EMPLOYEE ADJUSTMENT DURING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE:

THE ROLE OF CLIMATE, ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL AND OCCUPATION.

Submitted as a Dissertation for the award of Doctor of Philosophy by:

Angela Jayne Martin, B.A., B.Com. (Hons)

School of Applied Psychology

Griffith University

Supervisors: Dr Liz Jones and Professor Victor Callan

December, 2001

ABSTRACT

The present studies were designed to advance theoretical understanding of

employee adjustment during organisational change. There were two broad aims of the

thesis. Firstly, the role of organisational climate factors in facilitating employee

adjustment during change was examined by testing models based on Lazarus and

Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological account of stress and coping processes.

In particular, the concept of coping resources was expanded to examine organisational

factors rather than individual attributes. Secondly, the extent to which organisational

sub-groups differ in their perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment indicators

during change was investigated. The research also aimed to inform diagnostic processes

within organisational change management by examining the applied value of the

empirical findings of each of the studies.

The first two studies were empirical tests of a theoretical model of employee

adjustment. Study 1 tested a model of employee adjustment to organisational change that

examined employee well-being and job satisfaction as outcomes of positive adjustment

during change. Firstly, pilot interviews with 67 hospital employees enabled salient

aspects of the organisational climate that may facilitate adjustment during organisational

change to be confirmed. Next, 779 employees in the same organisation completed a

structured questionnaire that examined their perceptions of organisational coping

resources, appraisals of change and adjustment indicators. Confirmatory factor analyses

established the sound measurement properties of the proposed model and structural

equation analyses provided evidence that supported the majority of theoretical

ii

predictions. Overall, the final model showed that employees who had positive

perceptions about employee relations within the hospital, strong beliefs about the quality

of patient care, and felt supported by their supervisors were more positive in their

appraisals of the change and reported better personal adjustment. The effects of climate

variables on adjustment were direct and indirect (mediated by change appraisals). A

particularly influential variable in the model was the effectiveness of employee relations

within the organisation.

Study 2 tested a model of employee adjustment to organisational change which

examined organisational commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism as outcomes

of positive adjustment during change. Firstly, as in Study 1, pilot interviews with 20 state

public sector employees enabled salient elements of the organisational climate that may

function as resources for coping with organisational change to be confirmed. Next, 877

employees in the same organisation completed a structured questionnaire that examined

their perceptions of organisational coping resources, appraisals of change and adjustment

indicators. Like Study 1, confirmatory factor analyses established the sound

measurement properties of the proposed model and structural equation analyses provided

evidence which supported most of the theoretical predictions. Overall, the final model

showed that employees who had positive perceptions about customer service, believed

that their leaders communicated a vision for the organisation, and felt supported by their

supervisors were more positive in their appraisals of the change and reported better

personal adjustment. The effects of climate variables on adjustment were direct and

indirect (mediated by change appraisals). The extent to which leaders exhibited a vision

for the organisation emerged as an important predictor in the model. Together, the results

iii

of studies 1 and 2 provided evidence that organisational climate variables are important

predictors of the way employees appraise and respond to organisation change.

The next two studies presented were focused on group differences in the model

variables from studies 1 and 2. Study 3 investigated group differences in perceptions of

climate and levels of adjustment during organisational change as a function of an

employee’s organisational level. The pilot interviews revealed that an employee’s

organisational level was the most salient source of sub-group identification in the climate

of a public sector department. Survey data from study 2 were analysed using

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). The responses of 669 public sector

employees were grouped into 3 categories: lower, middle and upper level employees.

Results revealed that upper level staff reported higher levels of adjustment during change,

across a range of indicators.

Study 4 investigated occupational group and organisational level differences in

perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment during organisational change. The pilot

interviews in this organisation revealed that it was an employee’s occupational group

membership that provided the most salient group delineator in the hospital climate.

Survey data from Study 1 were analysed using MANOVA. The responses of 732

hospital employees were grouped into 4 major occupational categories: medical, nursing,

allied health and non-clinical staff. Participants were also grouped on the basis of

whether they occupied a management or non-management position. Results revealed

statistically significant differences between groups and an interaction between occupation

and level. Non-clinical staff were less well adjusted during change than other

occupational groups. Managers appraised change as more stressful than non-managers,

iv

but felt more in control of the situation. Together, the results of Studies 3 and 4

highlighted the importance of examining employee perceptions at the sub-group level

when implementing change and indicated the need for interventions to be targeted at the

sub-group level.

Overall, the research reported in this dissertation extended a theoretical model of

employee adjustment to change and improved the application of the model. This

outcome was achieved by investigating the role of environmental coping resources drawn

from the organisational climate in improving employee adjustment during change and the

degree to which groups differed in their perceptions of these variables. Climate and

change appraisal factors were linked with a range of important individual/organisational

outcomes such as employee well-being, job satisfaction, organisational commitment,

turnover intentions and absenteeism. Differences in perceptions of climate and levels of

adjustment during change were also observed at the organisational sub-group level. The

findings of the research have implications for the effective management of organisational

change. Change should be implemented in conjunction with ongoing organisational

development processes involving diagnostic research that identifies the elements of

climate that employees draw upon for support in the process of adjustment. Interventions

should be based on improving and strengthening these resources. Diagnostic processes

should also pay attention to the salient groupings of staff within an organisation so that

interventions can be targeted specifically to relevant sub-groups.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The one person who was instrumental in the entire journey of this thesis is Dr Liz

Jones, my principal supervisor and someone I consider a great mentor. I want to

acknowledge many things about Liz. Firstly, I am grateful for her initial encouragement

to undertake this research. I feel that my training as a researcher has been influenced in

such a positive way by her academic guidance, skills and way of approaching problems.

Amazingly, Liz was consistently available, caring and understanding. Finally, the way

she supported me on a personal level was also very important.

Contributions from my associate supervisor, Prof. Victor Callan, were appreciated.

Under his supervision, my research gained an initial empirical grounding. His assistance

needs to be acknowledged in relation to editing, provision of constructive criticism and

theoretical input.

Financial support from the School of Management and the School of Applied

Psychology in the form of Griffith University Postgraduate Research Awards is

acknowledged. I would also like to thank Stephen Cox for teaching me the basics of

structural equation analyses and answering my endless questions about statistics.

The research reported in this dissertation was supported by an Australian Research

Council Strategic Partners in Industry, Research and Training (SPIRT) grant held from

1998-2000 by V. Callan, C. Gallois, E. Jones and P. Bordia. I learned so much through

my involvement in this project and many of the people who were part of it need to be

thanked. Two of the chief investigators acted as my supervisors and are mentioned above.

I would also like to acknowledge Professor Cindy Gallois and Dr Prashant Bordia for

vi

their valuable contributions to my professional development. I am also grateful to Dr

Bernadette Watson and Peter Monaghan who played important roles in co-ordinating the

data collection process. Sandra Lawrence and Margaret Tluchowska, fellow PhD

students on the grant, provided friendship, collegial advice, and lots of ‘debriefing’. Liz

Hobman and Bernd Irmer, who were also involved in the project, and with whom I

shared an office, gave me daily support, and most importantly, shared my caffeine and

sugar addictions.

I also want to express my heartfelt appreciation of some of the people who have

personally supported me in many different ways throughout the past three and a half

years. Katy White was a very special friend and a fantastic housemate with whom a lot

of laughter (and tears) were shared. Always there to listen, Katy helped me both

personally and professionally. I also really appreciate her help in proof-reading this

document. Life, and writing a thesis, is a little bit easier when you have a kindred spirit

to share your ups and downs with. Imogen was that person to me. She kept me sane and

helped me to feel that I could achieve anything. Special thanks go to my wonderful

boyfriend (and Microsoft Word hero) Sam, who loved and encouraged me through the

toughest part – the dreaded writing up process. He also made me laugh, even when I felt

cranky or depressed. Also instrumental were the housemate from heaven (Di) and the

cutest puppies ever (Chiko and Rufus). Finally, I wouldn’t have made it without the love

of my family, my parents Jenny and Barry, and my sister Wendy, who had unwavering

belief in me. This work is especially dedicated to them.

vii

SUBMISSION STATEMENT

The work presented in the thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,

original and my own work, except where acknowledged in the text. The material has not

been submitted, either in whole, or in part, for a degree at this or any other university.

____________________________

Angela Jayne Martin

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE Introduction and Aims of the Present Program of Research..................................................... 1

Organisational Change as a Source of Occupational Stress ............................................. 2 The Major Findings of Stress Research ............................................................................ 5 The Cognitive–Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping.................................... 11

Situational appraisals .................................................................................................. 12 Coping strategies......................................................................................................... 13 Coping resources......................................................................................................... 14

Limitations of the Cognitive-Phenomenological Perspective on Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change.................................................................... 18

Outcome variables – adjustment indicators ................................................................ 19 Organisational coping resources ................................................................................. 21 Organisational climate factors as coping resources .................................................... 24 Group differences........................................................................................................ 30

Aims of the Present Program of Research ...................................................................... 35 CHAPTER TWO Methodological Issues ............................................................................................................ 38

The Epistemological Approach of the Present Program of Research............................. 38 Overview of the Research Design................................................................................... 39 Convergent Interviewing ................................................................................................ 43 Survey Methodology....................................................................................................... 47

Reliability and validity................................................................................................ 50 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 51

Analytic Techniques ....................................................................................................... 53 Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling................................. 54

Model specification................................................................................................. 55 Model fit.................................................................................................................. 56 Model re-specification ............................................................................................ 57 Assumptions of estimation methods ....................................................................... 59 Causality ................................................................................................................. 60

Analysis of survey data using Multivariate Analysis of Variance.............................. 62 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 64

ix

CHAPTER THREE Study One: The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change: A Model Predicting Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-being .......... 65

Aims................................................................................................................................ 68 Method ............................................................................................................................ 69

