Human Resource Development Review

Human Resource Development Review http://hrd.sagepub.com

The Structure and Function of Attitudes Toward Organizational Change Rune Lines Human Resource Development Review 2005; 4; 8 DOI: 10.1177/1534484304273818 The online version of this article can be found at: http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/8

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

Additional services and information for Human Resource Development Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 52 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/4/1/8

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 18, 2008 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Theory and Conceptual Articles Human/ ORGANIZATIONAL 10.1177/1534484304273818 Lines Resource Development CHANGE Review /AMarch TTITUDES 2005

The Structure and Function of Attitudes Toward Organizational Change RUNE LINES Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration In this article, an attitudinal perspective on organizational members’ reactions to change is proposed and developed. By viewing change as an attitude object in this sense, a richer conceptualization of perceptions of change and reactions to change in terms of emotions, cognitions, and behaviors is achieved. The perspective also frames organizational changes in terms of aspects that are relevant for change recipients because of their relationships with important values that are held by organizational members. To identify classes of beliefs underlying the formation of attitudes toward change, constructs are integrated from theories of job characteristics and organizational justice with the overarching attitude perspective. Research implications of the framework as well as implications for managing change are discussed. Keywords: attitude theory; emotions; job characteristics; organizational change; procedural justice

In business environments that are challenging the adequacy of organizational strategies, structures, and processes, an organization’s capacity to conceive of and implement change emerges as a crucial capability. There is broad agreement that successful implementation of organizational change depends on how organizational members react to the change (e.g., Bovey & Hede, 2001a; Carnall, 1986; Piderit, 2000) including the processes used for its implementation (Henderson, 2002; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). In this article, we develop a theoretical framework based on attitude research that aims to explain why and how individuals in an organization react to change. The main purpose of the article is to present a unifying framework that is capable of integrating prior research on reactions to orgaThe author thanks the editors, Richard J. Torraco and Lyle Yorks, and four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Eric Lofquist is thanked for his help with the editing and proofreading of the manuscript. Human Resource Development Review Vol. 4, No. 1 March 2005 8-32 DOI: 10.1177/1534484304273818 © 2005 Sage Publications


Lines / ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ATTITUDES

9

nizational change. Past research on reactions to organizational change can be divided into four broad categories: (a) exemplars of organizational change such as downsizing (Allen, Freeman, Russell, Reizenstein, & Rentz, 2001; Brockner et al., 1994), implementation of new technology (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), or mergers; (b) process aspects such as communication or participation (Gopinath & Becker, 2000); (c) research focusing on specific factors mediating the relationship between change and reactions such as procedural or distributive justice (e.g., Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002); and (d) research concerned with specific reactions to change such as emotional reactions (Dasborough, Frick, Lamb, & Suseno, 2003; Huy, 2002) and resistance (e.g., Bovey & Hede, 2001a, 2001b). All four research streams are aimed at understanding how organizational members react to change, but a framework capable of integrating findings from the four has not so far been available. A second aim is to provide a more differentiated and realistic conceptualization of reactions to organizational change than what has been available. The literature so far has been somewhat biased toward negative, behavioral reactions to change with an emphasis on resistance (Piderit, 2000). The attitude perspective that is developed here allows for the study of a multitude of reactions that vary according to their strength and valence and includes cognitive and emotional reactions as well as behavioral reactions. Third, we begin the development of a theory of beliefs underlying attitudes toward change by drawing on concepts from job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001) and the theory of procedural justice (Cobb, Wooten, & Folger, 1995; Folger, 1977). From a human resource development (HRD) perspective, better understanding of the causes, structure, and functioning of attitudes toward organizational change is important at least for two reasons. First, many HRD interventions can be seen as planned organizational changes in their own right. Thus, the perspective developed here could be useful for predicting reactions to such interventions and help explain why HRD interventions do not always lead to improved performance (Holton, 2002). Second, the perspective provides guidance for minimizing negative reactions to HRD interventions and the development of interventions that unleash and maximize the talents and abilities of the organization.

The General Framework Organizational Change For the purpose of this article, organizational change is defined as a deliberately planned change in an organization’s formal structure, systems, processes, or product-market domain intended to improve the attainment of


10

Human Resource Development Review / March 2005

one or more organizational objectives. Attitude toward an organizational change is defined as a person’s overall evaluation of the change (Petty & Wegener, 1998) and is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating the change with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). The changes that we have in mind can have their origins in initiatives that are taken at any level of the organizational hierarchy, although the changes most often studied are those initiated at a relatively high managerial level of the organization (for an important exception, see Burgelman, 1983). For bottom-up changes, our focal organizational members are situated laterally or further up in the organizational hierarchy. For top-down changes, our focus is on the reactions of individuals situated below the individuals that initiate and manage the implementation of the change. Such changes can be large or small in terms of the resources that are mobilized (Ledford, Mohrman, Mohrman, & Lawler, 1989) and the perceived consequences for those affected by the change. Change size in these two senses may not correlate very strongly. For example, a minor change in the organization of work in one hotel that we studied was perceived as having major consequences for the room maids whose work and social relationships were affected. The corresponding reactions were strong and negative. At another research site, a major change in the strategy of a food processing company led to a number of foreign acquisitions. The changes were large in terms of resource commitments but had small perceived consequences for the organizational members, whose reactions were modest. Our definition of organizational change encompasses structural changes such as the merger of two organizations, the merger of two organizational subunits, the establishment of a new organizational subunit, or the delayering, downscoping, and downsizing of an organization. It also includes system changes, such as the implementation of balanced score card systems or a new reward system, and process changes, such as the introduction of new work processes (e.g., Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000), changes in formal job descriptions, or the substitution of processes performed by humans for processes performed by machines. Finally, planned changes in markets that are served and products or services offered are included in the definition. Often, organizational change includes several of these changes: Those that often are termed strategic changes (Rajagopalan & Spreitzer, 1996; Sanchez & Heene, 1997) tend to involve changes in product-market domains, followed by changes in structure, systems, and processes. Organizations that are implementing integrated changes such as total quality management, business process reengineering, or learning organizations simultaneously change their structure, systems, and processes to improve their efficiency, innovativeness, or the quality of their offerings.



