The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

CCIJ
24,4 The importance of
communicating change
Identifying predictors for support and
670 resistance toward organizational
Received 4 April 2019
change processes
Revised 31 July 2019
Accepted 31 July 2019 Charlotte Schulz-Knappe, Thomas Koch and Johannes Beckert
Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – Past research has been concerned with finding reasons for failure of organizational changes and
the role of employees in it. Whether employees hinder or support organizational change depends not only on
the organizational context, but also on individual predispositions and the change communication employees
experience during the process. The purpose of this paper is to test how these three categories affect
employees’ attitudes toward the change as well as their tendency to show resistance or to support it.
Design/methodology/approach – An online survey (n ¼ 608) of German employees who were recently
subject to a change in their workplace was conducted.
Findings – With respect to individual predispositions and organizational context, the results show that in
particular skepticism, openness, engagement and influence on decisions are relevant predictors. Change
communication variables (e.g. involvement, participation and appreciation) explain the largest share of
variance, indicating that transparent communication and including employees in the process result in positive
attitudes toward change and support.
Originality/value – This study adds to the discussion about which factors determine the support or
resistance to organizational change by identifying relevant predictors, organizing them along three categories
and testing them concurrently.
Keywords Employee behaviour, Internal communications, Communication management,
Organizational change, Employee attitudes
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In a digitalized and globalized world, organizations are continuously confronted with the need
to adapt to shifting external conditions. Organizational changes, such as downsizings,
restructurings, mergers and acquisitions, have become an everyday occurrence and represent
serious challenges for organizations (Kitchen and Daly, 2002). Managing change processes
successfully is vital for organizations’ survival. Crucial factors for successful change have
shown to be positive attitudes and support among employees (Erwin and Garman, 2009;
Oreg et al., 2011). Reasons for failure, on the other hand, are manifold. Communicating
insufficient and incomplete information, for example, can lead to resistance among employees,
which inhibits the implementation of the change and increases its costs (Christensen, 2014).
Thus, research has been concerned with identifying the reasons for why employees
support organizational changes in some cases but try to impede them in others (Burnes,
2011). Previous studies on employee reactions to change identified three types of
perspectives that are relevant (Erwin and Garman, 2009; Oreg, 2006): The first line
of research identifies various personality traits of employees as determinants of resistance
or support to change. For example, individuals who fear the unknown and tend to be more
Corporate Communications: An
International Journal skeptical were found to be more likely to show resistance (Dubrin and Ireland, 1993). In turn,
Vol. 24 No. 4, 2019
pp. 670-685
individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy are more likely to support change (Eby et al.,
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1356-3289
2000; Judge et al., 1999). The second perspective focuses on the relationship between the
DOI 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2019-0039 employee and the organization. Here, scholars have focused on the role of trust in
management or the organizational climate (Schneider et al., 1996; Van den Heuvel et al., The
2015). The third perspective concerns the internal communication of change processes. importance of
Barrett (2002) refers to internal communication as the “glue” that holds the organization communicating
together in times of change. Change communication is an important determinant of how
employees perceive the change and thus can contribute to reducing resistance and change
generating support (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Christensen, 2014; Elving, 2005). If,
however, organizations fail to implement the change communication properly, it can become 671
a source for resistance itself (Ford et al., 2008; McClellan, 2011). A well-planned and executed
change communication strategy is, therefore, essential for successful change (Allen et al.,
2007; Elving, 2005; Lewis, 2011).
Since previous research examined the impact of these three perspectives separately, to
date no findings on joint effects on cognitive (i.e. employees’ attitudes toward change) or
behavioral (i.e. the likelihood to support or reject change) responses to change exist. In our
study, we thus seek to uncover how these three dimensions – individual predispositions,
organizational context and the organization’s change communication – affect employees’
attitudes toward the change as well as their willingness to show resistance to the change or
to support it. First, a literature review identifies relevant variables that affect reactions to
change, which are then categorized to the three dimensions. Second, we conduct a survey
with 608 employees of German organizations, who recently faced an organizational change
process, to test empirically which factors promote or hinder successful change.

Literature review
Attitudes, resistance and support toward organizational change processes
Organizational change describes the adaptation of organizational strategies and structures,
mainly to shifts in external conditions (Weick and Quinn, 1999). The external forces driving
change can be of political, economic, social-cultural and/or technological nature (Senior, 2002).
In addition to these external forces, change processes can also be initiated by internal forces,
such as a change in leadership, implementation of new equipment or dissatisfaction of
employees with the current situation (Senior, 2002). Most organizational changes are
implemented “top down,” meaning that the general management imposes the change on the
organization. In cases where the employees are the key drivers of change, the process can also
be implemented “bottom up” (Lupton, 1991). Further, the pervasiveness of changes can vary
largely; technological changes may simply involve the introduction of new technological
equipment. Mergers or acquisitions, in turn, can be more far-reaching as they may result in
relocation or lay-offs and clashing organizational values (Buono and Bowditch, 1989).
Strategic changes, however, can include new work routines or a change of the organizational
mission, with which some organizational members may not agree with. Thus, changes can
differ based on the personal impact they have on the individual and are often accompanied by
uncertainty (Allen et al., 2007; Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois and Callan, 2004).
Therefore, change management represents a challenge to the organization. Failing to
achieve the desired results of a change can have multiple reasons. This concerns, for
example, its wrong implementation, such as lack of congruence to existing organizational
structures, lack of resources, disagreement at the management level or ambiguous goals of
the change. Apart from that there are also cases in which the change is simply unnecessary
(Armenakis and Harris, 2009; Kotter, 1995). While the introduction of new structures to an
organization can happen fast, management often ignores that employees require some time
to accept and adapt (Oreg et al., 2011). Rushed implementation and lack of relevant
information about the change can cause unnecessary strain to employees, who then may
disapprove of the change and show resistance.
According to Diamond (1986), resistance to any kind of change is deeply rooted in human
behavior. Many studies on organizational change adopt this view that employees generally
CCIJ oppose change and, therefore, take actions to avoid it (Kotter, 1995). Change implies an
24,4 intrusion to an established balance, forcing individuals to leave their familiar status quo
(Strebel, 2009). Thus, change is often accompanied by uncertainty and met with resistance,
which involves behaviors that obstruct or terminate the process (Lines, 2004). Dent and
Goldberg (1999), however, criticize that resistance to change is commonly assumed without
considering the context. Indeed, employees are welcoming change processes, when they
672 perceive the motives as beneficial: An organizational change can represent opportunities to
grow and signal employees that their organization is staying up to date (Lewis, 2011).
Jimmieson et al. (2008) found that individuals actively supported the change process, when
they had positive attitudes toward its objectives. In addition, other scholars have argued
that employees’ resistance to change can also have positive intentions: For example, when
employees see flaws in the change strategy or suspect negative implications for the
organization, resistance can be useful and lead to better outcomes (Mabin et al., 2001; Piderit,
2000). In a similar vein, change agents themselves can evoke resistance through their own
behavior. Ford et al. (2008) in this context speak of a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that occurs,
when change agents anticipate resistance, hence act inappropriately and thus receive
resistance in return.
For a successful implementation of the change it is, therefore, crucial to generate a
positive perception of the change to garner support and reduce resistance. Besides
considering how change itself affects employees’ attitudes and reactions to it, ample
research suggests that additional factors external to the change are relevant in this regard.
As mentioned, these factors can be categorized into individuals’ predispositions, the
employee–organization relationship and the way the change was communicated. We
discuss these aspects more detailed in the following sections.

