Van de Ven, 1999), as well as
processualmodels of change (Beck&Cowan,1997;Tsoukas&Chia, 2002;
Vaill, 1996), the mainstream literature on work stress tends to assume fairly
simple forms of employee response to shifting organizational demands:
acute or chronic stress responses to typically singular events or stressors.
For example, extensive work has been done, primarily with blue-collar
workers, on the impacts of chronic stress associated with repetitive or
monotonous work (Johansson, 1989; Melamed, Ben-Avi, Luz, & Green,
1995). Others have examined the impact of work overload or day-to-day
impacts of role overload/conflict on white-collar employees, particularly
thechronic stress ramifications ofmultipleroledemands on female workers
(Bourbonnais, Brisson, Moisan, & Vezina, 1996; Edwards & Rothbard,
1999;Perlow,1998;Swanson,Power,&Simpson,1998).Much of this liter-
ature suggests that day-to-day hassles of the workplace eventually “wears
down” the employee and can lead to negative physiological outcomes for
the worker as well as deteriorating productivity for the organization
(Braham, 1991; Clark, 1995; Hatfield, 1990; Marshall, Barnett, & Sayer,
1997).
Onthe other hand,thesurgeof change management researchandconsul-
tancy activities over the last decade emphasizes the acute side of the work
stress equation (Fisher, 1995; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; LeCraw, 1992;
Want, 1993; Wilheim, 1996). Change management literature and practice
often treats mergers, re-engineerings, or other major organizational
changes as isolated, one-time (albeit sometimes more than a year long in
duration) events that employees may initially resist but ultimately come to
accept or buy into (Ashforth & Mael, 1998; Martin, 1993; Stewart, 1993;
Zimmerman, 1995). These models implicitly assume that when overt com-
munication, planning, and implementation of new work structures or pro-
cesses is complete, life settles back into a more routine mode; that is, the
2 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

organization and individuals are “at rest” or return to calm equilibrium or
homeostasis.
What these dominant change management and acute models neglect to
account for, however, is that (a) acute events increasingly overlap or could
be thought of as a continuous stream of environmentaldemands (Dooley &
Van de Ven, 1999; Seiling, 2002; Vaill, 1996); (b) the baseline in most orga-
nizations today is not stable equilibrium but requires constant adjustments
to less visible chronic stressors and “normal” environmental demands
(Dooley & Van de Ven, 1999;Tsoukas & Chia, 2002); and (c) change is not
simply imposed on employees by external actors or forces but also emerges
from within the organization via the convergence of day-to-day choices and
interactions of rank-and-file employees (Dooley, 2002; March, 1981). In
effect,our models ofstressremain linear, simple, andstaticwhileemployee
experience is nonlinear, complex, and dynamic.
Although some investigators are starting to examine the joint effect of
chronic and acute stressors in the workplace (Eden, 1990; Norris & Uhl,
1993; Steptoe, Cropley, & Joekes, 1999; Taylor & Repetti, 1997), many
seemto assume that one eventortype of stressor occurs intheabsenceofthe
other. In addition, the tendency to look at single stressors or big events
ignoresthemicrolevelexperiencesofemployeesastheyadapttoday-to-day
small demands and cope with the anticipation and aftermath of larger insti-
tutional changes. A “static-world” macro-approach to understanding
employee response to change may have been suitable for Industrial Age
organizations, however it seems inadequate in capturing the complex and
turbulent climate of today’s postindustrial company.
This article explores the psychological aspects of the interweaving of
chronicandacute stressors in the workplace.We useexistingframeworksof
physiological adaptation as heuristic devices with which to shed light on
howworkerperceptionsandinterpretationsofandresponsesto acute events
may change under conditions of high versus low chronic stress. We argue
that current models of organizational change and work stress overly sim-
plify the phenomological experience of today’s employee. A contemporary
model of workplace stress is developed that accounts for asynchronous,
multiple, overlapping change (AMOC) experienced by today’s employees.
We finally suggest that employee resistance to change may be conceptual-
ized, then, not as simple resistance to a change event but inability to cope or
adapttothecumulativeimpactofawhirlwindofchangeintheworkplace.
The framework we outline does not, for simplicity’s sake, attempt to
account for the myriad of small and large changes enacted by employees
every day; that is, our framework is not a direct simulation of employee
response to organizational demands as outlined in emerging chaos or com-
plexity theories of organizational change. However, we do hope to support
these emerging theories by explicitly extending models of worker-stress
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 3

response to account for an elongated time period encompassing multiple,
overlapping change events. Our emphasis on the individualis also an effort
to localize the dynamics of change and explore the micropsychological
impacts of change processes. Our model, then, attempts to better reflectthe
“messiness” of the employee experience (Dooley & Van de Ven, 1999) and
supportfuturetheorizingandempiricalworkinunderstandingthecomplex-
ity and dynamics of employee response to organizational change.
Two Process Models of Stress
We briefly review two physiological models of stress, or, more specifi-
cally,adaptationtostress,whichcanbeusedasheuristicsfor thinking about
psychological stress in the workplace. These process models begin to move
us away from an acute framework and into a long-term view of employee
response to stress. When we shift to this elongated temporal frame, we
incorporate new parameters of multiple, simultaneous, and asynchronous
change to explore possible cumulative effects of environmental demands.
We also examine the ramifications of accelerated rates of change on the
employee experience of stress.
Seyle’s General Adaptation Syndrome
Inhislandmarkworkinphysiologicalstressandadaptation,Seyle(1946,
1956) described the general adaptation syndrome (GAS), or the process by
which the body responds and adapts to any stressor. Stress in this model is
conceptualized as a nonspecific response to any environmental demand
(Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001). Adaptation is posited to consist of
four phases: shock, countershock (alarm), resistance, and collapse.
Depending on the demands of the environment, the individual may or may
notproceedthroughall four phases; that is, thisisamodelofgenerallyfunc-
tional response, and collapse is not an inevitable outcome of the process.
An important element of Seyle’s model is the concept of a generalized
versus localized reaction. In the physiological model, when a cell is first
attackedorirritated by an agent,notonlydoes the specific cell respondwith
an alarm reaction, but surrounding cells are mobilized as well. In effect, the
alarm spreads to parts of the system that are not directly affected by the irri-
tation:ageneralizedresponsetoalocalstressor.However,asirritationatthe
original point of attack continues, local adaptive responses adjust to more
effectively cope with the stressor. The generalized response becomes more
localized, and adaptation contracts to focus on the immediate, small-scale
requirements. Seyle noted, however, that, over time, the local adaptation
response can break down from fatigue; the reaction then enlarges as the
mostappropriatelineofdefensehasbeenexhausted(Seyle,1956).Ineffect,
4 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

under conditions of sustained stress, the healthy or functional coping
responseofthe body gradually deteriorates,andthestressreactionbecomes
nonspecific, less efficient, and, finally, dysfunctional.
Parallels might be drawn between these physiological phenomena and
psychological responses to new organizational demands. The change itself
maybehighlylocalized,forexample,requestingthatanemployeeuseanew
software package, however the initial response to the stressor may be very
generalized. Rather than reacting specifically to the new software, the
employee attacks (mentally or verbally) the information technology (IT)
department or management group that initiated the change. As adaptation
progresses, that is, the employee receives training support or uses the soft-
ware, the stress response becomes more focused on the software, and even-
tually, as the change is mastered, generalized reactions are diffused, and the
response of alarm is replaced by coping.
Similar psychological analogies can be drawn from the process of adap-
tation. A critical requirement of adaptation is adequate time to experiment
with different responses, to learn functional behaviors, and adjust to new
environmental demands. With adequate time (in physiological terms, this
can be seconds, in cognitive/emotional terms, this could mean months or
years), the individual usually adjusts to the new requirements of the situa-
tion. With inadequate time, adjustment never occurs; the overactivity of
mobilization or alarm state continues and exhaustion follows. As we note
later,webelievethat the paceofchange in today’sorganizationsisreducing
the time available for individuals to assimilate, learn, and adapt new behav-
iors and skills. The window of adaptation shrinks to virtually nil as the
employee is asked to shift gears on a dime, and their ability to effectively
adjust to new demands is jeopardized.
Allostasis
Seyle’s classic work on the GAS has long served as the theoretic under-
pinningforworkinthehealthconsequencesofchronicstress.Thisworkcan
becriticized, however,asbeingtoo narrow in focus,thatis,emphasizingthe
responses of very specific, often isolated, biological processes to a singular
stressor versus systemic cumulative response to multiple stressors over
extended timeframes (Cooper et al., 2001). The concept of allostasis has
beenintroduced in the medical literature(McEwen&Stellar,1993;Sterling
&Eyer,1988) as a moreholistic,multisystem framework for understanding
the body’s response to chronic stress (Seeman, Singer, Rowe, Horwitz, &
McEwen, 1997). Allostasis “refers to the body’s ability to adapt and adjust
to environmental demands by matching the demands of the environment
withphysiologicalresponses” (Johnston-Brooks, Lewis, Evans, & Whalen,
1998,p. 597). Major,acutestressors are responded tobythebodyactivating
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 5

