Attitudes towards Organizational Change

Attitudes towards organizationalchange

What is the role of employeesrsquo stress andcommitment

Maria Vakola and Ioannis NikolaouAthens University of Economics and Business Athens Greece

Abstract

Purpose ndash Occupational stress and organizational change are now widely accepted as two majorissues in organizational life The current study explores the linkage between employeesrsquo attitudestowards organizational change and two of the most significant constructs in organizational behaviouroccupational stress and organizational commitment

Designmethodologyapproach ndash A total of 292 participants completed ASSET a newldquoOrganizational Screening Toolrdquo which among other things measures workplace stress andorganizational commitment and a measure assessing attitudes towards organizational change

Findings ndash The results were in the expected direction showing negative correlations betweenoccupational stressors and attitudes to change indicating that highly stressed individualsdemonstrate decreased commitment and increased reluctance to accept organizational changeinterventions The most significant impact on attitudes to change was coming from bad workrelationships emphasizing the importance of that occupational stressor on employeesrsquo attitudestowards change The results did not support the role of organizational commitment as a moderator inthe relationship between occupational stress and attitudes to change

Research limitationsimplications ndash A limitation of the research design could be that allmeasures originated from the same source resulting in possible contamination from common methodvariance Further the cross-sectional research design adopted in the present study as opposed to alongitudinal or experimental methodology does not allow affirmative causal explanations

Originalityvalue ndash The present study showed that good and effective work relationships are veryimportant in organizational change Handling conflicts building supportive work relationships andcommunicating effectively all contribute to the formulation of positive attitudes to change andtherefore to the success of a change programme In addition organizations need to examine the extraworkload which organizational change may create Increase in workload is not only easily attributableto the change but it also makes change unattractive and problematic leading to non-supportiveattitudes

Keywords Organizational change Management of change Stress Business policy Greece

Paper type Research paper

Organizations continually embark on programmes of organizational change TheAmerican Management Association reported that 84 percent of US companies were inthe process of at least one major change initiative and 46 percent said that they hadthree or more change initiativesprogrammes in progress (Peak 1996) Also a studyconducted by the US Bureau of National Affairs (1996) reported that organizationalchange was a major concern for more than a third of the 396 participatingorganizations These ongoing and seemingly endless efforts put a lot of strain not onlyon organizations but also on individuals Organizational change challenges the ldquowaythings are done in herersquo and as a result individuals experience uncertainty and starts

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

wwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregister wwwemeraldinsightcom0142-5455htm

ER272

160

Employee RelationsVol 27 No 2 2005pp 160-174q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0142-5455DOI 10110801425450510572685

having fears about the potential failure in coping with the new situation (Coch andFrench 1948)

Stress at work is a well known factor for low motivation and morale decrease inperformance high turnover and sick-leave accidents low job satisfaction low qualityproducts and services poor internal communication and conflicts etc (Schabracq andCooper 2000 Murphy 1995 McHugh 1993) Moreover Chusmir and Franks (1988)argued that all the aforementioned problems are related directly or indirectly to stressand they have an effect on overall organizational efficiency and effectiveness TheBritish Industrial Society Survey (2001) indicated that 91 per cent of the 492 humanresource and personnel professionals questioned believed stress to be a problem intheir organization More specifically 36 per cent believed that it was a significantproblem and 5 per cent indicated that it was a serious problem

McHugh (1997) suggested that stress should be included in the change managementagenda She argued that people involved in the management of change need toacknowledge the fact that increased pressure and stress are put on employees becauseof continuous organizational change and that it is necessary for organizations to thinkof incorporating a stress management programme within the change managementprogramme Moreover Armenakis and Bedeian (1999 p 307) considered stress as anobstacle to change planning and implementation and they argued that

Receptivity resistance commitment cynicism stress and related personal reactions areclearly relevant criterion variables to be considered in the framework of planning andimplementing an organizational change Change can obviously cause cynicism and stressthereby inhibiting success

Mack et al (1998) put emphasis on the changing nature of organizational change whichis not complied with the typical unfreezing-moving-refreezing model (Lewin 1947)since today employees donrsquot experience this simple sequence On the contraryemployees find themselves in a constant uncertain state and they usually never reachthe refreezing state

Therefore although there is an agreement concerning the negative impact of stresson change processes there isnrsquot evidence on how stress influences change The purposeof the current study is to explore how stress at an individual level has an impact onchange at an organizational level This paper also explores the role of organizationalcommitment as a moderator between stress and attitudes to organizational change

The impact of stress on attitudes to changeThe most commonly definitions of stress may be categorized into three types (Beehrand Franz 1987) The first type is stimulus-based which considers stress as asituational or environmental based stimulus impinging on the person The second typeis response-based defining stress as an individualrsquos psychological or physiologicalresponse to environmentalsituational forces The third definition which is adopted forthe purposes of the present study applies an interactive approach often called thestressor-strain approach It brings together the concepts put forward in the first twodefinitions in the sense that it defines stress as both the stimulus (source of stress orstressor) and the response (outcome or manifestation of stress or strain) Theoriesbased on this definition are usually considered to be superior since they offer a more

Occupationalstress

161

ldquocompleterdquo view of the dynamics of stress and can account for documented differentialexperiences within a single situation (Arnold et al 1995)