The role of individual predispositions in change processes

One area of the research in the field of organizational change assumes that differences in
employees personal characteristics contribute to whether they support organizational
change or show resistance (e.g. Erwin and Garman, 2009; Mumford et al., 1993). According
to the dispositional resistance to change concept by Oreg (2003), some individuals tend to
resist change due to certain predispositions, even though their opinions may align with the
change motives. For instance, individuals with more skeptical characters feel the need to be
in control of situations to obtain a feeling of safety. In times of organizational change, they
perceive a loss of control making them more likely to generate negative attitudes toward
change processes and show resistance (Stanley et al., 2005). Related to this is individuals’
inherent need for structure regarding their environment, and a strong inclination to follow
routines (Meiser and Machunsky, 2008; Oreg, 2006). Organizational change would disrupt
this need and may cause negative reactions. Similar effects can occur for individuals who
fear the unknown or future events (Dubrin and Ireland, 1993).
On the contrary, individual predispositions that lead individuals to be generally positive
and supportive about change processes exist, too. These predispositions can be described as
openness toward change. When confronted with change, employees have to adapt to new
situations. Here, an individuals’ general willingness to learn is an important factor for
adapting to the change (Szebel, 2015). In line with this is their degree of internal agility,
which is defined as the ability to deal with change in specific situations and to respond
appropriately to related challenges. Accordingly, Cunningham et al. (2002) found that
workers with high job-related problem-solving skills expressed a higher readiness to
change. In a similar vein, self-efficacy, as the individuals’ perception of being able to achieve
own goals, was also found to affect individuals’ reactions toward change (Bandura, 1982;
Judge et al., 1999). Further, Wanberg and Banas (2000) found that personal resilience acts as
predictor for an employees’ ability to accept change, even though it was not related to more
positive attitudes about the change. This indicates that employees with higher personal The
resilience may be able to deal better with change regardless whether they agree with it or importance of
judge it as beneficial. communicating
In sum, previous research provides evidence that various personal characteristics affect
employees’ attitudes and reactions to organizational change. Our study aims at testing these change
different personal predispositions simultaneously and to analyze their effects on attitudes
toward, resistance against and support of change processes. Hence, our first research question is: 673
RQ1. How do employees’ personal characteristics affect employees’ attitudes toward the
change as well as their likelihood to show resistance to or support the change?
Nevertheless, change always affects individuals in their function as employees or
members of an organization. Reactions toward change, consequently, are not shaped by
personality-related factors alone, but also by previous experiences in the organizational
context, such as the employee–organization relationship.