Background................................................................................................................. 69 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 69

Sample..................................................................................................................... 70 Measures ................................................................................................................. 70

Results............................................................................................................................. 72 The measurement model ............................................................................................. 73 Test of the structural model ........................................................................................ 78

Discussion....................................................................................................................... 80 Implications for change management ......................................................................... 84

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER FOUR Study Two: The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change: A Model Predicting Commitment, Turnover Intentions and Absenteeism ..................................................................................................................... 86

Aims................................................................................................................................ 89 Method ............................................................................................................................ 90

Background................................................................................................................. 90 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 90 Sample......................................................................................................................... 90 Measures ..................................................................................................................... 91

Results............................................................................................................................. 93 The measurement model ............................................................................................. 94 Test of the structural model ........................................................................................ 99

Discussion..................................................................................................................... 102 Implications for change management ....................................................................... 106

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 106 CHAPTER FIVE Study Three: Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of Organisational Level .................................................................................. 107

Aims.............................................................................................................................. 108 Method .......................................................................................................................... 108

Participants and procedure........................................................................................ 108

x

Measures ................................................................................................................... 109 Results........................................................................................................................... 110 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 114

Implications for change management ....................................................................... 117 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 118

CHAPTER SIX Study Four: Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of Occupational Group Membership and Organisational Level..................... 119

Aims.............................................................................................................................. 120 Method .......................................................................................................................... 120

Participants and procedure........................................................................................ 120 Measures ................................................................................................................... 120

Results........................................................................................................................... 122 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 125

Implications for change management ....................................................................... 127 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 128

CHAPTER SEVEN Discussion of Key Findings and Conclusions ...................................................................... 129

A Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change............................. 129

Employee relations.................................................................................................... 132 Leader vision............................................................................................................. 133 Supervisor social support.......................................................................................... 133 Service climate (customer service and patient care)................................................. 134 The mediating role of change appraisals .................................................................. 135

Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change.............. 138 Implications for Change Management and Stress Management During Change Implementation ............................................................................................................. 141 Strengths and Limitations Identified in the Present Research ...................................... 147 Directions for Future Research ..................................................................................... 150 Overall Conclusions...................................................................................................... 152

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 154

xi

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Survey questions Organisation A………………………………………..183

Appendix B - Survey questions Organisation B…………………………………….….189

Appendix C - Group means for Study 3………………………………………………..196

Appendix D – Group means for Study 4……………………………………………….198

xii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Stress Prevention in Organisations....................................................................... 10 Figure 1.2. The Cognitive-Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping .......................... 12 Figure 2.1. Overview of the Research Design ........................................................................ 40 Figure 3.1. Proposed Model.................................................................................................... 68 Figure 3.2. Final Structural Model.......................................................................................... 80 Figure 4.1. Proposed Model.................................................................................................... 89 Figure 4.2. Final Structural Model........................................................................................ 101 Figure 7.1. Theoretical Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change ... 131

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change.......................... 75 Table 3.2. Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables ..................................................................................................... 77 Table 4.1. Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of Employee Adjustment During Change .................................................. 96 Table 4.2. Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables ..................................................................................................... 98 Table 5.1. Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects .................................................. 112 Table 5.2. Mean Scores of Significant Results and Post Hoc Tests for Organisational Level............................................................................................ 113 Table 5.3. Absenteeism by Organisational Level ................................................................. 113 Table 6.1. Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects .................................................. 123 Table 6.2. Mean Scores for Significant Main Effects and Results of Post-hoc Tests .......... 125

xiv

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction and Aims of the Present Program of Research

The increasing pace of global, economic and technological development makes change

an inevitable feature of organisational life (Cummings & Worley, 1997). Organisations are

often ineffective at managing the psychological components of organisational change

(Bennett & Durkin, 2000) and it has been noted that there is considerable room for improving

the effectiveness of change efforts (Porras & Robertson 1992). Kotter (1995) noted that as

many as 90% of change initiatives fail to achieve their strategic objectives, mainly due to

human factors such as change-related responses, attitudes and behaviours.

Organisations cannot achieve their strategic change objectives until a critical mass of

employees have successfully completed their individual transitions (St Amour, 2001).

Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) argued that employee attitudes toward

organisational change affect not only the success of the change process but other important

organisational outcomes such as job satisfaction, productivity, morale, absenteeism and

turnover (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000; Iacovini, 1993; McDonald & Siegal, 1993;

McManus, Russell, Freeman & Rohricht, 1995). The costs involved with such consequences

may be directly attributable to the distress that is created when an organisation’s employees

encounter constant change (Mack, Nelson & Quick, 1998).

Large-scale organisational change is defined as change that encompasses the entire

organisation, has occurred over a number of years, and involves fundamental modifications

in ways of thinking about the business, the organisation, and how the organisation is

managed (Nadler, 1988). This type of change has important and often underestimated

1

psychological implications for employees. The necessary adjustments can foster enthusiasm

and opportunities for learning and growth or, alternatively, can lead to frustration and

alienation (Thompson & Van de Ven, 2001).

Judge, Thoresen, and Welbourne (1999) argued that organisational change research has

been dominated largely by a macro systems-oriented focus and that a limited number of

studies of organisational change have taken a micro-level, psychological approach. Hence,

assessing the impact of organisational change on employee attitudes and behaviours is

identified as an important research direction.

The present program of research aimed to develop a theoretical understanding of

employee adjustment during organisational change, informed by a stress and coping

perspective. This chapter provides a literature review that introduces the issue of employee

adjustment during organisational change. The review draws primarily on the stress literature,

focusing on the negative outcomes for individuals and organisations. The stress and coping

framework developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) is described and the application of this

model in the context of employee adjustment during organisational change is evaluated. A

critique of the model and the relevant literature is integrated with the development of the

aims of the present program of research.

Organisational Change as a Source of Occupational Stress

O’Driscoll and Cooper (1994) identified an increasing concern about the impact of

work conditions on the health and well-being of employees. In particular, considerable

research energy has been devoted to the effects of stress experienced at work. Studies that

have investigated the effects of organisational change on employee psychological well-being

have focused on change as a source of work stress (Ashford, 1988; Mack et al., 1998;

2

Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry, Callan & Sartori, 1996). Employee’s emotional responses

to organisational change often include feelings of uncertainty and anxiety, particularly in

relation to how change will affect employees’ job security, the nature of their work, career

paths, co-worker relations and reporting relationships (Ashford, 1988; Kanter, 1983).

Organisational change can be threatening for many individuals, with negative outcomes often

including job loss, reduced status, loss of identity and interpersonal conflict (Schweiger &

Ivancevich, 1985).

Each individual evaluates change by filtering it through their own unique perceptual

process, estimating the potential impact of the change and determining whether it is a threat

or a challenge. Lau and Woodman (1995) proposed that this determination is based on a

schema about change, through which the employee cognitively organises and integrates

information about the change. An anticipated positive impact would be classified as a

challenge. If the change is determined to have a negative effect, it is classified as a threat and

may produce a stress response (Mack et al., 1998).

Holmes and Rahe’s (1967) early work on the social readjustment rating scale identified

the experience of change as a central defining feature of potentially stressful events. It has

been argued that stress at work is primarily caused by “the fundamentals of change”- the

uncertainty, lack of control and high workload brought about by increased pressures to

perform, lack of job certainty/security, and constant changes in work patterns or management

(Roney & Cooper, 1997). These work characteristics are prominent features of modern

employment relationships. Organisational change can exacerbate existing stressors that

employees may experience in their day-to-day jobs. Thus, a common employee outcome of

the introduction of change in the workplace is increased levels of stress.

3

Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot, Standfeld and Smith (1998) found that anticipation of a major

organisational change resulted in increased self-reported symptoms of stress and small

increases in clinical measurements of stress (e.g., via use of an electrocardiogram).

Experiencing change resulted in similar increases in self-reported morbidity, with larger and

more consistent adverse changes in clinical measurements of stress.

Schabracq and Cooper (1998) explained that the major reason change creates stress is

because individuals develop general automatic responses to work and life events which

enable them to meet recurring needs in set ways. This set of “situated roles” provides a sense

of control and reduces uncertainty in everyday interactions. Organisational change can mean

that many of these roles/skills/behaviours may become invalid.

A complex process of reciprocal determinism between change at the organisational

level and stress at the individual level occurs (Mack et al., 1998). The change impacts on the

employee by forcing him or her to function in a different manner. The employee, in turn, has

an impact on the change because his or her active or passive acceptance of the change or,

alternatively, active or passive resistance to the change, will have a direct effect on the

outcome of the change. Thus, stress caused by the demands that are placed on individuals

charged with enacting new behaviours can act as a barrier to the implementation of effective

change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).

Individuals vary in their ability to learn new roles, and stress is experienced as new

skills and behaviours are acquired (Callan, 1993). When changes are substantial, established

situated skills become less effective, resulting in greater uncertainty. Coping and adaptation

processes are then activated. Individuals who have difficulties coping and developing

revised situated skills will experience higher levels of stress. Maladaptive coping over a long

4

period of time can induce a chronic and debilitating form of stress known as burnout

(O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1994). Individual differences, or personality variables, play an

important role in predicting perceptions of change and levels of adjustment during change

(Terry et al., 1996; Terry & Callan, 1997, 1998). These differences will be discussed further

in a review of the stress literature.

Johnson and Sarason (1979) argued that organisational change, depending on how it is

perceived, is one of the primary causes of workplace stress. Preventing and managing the

negative effects of stress is one of the major concerns of organisational psychologists. In

particular, stress experienced during organisational change has been identified as a

significant area of job-related stress that needs attention due to the seemingly ever-increasing

occurrence of, and impact on employees of, organisational change (Ashford, 1988; Mack et

al., 1998; Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry et al., 1996). It is also in the organisation’s best

interests, both ethically and financially, to intervene and minimise the amount of damage that

is caused to the employee by the negative effects of stress from organisational change (Mack

et al., 1998).