Secord and Beckman (1969 p 167) defined attitudes as certain regularities of anindividualrsquos feelings thoughts and predispositions to act toward some aspect of hisenvironment Arnold et al (1995) indicated that ldquoattitudes reflect a personrsquos tendency tofeel think or behave in a positive or negative manner towards the object of theattituderdquo According to Elizur and Guttman (1976) attitudes toward change in generalconsist of a personrsquos cognitions about change affective reactions to change andbehavioral tendency toward change Researchers have therefore identified variousemployeesrsquo responses to an organizational change ranging from strong positiveattitudes (ie ldquothis change is essential for the organization to succeedrdquo) to strongnegative attitudes (ie ldquothis change could ruin the companyrdquo) (Piderit 2000) Thereforechange can be received with excitement and happiness or anger and fear whileemployeesrsquo response to it may range from positive intentions to support the change tonegative intentions to oppose it

Positive attitudes to change were found to be vital in achieving organizational goalsand in succeeding in change programmes (Eby et al 2000 Martin 1998 Kotter 1996Gilmore and Barnett 1992) Although change management literature has providedpractice with frameworks and methodologies to understand and manage change theresults are quite disappointing The brutal fact as Beer and Nohria (2000) described itis that 70 per cent of all change initiatives fail The number one reason whyorganization change initiatives fail is resistance to change (Deloitte amp Touche 1996)which is closely linked with the development of negative attitudes to change Employeeattitudes toward change can impact their morale productivity and turnover intentions(Iacovini 1993 Eby et al 2000)

Many studies suggested that organizational change efforts can be very stressfulexperience for individuals (Elrod and Tippett 2002 Grant 1996) Emotions andresponses to change can be so intensive that the literature in organizational change hascompared them with individual responses to traumatic changes such as death and grief(Henderson-Loney 1996 Grant 1996 Kubler-Ross 1969) For example Perlman andTakacs (1990) argued that there is a big similarity between the stages that anindividual goes through dealing with death described by Kubler-Ross (1969) and thestages they identified that individuals go through when they experience organizationalchange More specifically they noted that there are many emotional states that aperson can experience during change processes which are equilibrium denial angerbargaining chaos depression resignation openness readiness and re-emergence(Perlman and Takacs 1990)

All these responses to change which are directly related and in some casesconstitute resistance to change are normal since the change process involves goingfrom known to the unknown (Bovey and Hede 2001) The topic of resistance to changewhich is directly related with positive or negative attitudes to change is wellacknowledged in the literature as a critical success or failure factor (Trader-Leigh2001 Strebel 1996 Kotter 1996 Regar et al 1994) Other evidence suggests thatnegative attitudes to change have negative consequences for the organization Morespecifically perceived increased pressure coming from change implementation amongstate government employees was associated with increased stress and as a result wasassociated with lower job satisfaction and increased intentions to quit (Rush et al

ER272

162

1995) Similarly Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) report low job satisfaction andorganizational commitment as a result of a merger

Armenakis et al (1993) indicated that beliefs perceptions and attitudes are criticalin successful change Unless the majority of staff perceives that the organizationdevelops supportive organizational mechanisms to change such as top managementcommitment allocation of resources rewards training participation in the planningand implementation etc (McHugh 1993) change will be a stressful experience Stresscaused by organizational change will result in creating negative attitudes towardchange and therefore stress will become an inhibitor to change So we suggest that anegative relationship exists between stress level sources of stress and attitudestowards organizational change

Organizational commitment stress and attitudes to changePorter et al (1976) defined organizational commitment as the relative strength of anindividualrsquos identification and involvement in a particular organization Mowday et al(1982) conceive commitment as an attitude that reflects the nature and quality of thelinkage between an employee and an organization It is a state in which an individualidentifies with a particular organization and its goals and wishes to maintainmembership in order to facilitate these goals It is argued that commitment oftenestablishes an exchange relationship in which individuals attach themselves to theorganization in return for certain rewards from the organization (Buchanan 1974)Individuals come to organizations with certain needs skills expectations and theyhope to find a work environment where they can use their abilities and satisfy theirneeds When an organization can provide these opportunities the likelihood ofincreasing commitment is increased It is obvious that this exchange doesnrsquot meanexploitation of employees Commitment can be characterized by at least three relatedfactors a strong acceptance of the organizationrsquos values and goals a willingness toexert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and a strong desire to maintainmembership in the organization As a result commitment is determined by a range oforganizational and individual factors such as personal characteristics structuralcharacteristics work experience and role related features

There is evidence in the change management literature identifying the role oforganizational commitment in a change context Many authors indicated thatorganizational commitment plays an important role in employeersquos acceptance ofchange (Darwish 2000 Cordery et al 1993) Iverson (1996) suggested organizationalcommitment as the second most important determinant after union membership ofattitudes toward organizational change More specifically Lau and Woodman (1995)argued that a highly committed employee is more willing to accept organizationalchange if it is perceived to be beneficial But other researchers indicated that a highlycommitted employee may resist to change if heshe perceives it as a treat for hisherown benefit These findings suggest that there might be an influence of organizationalcommitment on attitudes to organizational change Other research also indicated thatorganizational commitment is a better predictor of behavioral intentions than jobsatisfaction within a change context (Iverson 1996 Iverson and Roy 1994) Employeeswith high organizational commitment are more willing to put more effort in a changeproject and therefore it is more likely to develop positive attitudes towardsorganizational change (Iverson 1996 Guest 1987) Similarly Guest (1987) suggested