The role of the organizational context in change processes

The psychological contract approach (Rousseau, 1989) considers the relationship between
the organization and its employees as a set of mutual expectations for behavior and actions.
Most are implicit and consist of norms like respect and appreciation. Research shows that
when employees felt the organization fulfilling the psychological contract during the
change, their cognitive and behavioral response was positive (Van den Heuvel et al., 2015).
Failure by the organization to fulfill these expectations during the change process, however,
can result in resistance and re-negotiation of the contract by employees (Oreg, 2003). When
adopting the view that organizations represent complex social systems (Christensen, 2014;
Weick and Quinn, 1999), employees’ attitudes toward change emerge from the interplay
between the individual and the organization (Burnes, 2015; Choi, 2011). In this context,
one overarching concept is the overall organizational climate. When the climate in the
organization is perceived as good, employees will likely feel more comfortable and
committed to their organization (Guzley, 1992; Schneider et al., 1996), making it a necessary
condition for a successful change process.
Another important variable is the trust in management and the change agents
implementing the change (Oreg et al., 2011). Several studies found that both the level of trust
in management and its competence significantly correlate with the response to change
processes (Cunningham et al., 2002; Stanley et al., 2005; Van den Heuvel et al., 2015).
In addition, perceived participation in the organization showed to increase readiness for
change (Eby et al., 2000). Organizational commitment describes how much employees
identify with their employer and how willing they are to engage with the organization.
Several studies have shown that employees with higher job satisfaction (Iverson, 1996) and
higher commitment have greater willingness to participate in change processes (Madsen
et al., 2005). However, van Dam (2005) showed that individuals who had a higher
commitment before the change showed greater resistance. This implies that individuals who
have high levels of identification and satisfaction with the present state of their organization
may be less willing to accept changes. Therefore, Oreg et al. (2011) conclude that both
positive and negative effects of these factors on employees’ attitudes and reactions toward
change are plausible. This leads us to our second research question:
RQ2. How do organizational context factors affect employees’ attitudes toward the
change as well as their likelihood to show resistance to or support the change?
In addition to the previously discussed factors, the implementation of the change creates
further challenges that the organization must manage. In this context, the organizational
change communication comes into play.
CCIJ The role of organizational communication in change processes
24,4 The third dimension of this study comprises of organizational communication
variables during the change process. Change communication aims to promote a change
and drive it forward within complex hierarchies of organizations (McClellan, 2011).
Communication further has the function of explaining the change to all actors
involved. Research emphasizes that a successful change communication strategy
674 needs to address the informational and emotional needs of employees adequately (Allen
et al., 2007; Christensen, 2014; Elving, 2005). Begley and Czajka (1993) as well as Schweiger
and DeNisi (1991) showed that employees who cannot assess the consequences of
change tend to oppose it. In contrast, Lewis et al. (2006) found that the higher employees
perceived the quality of information about the change, the lower their resistance.
Further research illustrates the mediating role of change communication, as a lack of
information about the change favors rumors, reinforces negative feelings and contributes
to the formation of resistance (Elving, 2005; Christensen, 2014). Information
about motives, measures and goals create acceptance for the change. Another
important factor to gain acceptance turned out to be a truthful and complete
presentation of change-related information (Allen et al., 2007; Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen,
Tourish and DiFonzo, 2004). Communication that is perceived as honest avoids negative
feelings such as stress, which decreases enthusiasm and commitment (Armenakis and
Bedeian, 1999). At the same time, a study by Oreg (2006) indicates that a larger amount of
information may give rise to negative ratings. These contradictory results suggest that, in
addition to the amount of information, its clarity is essential to promote positive reactions
to change processes.
Russ (2008) distinguishes between a programmatic and a participatory approach to
change communication. The programmatic approach describes a highly centralized
top–down communication from the management of an organization and is, therefore,
characterized by a high degree of organizational control. Here, the organization can
select information for specific target groups and frame it for the purpose of the change
(Russ, 2008). This approach, however, disregards the views of employees and, therefore,
runs the risk of becoming the cause of resistance. Participation and involvement give
employees the feeling of being able to act independently, to exercise control and to
make an active contribution (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999). The participatory approach
accordingly focuses on dialogical communication and the involvement of employees.
The ability to co-create and feel empowered generates greater acceptance of change (Oreg
et al., 2011; Russ, 2008). While these findings demonstrate that consultation with
employees about the change is important, Lewis (2011) calls for a distinction between
implementing symbolic participation and its actual use as a resource. In this context,
Lewis and Russ (2012) found that participation is underused in change processes as
change agents only accepted restricted input by employees about the change or
disregarded negative feedback.
In summary, change communication fulfills two essential tasks: First, it serves
to pass on information and second, it integrates all relevant members of the organization
in the process (Elving, 2005; Oreg et al., 2011). Good change communication is
characterized by providing complete and honest information at an early stage that
addresses the concerns of employees and allows for participation (Allen et al., 2007;
Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish and DiFonzo, 2004; Elving, 2005; Rogiest et al., 2015;
Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). Based on this theoretical background, the third research
question is:
RQ3. How do different factors of change communication affect employees’ attitudes
toward the change as well as their likelihood to show resistance to or support
the change?
Method The
Sample and procedure importance of
In order to find answers to our research questions, we conducted an online survey. communicating
Participants were recruited via a German online access panel for social science research
(SoSci-Panel; Leiner, 2014). Only subjects who were employed in an organization at the time change
of recruitment and have recently experienced an organizational change were allowed to
participate. Subjects who did not fit these criteria were excluded through filter questions at 675
the beginning of the questionnaire. A total of 608 employees (54 percent female,
Mage ¼ 44.34 years, SD ¼ 11.40) from a wide range of industries and occupations completed
the survey. Among the change processes participants reported, 30.3 percent concerned
internal restructuring, 24.8 percent referred to a change in organizational culture,
24.3 percent concerned technological reforms, 10.5 percent strategic realignment, 5.6 percent
change of location and 4.4 percent a merger or acquisition. Analysis showed that the
results did not differ based on the type of change and the variable was, therefore, left out in
further analyses.

Dependent variables
Attitude toward the change process. (M ¼ 3.48, SD ¼ 1.33) measures how the respondents feel
about the change in general. We assessed change attitude using a single-item measure
“What is your general attitude toward the change?” on a five-point Likert-scale (1 ¼ “very
negative” to 5 ¼ “very positive”).
Resistance to change. (M ¼ 1.24, SD ¼ 0.63) regard the employees’ intention to obstruct
the change process and was measured by the item “I try to delay or hinder the change at my
organization through my work” on a five-point Likert-scale (1 ¼ “never” to 5 ¼ “always”).
Support of change. (M ¼ 4.05, SD ¼ 1.03) concerns the degree of support of the employee
toward the change and is measured by the item “I support the change at my organization
the best I can” on a five-point Likert-scale (1 ¼ “never” to 5 ¼ “always”).