11

Formation of Attitudes Toward Organizational Change Early in a change process, when organizational members first are exposed to information about a pending change, they form beliefs about the change. These beliefs concern issues such as how the change will affect the characteristics of one’s job, whether the organization is capable of implementing the change in such a way that important objectives are met, and whether the change is compatible with one’s values (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Isabella, 1990). The beliefs have positive and negative valences for the individual: Some perceived change characteristics are associated with positive outcomes, some with negative outcomes. Individuals can also react emotionally to their first encounters with a change.1 Information about the change can elicit emotions such as frustration, enthusiasm, or fear. Beliefs and emotions are combined into an attitude toward the change that influences emotions evoked by the change, behaviors toward the change, and subsequent processing of change-relevant information in predictable ways. The formation of attitudes toward the change is a crucial event in the change process, because, once formed, attitudes may be extremely difficult to alter. Three main reasons for attitude perseverance include their tendency to produce selective exposure to information, biased memory for encoded information, and active argumentation against attitude-inconsistent information. Selective exposure is manifested in both an active search for attitude-consistent information and an equally active avoidance of information that appears to contradict strongly held attitudes (Festinger, 1957). Whether prior attitudes influence the retention of new information has been examined in a number of studies (e.g., Hymes, 1986; Read & Rosson, 1982). The general finding is that people better remember attitude-consistent information than information that seems to counter held attitudes. The third reason for why attitudes are resistant to change lies in the relationship between attitudes and the processing of counterattitudinal information. When exposed to information inconsistent with held attitudes, people tend to produce counterarguments that result in a strengthening of the original attitude and sometimes an attitude that is more extreme in the original direction. Attitude Structure Following R. Thompson and Hunt (1996), we assume that attitudes are hierarchically structured and that this structure allows an overall evaluation of an attitude object to be determined (Figure 1). The structure plays a dual role in attitude theory, because lower levels (emotions, beliefs, and values) cause the attitude. At the same time, emotions, beliefs, and values can be seen as part of the attitude itself. This is because they tend to become


12


Social influences

Change content e.g. autonomy

Evaluative beliefs Attitudes towards change

Values e.g Fairness Growth Change process e.g. participation

Behaviors e.g. charge taking

Emotions

FIGURE 1: Causes and Consequences of Attitudes Toward Change

retrieved or active in subsequent encounters with the attitude object. The hierachical model assumes three levels corresponding to a superordinate, basic, and subordinate level (see also Rosch, 1978). At the superordinate level of the structure, we find an attitude that can be thought of as a summary overall evaluation of the attitude object (the change). At the basic level are beliefs that are defined as a characteristic attributed to an object. Such beliefs can be evaluative or nonevaluative, but often there are relationships between the two so that evaluative beliefs are based on nonevaluative beliefs. Values are found at the subordinate level. Values serve as criteria by which objects, actions, and events are evaluated (Bar-Tal, 1990, p. 51) and provide the comparison standard for beliefs (R. Thompson & Hunt, 1996, p. 657). According to attitude theory, attitude formation is based on an individual’s consideration of a subset of characteristics drawn from an attitude object. Thus, not all attitude object attributes are feeding into the attitude, nor are those that do likely to be equally important (see also R. Thompson & Hunt, 1996). Attitude Valence, Strength, and Ambivalence The above definition of attitudes stresses the evaluative character of attitudes—their valence. Valence is an important dimension, because it predicts whether emotions, cognitions, and behaviors toward the attitude object tend to be positive, neutral, or negative. The valence dimension also



13

reflects an important functional aspect of attitudes—their use as stored shorthand for evaluating attitude objects in new encounters. This protects the individual from having to go through the cognitively demanding and possibly emotionally painful process of evaluating the attitude object again and again. Attitude researchers have found that attitudes also vary according to their strength. Attitude strength can be thought of as the degree to which attitude toward an object is perceived as important to the individual. For example, individuals in an organization may be very favorable toward a change, because it is believed that the change will produce an optimal amount of task variety. However, if the work is unimportant to the individuals, the favorable attitude is not likely to be strongly held. Attitude strength is an important dimension for three reasons. First, strength is a determinant of the relationship between the attitude object and the attitude. Low strength implies that the attitude is not necessarily activated when an individual encounters the attitude object. Strong attitudes are nearly always activated as a response to the attitude object. Second, attitude strength influences the consistency of response when the attitude itself is activated. Third, it influences drive strength, that is, the tension produced by an attitude that needs to be reduced by subsequent behavior (Pratkanis, 1989). Attitude ambivalence refers to a state where an individual possesses two or more attitudes toward a class of stimuli with different valences (M. Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995). The underlying structure of the attitudes is different in terms of the values, beliefs, and emotions on which they are based. In a sense, they represent different perspectives on the same class of stimuli. Thus, a change can be associated with a positive attitude when viewed from an organization-wide perspective, a negative attitude when evaluated from a personal perspective, and vice versa. Attitude ambivalence is an important structural dimension because of its consequences on information processing and behavior (Ajzen, 2001). Ambivalent attitudes seem to be less resistant to persuasive communication and less predictive of behavior than nonambivalent attitudes (Armitage & Connor, 2000). At the same time, attitude ambivalence has been found to increase the amount of systematic processing of information about the attitude object (Maio, Bell, & Esses, 1996). This may indicate that ambivalence is an unpleasant, transitional state and that further information processing will lead to nonambivalent attitudes. Knowing which aspects of a change constitute the basis for attitude formation becomes a crucial issue from this perspective. Attitude theory only provides general answers to this question. Empirically, the question is generally approached in an open-ended manner by first eliciting salient beliefs concerning an attitude object and then proceeding by asking individuals to what extent they share the beliefs. However, many writers have posited a close relationship between values (i.e., desired end states) and beliefs. For