allostatic systems (e.g., sympathetic nervous system and hypothalamic-
pituitary-adrenalor HPAaxis) and then, moreimportant,deactivatingsys-
tems when environmental demands diminish or coping mechanisms are
deployed (McEwen, 1998a).
Similar to Seyle’s model, allostasis or the adaptive response of the body
can be viewed as a typically normal or healthy response to environmental
demands. However, under certain conditions, these seemingly protective
mechanisms can lead to disease and dysfunction. The term allostatic load
refers to circumstances in which these generally adaptive mechanisms
become maladaptive, that is, the wear and tear exacted on the body because
of “chronic overactivity or underactivity of allostatic systems” (McEwen,
1998a, p. 171). McEwen (1998b) noted that frequent activation of allostatic
systems, failure to shut off systems after stress, and/or inadequate response
of allostatic mechanisms can all contribute to the price of adaptation. In
effect, chronic stress in the form of continuous real threats to physical or
psychological well-being or, more important, the anticipation of threats
(McEwen, 1998a) can contribute to situations where the adaptive response
of the body becomes maladaptive: Continuous or frequent stressors keep
allostatic systems perpetually “on” and/or anticipated threat or conflict
(hypervigilance) does not allow systems to shut down.
Investigations of allostasis and allostatic load tend to be restricted to
studies of physiological response and disease. For example, it has been sug-
gested that overexposure to stress hormones or constant stimulation of the
cardiovascular system by the sympathetic nervous system can lead to such
pathologies as hypertension, diabetes, and inadequate immune response
(Elenkov, Webster, Torpy, & Chrousos, 1999; McEwen, 1998a, 1998b;
McEwen& Stellar,1993;Seeman et al., 1997). Itdoesnotseem far-fetched,
however, to heuristically apply the notion of wear and tear or inability to
shut down physiological systems to cognitive response to chronic stress. If,
because of frequent activation, physiological systems are unable to shut
down or return to baseline, we might hypothesize that systems involved in
psychological response could also show signs of “hyperactivity” (or
exhaustion if the levels of stress are maintained at high enough levels for
long periods of time) after sustained exposure to stressful situations.
We suggest that the psychological impact of allostatic load may manifest
itselfinat least two ways. First, frequentactivationofthe physiological sys-
tems implies that there is frequent activation of the cognitive appraisal sys-
tem (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The sheer frequency of appraisal events
would likely result in perceptions of higher environmental demand; that is,
theindividualis not merely evaluatingthe demands (primary appraisal)ofa
singulareventbutisassessingthedemandsofmultiple,overlapping,orcon-
stant stressors. This higher perceived demand, as a function of volume of
appraisals, might skew the appraisal process for any new demand toward
6 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

threatversuschallenge; that is, itislikelythatperceivedability to cope (sec-
ondary appraisal) would fall short relative to perceived high level of total
demand versus perceived low level of demand for an isolated event. For
those who are chronically stressed, the new event is not just one minor
demanding situation but is one more demanding thing on top of all the other
demanding things: the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Second, because constant pressures in the environment may cause the
cognitivesystemstoremainatconstant attention or vigilance,theindividual
may find himself or herself persistently scanning and evaluating the envi-
ronment for data regarding new or existing demands. As we describe later,
thishypervigilance places demandsoncognitivesystems,perhapsreducing
resources for other information-processing activities. Chronic cognitive
demands could reduce resources available for cognitive appraisal of an
acute stressor, thereby compromising the ability to accurately appraise the
environment as well as marshal appropriate coping resources.
Expanding Our Thinking About Workplace Stress
We would argue that, in today’s work setting, a model that assumes a
straightforward “on-off” response to an event is oversimplifying the stress
experience of employees. The GAS and the allostasis concepts are useful
starting points for thinking about stress in today’s fast-paced, perpetual
motion workplace. Specifically, Seyle’s concepts of generalized response
and adaptation recuperation combined with the allostasis notions of stress
related to anticipation, system shut-down, and hypervigilance are useful in
discussions of contemporary workplace stress. However, we believe these
models are limited in application and would like to offer extensions of these
models to further enrich research and discussion about employee stress.
Limits of Current Models
We propose that the current models are limited in three ways. First, the
number of stressors experienced by employees is many, not singular: Some
are major upheavals, such as layoffs, and others may be minor irritants such
as having to change how one fills out a time sheet to accommodate a new
payroll process. In effect, employees are likely dealing with minor changes
quitefrequently and might contendwithseveralmajorupheavalseveryyear
ortwo.The GAS and allostasismodelsencourageusto think of thesestress-
orsnotastemporallyconfinedeventsbutlong-termprocesses.Theseframe-
works focus on the wear and tear induced by anticipating the change and
then account for the time required to adapt to and assimilate new behaviors,
attitudes, social interactions, and job requirements. The weakness of these
models, however, is that they tend to focus on a change: a response to a new
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 7

environmental demand. We would like to open discussion around situations
where there are multiple stressors, each characterized by a more-or-less
lengthy lead-in or anticipation phase as well as a posttransition adaptation
and assimilation periods.
Second, we would like to suggest that these multiple changes are not
occurring sequentially, but, often simultaneously: Just as onebegins to fig-
ure out the new software package, they move the department to another
floor,reassignthem to a newteam,andchange all thecodesfor the long dis-
tance phone system. The typical employee is anticipating, appraising,
adapting, and assimilating two or more new environmental demands simul-
taneously: which one to attend to today? How to cope with these multiple
demands? Or, perhaps more stressful, changes are asynchronous or just off
kilter enough that attending to one change means not attending properly to
the other. The changes may be temporally asynchronous (e.g., a shift to a
new customer management software system precedes assignment of new
customer account codes) or strategically asynchronous with conflicting
goalsgivingmixedmessages about what isreallyimportantto the organiza-
tion (e.g., a moveintoacross-functional team structuresimultaneous with a
new performance measurement system that emphasizes individual or
departmentalgoalsandobjectives).Thetimingofstressorsneedstobemore
explicitly examined in models of real-world stress.
Third, we believe the pace of change is accelerating in the workplace.
Twenty years ago, it might have been common for theorganization to adopt
anewmanagementapproach once every5 years or maybemerge/reorganize
once in a blue moon. Certainly, there were far fewer new communication
and IT systems and tools being introduced into the workplace. In the last 10
years, desktop technology, powerful software, Internet access, personal
voicemail, and wireless communication capabilities have become the norm
for virtually every worker; annual upgrades, service changes, and hardware
enhancements are commonplace. Each of these introductions and changes
requires some minimal adjustment and adaptation. Not only do these tools
change how we operationally manage our jobs, they can fundamentally
change social relationships and the boundaries and meaning of work.
Although the GAS model suggests that accelerated change will have nega-
tive impacts in the form of compressed or inadequate time for learning, this
aspectofthe frameworkdoes not appear to havebeen exploredin traditional
models of work stress.Webelieveit is timeforexplicitinclusion oftherate-
of-change parameter in models of stress.
Simple Simulations of More Complex Situations
To stimulate discussion around the concepts of chronic multiple, over-
lapping,and asynchronous stressors,wehavecreatedsimple simulations of
8 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