Independent variables
Individual predispositions. The survey assessed a set of eight personal characteristics
consisting of the respondents’ need for structure, skepticism, willingness to learn, resilience,
fear of the future, openness to change, internal agility and self-efficacy. We measured these
characteristics using single-items on a five-point Likert-scale (1 ¼ “completely disagree” to
5 ¼ “completely agree”). Need for structure (M ¼ 3.66, SD ¼ 0.97) was assessed by the item
“Before I start complex activities, I make an overview over the concerning tasks.” Skepticism
(M ¼ 2.40, SD ¼ 1.03) was measured by the item “When I am confronted by new facts, I am
mostly skeptical.” Fear of the future (M ¼ 2.54, SD ¼ 1.22) was measured by “I often worry
about my future.” Willingness to learn (M ¼ 4.17, SD ¼ 0.88) was measured by “I get excited
to learn new ways of thinking.” Resilience (M ¼ 3.73, SD ¼ 0.97) was measured by the item “I
remain calm in situations in which others usually panic.” Openness to change (M ¼ 3.47,
SD ¼ 0.92) was measured by the item “I am usually optimistic when something changes.”
Internal agility (M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 0.88) was measured by “I am able to deal with difficult and
unpredictable events.” Self-efficacy (M ¼ 3.43, SD ¼ 0.83) was measured by the item “When I
discover resistance, I find ways to push through.”
Organizational context. This concerns the employee–organization relationship, which
consists of five constructs, each measured on a five-point semantic differential scale. Job
satisfaction (M ¼ 3.74, SD ¼ 1.06) was assessed by the item “Regarding my work, I am […]”
(1 ¼ “very unsatisfied” to 5 ¼ “very satisfied”). Influence in decisions (M ¼ 2.94, SD ¼ 1.15)
was measured by the item “Regarding important decisions, I am […]” (1 ¼ “never involved”
to 5 ¼ “always involved”). Organizational climate (M ¼ 3.57, SD ¼ 1.06) was measured by
CCIJ the item “The climate at my organization is […]” (1 ¼ “very bad” to 5 ¼ “very good”).
24,4 Organizational engagement (M ¼ 3.91, SD ¼ 0.99) was measured by “For my organization
I engage […]” (1 ¼ “very reluctantly” to 5 ¼ “very willingly”). Trust in management
(M ¼ 3.07, SD ¼ 1.17) was measured by the item “Considering the change, my trust toward
my employer has […]” (1 ¼ “strongly decreased” to 5 ¼ “strongly improved”).
Change communication. The change communication variables cover how participants
676 perceived their organizations’ general communication and more specifically its way of
communicating during the change, such as the transparency of information and
involvement of employees in the process.
Evaluation of change communication. (M ¼ 3.01, SD ¼ 1.44) was measured on a five-point
Likert-scale (1 ¼ “very bad” to 5 ¼ “very good”) by the item “How do you evaluate the
communication of your organization with its employees in the context of the change?.” The
remaining six items were measured on a five-point Likert-scale (1 ¼ “completely disagree” to
5 ¼ “completely agree”). Honesty of change communication (M ¼ 3.16, SD ¼ 1.32) measures
to what extent the organization is perceived as honest and sincere regarding its change
communication and is measured by the item “The change is presented in an honest way.”
Transparency of the change communication (M ¼ 3.22, SD ¼ 1.28) is assessed by the item
“I have a good overview, which measures the change includes.” Appreciation (M ¼ 2.93,
SD ¼ 1.30) concerns the employees’ feelings of being valued by its organization during the
change and was measured by the item “I feel valued in the context of the change process.”
Involvement in the change (M ¼ 3.00, SD ¼ 1.32) concerns how employees feel involved in the
change by the organization and was measured by the item “I am well involved in the
change.” Last, lack of support (M ¼ 2.77, SD ¼ 1.48) measures whether the employee feels
helpless and left alone by its organization in the context of the change and was assessed by
the item “I feel powerless regarding the change at my workplace.”
Control variables. Age, gender and education were included in the first block.
Additionally, we asked participants whether they held a supervising position as well as for
their duration of employment and the size of the organization they are employed at.

Results
To answer our research questions, we conducted three linear regression analyses with either
attitude toward change, resistance to change and support of change as dependent variables.
Four blocks of independent variables were created for the regression analysis (control
variables, personal predispositions, organizational context and change communication). To
check the suitability of the data for regression, we checked the zero-order correlations (see
Table I) and inspected the VIF values for multicollinearity (all o3.00). The results of the
three regression analyses are presented in Table II.

Explaining attitudes toward change

Regarding employees’ attitude toward change, the overall model explains 45 percent of the
variance of this variable. With 20 percent, the largest share derives from the block including
the change communication variables, more specifically transparency of change
communication (β ¼ −0.11, po 0.01), appreciation (β ¼ 0.16, p o0.01), involvement in the
change (β ¼ 0.17, p o0.001) and lack of support in the change process (β ¼ −0.30, p o0.001).
Thus, feeling appreciated and being involved in the change process leads to more positive
attitudes of the change, while lack of support and transparency of communication leads to
more negative attitudes. Further, the general evaluation of change communication and
honesty of the change communication exerted small and marginally significant positive
effects. The block of variables referring to the organizational context accounted for
14 percent of the explained variance in attitude toward the change, with influence in
Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Gender 1
2. Age 44.34 (11.40) −0.16** 1
3. Education −0.09* 0.05 1
4. Management position −0.27** 0.11** −0.05 1
5. Size of organization 0.08 −0.21** −0.05 0.09* 1
6. Duration of employ 0.44** −0.16** −0.10* −0.23** 0.16** 1
7. Need for structure 3.66 (0.97) 0.01 0.04 0.08* −0.12** −0.09* −0.01 1
8. Skepticism 2.40 (1.03) −0.11** 0.07 −0.01 0.10* 0.00 −0.02 −0.09* 1
9. Fear of the future 2.54 (1.22) −0.15** 0.05 −0.07 0.16** −0.08 −0.12** 0.00 0.30** 1
10. Willingness to learn 4.17 (0.88) 0.06 0.10* −0.08* 0.08* 0.04 0.01 −0.11** 0.19** 0.12** 1
11. Resilience 3.73 (0.97) 0.08 −0.13** 0.01 −0.14* −0.01 0.06 0.10* −0.25** −0.16** −0.17** 1
12. Openness for change 3.47 (0.92) −0.05 0.00 −0.02 −0.07 −0.02 −0.05 0.08* −0.38** −0.16** −0.10* 0.25** 1
13. Internal agility 3.84 (0.88) 0.07 −0.02 0.07 −0.19** 0.06 0.04 0.18** −0.29** −0.31** −0.12** 0.35** 0.28** 1
14. Self-efficacy 3.43 (0.83) 0.06 −0.14** 0.07 −0.11** 0.03 −0.01 0.17** −0.27** −0.23** −0.10* 0.23** 0.24** 0.34** 1
15. Job satisfaction 3.74 (1.06) 0.12** −0.03 −0.03 −0.17** 0.05 0.15** 0.07 −0.12** −0.28** −0.06 0.10* 0.11** 0.24** 0.16**
16. Influence in decisions 2.94 (1.15) 0.15** −0.10* 0.03 −0.44** −0.04 0.17** 0.13** −0.14** −0.22** −0.12** 0.14** 0.17** 0.23** 0.20**
17. Org. climate 3.57 (1.06) −0.03 −0.02 0.01 −0.11** −0.05 0.01 0.02 −0.02 −0.21** −0.06 0.05 0.06 0.13** 0.07
18. Org. engagement 3.91 (0.99) 0.11** −0.04 −0.04 −0.20** −0.03 0.13** 0.05 −0.11** −0.14** −0.07 0.10* 0.22** 0.21** 0.12**
19. Trust in management 3.07 (1.17) 0.05 0.01 0.01 −0.21** −0.13** 0.06 0.03 −0.11** −0.19** −0.11** 0.08* 0.15** 0.15** 0.12**
20. Eval. of change comm. 3.01 (1.44) 0.05 −0.08 −0.06 −0.10* 0.00 0.03 −0.01 −0.12** −0.18** −0.08* 0.03 0.14** 0.12** 0.08*
21. Honesty of change comm. 3.16 (1.32) −0.04 −0.05 −0.06 −0.10* −0.10* −0.05 0.03 −0.07 −0.16** −0.07 0.03 0.13** 0.05 0.08*
22. Transp. of change comm. 3.22 (1.22) 0.04 −0.04 −0.06 −0.20** −0.07 0.04 0.12** −0.12** −0.18** −0.12** 0.12** 0.17** 0.18** 0.15**
23. Appreciation 2.93 (1.30) 0.03 −0.04 −0.01 −0.19** −0.11** −0.01 0.01 −0.14** −0.18** −0.08 0.04 0.20** 0.12** 0.13**
24. Involvement 3.00 (1.32) 0.01 0.01 −0.07 −0.23** −0.12** −0.02 0.07 −0.11** −0.16** −0.09* 0.06 0.19** 0.14** 0.15**
25. Lack of support 2.77 (1.48) −0.01 0.05 0.00 0.15** 0.09* −0.02 −0.03 0.17** 0.24** 0.12** −0.12** −0.20** −0.18** −0.15**
26. Attitude 3.48 (1.33) −0.02 0.01 0.01 −0.11** −0.12** −0.06 −0.03 −0.18** −0.14** −0.06 0.08 0.32** 0.11** 0.11**
27. Resistance 1.24 (0.63) −0.01 −0.02 0.06 −0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.17** 0.11** 0.03 −0.02 −0.16** −0.08 −0.03
28. Support 4.05 (1.03) 0.01 0.03 0.05 −0.13** −0.10* −0.03 0.07 −0.19** −0.11** −0.05 0.10* 0.33** 0.18** 0.10*