14


example, Eagly and Chaiken (1998), in their discussion of functional perspectives on attitudes, showed that relevant beliefs concerning an attitude object depend on what function attitudes are supposed to fulfill (which system of desired end states is providing the basis for object evaluation). Thus, attitude theory predicts that attitudes toward change are going to develop based on a consideration of change beliefs that are personally relevant to those affected by the change. The personal relevance stems from the close relationship between underlying values and beliefs. Values are making some aspects of a complex change salient. Salience draws attention toward certain aspects of complex change and away from others (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1991), and those aspects are the environmental inputs to belief formation. This set of beliefs may or may not circumscribe primary reasons for initiating change such as organizational need for change (Armenakis et al., 1993), the change’s capacity to bring the organization to a higher level of goal achievement, or the organization’s efficacy at implementing the envisioned change. Cognitively oriented research on how change is interpreted (e.g., Isabella, 1990) indicates that changes are mainly represented by beliefs reflecting rather narrow self-interest and that the focus on the achievement of organizational goals can play a secondary role.

Determinants of Attitudes Toward Organizational Change Beliefs of Postchange Job Characteristics as Drivers of Attitude Formation One particularly relevant type of value is work value. According to Nord, Brief, Atieh, and Doherty (1990), work values are desired states that a person thinks he or she should be able to realize through working, and they guide a person’s beliefs concerning specific jobs and work activities. A distinction can be made between intrinsic and extrinsic work values. Intrinsic work values refer to end states that can occur through work such as a sense of accomplishment. Extrinsic work values refer to end states that occur as a consequence of work regardless or independent of work such as family security (George & Jones, 1997). Perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to identify job characteristics linked both to work values and attitudes toward work is the program initiated by Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1980) to understand affective responses to job perceptions. This research is useful here, because it helps identify what change characteristics are likely to underlie the formation of an attitude toward change. Hackman and Oldham argued that a person’s affective responses to a job such as overall job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and internal work motivation are influenced by the following five job characteristics: skill variety, task identity, signifi-



15

cance, autonomy, and feedback. Skill variety is the opportunity to use numerous and varied skills in one’s repertoire to perform the work. Task identity is the degree to which a job requires the completion of a whole recognizable piece of work. Task significance is the degree to which a job affects the life of other people. Task autonomy is the extent to which the job provides individual discretion relating to the work process. Task feedback is the well-defined opportunity to know how effectively one is performing directly from the work itself. According to job characteristics theory, these five job attributes are combined to form an attitude toward a job. This perspective implies that the formation of an attitude toward change is evaluated based on evaluation of its perceived consequences along the five dimensions. The relationships between recipients’ assumptions concerning these and other relevant job dimensions (Parker et al., 2001) and attitudes toward change are not all postulated to be monotonous. The valence and strength of the attitude formed based on a consideration of how the change will affect each individual job dimension are dependent on the system members’ perceptions of their initial states. An individual experiencing an optimal level of stimulation (e.g., Reykowski, 1982) from the present level of job variety is likely to respond to an increase in job variety by forming a negative attitude toward the change. Individuals experiencing excessive stimulation and stress from a job that already has a high level of task variety are prompted to form a positive attitude toward changes thus implying a change to lower levels of task variety. Procedural Justice Up to this point, we have considered how evaluative beliefs and emotions rooted in perceptions of the change per se will influence the valence of attitudes toward change. Theories of procedural justice (Chan Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Folger, 1977; Konovsky, 2000; Korsgaard et al., 1995) predict that how the change process is structured and carried out will influence attitudes toward change. This prediction is fully consistent with predictions from attitude theory. The unique contribution of research on procedural justice is that it holds that the relationship between process and attitudes is mediated by perceptions of fairness. Procedural justice theory introduces new aspects of change to the attitude model, because it is focusing on the perceived fairness of the change process (Cobb et al., 1995). Three process characteristics appear to be particularly determinant of procedural justice perceptions: influence in the establishment of rules for decisions, authentic opportunities to voice opinions, and systems of recourse. The first facet taps the degree to which organizational members have had the possibility to influence ground rules such as policies and strategies preceding the change. The second factor is related to the sys-