Occupationalstress

163

that organizational commitment mediated the total causal effects of positiveaffectivity job security job satisfaction job motivation and environmentalopportunity on organizational change Therefore it is hypothesized that a positiverelationship exists between organizational commitment and attitudes to change

Lau and Woodman (1995) indicated that each individual determines through hisherperceptual filters whether change is a threat or a benefit Each individualrsquos uniqueldquoschemardquo of what change is or of what change represents adds to the formulation ofattitudes and reactions to change This argument supports the approach of theexistence of individual differences both in the perception of the change event (stressor)and in the causal relationship between perceived change event (stressor) and stresslevel There are a number of moderators that have an impact on the perception ofchange event and on the cause of stress (Mack et al 1998) Apart from personalitydimensions such as locus of control or AB type of personality organizationalcommitment has been identified as a moderator (Mack et al 1998 Sullivan and Bhagat1992) These moderators affect the individualrsquos ability to cope with the change eventthe individualrsquos ability to cope with sources and outcomes of stress and the individualrsquosperception of the change event Therefore we hypothesize that organizationalcommitment moderates the relationship between occupational stress and attitudestowards change

MethodParticipants and procedureA total of 292 employees from various Greek organizations participated in the currentstudy 119 (418 per cent) were males and 166 (582 per cent) were females The majorityof the participants were between 37 and 55 years of age (533 per cent) or 21 to 36 yearsold (386 per cent) A total of 145 of them (516 per cent) were employed inclerical-secretarial positions 38 (135 per cent) in technicalprofessional positions 25 (9per cent) in managerial positions and finally 20 (71 per cent) were employed insupervisory positions The remaining were employed in skilled-manual and sales ormarketing positions A total of 154 (544 per cent) were married 24 (85 per cent) livedwith their partner and 82 (29 per cent) were single Regarding their educationalbackground 69 (24 per cent) were high-school graduates 35 (122 per cent) hadgraduated from a college or further education institute 133 of them (462 per cent) wereuniversity graduates and 39 (135 per cent) had postgraduate degrees

Participants completed a self-report questionnaire pack which incorporated themeasures of attitudes to change and occupational stress In addition personal anddemographic data relating to age gender marital status and educational backgroundwere also collected Half of the individuals completed the attitudes to change measurefirst and half second in order to control for order effect Researchers informed theparticipants about confidentiality issues and that they had the right to withdraw fromthe study at any time and any stage

MeasuresOccupational stress Stress was measured through ASSET (Cartwright and Cooper2002) a new ldquoOrganizational Screening Toolrdquo which is the advanced form of thewell-established and extensively used Occupational Stress Indicator ndash OSI (Cooperet al 1988) However OSI is primarily intended for use with White Collar and

ER272

164

Managerial workers and is very long and time consuming to complete ThereforeASSET has been developed which is sorter and applicable to all occupations It hasalready been used successfully in health care organizations with adequate evidence ofconstruct and discriminant validity both in the UK (Johnson 2001 Johnson and Cooper2003) and also in Greece (Nikolaou and Tsaousis 2002) According to the authorsASSET is a very effective tool in diagnosing occupational stress combining both thesources and the effects of stress ASSET conceptualizes occupational stress asinfluenced by a variety of sources (each of them consisting an independent scale) suchas work relationships work-life balance overload job security control resources andcommunication pay and benefits as well as an evaluation of the employeersquos perceptionof the potential sources of stress that relate to the fundamental nature of the job itself(eg physical working conditions type of tasks and the amount of satisfaction from thejob etc) named ldquoAspects of the Jobrdquo An overall Job Stress Index was calculated andused for the purposes of the current study based on the sum of all the stress indicatorsdescribed by ASSET A high score in the overall job stress index indicates increasedperception of the stressors associated with high stress levels

Simultaneously it is recognized that occupational stress affects directlyorganizational commitment as well as physical health and psychological well beingThese are the outcomes of occupational stress In the current study we will focus onlyon organizational commitment ASSET divides Organizational Commitment in twosub-scales Commitment of the Organization to the Employee (COE) and Commitmentof the Employee to the Organization (CEO) High score in both scales indicatesincreased commitment The former measures the extent to which individuals feel thattheir organization is committed to them whereas the latter measures the degree thatemployees feel loyal and committed to the organization

Attitudes to change Attitudes to change were measured with the Attitudes toChange Questionnaire (ACQ) developed by Vakola et al (2003) The scale consists of 29items (14 positive and 15 negative) and asks from the participants to rate the extent towhich they agree with each item on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree(1) to strongly agree (5) A typical item of the positive attitude scale is ldquoI am lookingforward to changes within my work environmentrdquo An example of a negative item isldquoWhen a new organizational change programme is initiated I emphatically show mydisagreementrdquo The negatively stated items were reversed so that a high score toindicate positive attitudes towards organizational change

Work satisfaction ndash turnover intentions The respondents were also asked toindicate on a seven-point scale their global employee satisfaction levels (1 frac14 highlydissatisfied 7 frac14 highly satisfied) and their turnover intentions (1 frac14 highly unlikely toleave the company within the next six months 7 frac14 very likely to leave the companywithin the next six months)

ResultsDescriptive dataTable I presents the descriptive statistics along with the alpha reliabilities for thevariables used in this study

Most of the scales used in the study showed good internal consistency The alphafor the attitudes towards change scale was 092 whereas the alphas for the ASSETranged from 049 (Aspects of the job) to 080 (Work Relationships) Due to the fact that