(continued )
677

Table I.

correlation matrix
deviation and Pearson
Means, standard
change
communicating
importance of
The
 24,4
CCIJ

678

Table I.
Variable 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Education
4. Management position
5. Size of organization
6. Duration of employ
7. Need for structure
8. Skepticism
9. Fear of the future
10. Willingness to learn
11. Resilience
12. Openness for change
13. Internal agility
14. Self-efficacy
15. Job satisfaction 1
16. Influence in decisions 0.49** 1
17. Org. climate 0.53** 0.44** 1
18. Org. engagement 0.55** 0.50** 0.54** 1
19. Trust in management 0.51** 0.56** 0.58** 0.57** 1
20. Eval. of change comm. 0.40** 0.45** 0.49** 0.43** 0.62** 1
21. Honesty of change comm. 0.37** 0.43** 0.46** 0.39** 0.58** 0.68** 1
22. Transp. of change comm. 0.33** 0.41** 0.31** 0.35** 0.44** 0.55** 0.56** 1
23. Appreciation 0.45** 0.57** 0.47** 0.47** 0.59** 0.65** 0.64** 0.54** 1
24. Involvement 0.38** 0.54** 0.36** 0.40** 0.53** 0.58** 0.60** 0.58** 0.70** 1
25. Lack of support −0.34** −0.46** −0.33** −0.34** −0.47** −0.52** −0.47** −0.44** −0.56** −0.57** 1
26. Attitude 0.27** 0.34** 0.28** 0.34** 0.44** 0.48** 0.47** 0.35** 0.55** 0.54** −0.56** 1
27. Resistance −0.13** −0.09* −0.21** −0.24** −0.20** −0.21** −0.23** −0.21** −0.24** −0.19** 0.25** −0.32** 1
28. Support 0.30** 0.38** 0.31** 0.48** 0.40** 0.36** 0.39** 0.37** 0.49** 0.48** −0.37** 0.52** 0.40** 1
Notes: *p o0.05; **po 0.01
 Attitude toward change Resistance to change Support of change
The
B (SE) β B (SE) β B (SE) β importance of
communicating
Control variables
Gender 0.04 (0.10) −0.01 −0.04 (0.05) −0.03 0.06 (0.07) 0.03 change
Age 0.00 (0.01) −0.01 0.00 (0.00) −0.03 0.00 (0.00) 0.03
Education 0.13 (0.12) 0.03 0.08 (0.07) 0.04 0.24 (0.10) 0.10*
Management position −0.04 (0.10) −0.02 −0.06 (0.06) −0.04 −0.07 (0.08) −0.04 679
Size of organization −0.06 (0.09) −0.03 −0.03 (0.05) −0.02 −0.03 (0.07) −0.01
Duration of employment −0.09 (0.10) −0.03 0.01 (0.06) 0.00 −0.07 (0.08) −0.03
R² 0.03** 0.01** 0.03***
Individual predispositions
Need for structure 0.01 (0.04) 0.01 −0.02 (0.03) −0.03 0.01 (0.04) 0.01
Skepticism −0.03 (0.05) −0.02 0.08 (0.03) 0.13** −0.07 (0.04) −0.07
Fear of the future 0.02 (0.04) 0.02 0.02 (0.02) 0.03 0.04 (0.03) 0.05
Willingness to learn 0.03 (0.06) 0.02 −0.01 (0.03) −0.01 −0.01 (0.05) −0.01
Openness for change 0.27 (0.05) 0.19*** −0.04 (0.03) −0.06 0.20 (0.04) 0.18***
Resilience −0.01 (0.05) −0.01 0.03 (0.03) 0.04 0.00 (0.04) 0.00
Internal agility −0.04 (0.06) −0.03 0.00 (0.04) 0.00 0.05 (0.05) 0.04
Self-efficacy −0.03 (0.06) −0.02 0.03 (0.03) −0.05 −0.07 (0.05) −0.06
R² 0.11*** 0.01*** 0.12***
Organizational context
Job satisfaction −0.01 (0.05) −0.01 0.05 (0.03) 0.08 −0.04 (0.04) −0.05
Influence in decisions −0.11 (0.05) −0.09* 0.09 (0.03) 0.16** 0.02 (0.04) 0.02
Organizational climate −0.04 (0.05) −0.03 −0.07 (0.03) −0.11* 0.00 (0.04) 0.00
Organizational engagement 0.07 (0.06) 0.05 −0.11 (0.03) −0.17** 0.29 (0.05) 0.28***
Trust in management 0.07 (0.06) 0.06 0.00 (0.03) 0.00 0.00 (0.05) 0.00
R² 0.14*** 0.06*** 0.19***
Change communication
Evaluation of change comm. 0.09 (0.05) 0.09 0.03 (0.03) 0.06 −0.06 (0.04) −0.08
Honesty of change comm. 0.09 (0.05) 0.09 −0.03 (0.03) −0.07 0.03 (0.04) 0.04
Transparency of change comm. −0.12 (0.04) −0.11** −0.04 (0.03) −0.07 −0.04 (0.03) −0.07
Appreciation 0.17 (0.05) 0.16** −0.05 (0.03) −0.09 0.11 (0.04) 0.14**
Involvement 0.17 (0.05) 0.17*** 0.01 (0.03) 0.02 0.16 (0.04) 0.20***
Lack of support −0.27 (0.04) −0.30*** 0.07 (0.02) 0.15*** −0.03 (0.04) −0.04
R² 0.20*** 0.04*** 0.07*** Table II.
Regression models
Intercept 2.22 (0.55)*** 1.42 (0.33)*** 1.36 (0.58)*
predicting attitudes,
Total R2 0.48 0.16 0.40 resistance, and
Total R2korr 0.45 0.12 0.37 support of change
Notes: *p o0.05; **p o 0.01; ***p o 0.001 processes