16


tem’s procedures for involving intraorganizational groups with different values, needs, and norms into the decision-making process. Systems of recourse are the organization’s way of handling or not handling grievances occurring during periods of change. Interactional justice adds to the two previous forms of justice because it relates to how leaders and leadership behaviors influence fairness perceptions (Tyler & Bies, 1990). Emotions as Drivers of Attitude Toward Change Several authors have discussed the occurrence of emotional reactions of individuals when they are exposed to the possibility of organizational change (e.g., Argyris, 1990; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Much of this literature has focused on negative emotions such as anxiety, nervousness, aggression, and hostility following the announcement of change. Attitude theory recognizes that not only evaluative beliefs but also emotions can act as drivers of attitude formation. In fact, one of the most primitive means of forming an attitude toward change would be to pair the change with a stimulus associated with a highly activated and pleasant emotion. Research indicates that this classical conditioning mechanism is valid and distinct from the cognitive mechanism mediated by evaluative beliefs (e.g., Cacioppo, Marshall-Goodell, Tassinary, & Bernston, 1992; Shimp, Stuart, & Engle, 1991). To the extent that emotions are produced by other change characteristics than beliefs and/or emotions are differentially related to attitudes, studying emotions can provide new insights into how people react to change. Work on affect, moods, and emotions indicate that both outcomes are likely (e.g., George & Brief, 1996; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Current conceptualizations of work-based affect reveal that affect can be appropriately described by two orthogonal dimensions: degree of pleasantness and activation. Pleasantness or affectivity (Watson & Tellegren, 1985) is a bipolar dimension with positive and negative affectivity as poles. Positive affectivity is associated with good feelings such as joy, elation, and happiness. Negative affectivity is an emotional state characterized by largely bad feelings elicited by the attitude object, such as anger or sadness. Activation describes the strength or intensity of the affective reaction. The intensity of affective reaction can range from low activation to high activation or be positioned anywhere between these two poles. According to the circumplex model of affect (e.g., Larsen & Diener, 1992), all affective reactions share these two dimensions. The determinants of emotional reactions in work settings are still poorly understood. Work by Lazarus (1991) and Frijda (1986), however, predict that emotional reactions at the general level result from the perception of an event that favors or obstructs the achievement of a person’s important goals. Thus, it also seems likely that emotional reactions relevant for understanding attitudes toward change stem from factors such as per-



17

ceived justice and the perceived effect of the proposed change for the characteristics of the person’s job. The relationships between emotions elicited by change and attitude toward change seem more straightforward. Active, positive affect such as a sense of being active, enthusiasm, strength, and peppiness are likely to contribute to strongly held positive attitudes (Watson & Tellgren, 1985). Active, negative emotions such as distress, fear, scorn, and hostility are likely to be associated with strong, negative attitudes. Lowactivation emotions (positive and negative) are likely to be linked to low attitude strength or no attitude toward change. As argued by Frijda (1986) as well as Frijda and Mesquita (2000), emotions are not only influenced by cognitive factors such as beliefs concerning justice and job characteristics but, equally important, emotions determine the content and strength of change-relevant beliefs. According to Frijda and Mesquita, emotional arousal during change controls which information to attend to and not attend to. Emotions also act as a motivational force that strongly influences the active search for information in support of one’s emotional reactions. Thus, an individual experiencing a pleasant emotion during change is likely to search out information that is consistent with this emotion. Social Influences on Attitudes So far, we have focused on how perceived personal consequences of change affect attitudes toward change. Attitude theory, however, also acknowledges the role played by significant people and groups in the focal person’s social environment (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Wood, 2000). Organizations are systems forcing interaction between individuals, and although withdrawal can occur, the natural state is one of frequent and intense social interaction. This also means that other organizational members, particularly members of the same group, coalitions, or departments, are salient to the focal individual. Thus, their perceptions, norms, values, and evaluations are likely to exert influence on his or her attitude formation. Relevant for understanding how the social environment influences attitudes toward change is the social information-processing perspective on job attitudes (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Organizational changes are characterized by high levels of complexity and ambiguity with regard to their causes, content, and consequences (Isabella, 1990). This opens up the possibility for multiple interpretations of change phenomena where no single interpretation imposes itself upon a perceiver because it is inherently more valid than other interpretations. An individual’s struggle to make sense of the change in terms of which are important change characteristics is likely to be influenced by the person’s social environment. In particular, peers, subordinates, and superiors in the individual’s immediate work environment are likely to shape his


18


or her interpretations (Rice & Aydin, 1991). To the extent that such significant others differ from the focal person in values and beliefs applied to assess the change, this person’s interpretations are likely to be different because of social influence. As indicated by Pfeffer (1981), the social environment can also influence the relative importance associated with different change characteristics. If most of the change-related discourse is centering on one or a few aspects of change, those aspects are likely to become salient to the focal person and will have the strongest influence on attitudes toward change. In the same vein, the social environment can influence how the change is assessed using a given set of criteria as well as the overall attitude toward the change. The Impact of Behavior on Attitudes Toward Change People are frequently engaging in behavior that appears inconsistent with relevant attitudes. In organizational settings, behavior is often the result of structural mechanisms such as standard operating procedures and formal job role descriptions rather than the outcome of planned action in the theoretical attitude sense. The attitude-behavior inconsistency can emerge whenever the organization possesses and applies mechanisms that force behavior. In the context of change, organizations can use a variety of instruments for institutionalization such as performance measurement systems, training, job descriptions, and so on. Modern programmatic change technologies such as business process reengineering, total quality management, and balanced scorecards include tools for the direct influence of behaviors in organizations. The use of mechanisms for changing required in-role behaviors (Tyler, 1999) leads to inconsistencies between attitudes and behavior. Attitude-behavior inconsistency creates a tension and a sense of discomfort that motivates individuals to restore a balance between the two. As the behavioral component is locked because of structural mechanisms, the individual is left with the option of changing their attitudes so that they become more aligned with relevant behaviors. Jaffe, Scott, and Tobe’s (1994) model of how attitudes toward change evolve as change unfolds is consistent with behaviorally induced attitude change. They proposed a fourphased model composed of the following attitudinal states: denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment. Denial takes place as organizational members refuse that a change is needed or that it will be implemented. Resistance is marked by withholding information, attempts to postpone implementation, and/or by trying to convince proponents that the change is inappropriate. This phase is followed by exploration when new behaviors are tried and their efficacy in obtaining valued results is assessed. In the final stage, commitment, individuals embrace the results based on prior behaviors and observed results.