Occupationalstress

165

the ldquoWork-Life Balancerdquo ldquoJob Securityrdquo and ldquoAspects of the Jobrdquo sub-scalesdemonstrated very low internal consistency (below 060) they were not included in thesubsequent analyses The alpha for the Overall Job Stress Index used in the currentstudy is 089 Similarly the alpha reliability coefficients for the OrganizationalCommitment subscales were also acceptable

Attitudes to change occupational stress and demographic dataTable II shows the statistically significant relationships of the Attitudes to Changescale and Occupational Stress indicators with demographic variables such as genderage and education

In order to investigate whether gender affects both attitudes to change and stress atwork independent t-tests were conducted As can be seen in Table II females scoredhigher than males on attitudes towards organizational change scale [t(280) frac14 -332p frac14 0001] suggesting that males tend to be more reluctant than females towardsorganizational change In terms of occupational stress males also scored significantlyhigher than females on a number of scales namely work relationships overload andthe overall job stress index demonstrating thus higher levels of occupational stresscompared to females Males also scored higher in organizational commitment(commitment of the employee to the organization) As far as age is concerned nodifferences were identified among the four age groups of our sample Education alsoshowed a positive impact on attitudes towards change as employees with highereducation are better equipped to meet new challenges at work (Iverson 1996)Educational level was also negatively related with one of the two types oforganizational commitment (commitment of the organization to the employee) Finallythese demographic characteristics were not linked to employee satisfaction andturnover intentions

Scale N of items Mean SD Alpha

Attitudes towards organizational change 29 10287 1508 092Employee satisfaction 1 475 147 ndashTurnover intentions 1 222 187 ndash

Occupational stress indicatorsWork relationships (WR) 8 2313 734 080Work-life balance (WLB) 4 1156 571 057Overload (OV) 4 1113 431 076Job security (JS) 4 1166 438 060Control (Cntrl) 4 1329 422 068Resources and communication (RC) 4 1296 431 067Pay and benefits (PB) 1 347 174 ndashAspects of the job (AJ) 8 2369 573 049Overall job stress index 37 11077 2530 089

Organizational commitment variablesCommitment of the organization to the employee 5 2013 509 082Commitment of the employee to the organisation 4 1594 412 075

Table IMeans standarddeviations and alphas ofattitudes to change andoccupational stressvariables (n frac14 292)

ER272

166

Predicting attitudes to change from occupational stress and organizational commitmentThe inter-correlation matrix of the studyrsquos variables is reported in Table III Attitudesto change demonstrated statistically significant correlations with a number ofoccupational stressors as assessed by the ASSET model namely work relationships(-025 p 001) overload (-018 p 001) pay and benefits (-014 p 005) and overalljob stress index (-020 p 001) confirming our first hypothesis A positiverelationship is also identified between commitment of employee to the organization andpositive attitudes to change (013 p005) confirming the respective hypothesis of thecurrent study Although the latter correlation is weak it is in line with the majority ofthe literature identifying links between employeesrsquo commitment and organizationalchange (eg Darwish 2000 Iverson 1996)

Further we explored the predictive validity of occupational stressors on attitudestowards organizational change The results of the regression analysis (see Table IV)controlling for demographics showed that the block of the occupational stressorspredicted almost 7 per cent of the positive attitudesrsquo total variance [R2 change frac14 007F (5271) frac14 416 p 0001] However only work relationships predicted attitudestowards change at a statistically significant level (b frac14 -022 p 0001) These resultsindicate that bad work relationships is a very significant inhibitor of employeesrsquopositive attitudes towards organizational change

The last set of analyses explored our last hypothesis regarding the moderatingeffect of organizational commitment on the relationship between Occupational Stressand Attitudes towards Organizational Change Following the guidelines of Cohen andCohen (1983) and Baron and Kenny (1986) two moderated multiple regression analyseswere carried out for both types of commitment and attitudes towards change (seeTable V) In both cases the overall job stress index was entered first in the equation

Measure Sex Age Education (yrs)

Statistical criterion t F r

Attitudes towards organizational change 2 332 029 014Employee satisfaction 067 045 2 007Turnover intentions 2 090 037 008

Occupational stress indicatorsWork relationships (WR) 252 062 000Overload (OV) 338 035 001Control (Cntrl) 2 015 087 000Resources and communication (RC) 2 009 139 2 002Pay and benefits (PB) 170 085 002Overall job stress index (OJSI) 214 030 004

Organisational commitment variablesCommitment of the organisation to the employee(COE)

154 210 2 012

Commitment of the employee to the organisation(CEO)

309 117 2 004

Notes p 005 p001 Gender was coded as ldquo1rdquo for male and ldquo2rdquo for female Age was coded ingroups ldquo1 below 21-years-oldrdquo ldquo2 21 to 36-years-oldrdquo ldquo3 37 to 55-years-oldrdquo ldquo4 55 plusrdquo

Table IIAttitudes to change

occupational stress anddemographic data

(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001

Table IIIInter-correlation matrixof the studyrsquos variables(n frac14 292)

ER272

168

followed by organizational commitment and the interaction term The results of theregression analyses showed that the two types of organizational commitment do notmoderate the relationship between occupational stress and attitudes towards changerejecting thus the last hypothesis of the study