The Major Findings of Stress Research

The stress literature contains a plethora of research on the various forms of life stress,

including stress experienced in an organisational context. It is beyond the scope of this

dissertation to review all of the literature. However, an overview of the major findings will

now be provided.

In early research in the area, stress was aligned with stimulus - response behaviourist

models. One of the first major findings was the “inverted U shape” relationship between

stress and performance, indicating that, to an extent, stress can increase performance but the

5

relationship becomes negative once the level of stress becomes too high (Yerkes & Dodson,

1908, cited in Quick et al., 1997). Hans Selye’s (1956) pioneering research suggested that

stress is an adaptive response to stressors and that people react physically to environmental

stressors in three stages: alarm, resistance, and then exhaustion. These earlier conceptions of

stress were replaced by transactional models that emphasised the role of psychological

processes in determining an individual’s response to environmental stressors (Reynolds &

Shapiro, 1991).

Contemporary models have extended knowledge about some of these internal

processes and their links with a range of positive and negative outcomes for the individual.

Needless to say, there are currently many theoretical approaches to the study of human stress.

Hence, a considerable amount of conceptual confusion exists in the literature and it is

difficult to find a clearly articulated ‘definition’ of stress. It has been defined as the

excessive environmental demands confronting a person, as an event or condition that disrupts

an individual’s ability to engage in everyday activities, as a subjective perception or appraisal

and purely as a response or reaction (Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Stress is as a multifaceted

process with numerous influences and effects (Burke & Weir, 1980; Kasl, 1986; Thoits,

1986; Wyatt, 1996), involving a complex interaction between environmental features and

personal characteristics. The cognitive-phenomenological theory of stress and coping

defines stress as a process involving the cognitive/affective appraisal of an event as stressful

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1990). The effects of these perceptions on the

individual’s level of strain are determined by the effectiveness of the coping strategies they

enact in order to deal with the event. Both appraisal and coping are processes influenced by

the personal and social resources the individual has access to (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

6

This theory provides a conceptual foundation for the present research and will be discussed

in detail later in this chapter.

Various terms are used interchangeably when discussing stress. Quick et al. (1997, p.

3-5) have provided working definitions of some of the key terms commonly used in the

literature:

a stressor, or demand, is "the physical or psychological stimulus to which an

individual responds";

a stress response is "the generalised, patterned, unconscious mobilization of the

body's natural energy resources when confronted with a demand or stressor";

eustress is "the healthy, positive, constructive outcome of stressful events and the

stress response";

distress or strain is "the degree of physiological, psychological and behavioural

deviation from an individual's healthy functioning".

Individuals react to stressors in a variety of ways that could lie on a continuum

between positive (eustress) and negative adjustment (strain). Positive adjustment occurs

when effective coping resources enable an individual to encounter a stimulus, appraise it as

stressful, yet deal with it in some way before a strain response occurs (Fogarty et al., 1999).

Generally, most contemporary approaches to stress research focus on the relationships

between three main sets of variables: external demands and stressors; the function of

individual characteristics and processes in reaction to the stressors; and the resulting

responses/outcomes (the negative outcomes are often referred to as strain).

In relation to external demands, the present research is interested in sources of stress

experienced by employees in organisational life. Cooper and his colleagues have identified

7

six types of occupational stressors: those intrinsic to the job, role conflict and ambiguity,

interpersonal relationships, career development, organisational structure and culture and the

home/work interface (Roney & Cooper, 1997). Organisational change has an effect on all of

these sources of stress. For example, job insecurity and career development issues have more

recently emerged as major sources of stress for employees which can be linked directly to the

restructuring, merging, decrease in tenured employment and downsizing of organisations that

has characterised organisational change in the last two decades.

The manner in which individual characteristics and processes modify the stress

response has also been the subject of extensive enquiry. Studies have examined the effects of

demographic features (e.g., sex, age, ethnicity), personality characteristics (e.g., locus of

control, hardiness, optimism-pessimism, neuroticism, self-esteem, Type A behaviour pattern)

and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, diet and exercise). Each of these individual differences

has been shown to predict variance in either self-reported or physiological stress symptoms

(Quick et al., 1997). Social influences, such as an individual’s access to social supports, also

impact on the stress process. A consistent finding is people with high levels of social support

cope better with stress and are in better psychological and physical health than those with

less supportive relationships (Cohen & Wills, 1985).

Stress responses in individuals result in a range of negative consequences.

Behavioural outcomes that have been documented include increased smoking, alcohol abuse,

drug abuse, accident proneness, violence and eating disorders. Psychological outcomes of

stress often reported are job burnout, family problems, anxiety and depressive disorders.

Physiological outcomes linked to stress include sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction.

Medical research has associated stress with increased risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer,

8

gastrointestinal conditions, headache, diabetes mellitus, and other emerging diseases such as

chronic fatigue syndrome (e.g., Kasl, 1886; Quick et al., 1997; Repetti, 1993).

Such outcomes have serious implications for organisations including both direct and

indirect costs. Direct costs associated with employee stress include increased absenteeism,

turnover, tardiness, strikes and work stoppages, grievances, accidents, health care costs and

compensation awards (e.g., Cotton, 1995; Roney & Cooper, 1997). In 1994/95, 83% of

workers compensation claims citing stress were based on factors such as interpersonal

conflict, organisational change and pressure to meet deadlines (Fogarty et al., 1999). There

are also many indirect costs that can be incurred through employee stress such as impaired

organisational flexibility, communication and decision-making inefficiencies, and poorer

quality of work relations (Quick et al., 1997).

It is rare to find research on occupational stress that uses physiological indices of

arousal such as salivary cortisol and systolic blood pressure (e.g., Lokk & Arnetz, 1997) as

indicators of stress responses. These measures are expensive in terms of data collection and

often invasive or inconvenient for participants. More frequently, studies use subjective self-

reports of psychological and physical well-being (e.g., depressive symptoms, anxiety, general

health, job satisfaction) as dependent variables, or indicators of negative responses to stress.

Behavioural measures such as performance, turnover and absenteeism are less often utilised

as outcome measures in occupational stress research.

Mounting evidence of the aforementioned range of outcomes has led to an assumption

in the literature that stress has negative consequences for individuals and organisations and

is, therefore, something to be managed or reduced. Like “stress”, the many forms of “stress

management” are difficult to capture in a simple definition and this literature is also subject

9

to conceptual confusion (Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman & Phillips, 1990). However,

Wyatt (1996, p. 78) proposed a workable definition of Stress Management Programs as

“those activities or interventions instigated by the organisation that attempt to prevent and/or

alleviate work-related stress experienced by its employees”.

Stress management interventions are classified as primary, secondary and tertiary

strategies (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Quick et al., 1997). As can be seen in Figure 1.1,

primary strategies are concerned with taking action to identify and modify/eliminate

organisational stressors, and positively promoting a supportive and healthy work

environment. Secondary strategies involve attempting to change individual stress responses

to necessary demands, and the prompt detection and management of any stress-related

symptoms. Tertiary strategies aim to deal with the consequences of stress responses that

have not been adequately controlled. These strategies include the rehabilitation of

individuals who have suffered or are suffering from serious ill-health as a result of stress.

Figure 1.1.

Eustress (positive

adjustment)

Secondary strategies

Tertiary strategies Psychological

& physiological distress

Primary strategies Organisational

demands & stressors

Individual responses to

stressors

Moderators of the stress response

Stress Prevention in Organisations

10

The Cognitive–Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping

A particularly influential conceptual approach to understanding adjustment to stress in

the social psychology literature is Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive–

phenomenological model of stress and coping. Their work examined the relationships

between variables such as an individual’s situational appraisals, their coping responses and

the extent to which they have access to personal and social coping resources, in attempting to

explain the stress-adjustment process. Lazarus (2000, p. 665) recently stated: “the

conceptual bottom line of my approach is the relational meaning that an individual constructs

from the person-environment relationship. That relationship is the result of appraisals of the

confluence of the social and physical environment and personal goals, beliefs about self and

world, and resources”.

Widespread support for this model has been found in relation to a variety of stressful

events and contexts, including the workplace (Terry, Rawle & Callan, 1995; Terry, Tonge &

Callan, 1995, Terry, et al., 1996; Terry & Callan 1997). This research informs the theoretical

structure of the models formulated and tested in the present program of research. Each of the

major components of the model (see Figure 1.2) will now be discussed.

11

Figure 1.2.

Coping strategies

Coping resources

Situational appraisal

Strain/ adjustment

Potentially stressful events

The Cognitive-Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping

Situational appraisals

Situational appraisals represent a person’s cognitive evaluation regarding how a

situation or event will affect their level of well-being (Folkman, 1984). In other words,

situational appraisals reflect how much the person predicts the event will be stressful for

them. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) label this type of appraisal as primary, proposing that

secondary appraisal occurs when an individual evaluates what can be done to manage the

situation. Terry (1991, 1994) expanded this definition, arguing that secondary appraisal

consists of two distinct judgements about the situation: efficacy expectations and perceived

controllability. Control is a multifaceted construct (Ganster, 1985) and Murphy (1988) noted

that researchers must measure control over a specific element of the work environment.

Similarly, Bandura (1986) argued that self efficacy must be measured in reference to

handling a specific situation or behaviour.

A person’s efficacy expectancy or their level of confidence in their ability to perform

the behaviours necessary to deal with a stressor is an important determinant of adjustment.

12

Self-efficacy has been shown to be particularly influential in situations that individuals may

regard as unpredictable or stressful, such as career changes and job loss (Judge et al., 1999).

Bandura (1982) found that, in threatening situations, low self-efficacy had adverse effects on

psychological and physiological functioning and Terry (1991) found evidence that low self-

efficacy can negatively influence an individual’s adjustment to stress.