19

Behavioral Consequences of Attitudes Toward Organizational Change Perhaps one of the most important implications of studying reactions to change from an attitude perspective is that it makes salient the wide array of reactions that may follow the processing of information and experiences concerning organizational change. Existing literature has a strong tendency to focus on negative reactions (e.g., Allen et al., 2001; Bovey & Hede, 2001a, 2001b; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Piderit, 2000), whereas attitude theory predicts that reactions can span from highly positive, via states of indifference, to strongly negative, depending on inherent properties of the change, the change process, and how the two are perceived by observers and participants. To discuss the behavioral consequences of attitudes toward change, we focus on two attitude dimensions: attitude valence and attitude strength as presented above. The discussion is organized according to the matrix shown in Figure 2. Strong, Positive Attitudes Toward Change This attitudinal outcome is likely to be associated with a number of behaviors that reflect a positive overall evaluation of the change. Also, the behavioral consequences reflect that the change as well as the attitudes toward the change are seen as important by organizational members. Strong, positive attitudes toward change are likely to be based on change aspects with high personal relevance leading to positive evaluative beliefs and emotions (Frijda & Mesquita, 2000; Lazarus, 1991). Such attitudes are also thought to be relatively stable over time, resistant to persuasion, and highly predictive of behavior (Ajzen, 2001). Positive attitudes toward change and strong attitude-behavior links are expected to produce behaviors that are focused, persistent, and effortful in their attempts to support and facilitate the implementation of the change. Such pro-change behaviors may include extra role efforts to solve unforeseen problems, adapt the general change approach, and become content with local contingencies such as subunit levels of competence, behavioral norms, and values. Also, strong, positive attitudes are likely to be conducive to high levels of organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1990), particularly within domains that are directly related to the change and its implementation. Finally, they are likely to be associated with high levels of charge-taking behavior (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) at multiple levels of the organization. Organizational citizenship is defined as “those organizationally beneficial behaviors and gestures that can neither be enforced on the basis of formal role obligations nor elicited by contractual guarantee or recompence” (Organ, 1990, p. 46). Taking charge is defined by Morrison and Phelps (1999) as “voluntary and constructive efforts, by individual employees, to effect organizationally func-


20


Attitude Strength

Strong

Positive

Attitude

Organizational citizenship Taking charge Pro change behaviors

Weak

Compliance Lip service Organizational silence

Persistence Focus Effort

Valence Exit Resistance Sabotage Whistle blowing

Compliance Footdragging Organizational silence

Negative

FIGURE 2: Behavioral Consequences of Attitudes Toward Change

tional change with respect to how work is executed within the context of their jobs, work units, or organizations” (p. 403). Both forms of behavior are in most cases valuable to the organization. However, in times of change, they become crucial for effective implementation and adaptation, because more than ever it is true that managers cannot foresee all contingencies or fully anticipate the activities that they may desire or need employees to perform (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Organ, 1990). At the organizational level, such behaviors are likely to be associated with implementation speed and success (Dooley, Fryxell, & Judge, 2000). Strong, Negative Attitudes Toward Change As stated above, much research on individuals’ reactions to change reflects the assumption that this attitudinal outcome is the default (see Dent



21

& Goldberg, 1999). Strong, negative attitudes toward change are likely to be the reaction to changes that in their content or process are strongly opposed to important and salient values of organizational members. Such attitudes are associated with a number of behaviors reflective of an overall negative evaluation of the pending change. Examples of such behaviors are found in the literature on resistance to change and include strong voicing of opposing points of view; ridicule of the change, the process, and its premises; boycotts of arenas where change is discussed; blocking behaviors; and sabotage. Less organizationally committed members may also choose to exit the organization. Weak Attitudes—Positive and Negative Weak attitudes, whether they are positive or negative, delineate an attitudinal outcome where the change is not perceived as very important to organizational members. This is generally because of low perceived personal relevance of the change and its consequences. The attitudinal state may be found in organizational units not directly affected by the change but also may be organization-wide in cases where the change has failed to engage the system members emotionally or cognitively. This may reflect a state of organizational cynicism but can also be the result of missing communication or that the change is objectively of little consequence to the system members. Behaviors associated with this attitudinal state are foot dragging if implementation presupposes extra role behaviors and low levels of persistence, focus, and effort in pursuing change-related behaviors. The organizational outcome is either that the change attempt is dropped after an initial implementation attempt or that the intended outcomes of the change do not materialize.

Discussion and Implications Early Phases of Change Management Perhaps the most basic and important implication of an attitude perspective for managing change is that organizational members are unlikely to process change-relevant experiences in an open-minded and flexible manner throughout the change process. At some point in time early in the process, people make up their mind about the proposed change—an event that resembles the notion of freezing in Lewin’s (1947) well-known change metaphor. This implies that it is much easier to influence reactions toward change before attitudes are formed than after this event. In other words, the efficacy of influence attempts is much higher for attitude formation than for attitude change. This implies that a maximum of attention and effort should be allo-