DiscussionThe analysis of the results confirms a relationship between occupational stress andattitudes towards organizational change Almost all occupational stressors (apart fromcontrol and resources-communication) were related to negative attitudes to changeStress created by bad work relationships overload and unfair pay and benefits cancause negative attitudes toward organizational change and therefore inhibit changeprocesses More specifically lack of a socially supportive environment as expressed bybad work relationships was found to be the strongest predictor of negative attitudestowards change as shown in the regression analysis Further job insecurity may alsobecome an obstacle to change although this scale of the stress measure was notincluded in the analysis due to low internal consistency Evidence from the literature

R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b

Step 1ndashControl variablesGender 019Age 027 006 007 731 007Education 019Step 2ndashPredictorsWork relationships -022Overload -008Control 037 011 007 416 -006Resources and communication 009Pay and benefits -003

Notes Dependent variable attitudes towards organizational change p 005 p 001

Table IVMultiple regression

analysis regressing theblock of occupational

stress indicators onattitudes towards

organizational changecontrolling for

demographics (n frac14 292)

Predictors R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b

Step 1Overall job stress index 020 004 004 1213 -020Step 2Perceived commitment of organization to employee 020 003 000 000 000Step 3Interaction 020 003 000 036 -003Step 1Overall job stress index 020 004 004 1213 -018Step 2Perceived commitment of employee to organization 023 004 001 345 010Step 3Interaction 023 004 000 046 -004


Table VThe moderating effect of

organizationalcommitment on the

relationship betweenoccupational stress and

attitudes towardsorganizational change

(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169

suggests that job security is associated with organizational commitment which isassociated with positive attitudes to organizational change (Morris et al 1993)

The findings of the multiple regression analyses showed that work relationshipspredict strongly attitudes to organizational change indicating the important role of thisfactor in a change context Evidence from the change management literature reports alink between social support and employee adjustment indicating that a sociallysupportive workplace was correlated with lower emotional exhaustion scores (LaRoccoet al 1980) Similarly Woodward et al (1999) indicate that supportive colleagues playan important role in employees efforts to cope with stress in organizational changealthough Cunningham et al (2002) report a very limited contribution of job relatedinterpersonal relationships to prediction of readiness for organizational changeIndividuals with more social support tend to experience higher levels of physical andmental health during stressful life events (Mallinckrodt and Fretz 1988) Supportiveand positive work relationships were found to be helpful when individuals attempt tocope with organizational change (Shaw et al 1993)

Another issue linked to employeesrsquo attitudes towards change is the administrationof appropriate human resource functions such as training (British Industrial Society2001) Employees need to feel adequately trained and informed especially duringchange because effective communication reduces fear and uncertainty and thereforeresistance to change Pay and benefits is another occupational stressor associated withnegative attitudes to change Financial rewards determine the type of lifestyle that anindividual can lead and they are perceived to indicate the individualrsquos value to theorganization (Cartwright and Cooper 2002) They are also important in a changecontext since they facilitate change institutionalisation For example participation inchange programmes should be included in employeersquos performance appraisals andrewarded in order to reinforce such behaviours

Furthermore the results showed demonstrated a positive relationship betweenorganizational commitment and positive attitudes to change confirming evidence fromthe literature showing that organizational commitment is one of the most importantdeterminants of successful organizational change (Iverson 1996) The more employeesidentify with their organizations the higher their commitment to their organization andthe greater their willingness to accept organizational change (Cordery et al 1993)Similarly Guest (1987) suggests that organizational commitment will result inwillingness to accept organizational change The current results further supportprevious findings on the significance of employeesrsquo commitment on successfulorganizational change interventions (eg Iverson 1996 Lau and Woodman 1995) in anon-English culture such as Greece

The present study has several practical implications for managers andorganizations facing organizational change First it was shown that good andeffective work relationships are very important in organizational change Handlingconflicts building supportive work relationships communicating effectively allcontribute to the formulation of positive attitudes to change and therefore to thesuccess of a change programme Second organizations need to examine the extraworkload which organizational change may create If for example the new and the oldsystem are continued in parallel for some period during or after the changeimplementation resulting in extra workload employees may create negative attitudesto change and as a result be reluctant to contribute to the change Increase in

ER272

170

workload is not only easily attributable to the change but it also makes changeunattractive and problematic leading to non-supportive attitudes Thereforeorganizations need to plan the change carefully in order to create a well-structuredwork environment and a well-balanced work schedule to reduce stress and uncertainty

The current study has also a series of limitations A limitation of the research designcould be that all measures originated from the same source resulting in possiblecontamination from common method variance Common method variance in this caserefers to the problem that occurs when the same participant completes all the measuresusing the same type of paper-and pencil response format The correlation between themeasures will be higher that it ideally should be because participants will apply thesame biases to each task However the emergence of multiple factors in the results ofthe factor analyses (Cartwright and Cooper 2002) weighs against significant influencefrom common method variance (Begley 1998) Further even if it exists there is noreason to expect that the differences in correlations among attitudes to changeoccupational stress and organizational commitment are due to the effect of commonmethod variance since its presence would not be expected to exert differential bias onthe observed relationships

Further the cross-sectional research design adopted in the present study asopposed to a longitudinal or experimental methodology do not allow affirmativecausal explanations Future studies would profit from use of additional measuresto cross-validate findings of the relationships among workplace stress (egelectro-physiological measures of stress) and organizational commitment(eg absenteeism turnover etc) and organizational change