The extent to which a person perceives that a situation is amenable to personal control

also influences their level of well-being. People seek to control their environment,

particularly when faced with adverse situations (Murphy, 1988). Miller (1979) argued that

controllable events “hurt less” than uncontrollable events. Laboratory studies have

demonstrated that having control over aversive stimuli results in enhanced performance and

well-being (Averill, 1973; Miller, 1979). Karasek’s (1979) work directly links the extent to

which employees are able to exert control over their work to their health and well-being. It is

widely recognised that control is a construct that is central in our understanding of

psychological functioning and adjustment (Terry & Jimmieson, 1999).

The effects of control and self-efficacy on well-being are also mediated by coping

behaviours. Employees who have little control over stressful aspects of their jobs may not

engage in the problem-focused strategies (which aim to modify or eliminate the stressor),

which are generally linked with better adjustment (Folkman, 1984; Latack, 1986).

Conversely, employees who have high levels of self-efficacy in relation to a stressful

situation would be more likely to use such strategies.

Coping strategies

The effects of stressors on employees can be influenced by their coping strategies

(cognitive and behavioural responses to stressors). Coping strategies aim to reduce the

13

adverse effects of stressors. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) argued that these strategies tend to

be either emotion-focused or problem-focused, and that any stressful event is likely to

engender a combination of both types. Emotion-focused strategies are used to manage the

emotional distress resulting from the situation. Most commonly these strategies involve

mentally disengaging from the problem and attempts to minimise its significance such as

escapism, self-blame, avoidance, and wishful thinking (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Carver,

Scheier &Weintraub, 1989; Dunkel-Schetter, Folkman & Lazarus, 1987). These strategies

usually avoid dealing with the problem or stressor and are generally proposed to have a

negative effect on adjustment (Pisarski, Bohle & Callan, 1998; Spelten, Barton & Folkard,

1993).

In contrast, problem-focused strategies are directed toward the management and active

confrontation of the problem. These strategies are generally proposed to have a positive

effect on adjustment (Pisarski et al., 1998; Terry, Tonge et al., 1995). However, it is

important to note that the use of problem-focused coping strategies is related to the amount

of perceived control an individual has in a stressful situation. When situational control is

low, people tend to use emotion-focused strategies to manage their distress and will generally

exhibit poorer levels of adjustment (Terry et al., 1996).

Coping resources

Personality and environmental characteristics are the personal and social resources that

influence a person’s response to a stressor. The effects of stressors on employees depend on

their cognitive and behavioural responses to them. These responses, appraisal and coping

behaviours, are determined by the amount and quality of the resources that the employee can

draw upon when faced with a problem or potential stressor.

14

The effects of personal resources such as self-esteem, locus of control and other

personality characteristics (e.g., negative affectivity, hardiness, optimism/pessimism) on

adjustment to stress has been the subject of much enquiry. Ashford (1988) and Callan and

Dickson (1992) found that individuals with high self-esteem rely more on problem-focused

coping strategies and less on emotion-focused strategies than individuals with low self-

esteem. Those with high self-esteem are likely to have a history of coping with stress,

(Callan, Terry & Schweitzer, 1995), thus raising their efficacy expectations about their

ability to deal with it. Research on locus of control has shown that individuals with internal

control beliefs adapt better to stress than individuals with an external locus of control,

perhaps due to internal control beliefs aligning with active or problem-focused coping

behaviour (Callan & Dickson, 1992).

Watson and Pennebaker (1989) argued that individuals high in negative affectivity,

typically assessed with measures of anxiety and neuroticism, have a tendency to experience

high levels of emotional distress. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism have been

found to rely on emotion-focused strategies in response to stressors more than individuals

with low levels of neuroticism (Bolger; 1990; Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989). Thus, a

range of individual differences have been associated with stress and coping processes.

In contrast to the individual difference literature, there is considerably less research

that examines the role of environmental or organisational coping resources in the appraisal,

coping and adjustment process. Worksite coping resources have been correlationally

associated with positive mental health, but little experimental evidence demonstrates the

causal role of worksite coping resources in improving mental health, nor how worksite

coping resources can be enhanced (Heaney, Price & Rafferty, 1995). It is also not clear

15

whether the effects of coping resources on mental health are direct or indirect. For instance,

it is possible that coping resources influence levels of adjustment or measures of well-being

either by facilitating the enactment of coping strategies or regardless of the coping strategies

employed. Hence, the model in Figure 1.2 could be modified to include a path which

represents the direct effects of coping resources on adjustment.

The study of organisational coping resources has predominantly centred on the level of

social support in the workplace. Social support is determined by the quality of interpersonal

relationships an employee has with co-workers and supervisors (those with whom one shares

a similarity of experience). House (1981, p. 39) defined social support as “an interpersonal

transaction involving one or more of the following: emotional concern (liking, love,

empathy); instrumental aid (goods and services); information (about the environment); and

appraisal (information relevant to self-evaluation).”

Kumari and Sharma (1990) found that employees reporting high levels of social

support perceived less stress in their organisational roles, were less anxious, had higher job

satisfaction and better general well-being than their counterparts who reported lower levels of

social support. The availability and quality of social support at the workplace can impact on

employee appraisal of stressful situations and the development of coping strategies (Newton

& Keenan, 1985; Parkes, 1986). Thoits (1986) suggested that social support assists

individuals to develop effective coping strategies through discourse about the problem, by

diverting the employee’s attention away from a stressor or helping them to reinterpret it so

that it seems less threatening. Supportive interactions provide the opportunity to gain

instrumental aid or advice about how to modify a situation to make it less stressful and can,

thus, enhance an individual’s appraisals of situational control. Support can also facilitate

16

adjustment by fostering the recipient’s sense of self-worth or situational self-efficacy during

the stressful encounter. In addition, support which provides caring, understanding or

affirmation can help to decrease the emotional distress suffered by the employee.

There is some controversy about the manner in which social support variables exert

influence on strain responses by acting on mediating variables or functioning as a moderating

variable. Mediating variables facilitate the effect of an independent variable on a dependent

variable. That is, the relationship exists via the mediating variable. Moderating variables

exert their influence on the relationship between the independent and dependent variable by

“turning on or off” the relationship at high and low levels of the independent variable (Baron

& Kenny). This issue is discussed in more depth in relation to methodology in Chapter 2.

In regard to the social support literature, the evidence is not conclusive one way or

another. Cohen and Wills (1985) posited the “buffering hypothesis” which argued that social

support buffers (moderates) the negative effects of stress on well-being and that these

buffering effects will be most marked at high levels of stress. Other researchers argued that

social support has beneficial effects on levels of adjustment, regardless of the level of stress

(direct effects model). More recently, Terry, Rawle and Callan (1995) found clear evidence

of indirect effects of social support on adjustment, via its effects on (mediated by) coping

responses to stress.

As reported above, adjustment to stress is a complex process. Although stress has been

the subject of extensive enquiry, relatively little attention has been paid to the development

and testing of theory-based models of stress and employee adjustment during organisational

change. By drawing on the model described above, research attention has recently been

17

given to how the stress-adjustment relationship operates specifically in relation to

organisational change.

Terry et al. (1996) tested the utility of a model of employee adjustment during

organisational change, largely based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-

phenomenological theory of stress and coping processes. As predicted, both situational

appraisals and coping responses mediated the effects of event characteristics and coping

resources on adjustment. Event characteristics are features of potentially stressful events that

might affect the appraisal of the event. In this particular study, event characteristics

measured were change process issues such as the extent of communication and consultation.

Employees were more likely to report higher levels of psychological distress and lower job

satisfaction if they appraised the change as stressful. In particular, the model showed that

change self-efficacy or feeling confident in one’s ability to perform well in a changing role,

had a strong, positive effect on well-being. Perceptions of situational control or influence in

the change process also had an indirect effect on job satisfaction by promoting the use of

problem-focused coping (Terry et al., 1996).

Limitations of the Cognitive-Phenomenological Perspective on Employee Adjustment

During Organisational Change

The cognitive-phenomenological approach discussed earlier represents a transactional

process in which cognitive appraisal, coping resources and coping behaviours act as

modifiers of an individual’s level of adjustment during stressful situations. The model is

influential in social and organisational psychology because it captures the subjective nature

of an individual’s perceptions of stressful situations. However, there are several limitations

to this approach in terms of its application to an organisational change context.

18

Outcome variables – adjustment indicators

The success of organisational change initiatives is often determined by employee

attitudes towards the change (Almaraz, 2000; Beer, Eisenstadt, & Spector, 1990). In addition

to their effect on the success of a change initiative, employee attitudes toward a pending

change can have a wider impact in terms of job satisfaction, organisational commitment,

morale, productivity and turnover intentions (Iacovini, 1993; McDonald & Siegal, 1993;

McManus et al., 1995; Wanberg & Banas, 1997). Such responses can serve as markers for

tracking the likelihood of employees enacting behaviours necessary for achieving the desired

changes. It is common practice to assess organisational members reactions to change using

self-report methodologies (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).

One problem with the application of the Lazarus and Folkman (1984) approach in an

organisational context is that outcome measures are usually limited to measures of employee

well-being (e.g., depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion). Terry et al. (1996) did include

job satisfaction, along with well-being, as an indicator of employee adjustment during

organisational change. However, organisational outcomes such as organisational

commitment, absenteeism and turnover have not been studied in relation to the cognitive-

phenomenological framework.

Job satisfaction and organisational commitment are two of the most frequently studied

constructs in organisational psychology (Lease, 1998). Job satisfaction reflects the degree of

the employee’s affective orientation toward the work roles occupied in the organisation

(either globally or with individual facets of the job). It is the primary outcome variable in

Dawis and Lofquist’s (1984) theory of work adjustment. Organisational commitment is an

affective bond or linking of the individual to the organisation which makes it difficult to

19

leave. It can be affective, continuance or normative based (Meyer & Allen, 1991). It has

been defined as an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organisation

(Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974).