22


cated to how initial phases of the process are managed. Thus, HRD interventions in the organization should be consciously introduced by providing information on issues that are known to be relevant to those affected by the intervention. This communication should include estimated effects of the intervention on postintervention job characteristics and on fairness aspects of the process used for developing and implementing the intervention. Managing Emotions Past research on organizational change has underlined the importance of emotional reactions to change such as fear and anger (e.g., Argyris, 1990; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). This insight has rarely been used as a foundation for models of how to manage change. Attitude theory reminds us that emotions can be equally important as cognitions. The strong link sometimes found between affect-based attitudes and attitude-consistent behavior also hints to the importance of considering how change elicits emotional reactions. Many models of change stress the desirability of presenting the organization with a compelling case for why the organization has to change (e.g., Armenakis et al., 1993). Creating readiness for change often involves evoking an image of hostile environments that threaten the organization’s existence if not acted upon. In so doing, change agents are likely to elicit negative emotional reactions toward change such as fear, anger, and aggression. These negative emotions feed directly into the attitude toward change and may counter the positive influence of the beliefs that change is needed. Attitude theory directs managerial attention toward emotional reactions to change and thereby opens a new array of approaches to the management of change. As positive emotions are influenced by other organizational events than beliefs, management of emotions can add to and complement management of beliefs in several important ways. Such an approach presupposes some understanding of the relationship between organizational events and the elicitation of emotions (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Research on affective events is very scarce, and a knowledge-based management of emotions must await further theory development and empirical research in this area. Focus for management of emotions during HRD interventions should be on evoking positive emotions such as cheerfulness, contentment, enthrallment, optimism, pride, relief, and zest (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). Approaches for managing emotions may include the use of humor, ceremonies, managers’ self-irony, and tracking and publishing of progress on performance parameters. Some research suggests that negative events have a stronger effect on emotions than positive events (Taylor, 1991). In other words, change is more likely to produce activated unpleasant affect than activated pleasant affect. This indicates that merely avoiding negative affective events in a change situation would be contributing



23

strongly to positive attitudes toward change. The production of pleasant events and avoidance of unpleasant events during change presupposes emotionally intelligent change agents (Goleman, 1998) that use their selfawareness and self-regulation actively to influence the emotions of those affected by the change. From this perspective, change processes should be designed to minimize elicitation of negative emotions such as neglect, sadness, shame, suffering, disgust, envy, exasperation, and anxiety. There is, however, one qualification to this conclusion based on research on the effects of fear appeals (Rogers, 1983). According to protection motivation theory, appeals that are threatening and offer an effective way of coping with the threat instigate a positive attitude toward the coping strategy. This would suggest that social accounts that use fear appeals (bankruptcy, layoffs, etc.) and simultaneously provide a convincing way of coping with the threat (e.g., reorganizations, research and development, mergers, etc.) could have an overall positive influence on attitudes even though the process elicits negative emotions. The strategy seems to be risky, because if organizational members are left unconvinced about the efficacy of the proposed change, a boomerang effect can occur. This mechanism predicts that if people believe that they cannot cope effectively, attitudes toward change are negatively affected. Social Accounts: Need for Change, Visions, and Early Wins Organizational change often creates a high level of perceived uncertainty (Gopinath & Becker, 2000) that is partly alleviated with formal and informal communication from those in charge of the change initiative (Bernerth, 2004). Communication is supposed to cover a wide array of substantive areas, particularly the situation assessment underlying the change initiative—the vision of how the organization is to move from the current state to a better state in some sense or avoid a counterfactual state to prevail if change is not made (Armenakis et al., 1993). The efficacy of such communication is likely to be limited unless messages reflect the structure of recipients’ attitudes—that is, the values and beliefs on which they are based. A necessary but not sufficient condition for communication to work (in the sense that attitudes toward change become positive) is that attempts to persuade address the concerns of message recipients (e.g., Shavitt, 1989; Snyder & DeBono, 1989). Attitude structure, in its turn, is a reflection of the local realities perceived by change recipients (Lighthall, 1989). Change agents are often advised to focus on organizational goals when framing messages emanating from the initiative. Messages coached in a managerialist language such as lowering costs, improving quality, reducing time to market, and reaching profit targets based on benchmarking with competitors reflect the managerialist local reality of those already committed to change.


24


Taking into consideration the multiple realities, often poorly understood by change managers, is a prerequisite for efficient persuasion based on communication. Lighthall (1989) characterized this as the single toughest question for those concerned with organizational functioning: “How do we integrate these diffused and different organizational realities into adaptive action—action that simultaneously integrates relevant realities and remains collectively coherent and consciously cumulative” (p. 4). The key challenge as seen from an attitude perspective is to make communication about the attitude object personally relevant for message recipients (Johnson & Eagly, 1989). When personal relevance of the organizational change is perceived as high, individuals tend to process the message information in depth, and this processing is more likely to influence attitude formation and change than when receivers do not elaborate upon the information contained in the message. Change agents may easily overestimate other people’s involvement with the change. This would lead to a misinterpretation of the communication that is needed to create a sense of personal relevance throughout the organization. Attitude theory predicts that efficient messages are designed in such a way that they address system members’ core concerns, which may be different from those of change agents. Another important prediction from attitude theory is that a person’s motivation to think about a message is increased if the message comes from multiple sources, in particular, if the sources are perceived as giving somewhat independent assessments of the issue (Moore & Reardon, 1987). The independence reduces the perceived redundancy of the message and lessens the likelihood that the perceiver will become bored. Also, there is some evidence that slightly attitude-inconsistent messages lead to more elaboration and result in a strengthening of the original attitude (Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991). Realistic Change Previews (RCPs) A key challenge for managing change is to control the attitude formation processes in the organization so that positive attitudes toward change are formed early in the change process and the formation of negative attitudes toward change is avoided. A general approach for achieving this end is through the use of RCPs. Inspired from psychosocial techniques for preparing new entrants to an organization, the RCP has as its main goal to influence attitudes toward change. RCP is a procedure in which organizations provide both positive and negative change information to the change recipients. Research from the area of recruitment shows that recruits develop more positive attitudes toward an organization if both favorable and unfavorable aspects are communicated (Phillips, 1998). Thus, it is likely that change recipients will develop more favorable attitudes toward change if the organization provides information about positive and



25

negative consequences prior to change. Such an approach can be contrasted with more conventional ways of communicating during change. As observed by Gilmore, Shea, and Useem (1997), Change efforts frequently take their energy from a distorted and demonized picture of what is being discarded. Rather than recognizing its complex blend of strengths and weaknesses, all that is new is deemed progressive, and all that is old regressive. (p. 177)