workplacestress in whichtheconcept of chronicmultiple and simultaneous
stressors can be visually explored. We would also like to begin to identify
ways in which the concept of rate of change can be incorporated into our
thinking about workplace stress. We offer several iterative models; each
model builds from the previous one to demonstrate the impact of chronic,
multipleworkplace stressors. Wehavechosen seven hypothetical, however,
based on our experience and observations, highly probable organizational
change events that might be experienced within a relatively constrained
period of time; that is, it is common for an individual employee to experi-
ence multiple environmental stressors within a 2- to 3-year tenure in a con-
temporary organization. Although seven changes may be pushing an
extreme,itwillhelp illustrate the potentialeffectsofmultiple stressors from
the point of view of the employee.
These models start with some very basic assumptions about how change
occurs, how stress is felt by employees, and how total stress might be mea-
sured. For example, we have, for now, assumed a simple additive relation-
ship within time periods as well as across time periods as “felt stress” accu-
mulates. Clearly, this additive assumption is very open to debate and
becomes an obvious area for further theorizing and empirical research. We
believeitisinstructiveto begin with thesefairlysimple baseline modelsand
move into more complex mathematical simulations as theory develops and
evidence emerges to support, or not support, these assumptions.
In addition, for now, we will not go in-depth into the phases of appraisal
or adaptation as suggested by GAS and allostasis frameworks; that is, is
thereasteeporshallowlearningcurve?Doesthecurveforaparticularstress
peak and then diminish with adaptation? At what point might
hypervigilence or exhaustion occur? Is the new demand perceived as a
threat or a welcome change? These types of questions regarding the trajec-
tory of any one stressor in the context of other stressors or in the temporal
context of a chronic, asynchronous change environment remain open for
further discussion andanalysis.The goal forthisarticle is relativelysimple:
to offer what we hope are concepts and visuals that stimulate discussion
aroundhowwetheorizeaboutstressinrealworksettings.If we can generate
conversation about how these models do or do not work, we will have
achieved our goal.
Interpreting the Models
The hypothetical changes used in this article are (a) new team (e.g., the
employee has been assigned to a new cross-functional team);(b) new boss
(the employee has been assigned a new supervisor); (c) new soft1 (the first
new software application has been introduced into the job); (d) new HR1
(the first new human resource [HR] practice or program is introduced, i.e.,
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 9

pay, benefits, or hours); (e) new org (a fundamental structural change in
organizationalstructureormerger);(f)newsoft2(asecondsoftwarechange
is introduced, such as an upgrade or new application);and (g) new HR2 (a
second HR change is introduced). At this point, the specifics of the change
are less important than the subjective response of the employee. This is
another area for further study: What is it about one change versus another
that leads to more or less of a stress response? Is this purely an individual
difference issue, or is there something intrinsic to the change that can be
used to characterize a major stressor?
We use a simple scale to reflect the felt stress of the employee: a 0 sug-
gests that, from the employee perspective, there is no perceived threat or no
felt stress related to the change. Perhaps the change has not yet occurred or,
fromthepointofviewoftheemployee,ithasnotyet“hittheradarscreen”in
terms of importance or relevance to them. A 1 indicates that the employee is
feeling some low-level stress around the change; perhaps it has just been
announced,and the implications are nothighlysalient;orperhaps the major
transition phase has passed, and the employee has almost mastered the new
requirements of the environment. Twos (2’s) and threes (3’s) suggest mod-
erate levels of stress, whereas a 4 and certainly a 5 indicate high stress expe-
rienced by the employee. Cumulative stress is derived by adding the felt
stress within each time period and adding these totals across time.
Using this scale allows us to minimally account for the trajectory of
change: In the early phases of change one would expect lower levels of
stress; this stress may ramp up as the transition unfolds, then diminish as
time passes. Other stressors may remain low-level irritants. In other cases,
the initial news regarding the change may be traumatic (a layoff, relocation
of the company) and, as the employee has time to adapt/adjust to the news,
stresslevelsdecline. The felt-stress indicatorforeach employee maybedif-
ferent, then, for each time period and/or stressor; that is, this model focuses
at the individual employee level and emphasizes his or her subjective inter-
pretation of the situation, rather than focusing on an aggregate organiza-
tional or group level using external criteria, such as management’s or
researcher’s classification of a change or event as “stressful.”.
Finally, we have designated very arbitrary time periods as Time 1
through Time 6. The exact time elapsed between each time period is not
important for these examples, however, we do assume that the time elapsed
between Time 1 and Time 6 reflects only 1 or 2 years; that is, the reality we
are trying to simulate is the context in which change occurs in a fairly com-
pressed timeframe—the norm for many organizations in the 21st century.
For one model, we attempt to show the implications of a slower pace of
change; that is, there will be more time hypothesized to elapse between the
individual change events. For now, we limit ourselves to a somewhat rudi-
mentary view of time and pace of change, however we believe the implica-
10 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 11
TABLE 1: Limited Acute Event
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
New team 0 0 1 5 1 0
New boss 0 0 0 0 0 0
New soft1 0 0 0 0 0 0
New HR1 0 0 0 0 0 0
New org 0 0 0 0 0 0
New soft2 0 0 0 0 0 0
New HR2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumulative 0 0 1 6 7 7
Note.Soft1 = first new software application;HR1 = first new human resource change;org = funda-
mental organizational structural change; soft2 = second software change; HR2 = second human
0
1
2
3
4
5
Felt Stress
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
FIGURE 1: Limited Acute Event Framework
123456
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Felt Stress
Time Period
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
cumul
FIGURE 2: Limited Acute Event With Cumulative Effect

tions of the simulation support future theoretical and methodological
refinement of these parameters.
Review of Alternative Models
The following models attempt to incorporate multiple stressors, simulta-
neous impact of stressors, trajectory of felt stress over time, and rate of
change. We are interested in examining the total effect at any one point in
time, as well as the cumulative effects as the simulations account for time
and number ofstressors.Weendwith a simulation ofmultiple, overlapping,
asynchronous changes (the AMOC framework) that demonstrates the
potential effects of change run amok.
Model 1: A limited acute event. This model attempts to simulate a more tra-
ditional acute change framework; that is, it assumes that the employee is faced
with only one change or environmental stressor, a new team situation, and that
the impact of the change is centered on a peak event. We might imagine, for
example, that at Time 3 the employee hears about a pending team assignment,
at Time 4 the team convenes, and at Time 5 the team is well under way. As a
manager or researcher, one would look at this event and wonder why employ-
ees would complain or be distressed about the team assignment. It might be
stressful for a week or so as the transition ensues, however things should be
back to normal by Time 6.
Apart from the single-event scenario, the key assumption in this frame-
work is that there is minimal anticipation or adaptation required by the
employee. This is a “flip-a-switch” approach to stress in which a pivotal
stressoreventis defined as thedayor week oftransition to a newteamstruc-
ture. Cumulative impact is minimal as the bulk of the felt stress occurs
within a constrained time period, and there is little chronic stress experi-
enced by the employee. We believe the flip-a-switch view of change and
employee stress response limits our understanding of the subjective experi-
ence of employees and hinders our ability to facilitate successful organiza-
tional change. As we move into later models, the cumulative felt stress level
will reflect additional stressors and a process or long-term view of the
change experience. We would argue that these subsequent models begin to
better reflect the reality of contemporary corporate life.
Model 2: Long-term single change. The only change reflected in this model
is that we assume that the employee experiences additional stress because of
anticipatory stress as suggested by allostasis frameworks (from the point of
viewoftheemployeeconcernsmayemergeearly:Whatdoesthismean for me?
How will I get my real work done?) as well as because of adaptation and learn-
ing as suggested by the GAS framework (How are we going to get anything
done if we keep trying to reach consensus? How do I deal with my boss com-
plaining about not getting my other work done?).
12 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 13
TABLE 2: Long-Term Single Change
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
New team 1 2 3 5 3 2
New Boss 0 0 0 0 0 0
New soft1 0 0 0 0 0 0
New HR1 0 0 0 0 0 0
New org 0 0 0 0 0 0
New soft2 0 0 0 0 0 0
New HR2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumulative 1 3 6 11 14 16
123456
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Felt Stress
Time Period
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
Cumul
FIGURE 4: Long-Term Single Change With Cumulative Effect
0
1
2
3
4
5
Felt Stress
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
FIGURE 3: Long-Term Single Change