Job satisfaction and organisational commitment are antecedents to important work

outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover intentions, and turnover (Lease, 1998). O’Driscoll

and Randall (1999) noted that work attitudes are highly relevant predictors of employee

behaviour and that there has been a marked interest in the impact of commitment on job

performance, absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover. All facets of commitment are negatively

related to turnover (Meyer & Allen, 1991) but affective commitment is the most consistent

predictor of absences (Somers, 1995).

Attempts to reduce the incidence of absenteeism and turnover are motivated by the

assumption that work-related stress is a major antecedent of such behaviours. In a qualitative

study, Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua and Stough (2001) found that withdrawal cognitions

and behaviours were major consequences of stress, with participants reporting ‘closing

down’ from their role in terms of their effort and commitment and increased absenteeism.

Ganster et al. (1982) argued that workers experiencing stress are less productive, have higher

absentee rates and generally have a higher rate of sick leave usage, thereby incurring greater

health costs for the organisation. Jacobson, Aldana, Goetzel and Vardell (1996) also

demonstrated significant relationships between high levels of perceived stress and

absenteeism in a sample of 79 070 workers across 250 US companies.

If organisational change is a major source of occupational stress (Johnson & Sarason,

1979), it would be expected that negative employee responses to change may also influence

outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover. Absenteeism and turnover are undesirable

20

outcomes that have immediate financial consequences for organisations and can possibly

worsen the working conditions of fellow employees by increasing workload and loss of peer

support (Hemmingway & Smith, 1999). It is, thus, important for organisations to monitor

and minimise the likelihood of a range of unfavourable employee affective and behavioural

reactions during change. Therefore, although well-being and job satisfaction are key

indicators of psychological adjustment to work stress, it is an important theoretical objective

of the present program of research to expand the outcome variables in models of employee

adjustment during organisational change to include organisational commitment, absenteeism

and turnover.

Organisational coping resources

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) argued that both personal and environmental

characteristics interact to determine an individual’s appraisal of stressful situations and their

resultant coping behaviours. However, their model neglects contextual factors or

environmental coping resources (with the exception of social support) in favour of individual

coping resources such as personality characteristics. In their application of the stress and

coping approach to understanding adjustment during change, Terry et al. (1996) urged

researchers to investigate further the organisational determinants of positive adjustment. The

present program of research extends their conceptual framework by determining whether

additional organisational factors act as coping resources that facilitate positive change

appraisals and higher levels of employee adjustment during change.

There is some evidence that organisational determinants of adjustment to change may

be more powerful than individual characteristics. Eby et al. (2000) found that, although

individual factors do influence how work situations are perceived, contextual factors

21

contribute more to employee attitudes and responses to events such as change. Lease (1998)

argued that work characteristics, if powerful enough, overwhelm the impact of individual

dispositional characteristics in predicting a range of work attitudes.

The origins of work stress are situated primarily in the structural or organisational

aspects of the work environment rather than in personal attributes or demographics (Dollard,

Winefield, Winefield & de Jonge, 2000; Karasek, 1979). Fogarty et al. (1999) proposed that

personality variables may not be important when the outcomes are strain and job satisfaction

as none of the personality variables they measured were able to predict job satisfaction in a

series of studies. They claimed that job satisfaction is determined primarily by factors within

the work environment. In a review of the literature, Parks (1990) concluded that the work

environment exerts a causal influence on mental and physical health.

Also, in relation to the prevention and reduction of stress (e.g., the stress produced by

change), organisational factors are more readily altered than individual difference variables

and, thus, have a more powerful span of influence (Murphy, 1988; Reynolds & Briner, 1994;

Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Interventions that aim to reduce occupational stress have largely

focused on secondary and tertiary strategies. The occupational stress interventions literature

is dominated by the evaluation of psychological programs targeting change in individual

employees, despite recommendations that researchers address organisational issues

(Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). When interventions focus on improving individual perceptions

and not improving the work environment, they can only be seen as an attempt to increase

employee tolerance of noxious or unacceptable job characteristics (De Frank & Cooper,

1987; Ganster et al., 1982; Murphy, 1988). Burke (1993) proposed that organisational level

interventions have been found to be generally more effective than individual level

22

interventions, especially in the long term. Instead of managing stress by attempting to alter

employees’ perceptions of situations in order to achieve an improved person-environment fit,

practitioners need to change the organisational environment to realign person-environment

fit.

Hence, the focus on organisational coping resources in the present research aims not

only to extend theoretical understanding of employee adjustment during organisational

change, but also to inform stress management interventions by identifying contextual factors

which can be developed/improved to reduce the level of change-related stress experienced by

employees.

Interventions that target individual coping responses could be considered strategies that

emphasize adaptation of the worker to stressful conditions. It could be argued that the role of

coping responses is more relevant in the counselling and psychotherapy arena, the context

within which Lazarus and Folkman (1984) originally developed their stress and coping

perspective. The effectiveness of coping strategies in organisational contexts has been

considered questionable. Coping strategies that are effective in domestic settings may fail to

alleviate distress in occupational settings. The evidence supporting the efficacy of individual

coping efforts in work settings is weak (O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1994; Parks, 1990). The

constraints inherent in organisational life limit the possibilities for constructive action by

employees. Pearlin and Schooler (1979) found that some organisationally-generated

stressors exhaust coping resources and are resistant to coping efforts. For example, in

situations where individuals have no control over stressors the enactment of problem-focused

coping strategies is fruitless. Coyne and Racioppo (2000, p. 655) recently stated that the

23

coping literature “is in crisis because of its failure to yield substantive findings concerning

the role of coping in adaptation”.

Therefore, instead of directing attention to coping, the present research gives

precedence to the identification of organisational antecedents that strongly influence

employee appraisals of change. It is imperative that such research guides organisations in

how to create a work environment that assist employees to cope with the considerable levels

of uncertainty and confusion associated with organisational change (Tetenbaum, 1998).

St Amour (2001) claimed that employees have three basic requirements to navigate

change successfully: structure, information and support. The supportive element, a nurturing

environment, helps to create safe passage through times of transition. Eby et al. (2000)

argued that more stable characteristics of the work environment reduce employee uncertainty

and apprehension about organisational change, especially by shaping employee perceptions

of the change process itself. Some of these characteristics (e.g., employee relations,

supervisor communication and leadership) are now discussed in relation to organisational

climate.

Organisational climate factors as coping resources

An important set of variables involved in how people cope with stress are found in the

individual’s interpersonal and cultural context (Lazarus, 2000). The construct of

organisational climate provides a means of identifying some of the characteristics of the

organisational environment that may act as coping resources. Climate variables attempt to

measure the perceptual and experiential components of a reciprocal interaction between the

work environment and the employee (Michela, Lukaszwski & Allegrante, 1995; Schneider &

Reichers, 1983). Climate refers to a broad class of organisational and perceptual variables

24

that reflect individual-organisational interactions and affect employee behaviour in

organisations (Glick, 1985).

There is some controversy over whether climate is an organisational level attribute or

an individual-level phenomenon. For example, Pettigrew (2000) distinguished between

psychological climate (the quantitative study of work attitudes) and organisational climate

(the statistical measurement of the degree to which climate is shared by organisational

members). However, this distinction is difficult to make because individual perceptions are

not completely unique as they are informed by others’ perceptions. Multiple individuals are

reacting to some of the same experiences and situations and people talk to one another about

their groups, leaders and jobs. Thus, the perceptions of one person shape the interpretations

of others and this is how a shared climate evolves (Ashkanasy, Wilderom & Peterson, 2000).

Organisational climate research typically investigates the ways in which employees

experience different aspects of their organisational lives and the outcomes of how they

construct, process and attach meaning to these situations. Through survey methods, climate

studies statistically document employee experiences of organisational practices and

procedures, as well as identifiable organisational imperatives (Ashkanasay et. al, 2000).

Climate questionnaires ask people to agree or disagree with descriptions about the

organisational environment (e.g., leader behaviour, how people treat each other).

Climate has important implications for employees’ affective reactions to organisational

life and other elements of organisational functioning and effectiveness. Indeed, employee

behaviour is often described as a function of employee perceptions of the organisational

climate (Schneider, 2000). Positive climates are linked to higher levels of job satisfaction,

25

commitment and intention to stay with the organisation (Schneider, Bowen, Ehrhart &

Holcombe, 2000) and absenteeism (Przygodda, Arentz, Quast & Kleinbeck, 1997).

It is evident that employee perceptions of the workplace play a powerful role in

shaping their work-related attitudes and beliefs. People actively perceive their environments

and are influenced by these perceptions rather than by some objective reality (Eby et al.,

2000; Spreitzer, 1996). It is through this interpretative sense-making process that individuals

develop a frame of reference for organising and understanding work-related events and

experiences (Weick, 1979). It follows that organisational climate, as a means of measuring

such processes, would have a major influence on how employees perceive an event such as

organisational change.

In their review of the theoretical and empirical literature on organisational change from

1990-1998, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) identified an intensifying focus on designing

organisational culture and climate as a means of managing change. Moreover, Pettigrew

(2000) argued that organisational climate is inextricably linked to the understanding and

management of change and mergers/acquisitions. Schneider (2000, p. 21) argued that

“changes in the variables associated with climate might provide a useful entree to achieving

the changes in behaviour that will result in changes in the more fundamental beliefs and

values required for durable organisational change”.

However, research on organisational climate as a predictor of employee adjustment

during organisational change is limited. In fact, a lack of attention to climate and culture

issues is a major reason why transformational change efforts fail (Kotter, 1995). The present

program of research aims to address this deficit by linking facets of organisational climate to

the concept of coping resources. As discussed earlier in the chapter, coping resources

26

facilitate adjustment during stressful events. In the context of the present studies,

organisational change is assumed to be a stressful event.