They also argued that change often begins with a vision of an idealized future that gives change recipients unrealistic expectations. When inevitable impediments to change arise, acute disappointment follows. By exposing change recipients to RCP, a more realistic view of the process, content, and consequences of change is likely to develop. When organizational members are given more realistic information about the change beforehand, they may come to place less value upon previously anticipated positive aspects that do not actually occur. They are equally likely to erect defenses against formerly unanticipated negative aspects of change that do occur (Locke, 1976). HRD as well as organizational developments interventions are often seen as simultaneously providing benefits for the organization and individual organizational members targeted by the intervention. HRD interventions such as on-the-job training can be seen as consistent with needs for personal development. However, as argued by Naquin and Holton (2003), participation in training programs requires individual effort and thus increases the overall work load. Increased workload is likely to be seen as a negative consequence contributing negatively to workforce attitudes toward the intervention. However, according to the logic above, HRD managers should communicate both types of consequences (i.e., opportunities for personal growth and the likelihood of increased workload) to maximize positive attitudes toward the training program. Exploitation of Equifinality Organizations cannot exclusively attend and cater to personal values, beliefs, and emotions when conceiving change. System members tend to prefer higher wages, more interesting jobs, more leisure time, and so on, and some of these values are clearly incompatible with high levels of organizational goal achievement. Organizations have, nevertheless, considerable discretion to develop and choose changes that are more congruent with change recipients’ concerns without jeopardizing organizational goal achievement. Capitalizing on this discretion, however, presupposes conscious management and search for solutions that are satisfactory from both agencies’ perspectives. A central concept in systems theory is that of equifinality. Equifinality is a state of affairs where there are several equally


26


effective ways to reach a goal. Organizations frequently encounter situations with high levels of equifinality (Gresov, 1997). If equifinality is paired with notions of complexity and ambiguity, an individual’s or group’s strong preference for a particular course of action is more likely to reflect that person’s or group’s cognitive biases than the change’s endemic means-ends relationship. Fortunately, from an attitude perspective, when such conditions prevail, the change proponent can choose a course of action that better fits the change recipients’ values and beliefs than other alternatives. By consciously developing several alternative paths to the envisioned end state, a pool of changes that are equally effective ways to reach a change goal is generated. The alternatives are, however, likely to fit change recipients’ concerns differentially. For example, an organization may respond to increased competition by downsizing its operations or increase its focus on innovations. A priori, an equally strong case can be made for each of the strategies. However, attitudes toward the second alternative are likely to be more positive than toward the first alternative. HRD interventions are implemented to achieve specific HRD objectives such as more collaboration, higher levels of competence, and increased workforce motivation (Naquin & Holton, 2003). Such objectives can be achieved by a number of different interventions. For example, achievement of the level of expertise required to meet emerging business needs can be made in a number of ways including recruitment, on-and off-the-job training, and even relocation to change the workforce composition in terms of competence. Although such HRD interventions may be equifinal with regard to their effects on workforce competence, they differ on relevant consequences for those affected. As a consequence, it is likely that attitudes differ from one intervention to the next in terms of strength and valence. Future Research An understanding of the formation of attitudes toward change requires an understanding of which criteria different parties in the organization are evaluating the change against. Such an understanding will help change initiators form, adapt, and choose from a pool of possible change alternatives in a way that maximizes enthusiasm, commitment, and creativity while minimizing resistance, aggression, complacency, and cynicism. To build this knowledge, two avenues should be pursued: an a priori deductive approach and an inductive approach. Several strains of literature could guide a deductive approach to identifying causes of attitude formation. In particular, the emergent field of work values seems promising, because it directly addresses the values that are likely to be salient in an organizational setting. One stream within this field explores the relationship between the perceived and ideal self and individual attitudes and behavior. An inductive approach



27

to the identification of change-relevant values and beliefs raises specific methodological challenges, because organizational members are likely to be subject to socially desirable responding when asked to report on values and beliefs. This indicates that interviewing techniques that can alleviate this problem should be preferred to traditional, direct methods of questioning. Frequent hints to affective reactions have been made in past research on organizational change. Writers have anticipated that organizational members react to change by exhibiting anger, anxiety (Argyris, 1990), enthusiasm, and even joy (Kotter, 1995). However, little research so far has focused on the links between change, emotions, and attitudes (Huy, 2002; Lines, 2004). Future research should focus on how individuals experience change emotionally for several reasons. First, attitude theory would predict that knowledge of affective antecedents would add to the overall understanding of attitudes toward change. In other settings, emotions have proved to be empirically distinct from beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). It has also been found that emotions predict attitude stability over and above beliefs alone (Chaiken, Pomerantz, & Giner-Sorolla, 1995). Some research shows that under certain circumstances, attitudes are mainly based on emotions rather than evaluative beliefs. This result further underscores the importance of studying affective reactions to understand how attitudes toward change develop. Future research should explore the structure of emotions toward change. Research reviewed in this article indicates that emotions elicited by change may vary along two dimensions: a hedonic dimension (pleasant/ unpleasant) and an intensity dimension (low to high activation). Although some authors have assumed that people generally react to change with emotions that can be characterized as unpleasant and highly activated, we really know little about the structure of emotional reactions toward change. Attitude theory would lead us to expect that emotions generated by change vary in both intensity and pleasantness from one change to the next depending on perceptions of important change characteristics and between zones of the organization depending on how and to what extent they are affected. Also, more work is needed on the antecedents of emotions toward change. Although some work indicates that evaluative beliefs and emotions may share some antecedents (Saavedra & Kwun, 2000), it is more likely that emotions have their own partly idiosyncratic set of causes. Finally, an investigation into consequences of change emotions seems fruitful, as work in other areas (e.g., political attitudes) has shown that behavior toward an attitude object in some cases is better understood in terms of emotions elicited by the attitude object than by inspecting beliefs about the object (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1982).