14 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS
TABLE 3: Two Simultaneous Changes
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
New team 1 23532
New boss 0 00000
New soft1 4 54321
New HR1000000
New org000000
New soft2 0 00000
New HR2000000
Cumulative 5 12 19 27 32 35
Note.soft1 = first new software application;HR1 = first new human resource change;org = funda-
mental organizational structural change; soft2 = second software change; HR2 = second human
resource change.
0
2
4
6
8
Felt Stress
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
FIGURE 5: Two Simultaneous Changes
123456
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Felt Stress
Time Period
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
cumulative
FIGURE 6: Two Simultaneous Changes With Cumulative Effect

Here we see evidence of stress at Time 1 as, perhaps, the rumor mill is
startingaboutthenewteam,pressureincreasesastheemployeethinksabout
theimplications of the teamforher or hisworklife, and she orhetries to get
theold job requirementswrappedup to accommodate thenewteamrequire-
ments.ThereisapeakinTime4astheteamconvenes;however,ratherthana
dramatic drop that assumes immediate learning, adaptation, and assimila-
tionofnewrolesandresponsibilities, the employee continues to feel moder-
atelevelsofstressthrough Time5 and 6. Assumingtheteammeetsfor a rea-
sonable length of time, one would expect that the employee eventually
adjusts and adapts to the new requirements and felt stress drops to zero.
Note that cumulative stress ramps up appreciably over the previous flip-
a-switch model (Model 1 cumulative equals 7, Model 2 cumulative equals
16). Thinking in terms of anticipatory and adaptive phases, we would pro-
pose that the employee experiences more wear and tear over the long term:
By the time the employee walks into the first team meeting, he or she may
already feel a bit worn down by the pending change. The demands of the
acute change at Time 4 are layered on top of pre-existing anxiety (again,
whether this is a simple additive function is up for debate, however, we are
using the additive model as a starting point). This may influence how the
employee perceives the threat level of the team meeting: rather than starting
at equilibrium, the situation is appraised in the context of a pre-existing
stress load. The employee may overreact to demands of the situation or may
feel less able to cope with the new requirements.
Model 3: Two simultaneous changes. Let us imagine now that the employee
is informed about the new team assignment the same week she or he is starting
training a new accounting software package (new soft1). This new software is
extremelypowerful;however,becauseofallitsfunctionality,itisquitedifficult
to learn. It also requires redefining most of the internal accounting categories
and will ultimately require that the employee be required to produce weekly
ratherthanmonthly accounting reports. The models inFigures5and6simulate
this situation with the addition of the new soft1 stressor.
At Time 1 for new team change in this model the employee is already
experiencing a stress level of 4 because of transition to the new software.
The total felt stress at Time 1, then, reflects the combined felt stress due to
both stressors. By simply adding one stressor and continuing to assume a
longer process experience of stress (i.e., anticipation and adaptation
phases), cumulative stress doubles by Time 6 as compared to the previous
model.Itcouldeasily be argued that the perceivedthreatof the new team sit-
uation would be higher than in the previous model, simply because of the
high level of stress being experienced on the new software. For simplicity
sake, however, we keep the felt stress of each change constant across mod-
els. We feel our points regarding impact of multiple stressors can be made
withoutadjustingindividualstressors.Therelativechangeofonestressorin
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 15

16 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS
TABLE 4: Three Changes—One Low Level
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
New team 1 23532
New boss 0 00000
New soft1 4 54321
New HR1111122
New org000000
New soft2 0 00000
New HR2000000
Cumulative 6 14 22 31 38 43
Note.soft1 = first new software application;HR1 = first new human resource change;org = funda-
mental organizational structural change; soft2 = second software change; HR2 = second human
resource change.
0
2
4
6
8
10
Felt Stress
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
FIGURE 7: Three Changes,One Low Level
123456
0
5
10
15
21
25
30
35
40
45
Felt Stress
Time Period
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
cumul
FIGURE 8: Three Changes,One Low Level With Cumulative Effect

the context of another is another topic for theoretical and empirical
exploration.
More so, if we once again focus on Time 4 when the new team convenes,
our accountant is walking into the new team meeting bearing the burden of
not only the anticipatory stress of the new team but also the load resulting
from the major transition and adaptation of the new software. They are get-
ting a handle on the new software, and then comesthe new team with more
new responsibilities. From the outside, the accountant seems a bit edgy, and
managers may wonder why he or she is having trouble engaging in the team
meeting.Ifwelookfrom the point of viewof the employee, however,wecan
see that they are feeling a bit overwhelmed, cognitively and physically, and
struggling to cope with multiple demands of their environment.
Model 4: Three changes, one low level. In this model, we have added one
more stressor to the employee’s life: HRchange, new HR1. In this case, how-
ever, we have assumed that the employee views this as a low-level irritant so
thatat no timedoesthe felt stress riseabovea2. Perhaps itisanewtime-report-
ing requirement that requires minor, but aggravating, adjustment in terms of
how the employee tracks his or her time for payroll purposes.
So, even though newHR1 not a substantial stressor on its own, when it is
placedwithinthe contextof multiple other major changes,itsimpactmaybe
magnified.Perhaps the payroll supervisorhearsmore griping than sheorhe
would expect with such a small change. This may bea demand that would,
underother circumstances, not even appear on theradarscreen,howeverthe
employee is becoming increasingly vigilant, perhaps stuck in the alarm
phase of the GAS model, and is more likely to appraise this overtly minor
request(i.e.,a0onthefeltstressmeasure from the perspectiveofthepayroll
supervisor) as a threat. In the context of multiple overlapping stressors, it
may take longer for the worker to return to homeostasis after a series of
change events; or, seemingly benign environmental occurrences may be
interpreted as more threatening than they objectively are.
Model5: Multiple overlappingstressorsor change run amok.Inthismodel,
we have pushed the extremesand assumed that seven changes are occurring in
fairly compressed timeframe: change run amok. At any one point in time, the
total felt stress is well beyond the stress associated with an isolated individual
change, and the cumulative stress ramps up dramatically.
Again, if the HR director is concerned only with HR1 and HR2, she or he
might be totally baffled and frustrated at the employee’s inability to accom-
modate these two simple changes. If, however, we put these changes within
the context of other organizational demands as well as within the context of
time, it might be easier to understand why employees are balking at these
minorrequests.Theyareoverwhelmedwithchronic,competingdemands.
In this model, we begin to think about thresholds or at what point the
employee might “max out” in terms of performance or cognitive resilience.
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 17

18 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS
123456
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Felt Stress
Time Period
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
cumul
threshold ?
FIGURE 10: Change Run Amok with Cumulative Effect
0
5
10
15
20
Felt Stress
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
FIGURE 9: Multiple Overlapping Stressors:Change Run Amok
TABLE 5: Multiple Overlapping Stressors:Change Run Amok
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
New team 1 23532
New boss 1 13554
New soft1 4 54321
New HR1111222
New org111145
New soft2 232110
New HR2001233
Cumulative 10 23 38 57 77 94
Note.soft1 = first new software application;HR1 = first new human resource change;org = funda-
mental organizational structural change; soft2 = second software change; HR2 = second human
resource change.

Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 19
TABLE 6: Slower or Nonsimultaneous Change:Three Stressors
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
New team 0 01410
New boss 0 00000
New soft1 2 51000
New HR1000023
New org000000
New soft2 0 00000
New HR2000000
Cumulative 2 7 9 13 16 19
Note.soft1 = first new software application;HR1 = first new human resource change;org = funda-
mental organizational structural change; soft2 = second software change; HR2 = second human
resource change.
0
2
4
6
Felt Stress
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
FIGURE 11: Slower or Nonsimultaneous Change:Three Stressors
123456
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Felt Stress
Time Period
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
cumul
FIGURE 12: Slower or Nonsimultaneous Change With Cumulative Effect