Hemmingway and Smith (1999) suggested that employee stress can be diminished by

manipulating organisational climate, but those aspects of organisational climate that are

clearly predictive of a specific stressor (e.g., the implementation of organisational change)

must be identified and interventions should be targeted accordingly. An interesting analogy

with the principle of salutogenesis, which emphasises health rather than illness and examines

facilitators of health not preventors of greater sickness (Antonovsky, 1984), can be made in

relation to the organisational environment and stress. The organisational environment

contains many resources which enable people to cope with negative stimuli (Johnston, 1998).

There are some aspects of climate commonly found in the literature that could be

expected to influence employee perceptions of organisational change. However, it is

important to note that climate is a multidimensional construct with many potential facets.

Schneider et al. (2000) argued that because of the huge array of climate factors, studies using

climate to predict organisational outcomes need to conceptualise and measure climate

according to a specific focus, such as a “climate for service”, “climate for innovation” or

“climate for change”. Glick (1985) also encouraged researchers to use climate dimensions

that are likely to influence or be associated with the study’s criteria of interest.

Jones, Martin, Bordia, Callan and Gallois (2001) examined the effect of climate on

change attitudes and job satisfaction. They measured “climate for change” as a composite,

higher order construct, comprised of leader vision, supervisor communication and work unit

effectiveness. They found that the “climate for change” construct influenced employee’s

openness to change and their perceptions of management’s performance in relation to the

27

communication of change. These attitudes towards the change influenced their level of

satisfaction with the change process. This level of satisfaction explained a significant

amount of variance in overall job satisfaction.

Driving this research were a number of models of change implementation that have

emphasised the importance of effective communication by managers and supervisors

(Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999). Employee relationships with their supervisors and teams

shape their attitudes to the organisation including their perceptions of the change climate

(Tierney, 1999). Effective supervisor and leader communication also directly enhances

levels of employee well-being and job satisfaction (Gardner, Paulsen, Gallois, Callan &

Monaghan, 2001).

In attempting to determine what aspects of climate would act as coping resources in the

process of adjustment to the stress experienced during change, the literature suggests that the

role of interpersonal and organisational communication is central. For example, supportive

supervisors and high staff morale have been found to help employees cope with workplace

stress (Gillespie et al., 2001). Climate was originally defined as social climate or social

atmosphere (Askanasay et al., 2000). Hence, the issues of relationships and communication

have been central to the generic study of organisational climate (Schneider, 2000). Ford and

Ford (1995) argued that change is created, sustained, and managed by communication. As a

result, effective organisational communication reduces anxiety and uncertainty about change

and is consistently linked to higher levels of employee adjustment and more positive

organisational outcomes (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish & DiFonzo, 2000; Di Fonzo &

Bordia, 1998, Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; Miller & Monge, 1985; Smeltzer, 1991; Terry

et al., 1996).

28

Communication with immediate supervisors is especially important as they have

power to influence and change employee behaviour (Bordia, Martin, Jones, Irmer, Gallois &

Callan, 2001; Larkin & Larkin, 1994). In fact, climate is shaped substantially by behaviours

of the supervisor such as listening and providing feedback (Michela & Burke, 2000). Elloy,

Everett and Flynn (1995) found that supervisors who were seen as trusting, fair and who

reinforced employees for good work were seen as facilitating a climate that fostered high

work involvement in which workers were more likely to perceive opportunities for growth

and to be committed to their work. Terry et al., (1995) argued that the effects of social

support on coping with stress are likely to vary as a function of the source of support being

considered. They argued that in addition to colleagues, supervisors are important support

providers in a work context as they are both proximal and similar to the support recipient and

have the ability to provide instrumental aid by assisting the employee to develop problem

focussed coping strategies. In addition, the perceived availability of social support from a

supervisor is directly linked to job satisfaction (Iverson & Roy, 1994; McCann, Russo &

Benjamin, 1997; Parkes & Von Rabenau, 1993; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

Perceptions of the way senior management communicate with staff are important in the

creation of a positive climate for change. Young and Post (1993) focused on the importance

of CEO visibility in achieving corporate goals, including the communication of

organisational change. Effective leadership helps to create employee confidence in relation

to change (Schweiger, Ivancevich & Power, 1987; Young & Post, 1993) and plays an

important role in reducing the levels of disruption associated with change. Leaders also use

vision to shape the meanings that others place on events by explaining the implications that

present events have for a desired future (Petersen & Smith, 2000).

29

Schein (2000) argued that not all elements of climate are equally potent in the degree

to which they determine employee behaviour. Qualitative research can tell us which

elements of an organisation’s climate are more salient to employees and are, thus, potentially

stronger determinants of adjustment during change. Payne (2000) argued that climate scales

should be designed in collaboration with members of the organisation to increase their

ecological validity. To address these concerns, the present program of research includes

measures of particularly salient climate factors specific to the organisations studied. These

measures were informed by an exploratory, qualitative process (described in Chapter 2).

In summary, aspects of the organisational climate that may act as coping resources

during organisational change include effective interpersonal and organisational

communication between employees, supervisors and senior managers. It is also important to

determine if there are elements of climate specific to an organisation that may facilitate

greater adjustment during change.

Group differences

The previous section established that organisational climate, particularly those aspects

related to communication, is an important influence in the process of adjustment during

organisational change. However, it is important to note that research has identified some

major discrepancies in the way organisational communication is perceived by different

groups of employees. These differences can depend on their social identity in a situation,

such as their superior or subordinate status in the workplace (Hatfield & Huseman, 1982;

Jablin, 1979; Jablin & Putnam, 1987; Roloff, 1987).

Social identity consists of those aspects of the self that are based on group membership

(Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Employees interact with each other not only as individuals, but

30

also as members of the organisational groups to which they belong (Kramer, 1991). These

groups can be a potentially salient source of identity-driven variations in employee affect and

behaviour (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hennessy & West, 1999). Organisational identity plays

a significant role in the cognitive evaluation of workplace events (Kramer, 1991). In

particular, organisational change is an event that tends to make identity highly salient to

employees (Hartley, 1996; Terry & Callan, 1998). A variety of social categories exist within

organisations and employee identity could be based on a range of groups with which they

may identify (e.g., gender, ethnicity, role or occupation, status, work unit or

department/division, union member status).

Employee identities that reflect their hierarchical position and task orientation have

been significantly associated with dimensions of organisational climate and levels of

perceived work stress. Winefield (2000) reported that perceived stress varied according to

rank and professional role. In addition, some occupations have been shown to be inherently

more stressful than others and an abundance of research has examined cross-occupational

differences in stress levels (Sparks & Cooper, 1999). However, generic stress models that

examine the inter-relationships among the antecedents and consequences of stressors but

ignore occupational differences are common (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1992). Importantly,

Hemmingway and Smith (1999) also argued that relationships among specific climate

dimensions and stressors might vary based on occupational and situational differences.

Even though there is some justification for predicting role-based variation in employee

adjustment during organisational change, this is an area that has received limited empirical

attention. Most of the organisational change literature fails to distinguish between the

diversity of participants in change programs, treating them as a single entity (Larkin &

31

Larkin, 1994). Lewis (1999) argued that group differences (in informational needs,

assessment of risk and complexity and the desire to have input) must be accounted for when

examining change implementation. Research which embraces a differentiated perspective is,

therefore, needed. Researchers need to compare levels of staff, occupational groups or

departments to determine where fragmentation is greatest (Payne, 2000). Hence, a limitation

in previous research is the lack of attention to how different groups diverge in relation to

perceptions of climate, attitudes in response to organisational change and levels of

adjustment during the change event.

The present program of research investigates the extent to which such differences

exist. The detection of such differences yields important information for change

management strategies and should be considered an essential part of the diagnostic function

of organisation development processes. Another important factor in such an investigation is

to determine the important group membership divisions or delineating identity variables

within an organisation. The primary grouping variables for each of the organisations in the

present research (organisational level and occupational group) were identified during the

pilot interviews.

Status or job level is an important structural variable in determining role expectations

and role taking (Biddle, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978), which in turn influences a range of

organisational behaviours that include employee responses to change (Miles, Patrick & King,

1996). There is generally limited understanding of how employees of differing status react to

change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). However, there are a few recent studies that have

reported differences among organisational levels in relation to the salience of different

32

change issues (Ahmad, 2000; Armstrong-Stassen, 1998; Miles et al., 1996; Watson, et. al,

2001) and the communication of change (Bordia et al., 2001).

Organisational change can be conceptualised as a political event (Schein, 1985) with

employees of different status having differential amounts of power and playing different

roles. De Luca (1984) grouped change participants as “controllers, targets and

interventionists” and Kanter, Stein and Jick (1992) classified them as “change strategists,

change managers and change recipients”. Change strategists/controllers and change

managers/ interventionists, as the higher status groups, are likely to view change more

positively and experience less negative consequences from the change. Covin and Killman

(1990) found differences among groups (managers, researchers, internal consultants, external

consultants) in their identification of positive and negative change issues.

Researchers have found that management staff reported more control over decisions

concerning the future of their jobs than did non-supervisory employees (Armstrong-Stassen,

1998; Esty, 1984). In contrast, change recipients/targets are likely to experience a greater

sense of threat about the consequences of organisational change than are change strategists

and are most likely to lose status and jobs during major change. Kanter et al. (1992) also

proposed that lower level employees have most to lose during organisational change and

Michela and Burke (2000) noted that resistance to change occurs more at lower levels in an

organisation. The extent to which status or organisational level influences perceptions of the

climate through which employees experience change will be investigated in the present

research.