28


Note 1. Attitude theorists have also speculated that behavior can contribute to attitude formation (Bem, 1972). This mechanism seems less relevant for our purposes here. We will discuss the behaviors-attitude link in the later section on forced behavior and attitude change.

References Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619-630. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58. Allen, T. D., Freeman, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., Reizenstein, R. C., & Rentz, J. O. (2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 145-164. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating organizational readiness for change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703. Armitage C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 131-152. Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs. New York: Springer Verlag. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in social psychology, (Vol. 6. pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press. Bernerth, J. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 36-52. Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001a). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 22, 372-382. Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001b). Resistance to organizational change: The role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6, 21-30. Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397-409. Burgelman, R. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223-244. Cacioppo, J. T., Marshall-Goodell, B. S., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. G. (1992). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: Classical conditioning is more effective when prior knowledge about the attitude stimulus is low than high. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 115-125. Carnall, C. A. (1986). Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change. Human Relations, 39, 745-766. Chaiken, S., Pomerantz, E. M., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (1995). Structural consistency and attitude strength. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 387-412). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chan Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502-506. Cobb, A. T., Wooten, K. C., & Folger, R. (1995). Justice in the making: Toward understanding the theory and practice of justice in organizational change and development. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, (Vol. 8, pp. 234295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dasborough, M., Frick, G., Lamb, P., & Suseno, Y. (2003, August). Emotions in mergers: A phenomenological approach. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Seattle, WA.



29

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25-41. Dooley, R. S., Fryxell, G. E., & Judge, W. Q. (2000). Belaboring the not-so-obvious: Consensus, commitment and strategy implementation speed and success. Journal of Management, 26, 12371257. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 269-322). New York: McGraw-Hill. Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53, 419-442. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Beliefs through emotions. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & S. Bem (Eds.), Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 43-54). Paris: Oxford University Press. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes and mood. Human Relations, 50, 393-416. Gilmore, T. N., Shea, G. P., & Useem, M. (1997). Side effects of corporate cultural transformations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 174-189. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76, 93-102. Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63-83. Gresov, C. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 22, 403-426. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Henderson, G. M. (2002). Transformative learning as a condition for transformational change in organizations. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 103-121. Holton, E. F., III. (2002). Theoretical assumptions underlying the performance paradigm of human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 5, 199-215. Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31-69. Hymes, R. W. (1986). Political attitudes as social categories: A new look at selective memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 233-241. Isabella, L. (1990). Evolving interpretations as change unfold: How managers construe key events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7-41. Jaffe, D., Scott, C., & Tobe, G. (1994). Rekindling commitment: How to revitalize yourself, your work and your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314. Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. (2002). Promise breaking during organizational change: Do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469-488.


30


Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489-511. Korsgaard, A. M., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84. Kotter, J. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73, 59-67. Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57, 106-114. Larsen, R. L., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clarke (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion and social behavior, (Vol. 114, pp. 25-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Ledford, G. E., Mohrman, S. A., Mohrman, A. M., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1989). The phenomenon of large-scale organizational change. In A. M. Mohrman, S. A. Mohrman, G. E. Ledford, T. G. Cummings, & E. E. Lawler III (Eds.), Large-scale organizational change (pp. 1-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: 1. Concept, method and reality in social sciences; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 21, 5-41. Lighthall, F. F (1989). Making and transcending local adaptations: A pragmatic constructivist perspective on “participation.” In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations, (Vol. 7, pp. 1-26). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lines, R. (2004). Heating up learning in organizations: An emotion based perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Business Research, 18, 31-46. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and consequences of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: RandMcNally. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-33. Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513-536. Moore, D. L., &Reardon, R. (1987). Source magnification: The role of multiple sources in the processing of advertising appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 412-417. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419. Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. (2003). Motivation to improve work through learning in resource development. Human Resource Development International, 6, 355-370. Nord, W. R., Brief, A. P., Atieh, J. M., & Doherty, E. M. (1990). Studying meanings of work: The case of work values. In A. P. Brief & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Meanings of occupational work (pp. 2134). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 12 (pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Toward an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413-440. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 3, pp. 1-31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.



31

Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A metaanalysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673-690. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence. A multidimensional view of attitudes toward organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-794. Pratkanis, A. R. (1989). The cognitive representation of attitudes. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 71-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 48-79. Read, S. J., & Rosson, M. B. (1982). Rewriting history: The biasing effects of attitudes on memory. Social Cognition, 1, 240-255. Reykowski, J. (1982). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 123-154. Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219-244. Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (2000). Affective states in job characteristics theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 131-146. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-252. Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). Managing for an uncertain future. A systems view of strategic organizational change. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27, 21-42. Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061-1086. Shavitt, S. (1989). Operationalizing functional theories of attitudes. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 311-338). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shimp, T. A., Stuart, E. W., & Engle, R. W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 1-12. Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1989). Understanding the function of attitudes: Lessons from personality and social behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 339-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Taylor, S. E. (1991). The asymmetrical impact of positive and negative events: The mobilizationminimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnik (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, R. C., & Hunt, J. G. (1996). Inside the black box of alpha, beta, and gamma change: Using a cognitive-processing model to assess attitude change. Academy of Management Review, 21, 655-690. Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 21, pp. 204-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 201-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


32


Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570.

Rune Lines, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. His research interests include individual reactions toward the process, content, and management of organizational change and the relationships between emotions and learning during organizational change. His work has appeared in the Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, the Journal of Workplace Learning, the Journal of Change Management, the Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, the Scandinavian Journal of Business Management, the European Journal of Marketing, and the International Journal of Market Research.