The allostasis and GAS models suggest that, at some point, the individual
becomesexhausted,unabletorespond or cope adequately with thedemands
of the environment. What if, for this individual, exhaustion or inability to
copeoccurs when cumulative stress reaches about60(see line drawn in Fig-
ure 10). Perhaps the cumulative felt stress asymptotes or declines as an
inverted U-curve over time as the person becomes numb to additional envi-
ronmental demands. Perhaps the employee shifts to survival mode, attend-
ing only to those environmental demandsthat he or she feels are essential to
job security. Changes associated with these essential tasks continue to be
sources of stress, however the employee ignores what she or he believes to
be nonessential work demands. Job performance may deteriorate as the
employee no longer responds appropriately to new requests.The trajectory
of the cumulative stress curve and associated psychological and perfor-
mance antecedents and consequences are wide-open areas for future
theorizing and empirical work.
Model6:Slowerrateofchangeinthree-stressormodel.In this model, we go
back to the same three stressors as we discussed in Model 4, however here we
are attempting to explore the situation in which the pace or rate of change
allowsforadaptation.Inthis model, we assume thatthespanbetweentimeperi-
odshas increased by afactorof2and that the changes themselvesareoccurring
more sequentially than simultaneously.
Because time spans between time periods have increased, there is only
the suggestion of anticipation and adaptation associated with each stressor.
It is important to note, however, that the elapsed time between Time 1 and
Time 3 in this model is equivalent to the elapsed time between Time 1 and
Time 6 in all previous models. Cumulative stress in the same elapsed
timeframe is far lower when we stretch out the timeline; that is, cumulative
stressat Time3 in Figure12equals 9 as comparedtocumulativestressof 43
for the equivalent time period in the compressed three-stressor model. As
we stretch out the time span between change events, the total felt stress at
any one point in time tends to be substantially lower; for example, the maxi-
mum total stress felt at any one point in time in Figure 11 CONFIRM
CORRECT FIGURE is 5 (Time 2) as compared to a maximum of 9 in the
compressed timeframe (Time 4, Table 4).
The GAS model would further suggest that as we compress the rate of
change, the adaptation period for one change would overlap with the antici-
pation or alarm period of the next change. What are the implications for
adaptation or learning for one new job requirement if another new situation
is imposed midstream?
Model 7: The AMOC framework: asynchronous, multiple, overlapping
changes. If we reformat the graph for Model 5 (Table 5) and look simulta-
neously across all the curves for the individual stressors, we get the sense of
20 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

“Bam, here comes another one. Bam, here comes another one. Bam, here
comes another one. Bam.”
There seems to be no room for assimilation or consolidation of one
change before the next peak or anticipatory phase ensues. Attention is
diverted, energy is diverted, and, we would argue that as more stressors are
added, cognitive rigidity or narrowness sets in so that the employee reverts
to old tried-and-true behaviors (Fiske, 1998; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Con-
versely, if energy and cognitive resources are focused on adaptation, the
employee is less willing or able to wholeheartedly engage in the next new
activity. The employee feels bombarded and likely terribly confused with
multiple overlapping demands; we suspect this confusion is further magni-
fied if the changes are temporally or strategically asynchronous.
Model Summary
The table (Table 7) and figure (Figure 14) summarize the cumulative
effects from all the models.
Theincreasefromthe limited acute-eventmodel(Model1)is dramatic as
we add stressors and do not allow for adaptation in between stressor events.
Again, we have assumed simple additive relationships, have kept felt stress
constant across models (with the exception of Model 6, the “Slower rate of
change, three stressor” model) and have assumed no threshold at which felt
stress asymptotes or declines due to exhaustion.
We believe that the models simulating asynchronous, multiple, overlap-
pingchange,Models5and 7, are more realistic reflections of the day-to-day
phenomenological experience of many employees. The AMOC framework
incorporatesparameters for (a)numberof concurrent changes,(b)synchro-
nizationofchange(timingandgoals),(c)temporalrequirementsforadapta-
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 21
123456
0
1
2
3
4
5
Felt Stress
Time Period
new team
new boss
new soft1
new HR1
new org
new soft2
new HR2
FIGURE 13: AsynchronousMultipleOverlappingChange(The AMOCFramework)

tion, and (d) overall rate of change, and suggests that flip-a-switch or “one
change” perspectives on workplace stress may grossly underestimate the
amount of stress experienced by workers in today’s organizations.
At what point does the employee throw up his or her hands and say
“Enough!”?Ifthereis enough time between changes, the employeehastime
to learn, adapt, and assimilate new behaviors and attitudes; if there is inade-
quate time allowed for learning because too many new demands are placed
ontheemployeetooquickly,heorshemaybeunable to adequately learn the
behaviors required for the job. The employee looks like a “poor performer”
however, in reality, has not been provided the time to adequately adjust to
the new requirements. Rather than investing energy in learning the new sys-
tems, the employee invests most of her or his time sorting through,
prioritizing, and managing multiple overlapping, sometimes conflicting,
22 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS
TABLE 7: All Cumulative Effects
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6
Limited one 0 01677
One 13 6111416
Two 5 12 19 27 32 35
Three 6 14 22 31 38 43
Slow3 2 7 9 13 16 19
All simultaneously 10 23 38 57 77 94
Note. Slow3 = slow change,three stressors
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Time 5
Time 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
limited one
one
two
three
slow3
all simul
FIGURE 14: Comparison of All Cumulative Effects

changes. Adapting to change becomes an end rather than the means to an
end. Employees are incredibly busy but incredibly nonproductive. Or
worse, the once “over and above” employee is demoted, terminated, or put
on blood pressure medication.
Implications of the AMOC Framework
Implications for Theory
From a theoretical standpoint, the AMOC framework extends Seyle’s
GASmodel as wellasadaptation concepts introducedbyrecent physiologi-
calmodelsof allostasis. Webelievebothmodelsprovidegoodstartingpoint
heuristics for thinking about the psychological ramifications of stress in the
workplace, however we have only begun to explore the possible cognitive,
motivational, affective, and behavioral parallels that might be drawn from
these theories. Allostasis, in particular, seems to be a relevant concept for
psychology and organizational behavior but, to our knowledge, has not yet
found its way into either literature. The theoretical linkage between con-
cepts such as hypervigilance and more traditional cognitive appraisal mod-
els (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) seems like a logical starting point: What are
the cognitive or information-processing implications of an appraisal made
under hypervigilance conditions versus relative homeostasis? How might
secondary appraisals of ability to cope with new stressors be impacted by
exhaustion?Extendingthe allostatic frameworkinto organizationaland HR
theory on work stress may be well timed in addressing problems in today’s
high stress work environments.
Although we believe both models are helpful in thinking about the tem-
poral or process nature of the stress response, our simulations suggest that
they remain limited not only in their focuson physiological versus psycho-
logicaloutcomes but in their tendencytoassumea single, sustained stressor
or multiple, but sequential, stressors. Our primary theoretical contribution
is the expansion of the work stress concept to reflect the multisource, rapid-
fire nature of change in today’s organizations. As noted by complexity and
chaos theorists, “human behavior is messy” (Dooley & Van de Ven, 1999);
wetend to see andtheorizeabouttheworld in simple termsbecauseitisulti-
mately easier for us to control and manage. Incorporating multiple events
or, perhaps, framing change as “normative” (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002) or per-
petual“whitewater”(Vaill,1996)mayseemlikeaPandora’sboxofincreas-
ingly complex models and overwhelming numbers of parameters, however
weare convincedthat theory isultimatelymoreuseful if it reflectsthemess-
iness of the real world it attempts to model. To paraphrase Van de Ven
(1989), nothing is so useful as a theory that is practical.
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 23

If our stress theories remain limited to simple frameworks, they will not
resonate with practitioners struggling to facilitate change and employee
well-being in complex, contemporary work settings. Key questions must be
asked of current theory: Does it account for new conditions in the work-
place? Is it still primarily applicable to an Industrial Age factory setting
instead of an Information Age virtual organization? Are our R2values
diminishing to minuscule as we increasingly account for less and less vari-
anceintheworkplace?Canwecontinue to discount unexplained varianceas
uninteresting? Establishing the practical relevance of our theories needs to
be part of any research program. As summarized by Beck & Cowan (1997):
We are at-risk because we are caught up in old ways of thinking and “we
must step away from the fallacy of single-solutions competing for preemi-
nence and begin to focus on the integration, alignment, and synergy of mul-
tiple solutions at once. The complexity of today’s problems, either in the
corporate world or society at-large demands no less” (para. 8).
Finally,weareconvincedthat theory needstomoreactivelyintegratenot
only the real world, but also the real world as experienced by employees.
Perhaps it is our own collective tenure as corporate employees and consul-
tants (100+ combined years among the three authors) that sensitizes us to
this issue, however our own experience in the workplace often seems dis-
connectedfromwhatwe read as academics. The voiceorlivedexperienceof
the employee is often missing from the literature we review. Investigators
often take great pride in remaining objective or external to their research
participants. The price of this distance, however, is distance: distance from
the depth and complexity of the subjective experience of employees.
Emerging theory on chaos and complexity repeatedly focuses on the
importance of local patterns and microprocesses. Change is seen as emer-
gentor endogenous withinorganizationsandisembeddedin the day-to-day
interactions and choices of individuals. Bak’s (1996) “sandpile” metaphor
describes how macro-level outcomes can be generated by microlevel cou-
plings; a “pink noise” phenomenon as outlined by Dooley and Van de Ven
(1999). The “avalanche” Bak describes as information inputs hit a critical
pointmaybe a very useful metaphorforhowemployeesrespondtothe daily
influx of new or changing environmental demands. Certainly, the similarity
betweenthe sandpile and ournotionofthe straw that broke the camel’sback
is worth exploring in more formalized models.
Dooley (2002) also noted that the organization as a whole is the result of
often interdependent organizational members behaving in simple ways,
making simple choices, acting on local information. If the employee is
“where the action is” in enacting, experiencing, and responding to change,
perhaps our organization change and employee attitude theories should
focus on day-to-day rank-and-file experience more than macro-level phe-
nomenon or surrogate information as provided by managers. Nearly 60
24 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