decisions exerting a significant small negative effect (β ¼ −0.09, p o0.05). Among the
personal characteristics, which explained about 11 percent of variance, openness for change
was the only significant factor, exerting a small and positive effect on attitudes toward the
change (β ¼ 0.19, p o0.001).

Explaining resistance to change

Regarding the dependent variable resistance to change, the overall model explains
14 percent of the variance. Again, the demographic variables did not account for any
variance. Regarding personal characteristics, only skepticism (β ¼ 0.13, po 0.01) exerted a
small significant positive effect, which means that those more skeptical toward new things
are more likely to resist change. The largest share of variance is explained by the
organizational context, which accounts for 6 percent. Involvement in decisions showed to
CCIJ slightly increase the tendency to resist change (β ¼ 0.16, p o0.01), while good organizational
24,4 climate (β ¼ −0.11, p o0.05) and higher organizational engagement (β ¼ −0.17, p o0.01)
decrease resistance. Regarding change communication, only higher levels of feeling
powerless exerted a small positive effect (β ¼ 0.15, p o0.001), which means that feeling
helpless during change processes increases active resistance.

680 Explaining support for change

Last, we analyzed how our model can predict employees’ likelihood to show support for
change. Overall, our model explains about 37 percent of variance. Here, education level
turned out to be a significant predictor for support for change (β ¼ 0.10, p o0.05) and the
demographic variables overall account for 3 percent of the variance. Regarding personal
characteristics, which accounts for 12 percent of variance, openness to change exerts a
positive effect (β ¼ 0.18, p o0.001). The largest share of variance is explained by the
organizational context, more specifically organizational engagement (β ¼ 0.28, p o0.001),
which is a moderate predictor to support change. Last, change communication explains
about 7 percent of the variance, with both involvement in the change (β ¼ 0.20 po0.001) and
appreciation (β ¼ 0.14, p o0.01) being small predictors for support for change.

Discussion and conclusion

Research on organizational change has identified a wide array of factors that explain
employees’ attitudes and account for support or resistance in change processes. In
comparison to previous research, our study aimed to provide an overall picture that allows a
more differentiated assessment of these factors. Therefore, we categorized predictors along
three dimensions and conducted three regression analyses to examine their influence on
change reactions. This allows us to gain insights into how employees’ attitudes and
behaviors toward a change process are shaped and how organizational change
communication can affect them.
The first dimension, personal characteristics, comprises of a set of eight variables about
employees’ individual attributes and predispositions, of which two turned out to be
significant predictors (RQ1). First, skepticism predicted resistance to change, while at the
same time being marginally significant on decreasing the likelihood to support change. This
is in line with Kanter and Mirvis (1989) who found that people that are more skeptical tend
to be more suspicious of organizational actions and show more resistance. Second,
individuals’ openness for change was the sole predictor for a positive attitude toward the
change and the main predictor for support of the change in this category. Mainly due to
these two variables, the category of personal characteristics explains between 5 and
12 percent of the variance in the outcome variables. All other personal predisposition
variables (e.g. self-efficacy and internal agility) did not predict the outcome variables
significantly. Overall, personal predispositions explain employees’ attitudes, resistance to or
support for change only to a limited extent.
The second dimension included variables concerning the organizational context in which
the change takes place (RQ2). This includes variables about the employee–organization
relationship and employees’ perception of the organizational climate. Here, neither job
satisfaction nor trust in management are significant predictors for employees’ response to
change. Our findings in this respect deviate from previous studies, which found that the
degree of job satisfaction and trust in management increases employees’ willingness to
support the change process (Stanley et al., 2005; Van den Heuvel et al., 2015).
Interestingly, an employees’ influence in decisions serves as a predictor for a negative
attitude toward the change and an increased likelihood to resist the change. This is
contrary to previous studies, stating that those who are able to contribute and exercise
control show readiness for change and less resistance to it (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999;
Eby et al., 2000). An explanation might be that those who have more influence in decisions The
occupy a higher standing in the organization and are thus more likely to speak up about importance of
problematic issues concerning the change process. However, those who showed more communicating
organizational engagement were less likely to resist and more likely to support the change.
This can be explained by their increased organizational commitment and their willingness change
to act according to the organizations’ rules. Organizational climate exerted a negative
effect on resisting the change process. This indicates that an organization that promotes a 681
climate in which employees feel comfortable reduces their resistance to change processes.
Overall, the organizational context can predict a considerable amount of variance of the
employees’ attitude (14 percent) and support of change processes (19 percent).
Change communication (RQ3) is considered essential for managing employees’
expectations and concerns regarding the change, which can minder resistance and create
support for the process (Allen et al., 2007; Christensen, 2014; Elving, 2005). The communication
variables account for a large share of variance (20 percent) regarding the attitude toward
the change, which is due to most variables acting as (marginally) significant predictors. In line
with existing theory, the perceived transparency, appreciation and participation in the change
process results in a more positive attitude toward the change (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999;
Russ, 2008; Oreg et al., 2011). However, those feeling helpless showed more negative attitudes
and resistance to the change. This underlines the importance of dialogue between the
organization and its employees, instead of top–down ordering of the change (Russ, 2008).
Employees need to feel valued by the organization and participate in the process, so they show
support, which is necessary for the success of the change.
Overall, it should be emphasized that, albeit to different extents, all of our three identified
dimensions proved to be relevant for how employees assess and react to organizational
changes. This further underlines the challenges an organization has to face when
implementing a change within complex organizational systems. Not only the organizational
context is relevant, but also the individual predispositions of employees can affect the
change outcome.