Occupational subgroups can also be a primary social or organisational identification

category for employees. For example, in hospitals occupational subcultures such as nursing,

33

medicine and administration have a strong influence on employees’ attitudes, values and

behaviours (Degeling, Kennedy, Hill, Carnegie & Holt, 1998). Sparks and Cooper (1999)

argued that sources of pressure in the workplace that impact on worker health and well-being

vary in the degree to which they are linked to stress in a particular job or organisation. Their

study reported that different job characteristics were more or less important in different

occupations. For example, physicians, pharmacists and nursing staff all scored highly on the

organisational role as a source of pressure. To this end, professional or occupational identity

may be an important predictor of change perceptions, particularly where the proposed change

threatens established professional groups (Covin & Kilmann, 1990; Watson et al., 2001).

There has been a recent burgeoning of interest in the relevance of professional identity

in organisational behaviour (Beck, Kaplan, Smith & Moroco, 2000; Carpenter & Platt, 1997;

De Corse & Vogtle, 1997; Netting & Williams, 1996). Individuals tend to identify with

groups that are most similar to themselves and frequently identify themselves as members of

a profession long before they join a particular organisation (Turner et al., 1987). Grice

(2001) found that an employee’s professional group elicited an equally strong level of

identification as the work unit. Moravec (1994) and Kanter (1991) have proposed that

employee loyalty is shifting from organisations toward professional groups to ensure

continued employability in a job market that is rife with downsizing and restructuring.

In addition to perceptions of climate and affective responses to change, it is important

to examine variation in adjustment indicators during organisational change based on group

differences. Nelson, Cooper and Jackson (1995) found significant differences in job

satisfaction between three categories of employees: manual workers, administrative staff, and

management. Systematic variation in scores on these measures occurred over a period of

34

transition within the organisation. Further, Lee and Mowday (1987) believe that most

turnover models make generalised predictions, although the separation decision process may

differ for employees across and within organisations (Dalessio, Silverman & Schuck, 1981;

Lee, Mitchell, Wise & Fireman, 1996; Mobley, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981).

Aims of the Present Program of Research

In summary, apart from the research of Terry et al. (1996), little attention has been paid

to the development and testing of theory-based models of employee adjustment during

organisational change. The previous review identified several limitations in the literature

linking stress to the experience of change. Firstly, the stress literature has focused on

individual characteristics or coping resources at the expense of the investigation of

organisational factors that might enable stressful situations to be appraised more positively.

Secondly, many models of the work-strain relationship fail to account for specific situations,

job dimensions or intra-organisational group factors. The failure to be situation-specific is an

increasing concern in occupational psychology (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Quick &

Quick, 1984; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987). In addition, Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron

(2001) argued that the organisational change literature is underdeveloped in relation to the

linkage of change processes to outcomes and in the partnership between scholars and

practitioners.

The present program of research attempts to address these concerns through two

central research objectives. The first objective is the development of a theoretical model of

employee adjustment during organisational change. The second objective is to increase the

applied value of the theoretical model. The model builds on previous adaptations of the

35

stress and coping perspective to an organisational change perspective (Terry et al., 1996) and

includes three major research questions.

1. Do elements of climate act as organisational coping resources, promoting positive

employee adjustment during organisational change?

2. Do employee appraisals of change have an impact on a range of work adjustment

indicators?

3. Do the variables in models of employee adjustment during organisational change

vary as a function of an employee’s organisational level and occupational group?

The dissertation is presented in seven chapters. This first chapter has provided an

overview of the literature in relation to employee adjustment during organisational change,

drawing on occupational stress research in particular. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)

cognitive-phenomenological model of stress and coping provided a theoretical orientation for

the research. A discussion of the limitations of this approach informed the aims of the

present program of research. Chapter Two provides a discussion of the epistemological and

methodological approaches which underpin the present program of research. This discussion

includes an outline of the design of each of the four studies, and an evaluation of the research

methods and analytical techniques used. Chapter Three presents the results of Study 1 which

tested a model of employee adjustment during organisational change that examined

employee well-being and job satisfaction as outcomes of positive adjustment during change.

Chapter Four presents the results of Study 2 which tested a model of employee adjustment

during organisational change that examined organisational commitment, turnover intentions

and absenteeism as outcomes of positive adjustment during change. Chapter Five presents

the results of Study 3 which investigated group differences in perceptions of climate and

36

levels of adjustment during organisational change as a function of an employee’s

organisational level. Chapter Six presents the results of Study 4 which investigated both

occupational group and organisational level differences in perceptions of climate and levels

of adjustment during organisational change. Finally, Chapter Seven provides an integrative

discussion of the results of all of the four studies, including consideration of the key findings,

practical implications, limitations and directions for future research.

37

CHAPTER TWO

Methodological Issues

This chapter provides a discussion of the methodological approach used to undertake

the present program of research. Firstly, the research is situated within an epistemological

paradigm. Secondly, an overview of the research design is provided. This overview includes

comment on the appropriateness and soundness of the methods utilised to investigate the

research questions of the thesis. Finally, each of the analytical techniques employed in the

present research are described and discussed with reference to any specific issues that need to

be understood for the sound application of these techniques and the interpretation of the

results. The discussion of structural equation modelling as a data analytic technique is

particularly extensive due to the complexity of many of the relevant issues.

The Epistemological Approach of the Present Program of Research

In order to establish the basis on which the contribution to knowledge offered by the

thesis was constructed and tested, a brief discussion of the epistemological approach used in

the thesis is now provided. Cresswell (1994) noted that a research design must be developed

with consideration of epistemological and the methodological issues. Epistemology is the

study of the nature of the relationship between the agent of inquiry and the reality (Kuhn,

1966).

Scientific realism provides a sound epistemological basis for both theory testing and

theory development (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Wollin, 1996). It has elements of the

standard logico-empirical approach which examines patterns in observations and compares

what is logically expected, or theoretically predicted, with what is actually observed (Babbie,

38

2001). However, scientific realism operates within a paradigm that allows the researcher to

draw upon previously developed models and adjust them to new empirical data. It allows for

the incorporation of context-specific variables into pre-existing models, giving the researcher

a higher level of flexibility and sensitivity during the research process than accounted for in

positivism (Tsoukas, 1989). Scientific realism is the appropriate epistemological orientation

for the methodology because the present research aimed to test and further develop the

contextual variables within an existing theoretical framework.

Yin (1994) argued that all research programs should start with a theoretical framework,

regardless of whether the research is explanatory, descriptive or exploratory. To develop a

proposed model, inductive as well as deductive reasoning processes must take place (Webb,

1995). All research involves both induction and deduction, since the researcher must move

from ideas to data and from data to ideas (Hammersley, 1992). The use of both inductive

and deductive approaches provides a useful synthesis for theory development and expansion

(Bourgeois, 1979; Parkhe, 1993). The research process was mostly deductive and

confirmatory in that it tested models containing predictions about relationships between

variables that were derived from theory. However, it also included an element of inductive

process in that a series of exploratory interviews were undertaken in order to expand the

theoretical model of employee adjustment during organisational change. An overview of the

research design is now provided.

Overview of the Research Design

The present program of research aimed to investigate factors related to employee

adjustment during organisational change. In order to undertake this investigation, a process

of theory development was employed. To commence the present program of research, a

39

literature review was conducted to ground the research objectives theoretically. The research

design consisted of four studies conducted in two Australian public sector organisations, one

a large hospital and the second a large state government department. Employees in both

organisations experienced major organisational change. Pilot interviews were used to

understand the context of change in both organisations and inform the development of a

survey instrument. Each of the data sets obtained from the surveys was analysed according

to the research objectives outlined above, resulting in four studies (two that tested models of

adjustment during organisational change and two that examined group differences in

adjustment during change). Figure 2.1 depicts a conceptual map of the research design.

Figure 2.1.

A model of adjustment during

change: Job satisfaction and

psychological well-being.

Study 1

Survey Organisation A

Overview of the Research Design

Literature review

Pilot interviews Organisation A

Org

A model of adjustment during

change: Organisational commitment,

turnover intentions and absenteeism.

Study 2

Occupational and organisational level

differences in employee

adjustment during change.

Study 4

Conclusions

Pilot interviews Organisation B

Survey anisation B

Organisational level differences in

employee adjustment during

change.

Study 2

40

Studies 1 and 4 were conducted using a survey of a sample of employees from a public

hospital. At the time of data collection, the hospital was involved in a large-scale

organisational change program with several objectives, including the implementation of

cross-functional work teams, downsizing the number of beds from 900 to 600 and designing

and moving to a new, more technologically advanced building. The hospital is primarily

responsible for providing health services to the community and is structured into divisions

which provide different types of services to patients (e.g., surgery, medicine, allied health,

mental health).

Employees working in the hospital sector face the challenge of maintaining service

orientation whilst facing increasing pressures such as funding crises, bed shortages, lengthy

waiting lists for surgery and new funding procedures, within an administrative context

increasingly focused on efficiency and profit (Harber et al., 1997; Thompson & Van de Ven,

2001). A hospital is a suitable research setting for studying a number of distinct professional

identities and status groups within a context where organisational change, stress and

competition for scarce resources are highly salient. A variety of occupational groups are

represented in the organisation, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and a

range of operational, administrative and non-clinical support staff. Hierarchically, positions

are grouped into levels/classifications based on the qualifications and experience of the

incumbent.

Studies 2 and 3 were conducted using a sample of employees of a state public sector

department which had undergone significant change and restructuring, including an

amalgamation and de-amalgamation with another department. Employees of the department

are required to adapt to an environment of continual organisational change driven by the

41

political nature of the public sector. The department is structured into nine Service Areas.

The service areas are divisions that co-ordinate the delivery of a range of operational,

administrative and policy functions throughout the state. A variety of occupational groups

are represented in the organisation, including customer service, administrative/secretarial,

research/policy development, technical and managerial staff. Hierarchically, employee’s

positions are grouped into standard public service classifications (e.g., Administrative

Officers levels 1-8, Professional Officers levels 1-5, Technical Officers level 1-5 etc.).

The primary objective of both organisations is to provide quality public services to the

community within the context of resource constraints dictated by government funding. In

addition, both organisations comprised employees facing adjustment to different types of

change in the workplace. These factors made the organisations appropriate sites for the

examination of aspects of organisational climate that might facilitate employee adjustment

during organisational change (see Chapter 1).