yearsago, Bergson(1946) admonished theorists todiveintothe flux and get
in touch with reality by knowing it from within. We suspect that employees
would provide great clarity as to their experience of organizational change
and the nature, antecedents, and consequences of work stress if we were
onlyto ask. A theory“fromwithin” may beneededasorganizationsbecome
more complex.
Implications for Research
Numerousresearchopportunitieshavealreadybeensuggestedin our dis-
cussion of these models. For example, we noted that our assumptions
regarding the additive nature of total and cumulative stress were open to
debate,especially within thecontextofemerging chaos andcomplexitythe-
ories. Other obvious areas for further study include how to operationalize
feltstress,totalfeltstress,and cumulativefeltstressanddelineatethetrajec-
tory of various stress experiences. The latter question calls for longitudinal
modeling of panel data as well as the application of tools such as latent
growth curve (LGC) modeling so that the slope of the stress curve over time
can be examined (Duncan, Duncan, Strycker, Li, & Alpert, 1999). We also
need to test for curvilinear models or threshold effects rather than abandon-
ing results that do not conform to a linear model. Again, more sophisticated
tools such as LGC allow us to explicitly test nonlinear trajectories. We can
also make greater use of quadratic or higher level terms in our regression
models (Judd & McClelland, 1989).
At even more basic levels, we need to address the operationalization and
measurement of concepts such as multiple stressors, asynchronous tempo-
ral change, asynchronous goals, intensity of stressor, and rate of change.
Organizational change efforts are often very complex; a change initiative,
such as re-engineering, can involve simultaneous changes in numerous HR,
IT, and functional areas. Teasing apart a change to identify its component
stressors is a critical first step in understanding the felt stress of employees.
This becomes even more difficult when we consider that many employees
may report very generalized stress responses and might be unable to clearly
identifythespecificstressororstressorsthatareattherootoftheirresponse.
Laddering or other qualitative interview techniques need to be incorporated
early into research designs to truly understand the felt stress of employees.
A more detailed examination of overtly unidimensional change events may
also help move us toward measures of complexity as outlined by Dooley
(2002).
Anotherinterestingareafor further research is the linkagebetweenphys-
iologicalresponse and subjective psychological experience. What is theeti-
ology of the stress response? Does the physiological process of allostasis
run parallel with felt stress? What are the physiological correlates of psy-
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 25

chological hypervigilance or exhaustion? Under what conditions might the
two responses be more or less associated? Does treating one aspect of the
stress response, that is, reducing hypertension, affect the psychological
experience or appraisal of stressors? These are important questions for HR
interventions and employee health programs.
Another key area for study, particularly from a management point of
view,is the linkage betweenfeltstress and performance.Atwhat point does
performance deteriorate? To what degree do individual difference factors,
such as hardiness (Funk, 1992; Kobasa, 1979a, 1979b) or positive affect
(Folkman,1997;Taylor,Kemeny,Reed,Bower,&Gruenwald,2000;Zautra
et al., 1995), moderate not only the trajectory of felt stress but the final
impact of environmental stress on performance? What environmental fac-
tors might moderate these relationships? A full model would require rele-
vant individual differences and environmental factors—the nature or rela-
tiveimpactofthese factors may changeasoneprogresses through a cycleof
adaptation or as additional stressors are added to the environment.
An orientation toward a more local or processual understanding of
employee stress implies a need for ethnographic or narrative forms of
research (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). In their discussion of the “third scientific
discipline”Huntand Ropo (2003) suggestedthatnarrativeaccounts,aswell
as computer simulations, can help investigators focus on the what, why, and
how of links among context, process, and outcome. These approaches
assume temporal interconnectedness and are more likely to emphasize the
emergingstoryof nonlinear or messy organizationalcontexts.Buildingthe-
orybasedonemployeeexperiencerequiresthatwedevelopandusemethod-
ologies that increase our intimacy with employee experience rather than
createdistancevia objectiveassessments of attitudesordecision-processes:
“Only a direct perception of reality will enable one to get a glimpse of its
most salient characteristics” (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002, p. 571). Qualitative
techniques emphasizing an inductive rather than deductive investigatory
approach may help illuminate the complexity and dynamics of day-to-day
employee experience.
Finally, we would like to suggest that this model can be expanded and
testedin other arenasbesidesworkplace. Our worldchangesrapidlyaround
us: The social, economic, and political reality of the 21st century is charac-
terized by increasingly rapid change. The human toll of these stresses may
be found in heart disease, cancer, depression, and violent crime statistics. A
viewthat considers themultipleand complex setofstressors experienced in
everyday life may help us assist others in finding balance and some sem-
blance of serenity in an increasingly frantic world. At a minimum, academ-
icsandorganizationsmightwanttoincludenon-workplacestressorsintheir
assessments of the total felt stress of employees.
26 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

Implications for Practice
Although the idea of multiple stressors is critical to our model, we
believe the recognition of accelerating change is a crucial factor in success-
ful change management and to more effective intervention strategies by HR
practitioners.Recall that slowingdownthepace of change reducedcumula-
tivefeltstressbyonehalf. Although the number andintensityofstressorsor
total felt stress is certainly going to hamper performance and learning, we
believe it is the compression between stressors that most negatively affects
the ability of employees to learn new skills and adapt to rapidly changing
conditions.The magnitude and rapidityoforganizationalandtechnological
changes at some point preclude adaptation: There is literally no time avail-
abletolearnonesystembeforeanotheroneappearson the horizon. Employ-
ees are unable to achieve high levels of performance promised by the inno-
vation simply because they are unable, physically and psychologically, to
fully learn, adapt,andassimilatethe desired behaviors.This is furtherexac-
erbated by changes that are out of sync with each other temporally or have
conflicting objectives.
Another practical implication of our model is that if numerous stressors
occursimultaneouslyorinrapidsuccession,theindividuallikelyremainsin
a generalized alarm state, and after sustained resistance or vigilance, a once
adaptive response becomes exhausted. We believe that, at some point prior
to physiological exhaustion, the worker might realize that things are spiral-
ing out of control and he or she says, mentally, “enough.” Rather than con-
tinuing in his or her attempts to perform at desired levels, the employee
ramps down and switches to a survival mode, doing just what needs to get
done to get by. Dooley (2002) noted that when organizational complexity is
high and employees are constantly barraged with demands for attention,
they tend to shut down, reserving energy for emergency or perceptually
more important needs. Just when we need the most creative, energetic
response from employees is when they may be shutting down and less able
or willing to respond to organizational demands. Although the organization
may view this as a less productive or cooperative response, from the
employeepointofviewitisentirelyfunctional:Ieitherstoptryingtostayon
topof all thesedemandsor I’m going tocrashand burn. This “Idon’twanna
anymore”copingresponse is a redflagtothe organizationand, more specif-
ically, HR staff that an employee may be reaching her or his physical cumu-
lative stress threshold. Rather than pushing productive employees further
into the end stages of the stress response, perhaps we can better manage the
organizational environment to reduce overload and resistance. In addition,
our performance management systems may need to better account for a U-
curve of productivity: As we push employees to perform at higher levels
under higher stress loads, we may see deterioration of performance—a sig-
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 27