Practical implications
Our findings provide important implications for organizations undergoing change
processes. First, organizations should not underestimate the importance of the employee–
organization relationship, such as by promoting a good organizational climate, which can
facilitate employees’ cooperation in change situations. The organizational management
should work hand in hand with the communication department to create a positive climate
and working environment, so that employees feel comfortable at work. This will likely
strengthen employees’ commitment to their organization, which increases their support in
change processes.
Second, skeptical people showed to be more likely to hinder successful change, while
open people proved to be supportive. While it is beyond question that organizations cannot
control their employees’ characters, they can try to identify distinct characters in their
workforce and engage in an open dialogue with them. In this respect, change
communication should be targeted toward the individual needs of the employees to
persuade them of the necessity and advantages of the change.
Last, our findings show the importance of change communication in organizations,
especially the way the change is expressed and enacted in the organization. Those in charge
should ensure that they are transparent and clear about the steps of the change process and
further engage in dialogue with the workforce. This way, employees feel appreciated and
participate actively in the change, which increases the likelihood of their support. If this is
neglected, employees will likely feel left alone by the organization in the change process.
This in turn can result in resistance, which increases the chance that a change process fails.
CCIJ Limitations and suggestions for future research
24,4 First, the findings of our study are limited due to our methodologic approach. Results are
based on employees’ self-reported perceptions of the organizational change process. Since
we do not know how much time had passed between the change process participants
referred to and our survey, answers could be biased. For example, participants could have
judged the change differently in retrospective. In addition, every change situation per
682 respondent is unique. Changes can vary extensively based on their way of implementation,
extend and personal impact on the employee, aspects that were not assessed in detail in our
survey, but may influence individuals’ attitudes and behavior toward the change. Future
research should, therefore, replicate our study within a single organization, where the
change context can be controlled and comprehensive insights about the change process can
be gained by incorporating additional data about the change, the organization and its
communication activities. Another aspect concerns the representativeness of our sample, as
the proportion of highly educated respondents is relatively high. This is also reflected in the
ratio of leading position to subordinate employees which is one to two. However, our study
assessed whether the respondents held supervising responsibilities, which also includes
having a secretary or supervising interns, thus representing a broad definition of leading
position. A further issue concerns the fact that all variables were assessed using single-item
measures. This was done to avoid an extensive questionnaire. Future research could focus
on fewer factors and assess those using multi-item measures. A last point is consequence of
our cross-sectional design: Our data only captures the attitudes at one point in time, thus not
allowing for comparison between the assessment before the change, during the process and
after the change has taken place. Future research should, therefore, employ a longitudinal
design for validation of our results.
Overall, our study shows that each of the three dimensions – individual predispositions,
organizational context and change communication – affects the way employees perceive
organizational change processes and react to them. However, analyzing how the three
dimensions affect each other was beyond the scope of this study. Further research should,
therefore, aim at shedding light on the relationship between the three dimensions as this
could provide interesting insights into the interrelations between the different dimensions at
the individual and organizational level.