In their attempt to successfully cope with continuous changes in their businessenvironment organizations frequently embark on planned change interventionsNowadays this is more and more the rule rather the exception The current researchfindings highlight the need for acknowledging the significant effect of occupationalstress on employeesrsquo attitudes towards organizational change It is essential then thatthis acknowledgement be followed up by problem-solving action through stressmanagement initiatives incorporated within the change programme subsequently thestress factor is placed on the change management agenda It is suggested then thatorganizations implementing change should take into account the findings of thepresent study and attempt to address the issue of employee well being by activelyensuring that the increased demands being placed on employees as a consequence ofthe change process are counteracted with sufficient support By doing so organizationsbecome healthier for existing and more attractive for prospective employees

References

Armenakis A and Bedeian A (1999) ldquoOrganisational change a review of theory and researchin the 1990 srdquo Journal of Management Vol 25 No 3 pp 293-315

Armenakis AA Harris SG and Mossholder KW (1993) ldquoCreating readiness fororganizational changerdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 6 pp 681-702

Arnold J Cooper C and Robertson IT (1995) Work Psychology Understanding HumanBehaviour in the Workplace Pitman Publishing London

Baron RM and Kenny D (1986) ldquoThe moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research conceptual strategic and statistical considerationsrdquo Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology Vol 51 No 6 pp 1173-82

Occupationalstress

171

Beehr TA and Franz TM (1987) ldquoThe current debate about the meaning of job stressrdquo inIvancevich JM and Ganster DC (Eds) Job Stress From Theory to Suggestion HaworthPress New York NY pp 5-18

Beer M and Nohria N (2000) ldquoCracking the code of changerdquo Harvard Business Review Vol 78No 2 pp 133-41

Begley TM (1998) ldquoCoping strategies as predictors of employee distress and turnover after anorganisational consolidation a longitudinal studyrdquo Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology Vol 71 No 4 pp 305-29

Bovey W and Hede A (2001) ldquoResistance to organisational change the role of cognitive and affectiveprocessesrdquo Leadership amp Organizational Development Journal Vol 22 No 1 pp 372-82

British Industrial Society (2001) Managing Best Practice No 83 Occupational Stress BritishIndustrial Society London pp 4-23

Buchanan B (1974) ldquoBuilding organizational commitment the socialisation of managers inwork organisationsrdquo Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 19 No 4 pp 533-46

Bureau of National Affairs (1996) Bureau of National Affairs Special Survey Report HumanResources Outlook Bureau of National Affairs Washington DC

Cartwright S and Cooper CL (2002) ASSET An Organisational Stress Screening ToolRobertson Cooper Limited and Cubiks London

Chusmir LH and Franks V (1988) ldquoStress and the woman managerrdquo Training andDevelopment Journal Vol 10 No 1 pp 66-70

Coch L and French J (1948) ldquoOvercoming resistance to changerdquo Human Relations Vol 1 No 4pp 512-32

Cohen J and Cohen P (1983) Applied Multiple Regressioncorrelation Analysis for the BehavioralSciences Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale NJ

Cooper SL Sloan SJ and Williams S (1988) Occupational Stress Indicator ManagementGuides NFER Nelson Windsor

Cordery J Sevastos P Mueller W and Parker S (1993) ldquoCorrelates of employee attitudetoward functional flexibilityrdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 6 pp 705-23

Cunningham C Woodward C Shannon H Maclntosh J Lendrum B Rosenbloom D andBrown J (2002) ldquoReadiness for organizational change a longitudinal study of workplacepsychological and behavioural correlatesrdquo Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology Vol 75 No 1 pp 377-92

Darwish Y (2000) ldquoOrganizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of attitudestoward organization change in a non-western settingrdquo Personnel Review Vol 29 No 5-6pp 6-25

Deloitte amp Touche (1996) ldquoExecutive survey of manufacturersrdquo available atwwwdtcgcoresearch

Eby L Adams D Russell J and Gaby S (2000) ldquoPerceptions of organizational readiness forchange factors related to employeersquos reactions to the implementation of team-basedsellingrdquo Human Relations Vol 53 No 3 pp 419-28

Elizur D and Guttman L (1976) ldquoThe structure of attitudes toward work and technologicalchange within an organizationrdquo Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 21 No 1 pp 611-23

Elrod D and Tippett D (2002) ldquoThe lsquodeath valleyrsquo of changerdquo Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement Vol 15 No 3 pp 273-91

ER272

172

Gilmore TN and Barnett C (1992) ldquoDesigning the social architecture of participation in largegroups to effect organizational changerdquo The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Vol 28No 4 pp 534-48

Grant P (1996) ldquoSupporting transition how managers can help themselves and others duringtimes of changerdquo Organizations and People Vol 3 No 1 p 4

Guest D (1987) ldquoHuman resource management and industrial relationsrdquo Journal ofManagement Studies Vol 24 No 5 pp 503-21

Henderson-Loney J (1996) ldquoTuckman and tears developing teams during profoundorganizational changerdquo Supervision Vol 57 No 3 p 5

Iacovini J (1993) ldquoThe human side of organizational changerdquo Training and DevelopmentJournal Vol 47 No 1 pp 65-8

Iverson RD (1996) ldquoEmployee acceptance of organizational change the role of organizationalcommitmentrdquo The International Journal of Human Resource Management Vol 7 No 1pp 122-49