nalthatwehavehitapointofdiminishingreturnsinourattemptstoramp-up
employee motivation and productivity.
Even before the employee reaches this psychological or physical thresh-
old, we need to look at the potential price the organization pays when
employees are in “perpetual crisis” mode. Controlled or deliberative pro-
cessing is usually activated when weencounter novel or unexpected situa-
tions (Fiske, 1998; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Under these conditions, we shift
intoanexplicitlythoughtfulor mindful mode of information processingand
evaluation. Controlled processing, however, requires cognitive resources
and motivation to use these resources (Blair & Banaji, 1996; Fiske, 1989).
Gilbertand his associates (Gilbert,1989;Gilbert& Osborne, 1989; Gilbert,
Pelham, & Krull, 1988) have demonstrated that in conditions of cognitive
overload, individuals are unable to correct their automatic inferences of
people and events. In effect, when cognitive resources are scarce, people
defaulttoautomatic.Wemightanticipatethatchronicallystressedindividu-
alswouldshowa tendency towarduse of stereotypes and oldeventscriptsin
amore knee-jerk responsetonovelenvironmentaldemands. Their ability to
respond creatively and energetically to new requirements may be severely
constrained,andthefullbenefitsofnewprogramsmaynotberealizedasold
beliefs and behaviors continue to limit employee response to novel
situations.
Theproposedmodeloffersamore productiveframeworkforunderstand-
ing, not managing away, employee stress response. If individuals are not
identified as experiencing multiple stressors or are in a chronic generalized
alarm state, it will be more difficult for HR managers to diagnose root cause
concerns or issues undermining response to change. Well-meaning staff
membersask“What’swrongwith being part of ateam?”or“Whyisthisnew
software so frustrating for you?” and the individual, in all honesty, cannot
answer the question. They are spinning their wheels because of the rapid
pace of multiple changes or approaching exhaustion due to cumulative
effects of chronic stressors. Taking a different view of stress leads to an
entirelydifferentlineof questioning, change management approach,and/or
technologyadoptionstrategy.Ratherthandiagnosingortrainingon a single
change event, we start at a generalized big picture level, then work to the
specific or root irritants and concerns. How does this specific change fit in a
larger picture of adaptation and constant change? How is this “one” change
fitting within the context of all the demands being placed on the employee?
Arethedemands following a logical temporal sequence?Arethebehavioral
goals and expectations of the changes congruent? We believe that
broadening the scope of inquiry will broaden the range of solutions to
workplace stress.
Finally, we would suggest that reframing of change as normative rather
than epiphenomenal might provide a more positive orientation toward
28 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

change. This is not to say that we take a trite approach of simply calling
change “normal” (similar to calling problems “opportunities”) but consider
the practical implications of viewing change as the rule and stability as the
exception. What would organizations be like if we abandoned, or at least
modified, our Newtonian concepts of a static, linear, mechanistic social
world and understood our organizations as living, organic, complex sys-
tems? How might employees appraise new experiences or unexpected
events if, as a whole, they were viewed as simply part of a normal day? As
March (1981) noted more than 20 years ago, most employees are actually
quite comfortable with change because “most of the time people in an orga-
nizationgo about whattheyaresupposedto do; thatis,theyare intelligently
attentive to their environments and their jobs” (p. 564). What if, instead of
training people how to manage change, HR and OD training focused on
building improvisational skills (Orlikowski, 1996; Weick, 1998), leverag-
ing employees’ innate tendency to adapt and adjust, rather than forcing
behaviors that are out of sync with the flow of organizational life? Theory
and practice that is more in line with the complex, dynamic nature of the
workplace may be better suited to explain as well as support employee
response to organizational change.
Conclusion
We are shaping the world faster than we can change ourselves, and we are
applying to the present, the habits of the past.
Winston Churchill
In today’s continually evolving workplace (and world), change should
not be thought of as a noun but a very active verb. Change is not a singular
event but requires constant adjustment at multiple levels as technology,
roles, processes, and goals continually shift across and within the job, the
work group, and the organization. We believe that many change manage-
mentprogramsandsupportmodelsmiss the mark because they are narrowly
focused temporally or in scope and do not take into account the myriad of
other minor and major changes affecting workers simultaneously. These
models implicitly assume that change is an isolated event (even though
many talk of process): The change occurs in isolation from other shifts
occurring in the workplace and is limited to flip-a-switch timeframes. In
today’s world, however, workers often do not have time to respond to one
change initiative before another arrives in their in-box or e-mail. We argue
that it is the overlapping, often asynchronous nature of multiple workplace
demandsthatputemployees“overtheedge”andlessabletocopeorrespond
effectively to the increasing demands ofthe organization.
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 29

Change in our world has become a constant. Although we agree with the
view that change is normal and integral to daily life, we also believe there
are cognitive, emotional, and ultimately, physical limits to worker adapta-
tion to organizational demands and change efforts. Assuming limitless
capacity for stress orchange is as riskyasassuming limitless capacityofthe
earth to handle toxins. At some point, the system breaks down and becomes
incapable of production or, eventually, repair. We cannot and certainly
should not stop the innovations and improvements in our workplaces. The
resistingor poor-performing employee may be sendingimportantmessages
to the organization, however, about how change is managed across the com-
pany. Rather than discounting the whiners, managing away resistance, or
punishing poor performance, we might listen to what our employees are
saying about their ability to assimilate yet one more new software program
or departmental reorganization. Managing change so that it is carefully
timed rather than frantically paced, strategically orchestrated rather than
randomly implemented, will create the environment needed for excellence
rather than exhaustion.
References
Ashforth,B.E.,&Mael, F.A.(1998).The power ofresistance:Sustainingvaluedidentities.InR.M.
Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 89-119). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bahrami, H. (1992). The emerging flexible organization: Perspectives from Silicon Valley. Califor-
nia Management Review,34(4), 33-52.
Bak, P. (1996). How nature works. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational
renewal. Strategic Management Journal,13, 15-36.
Beck, D., & Cowan, C. (1997). The Humpty Dumpty effect. Retrieved November 13, 2003, from
www.spiraldynamics.com/SDtheory/chngtran.htm
Bergson, H. (1946). The creative mind. New York: Carol Publishing Group.
Blair, I. V. & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology,70(6), 1142-1163.
Bourbonnais,R.,Brisson,C.,Moisan,J.,&Vezina, M. (1996). Job strain and psychologicaldistress
in white-collar workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health,22(2), 139-
145.
Braham, J. (1991). The stress of surviving.Machine Design,17, 58-63.
Chakravarthy, B. (1997). A new strategy framework for coping with turbulence. SloanManagement
Review,38(2), 69-82.
Clark, C. S. (1995). Job stress: The issues. CQ Researcher,5(29), 683-692.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’ Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique
of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dooley, K. (2002). Organizational complexity. In M. Warner (Ed.), International encyclopedia of
business and management (pp. 5013-5022). London: Thompson Learning.
Dooley, K. J.,&VandeVen, A. H. (1999). Explaining complexorganizationaldynamics.Organiza-
tion Science,10(3), 358-372.
30 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Strycker, L. A., Li, F., & Alpert, A. (1999). An introduction to latent
variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Eden, D. (1990). Acute and chronic job stress, strain, and vacation relief. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes,45, 175-193.
Edwards,J.R.,&Rothbard,N. P.(1999).Work and family stress andwell-being:Anexaminationof
person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,77(2), 85-129.
Elenkov, I. J., Webster, E. L., Torpy, D. J., & Chrousos, G. P. (1999). Stress, corticotropin-releasing
hormone, glucocorticoids, and the immune/inflammatory response: Acute and chronic effects.
Annals of New York Academy of Science,876, 1-13.
Fisher, L. R. (1995). Traveling white water: Four stages of change. Presstime,17(10), 52-53.
Fiske, S. T. (1989). Examiningthe role of intent: Toward understanding its role in stereotyping and
prejudice. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 253-283). New York:
Guilford.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey(Eds.),Handbook ofsocialpsychology(4thed., pp. 446-496).NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science and
Medicine,45, 1207-1221.
Funk,S.C.(1992). Hardiness:Areviewoftheory andresearch.HealthPsychology,11(5),335-345.
Gilbert, D. T. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference
process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 189-211). New York:
Guilford.
Gilbert, D. T., & Osbourne, R. E. (1989).Thinking backward: Some curable and incurableconse-
quences of cognitive busyness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 940-949.
Gilbert,D.T.,Pelham,B.W., & Krull, D. S. (1988).Oncognitivebusyness: When person perceivers
meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 733-740.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegivingin strategic changeinitiation.
Strategic Management Journal,12, 433-448.
Goffee,R.,&Scase,R. (1992). Organizationalchangeandthecorporatecareer: The restructuring of
manager’s job aspirations. Human Relations,45(4), 363-385.
Hatfield,M.O. (1990).Stressandthe American worker.American Psychologist,45(10),1162-1164.
Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (2003). Longitudinal organizational research and the thirdscientific disci-
pline. Group and Organization Management,28(3), 315-340.
Johanssen, G. (1989). Job demands and stress reactions in repetitive and uneventful monotony at
work. International Journal of Health Services,19(2), 366-377.
Johnston-Brooks,C.H.,Lewis,M.A.,Evans,G. W.,&Whalen,C.K.(1998). Chronic stress andill-
ness in children: The role of allostatic load. Psychosomatic Medicine,60, 597-603.
Judd,C.M.,&McClelland,G. H. (1989). Data analysis:Amodelcomparisonapproach.NewYork:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979a). Personality and resistance to illness. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology,7, 413-423.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979b). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology,37, 1-11.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
LeCraw, J. (1992). Organizational change and employee stress. Canadian Manager,17(4), 27-28.
Levy, S. (1996, August 12). Work is hell: Why Dilbert is no joke.Newsweek,128, 52-57.
March, J. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly,26, 563-
577.
Marshall,N.L.,Barnett,R.C.,&Sayer,A.(1997).Thechangingworkforce,jobstress,andpsycho-
logical distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,2(2), 99-107.
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 31