References
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N.L., Bordia, P. and Irmer, B.E. (2007), “Uncertainty during organizational change.
Managing perceptions through communication”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 187-210, doi: 10.1080/14697010701563379.
Armenakis, A.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (1999), “Organizational change. A review of theory and
research in the 1990s”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315, doi: 10.1177/
014920639902500303.
Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2009), “Reflections. Our journey in organizational change research
and practice”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 127-142, doi: 10.1080/
14697010902879079.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 122-147, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.
Barrett, D.J. (2002), “Change communication. Using strategic employee communication to
facilitate major change”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 219-231, doi: 10.1108/13563280210449804.
Begley, T.M. and Czajka, J.M. (1993), “Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment on job
satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 552-556, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.552.
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C. and Callan, V.J. (2004), “Uncertainty during organizational The
change: types, consequences, and management strategies”, Journal of Business and Psychology, importance of
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 507-532, doi: 10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028449.99127.f7.
communicating
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D. and DiFonzo, N. (2004), “Uncertainty during organizational
change. Is it all about control?”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, change
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 345-365, doi: 10.1080/13594320444000128.
Buono, A.F. and Bowditch, J.L. (1989), The Jossey-Bass Management Series. The Human Side of 683
Mergers and Acquisitions: Managing Collisions Between People, Cultures, and Organizations,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Burnes, B. (2011), “Introduction. Why does change fail, and what can we do about it?”, Journal of
Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 445-450, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.630507.
Burnes, B. (2015), “Understanding resistance to change – building on Coch and French”, Journal of
Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 92-116, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2014.969755.
Choi, M. (2011), “Employees’ attitudes toward organizational change. A literature review”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 479-500, doi: 10.1002/hrm.20434.
Christensen, M. (2014), “Communication as a strategic tool in change processes”, International Journal
of Business Communication, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 359-385, doi: 10.1177/2329488414525442.
Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D. and
Brown, J. (2002), “Readiness for organizational change. A longitudinal study of workplace,
psychological and behavioural correlates”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 377-392, doi: 10.1348/096317902321119637.
Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999), “Challenging ‘resistance to change’ ”, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 25-41, doi: 10.1177/0021886399351003.
Diamond, M.A. (1986), “Resistance to change. A psychoanalytic critique of Argyris and Schon’s
contributions to organization theory and intervention”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 543-562, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1986.tb00436.x.
Dubrin, A.J. and Ireland, R.D. (1993), Management and Organization, South-Western Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH.
Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E.A. and Gaby, S.H. (2000), “Perceptions of organizational readiness
for change. Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling”,
Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 419-442, doi: 10.1177/0018726700533006.
Elving, W.J. (2005), “The role of communication in organizational change”, Corporate Communications.
An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-138, doi: 10.1108/13563280510596943.
Erwin, D.G. and Garman, A.N. (2009), “Resistance to organizational change. Linking research and
practice”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 39-56,
doi: 10.1177/0312896214526212.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D’Amelio, A. (2008), “Resistance to change: the rest of the story”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 362-377, doi: 10.2307/20159402.
Guzley, R.M. (1992), “Organizational climate and communication climate: predictors of commitment to
the organization”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 379-402, doi: 10.1177/
0893318992005004001.
Iverson, R.D. (1996), “Employee acceptance of organizational change. The role of organizational
commitment”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 122-149,
doi: 10.1080/09585199600000121.
Jimmieson, N.L., Peach, M. and White, K.M. (2008), “Utilizing the theory of planned behaviour to inform
change management: an investigation of employee intentions to support organizational change”,
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 237-262, doi: 10.1177/0021886307312773.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T.M. (1999), “Managerial coping with
organizational change. A dispositional perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 107-122, doi: 10.1037%2F0021-9010.84.1.107.
CCIJ Kanter, D.L. and Mirvis, P.H. (1989), The Cynical Americans: Living and Working in an Age of
24,4 Discontent and Disillusion, Jossey-Bass, San Fracisco, CA.
Kitchen, P.J. and Daly, F. (2002), “Internal communication during change management”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 46-53, doi: 10.1108/
13563280210416035.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change. Why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73
684 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Leiner, D.J. (2014), “Convenience samples from online respondent pools: a case study of the SoSci
Panel”, International Journal of Internet Science, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.5771/
2192-4007-2016-4-36769–134.
Lewis, L. (2011), Organizational Change: Creating Change through Strategic Communication,
Wiley-Blackwell, New York, NY.
Lewis, L.K. and Russ, T.L. (2012), “Soliciting and using input during organizational change initiatives:
what are practitioners doing”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 267-294,
doi: 10.1177/0893318911431804.
Lewis, L.K., Schmisseur, A.M., Stephens, K.K. and Weir, K.E. (2006), “Advice on communicating during
organizational change: the content of popular press books”, The Journal of Business
Communication, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 113-137, doi: 10.1177/0021943605285355.
Lines, R. (2004), “Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment
and change goal achievement”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 193-215,
doi: 10.1080/1469701042000221696.
Lupton, T. (1991), “Organisational change: ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ management?”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 4-10, doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000000788.
McClellan, J.G. (2011), “Reconsidering communication and the discursive politics of organizational
change”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 465-480, doi: 10.1080/
14697017.2011.630508.
Mabin, V.J., Forgeson, S. and Green, L. (2001), “Harnessing resistance: using the theory of constraints to
assist change management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 25 Nos 2/3/4,
pp. 168-191, doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005446.
Madsen, S.R., Miller, D. and John, C.R. (2005), “Readiness for organizational change. Do organizational
commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference?”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 213-233, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1134.
Meiser, T. and Machunsky, M. (2008), “The personal structure of personal need for structure”,
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-34, doi: 10.1027/
1015-5759.24.1.27.
Mumford, M.D., Baughman, W.A., Threlfall, K.V., Uhlman, C.E. and Costanza, D.P. (1993), “Personality,
adaptability, and performance: performance on well-defined problem solving tasks”, Human
Performance, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 241-285, doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup0603_4.
Oreg, S. (2003), “Resistance to change. Developing an individual differences measure”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 680-693, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680.
Oreg, S. (2006), “Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-101, doi: 10.1080/
13594320500451247.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M. and Armenakis, A. (2011), “Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change.
A 60-year review of quantitative studies”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 47
No. 4, pp. 461-524, doi: 10.1177/0021886310396550.
Piderit, S.K. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of
attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 783-794, doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.3707722.
Rogiest, S., Segers, S. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2015), “Climate, communication and participation The
impacting commitment to change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 importance of
No. 6, pp. 1094-1106, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-06-2015-0101.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, Employee
communicating
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-139. change
Russ, T.L. (2008), “Communicating change. A review and critical analysis of programmatic and
participatory implementation approaches”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 8 Nos 3-4,
pp. 199-211, doi: 10.1080/14697010802594604.
685
Schneider, B., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1996), “Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 7-19, doi: 10.1016/S0090-
2616(96)90010-8.
Schweiger, D.M. and DeNisi, A.S. (1991), “Communication with employees following a merger.
A longitudinal field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 110-135,
doi: 10.2307/256304.
Senior, B. (2002), Organisational Change, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, London.
Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. and Topolnytsky, L. (2005), “Employee cynicism and resistance to
organizational change”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 429-459,
doi: 10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2.
Strebel, P. (2009), “Why do employees resist change?”, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 3
No. 37, pp. 60-66, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2009.5235497.
Szebel, A. (2015), “Veränderungskompetenz von Mitarbeitern. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur
differentiellen Konstrukterschließung der individuellen Veränderungskompetenz von
Mitarbeitern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Einflusses dispositionaler
Persönlichkeitsfaktoren”, Doctoral dissertation, available at: https://kups.ub.un-koeln.de/6183/
1/Dissertation_Veraenderungskompetenz_Szebel.pdf
van Dam, K. (2005), “Employee attitudes toward job changes. An application and extension of Rusbult
and Farrell’s investment model”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78
No. 2, pp. 253-272, doi: 10.1348/096317904X23745.
Van den Heuvel, S., Schalk, R. and van Assen, M.A. (2015), “Does a well-informed employee have a
more positive attitude toward change? The mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment,
trust, and perceived need for change”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 401-422, doi: 10.1177/0021886315569507.
Wanberg, C.R. and Banas, J.T. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 132-142,
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132.
Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 361-386, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361.

Corresponding author
Charlotte Schulz-Knappe can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]