Iverson RD and Roy D (1994) ldquoA causal model of behavioural commitment evidence from astudy of Australian blue-collar employeesrdquo Journal of Management Vol 20 No 1 pp 15-41

Johnson SJ (2001) ldquoOccupational stress among social workers and administration workerswithin a social services departmentrdquo unpublished MSc Dissertation University ofManchester Institute of Science and Technology Manchester

Johnson S and Cooper C (2003) ldquoThe construct validity of the ASSET stress measurerdquo Stressand Health Vol 19 No 1 pp 181-5

Kotter JP (1996) ldquoLeading change why transformation efforts failrdquo Harvard Business Reviewon Change HBS Press Harvard MA

Kubler-Ross E (1969) On Death and Dying Touchstone New York NY

LaRocco J House J and French J (1980) ldquoSocial support occupational stress and healthrdquoJournal of Health and Social Behaviour Vol 21 No 2 pp 202-18

Lau C and Woodman RC (1995) ldquoUnderstanding organizational change a schematicperspectiverdquo Academy of Management Journal Vol 38 No 2 pp 537-54

Lewin K (1947) ldquoFrontiers in group dynamicsrdquo Human Relations Vol 1 No 1 pp 5-41

McHugh M (1993) ldquoStress at work do managers really count the costsrdquo Employee RelationsVol 15 No 1 pp 18-32

McHugh M (1997) ldquoThe stress factor another item for the change management agendardquoJournal of Organisational Change Management Vol 10 No 4 pp 345-62

Mack DA Nelson DL and Campbell-Quick J (1998) ldquoThe stress of organizational change adynamic process modelrdquo Applied Psychology An International Review Vol 47 No 2pp 219-32

Mallinckrodt B and Fretz B (1988) ldquoSocial support and the impact of job loss on olderprofessionalsrdquo Journal of Counselling Psychology Vol 35 No 1 pp 281-6

Martin M (1998) ldquoTrust leadershiprdquo Journal of Leadership Studies Vol 5 No 1 pp 41-8

Morris T Lydka H and OrsquoCreevy M (1993) ldquoCan commitment be managed A longitudinalanalysis of employee commitment and human resource policiesrdquo Human ResourceManagement Journal Vol 3 No 3 pp 21-42

Mowday R Porter L and Steers R (1982) Employee-Organization Linkages The Psychology ofCommitment Absenteeism and Turnover Academic Press New York NY

Murphy LR (1995) ldquoManaging job stress an employee assistancehuman resourcemanagement partnershiprdquo Personnel Review Vol 24 No 1 pp 41-50

Occupationalstress

173

Nikolaou I and Tsaousis I (2002) ldquoEmotional intelligence in the workplace exploring its effectson occupational stress and organizational commitmentrdquo The International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 10 No 2 pp 327-42

Peak MH (1996) ldquoAn era of wrenching corporate changerdquo Management Review Vol 85 No 1 p 7

Perlman D and Takacs GJ (1990) ldquoThe ten stages of changerdquo Nursing Management Vol 21No 4 p 33

Piderit SC (2000) ldquoRethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence a multidimensionalview of attitudes toward and organizational changerdquo Academy of Management ReviewVol 25 No 4 pp 783-94

Porter L Crampon W and Smith F (1976) ldquoOrganizational commitment and managerialturnover a longitudinal studyrdquo Organizational Behaviour and Human PerformanceVol 15 No 1 pp 87-98

Regar R Mullane J Gustafson L and DeMarie S (1994) ldquoCreating earthquakes to changeorganizational mindsetsrdquo Academy of Management Executive Vol 8 No 4 pp 31-46

Rush M Schoel W and Barnard S (1995) ldquoPsychological resiliency in the public sectorlsquohardinessrsquo and pressure for changerdquo Journal of Vocational Behavior Vol 46 No 1 pp 17-39

Schabracq MJ and Cooper CL (2000) ldquoThe changing nature of work and stressrdquo Journal ofManagerial Psychology Vol 15 No 3 pp 227-42

Schweiger D and DeNisi A (1991) ldquoCommunicating with employees following a merger alongitudinal field experimentrdquo Academy of Management Journal Vol 34 No 1 pp 110-35

Secord P and Backman C (1969) Social Psychology McGraw-Hill New York NY

Shaw J Fields M Thacker J and Fisher C (1993) ldquoThe availability of personal and externalcoping resources their impact on job stress and employee attitudes during organizationalrestructuringrdquo Work and Stress Vol 7 No 3 pp 229-46

Strebel P (1996) ldquoWhy do employees resist changerdquo Harvard Business Review on Change HBSPress Harvard MA

Sullivan S and Bhagat R (1992) ldquoOrganizational stress job satisfaction and job performancewhere do we go from hererdquo Journal of Management Vol 18 No 2 pp 353-74

Trader-Leigh W (2001) ldquoResistance to organizational change the role of cognitive and affectiveprocessesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development Journal Vol 22 No 8 pp 372-82

Vakola M Tsaousis I and Nikolaou I (2003) ldquoThe role of emotional intelligence andpersonality variables on attitudes toward organizational changerdquo Journal of ManagerialPsychology Vol 19 No 1 pp 88-110

Woodward C Shannon H Cunningham C McIntosh J Lendrum B Rosenbloom D andBrown J (1999) ldquoThe impact of re-engineering and other cost reduction strategies on thestaff of a large teaching hospital a longitudinal studyrdquo Medical Care Vol 37 No 6pp 547-55