Martin, R. (1993, November-December).Changing the mind of the corporation.Harvard Business
Review,71, 81-94.
McEwen, B. S. (1998a). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. Seminars in Medicine
of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,338(3), 171-179.
McEwen, B. S. (1998b). Stress, adaptation, and disease. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences,
840, 33-44.
McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to disease.
Archives of Internal Medicine,153, 2093-2101.
Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., Luz, J., & Green, M. S. (1995). Objective and subjective work monotony:
Effectsonjobsatisfaction,psychological distress, andabsenteeisminblue-collarworkers.Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology,80, 29-42.
Morris, J. R., Cascio, W. F., & Young, C. E. (1999). Downsizing after all these years: Questions and
answersaboutwhodidit, howmanydidit,and who benefitedfromit.Organizational Dynamics,
27(3), 78-87.
Norris,F.H.,&Uhl,G. A. (1993).Chronicstressasamediator of acute stress:ThecaseofHurricane
Hugo. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,23(16), 1263-1284.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change
perspective. Information Systems Research,7, 63-92.
Perlow, L. A. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech
corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly,43(2), 328-357.
Seeman, T. E.,Singer, B. H., Rowe, J. W., Horwitz, R. I., & McEwen B. S. (1997). Price of adapta-
tion:Allostaticloadand itshealthconsequences.ArchivesofInternalMedicine,157, 2259-2268.
Seiling, J. G. (2002). An interview with Peter Vaill. Organization Development Journal,20(3),100-
107.
Seyle, H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and dissonances of adaptation. Journal of Clini-
cal Endocrinology,6, 118-135.
Seyle, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steptoe,A.,Cropley,M.,&Joekes,K.(1999).Jobstrain, blood pressure, and response to uncontrol-
lable stress. Journal of Hypertension,17, 193-200.
Sterling, P., & Eyer, J. (1988). Allostasis: A new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In S. Fisher
&J.Reason(Eds.),Handbook oflifestress,cognition,andhealth(pp. 629-649).NewYork: John
Wiley.
Stewart,T. A. (1993,December13). Welcometothe revolution.Fortune Magazine,128(15),66-77.
Sviokla,J.J.(1996).Knowledgeworkersandradicallynewtechnology.SloanManagementReview,
37(4), 25-40.
Swanson,V., Power,K.G.,&Simpson, R. J. (1998).Occupationalstressandfamily life: A compari-
sonofmaleandfemaledoctors. Journal ofOccupationalandOrganizationalPsychology,71(3),
237-260.
Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenwald, T. L. (2000). Psychological
resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist,55, 99-109.
Taylor, S. E., Repetti, F. L., & Seeman, T. E. (1997). Health psychology: What is an unhealthy envi-
ronment and how does it get under the skin?Annual Review of Psychology,48, 411-447.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change.
Organization Science,13(5), 567-582.
Vaill,P.B.(1996).Learningasaway of being: Strategies forsurvivalinaworldofpermanentwhite
water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as good theory. Academy of Management
Review,14(4), 486-489.
Want, J. H. (1993, May). Managing radical change.Journal of Business Strategy,14(3), 20-28.
Weick,K. (1998). Improvisationasamindsetfor organizationalanalysis.OrganizationalScience,9,
543-555.
32 Sikora et al. / AMOC MODEL OF WORKPLACE STRESS

Wilheim, W. (1996). Changing corporate culture or corporate behavior? How to change your com-
pany. Academy of Management Executive,6(4), 72-76.
Zautra, A. J., Burleson, M. H., Smith, C. A., Blalock, S. J., Wallston, K. A., DeVellis, R. F., et al.
(1995).Arthritisand perceptionsofqualityof life: Anexaminationof positiveandnegativeaffect
in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health Psychology,14, 399-408.
Zimmerman, J. H. (1995). Principles for managing change.HR Focus,72(2), 15-16.
Zohar, A., & Morgan, G. (1996). Refining our understanding of hypercompetition and
hyperturbulence. Organization Science,7(4), 460-464.
Patricia B. Sikora holds a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Col-
orado where she was awarded the Albert Heyer Award for excellence in applied
and organizational research. In addition to her role as Partner in dajopa, LLC, a
consulting firm specializing in the organizational change, she is principal of
Sikora Associates, LLC, an organizational and marketing research firm. With a
combined20 yearsof experience in and as a consultant toorganizations,she has
offered services such as customer satisfaction measurement, product develop-
mentconsulting,andemployee attitude assessment to a range of client organiza-
tions such as GTE, the American Heart Association, Cellular One, PacifiCorp,
Walker:CSM, NextLink, EDS Management Consulting, State of Colorado, and
NationalPetCare.Currentareasof interestinclude the effects of downsizing and
reengineering on employee physical and emotional well-being, organizational
trust and cynicism, and identity transition in women managers.
E. David Beaty holds a Ph.D. in social personality psychology from the Univer-
sityof Colorado.His 35-year careerincludespositionsas (a) assistant professor
at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater; and adjunct faculty member at the
University of Colorado-Boulder, and The Colorado Graduate School of Bank-
ing;(b) director of Market Research and Business Analysis for Citicorp Retail
Service and prior to that as director of Market Research and Information Ser-
vices for the United Banks of Colorado; (c) along with his partner position in
dajopa, LLC, a consulting firm specializing in the organizational change, he is
alsopresidentofBeaty&Associates, Inc. (BAI)providinginformation,analysis,
anddirectiontoadiverse client base. BAI’sareasofmajorconcentrationinclude
health care/medical, hi-tech/biomedical, and automotive for national and inter-
national corporations, including Bayer Corporation, the American Heart Asso-
ciation, Microsoft Corporation, Symantec Corporation, Audi of America, and
Ford Motor Company.
JohnForward receivedhisB.A.B.D.fromtheUniversityofMelbourne,Australia
andPh.D.in psychologyandsociologyfromtheUniversityofMichigan.Inaddi-
tion to his role as partner in dajopa, LLC, a consulting firm specializing in the
organizational change,he is associate professor of psychology at the University
of Colorado-Boulder. His past research includes individual and group achieve-
ment motivation, the Detroit Riot Study, intrinsic and extrinsic factors in educa-
tion, and psychosocial factors in cancer survival. His current interests include
exploration of role-playing and simulation as alternatives to experimental
research in social psychology and structural and small group change in public
and private sectors.
Human Resources Development Review / Month 2004 33