Further reading

Dunham RB Grube JA Gardner DG Cummings LL and Pierce JL (1989) ldquoThedevelopment of an attitude toward change instrumentrdquo paper presented at the Academyof Management Annual Meeting Washington DC

Meyer JP (1997) ldquoOrganizational commitmentrdquo in Cooper CL and Robertson IT (Eds)International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Wiley Chichesterpp 175-228

ER272

174

having fears about the potential failure in coping with the new situation (Coch andFrench 1948)

Stress at work is a well known factor for low motivation and morale decrease inperformance high turnover and sick-leave accidents low job satisfaction low qualityproducts and services poor internal communication and conflicts etc (Schabracq andCooper 2000 Murphy 1995 McHugh 1993) Moreover Chusmir and Franks (1988)argued that all the aforementioned problems are related directly or indirectly to stressand they have an effect on overall organizational efficiency and effectiveness TheBritish Industrial Society Survey (2001) indicated that 91 per cent of the 492 humanresource and personnel professionals questioned believed stress to be a problem intheir organization More specifically 36 per cent believed that it was a significantproblem and 5 per cent indicated that it was a serious problem

McHugh (1997) suggested that stress should be included in the change managementagenda She argued that people involved in the management of change need toacknowledge the fact that increased pressure and stress are put on employees becauseof continuous organizational change and that it is necessary for organizations to thinkof incorporating a stress management programme within the change managementprogramme Moreover Armenakis and Bedeian (1999 p 307) considered stress as anobstacle to change planning and implementation and they argued that

Receptivity resistance commitment cynicism stress and related personal reactions areclearly relevant criterion variables to be considered in the framework of planning andimplementing an organizational change Change can obviously cause cynicism and stressthereby inhibiting success

Mack et al (1998) put emphasis on the changing nature of organizational change whichis not complied with the typical unfreezing-moving-refreezing model (Lewin 1947)since today employees donrsquot experience this simple sequence On the contraryemployees find themselves in a constant uncertain state and they usually never reachthe refreezing state

Therefore although there is an agreement concerning the negative impact of stresson change processes there isnrsquot evidence on how stress influences change The purposeof the current study is to explore how stress at an individual level has an impact onchange at an organizational level This paper also explores the role of organizationalcommitment as a moderator between stress and attitudes to organizational change

The impact of stress on attitudes to changeThe most commonly definitions of stress may be categorized into three types (Beehrand Franz 1987) The first type is stimulus-based which considers stress as asituational or environmental based stimulus impinging on the person The second typeis response-based defining stress as an individualrsquos psychological or physiologicalresponse to environmentalsituational forces The third definition which is adopted forthe purposes of the present study applies an interactive approach often called thestressor-strain approach It brings together the concepts put forward in the first twodefinitions in the sense that it defines stress as both the stimulus (source of stress orstressor) and the response (outcome or manifestation of stress or strain) Theoriesbased on this definition are usually considered to be superior since they offer a more

Occupationalstress

161






ER272

162





Occupationalstress

163






ER272

164







Occupationalstress

165









ER272

166









154 210 2 012


309 117 2 004




(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174






ER272

162





Occupationalstress

163






ER272

164







Occupationalstress

165









ER272

166









154 210 2 012


309 117 2 004




(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174





Occupationalstress

163






ER272

164







Occupationalstress

165









ER272

166









154 210 2 012


309 117 2 004




(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174






ER272

164







Occupationalstress

165









ER272

166









154 210 2 012


309 117 2 004




(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174







Occupationalstress

165









ER272

166









154 210 2 012


309 117 2 004




(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174









ER272

166









154 210 2 012


309 117 2 004




(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174









154 210 2 012


309 117 2 004




(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

167

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174

ES

TI

WR

OV

Cn

trl

RC

PB

OJS

IC

OE

CE

O

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

sor

gan

izat

ion

alch

ang

e0

100

002

025

2

018

2

011

20

112

014

2

020

0

060

13

Em

plo

yee

sati

sfac

tion

20

25

20

28

20

092

030

2

033

2

025

2

037

0

45

032

T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

007

003

008

002

012

0

13

20

22

20

11W

ork

rela

tion

ship

s0

48

041

0

60

038

0

84

20

31

20

15

Ov

erlo

ad0

22

042

0

33

068

2

003

016

C

ontr

ol0

57

020

0

58

20

31

20

24

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

032

0

73

20

40

20

25

Pay

and

ben

efit

048

2

027

2

020

O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

20

32

20

14

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

anis

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

ee0

73

Notes

ES

=E

mp

loy

eesa

tisf

acti

onT

I=T

urn

over

inte

nti

ons

WR

=W

ork

rela

tion

ship

sO

V=

Ov

erlo

adC

ntr

l=C

ontr

olR

C=

Res

ourc

esan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

P

B=

Pay

and

ben

efits

OJS

I=O

ver

all

job

stre

ssin

dex

CO

E=

Com

mit

men

tof

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

the

emp

loy

eeC

EO

=C

omm

itm

ent

ofth

eem

plo

yee

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

p

005

p

001


ER272

168



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174



R Adj R 2R 2

changeF

change b









changeF

change b







(n frac14 292)

Occupationalstress

169






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174






ER272

170





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174





References





Occupationalstress

171




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174




















ER272

172























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174























Occupationalstress

173

















Further reading



ER272

174

















Further reading



ER272

174

Documents

Attitudes towards Organizational Change