Using these two organisations, the present program of research primarily aimed to

develop a theoretical model of employee adjustment during organisational change. It is

important to note that a second research objective was to increase the applied value of the

theoretical model. Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron (2001) promoted the need for research

problems to be framed in the context of social application, urging management scholars to

act as knowledge producers.

Towards these objectives, two methods were employed in the present program of

research; pilot interviews and employee opinion surveys. These methods are now described

and evaluated in terms of their appropriateness for investigating the research questions of the

thesis.

42

Convergent Interviewing

The unstructured, extensive interview is a useful tool in the early stages of a research

process. In particular, qualitative research is especially important for questionnaire

construction and hypothesis formulation and allows the researcher to capture the context for

a theoretical model (Zikmund, 1997). The use of interviews complements a purely

quantitative method by allowing for integration of researchers’ and participants’ perspectives

and cross-validation (Jick, 1979; Reichardt & Cook, 1979; Sayer, 1992).

To commence the research program in both organisations, a qualitative approach was

taken to the collection of exploratory data through interviews. The interviews were mainly

used to define and understand the change context in the organisations sampled. The use of

exploratory data was also considered important to identify the salient aspects of employees’

psycho-social work environment to be measured in the survey. Hence, the interviews

enhanced the validity of the primary data collection method, a self-report survey.

The pilot interviews conducted in the present program of research used a technique

known as convergent interviewing. This process requires an openness to new ideas and it

ensures that the salient issues in an organisation are captured. Convergent interviewing

combines the advantages of unstructured and structured interviews, but requires that a

reasonably representative sample is utilised (Dick, 1986). Qualitative data collection

requires ‘theoretical sampling’ in order to allow the data collected to be useful for generating

theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to achieve this, the sample of interviewees in the present

research were individuals representing diverse groups within the organisations.

In convergent interviewing, the interview style is unstructured. However, the analysis

of the interviews follows a very structured process (Zikmund, 1997). The data gathered is

43

analysed systematically throughout the collection process, and involves specification and re-

specification of the issues relevant to the research project. The emergence of issues during

the process must be confirmed by the subsequent interviews. Convergent interviews allow

the researcher to collect the broad information without losing any significant detail, as in the

case of structured interviews (Dick, 1986).

Determining the soundness or ‘rigour’ of qualitative approaches is often difficult

because, unlike quantitative criteria such as reliability and validity, qualitative standards are

less established. Not unlike quantitative research, there are several issues that are considered

important in establishing the validity and reliability of qualitative data. The extent to which

the research is conducted in such a manner that the subject matter is accurately described and

identified is important to establish its credibility. Transferability refers to the possibility of

transferring the methods used to another setting; hence description of the methods used must

be detailed. Dependability refers to the degree to which the researcher accounts for changes

in the phenomenon under study and the evolution of the design in response to the data.

Finally, conformability should be established by determining the degree to which the fit

between the data and the researcher’s conclusions can be confirmed by another (Dick, 1986;

Wollin, 1996).

In the present research, several strategies were used to ensure that the interviewing

process conformed to the above standards. Interviewers were trained extensively in the

process of convergent interviewing method. The use of a team of researchers enabled some

reliability to be established. Detailed notes were taken during the interview and audio-

recordings and transcripts of each interview were made. Interviewers met daily during the

data collection period to discuss the content of the interview and the convergence and

44

divergence in the issues raised, enabling the constructs of interest to evolve throughout the

process. The procedures were documented and repeated in organisation B.

Interviews with a sample of hospital staff (employees of organisation A) were

conducted on-site from May to July during 1998. Each interviewee signed a consent form

for the interview to be taped and the purpose of the interview was clearly explained to them.

The interviews were unstructured and started by asking participants an open ended question

about his or her opinions regarding positive and negative aspects of the changes. The

interviews varied in length from five minutes to one hour and 20 minutes. Sixty-seven

employees were interviewed. Twelve of these participants were Executive Committee

members (three female and nine male), 36 were supervisory staff of varying levels (23

female and 13 male) and 19 of the interviewees were non-supervisory staff (12 female and

seven male). A team of six researchers (including the author of this dissertation) conducted

the interviews and daily, weekly and final convergence meetings were held to examine the

emerging themes and monitor thematic saturation.

Interviews with a sample of public servants (employees of organisation B) were

conducted on-site from June to July during 1998. There were 27 interview participants who

were senior and middle managers of the each of the business units in the department. The

organisation determined the interview sample based on gaining representation across the

service areas. The same procedure as described in the hospital context was utilised (e.g.,

participants were asked their opinions about various positive and negative aspects of working

in a changing environment). A team of three researchers conducted the interviews and,

again, convergence meetings were conducted to examine the emerging themes and monitor

thematic saturation.

45

The present research is part of a series of studies being conducted through an

Australian Research Council grant. Other projects with different research questions were

included in the interview process. As the interviews were designed to contextualise a

number of research questions outside the present program of research, they did not constitute

a data source for formal analysis in the present research. Rather, any information that

emerged from the interviews relevant to the present research was integrated with the

introduction and discussion sections in each of the studies. The issues raised in the

interviews were converted to a report for the organisations and interview participants that

informed the development of the survey instruments.

Relevant in the present research were participants’ comments about the organisational

climate. As discussed in Chapter 1, the importance of support provided by supervisors and

managers is often a major component of employees’ perceptions of the work environment.

The importance of this support was confirmed in the interviews in both organisations. An

established measure of supervisor support was suitable for inclusion as a climate based

coping resource in both surveys. Another highly salient element of climate common to both

organisations, but not identified in the literature review, was the importance of beliefs in

service quality. In the hospital interviews, providing quality patient care was an important

theme discussed by many participants. In the public sector interviews, the provision of

effective customer service was, again, an important theme. Measures of customer service

were developed in consultation with organisation members in order to ensure their suitability

for the two different contexts.

In addition, a third climate measure unique to each organisation was also included in

the survey based on the comments of interview participants. The hospital survey included a

46

measure of employee relations as some recent discord between management and staff and

between staff had been reported as a result of the change process. The public sector survey

included a measure of leader vision as many interview participants discussed the importance

of having an enthusiastic and visionary leader to guide employees through a change process.

Survey Methodology

Previous research in the theoretical domain on which the present research is based used

survey data to represent the constructs of interest. In particular, Terry et al. (1996) tested a

model of employee adjustment during change using structural equation modelling and

confirmatory factor analysis of survey data. Large sample sizes are important for such

analyses, especially where several variables are to be analysed simultaneously (Babbie,

2000). It was necessary to use a consistent approach in the present research and this required

the use of large-scale surveys.

It is evident that the use of self-report surveys is both legitimate and dominant in the

field of applied organisational psychological research. Survey research represents a general

approach to psychological research sometimes called correlational research which, unlike

experimental research, does not involve the manipulation of independent variables. Instead,

correlational research assesses the predictive relationships among variables. Survey data are

often used for the purposes of describing sub-populations and predicting repetitive patterns

within the general population (Hammersley, 1992).

When constructed and used properly, a questionnaire is a powerful scientific

instrument (Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 1997) used as a tool for collecting data. The use of

a structured, self-report format enables perceptual data to be confidentially and inexpensively

collected from a large proportion of organisational members. Survey research is designed to

47

deal more directly with the nature of people’s thoughts, opinions and feelings (Shaughnessy

& Zechmeister, 1997), making it highly suitable for collecting the type of data required to

test the theoretical models in the present research.

The usefulness of survey methodology for quantitative hypothesis testing has been

extensively considered (Babbie, 2000; Creswell, 1994; Newman, 1994). The most common

form of survey research is a cross-sectional design, involving observations of a sample (a

cross section) in a population at one point in time. Such studies are useful for exploratory

and descriptive purposes, but explanatory studies that are cross-sectional in design have one

inherent problem – aiming to understand causal processes that occur over time (Babbie,

2000). There are some important limitations of cross-sectional designs that must be

acknowledged. There are also reliability and validity issues which must be considered in

relation to the use of surveys. The ensuing discussion examines these issues in relation to the

strengths and weaknesses of using survey methods in the present research.

Theoretical models that can be tested using survey research are restricted to the

cognitive and emotional levels of analysis and do not allow for any explicit prediction of

behaviour resulting from the attitudes (Ajzen, 1985). In a cross-sectional design, the use of

single source data to assess predictive relationships can be considered problematic due to

what is known as common method variance. Measurement of variables using single source

data may mean inflated correlations between study variables explained by variance due to the

common method of data collection. Such problems threaten the internal validity necessary to

establish causal relationships.

Crampton and Wagner (1994) noted that the seriousness of this issue depends on the

research question and the nature of the variables under consideration. If the central variables

48

of interest are by definition perceptual, as they are in the present research, the researcher is

left with few options but to obtain such information via self-report measures. Previous

research on climate has relied almost exclusively on self-report perceptions to infer climate

perceptions (Ashkanasy et al., 2000).

The use of a longitudinal design, where independent and dependent measures are

collected at different times, is often suggested as a means of addressing this problem. In

addition, the literature often contains appeals to researchers to design studies that attempt to

link employee self-report variables with other data sources (e.g., supervisor ratings of

employee performance, physiological indices of stress, measures of an organisation’s fiscal

performance or levels of client satisfaction). However, opportunities to conduct such studies

in applied organisational settings are rare and difficult to implement due to a range of

complex issues. It was not possible to conduct longitudinal studies in the present research

due to logistic and confidentiality concerns in the organisations sampled. Management

declined to use code identifiers as a means of preserving confidentiality. For the same

reasons, access to alternative sources of data, such as personnel records, was not granted.

If the nature of the variables being measured can be assessed most appropriately with

perceptual measures and more sophisticated designs are not possible, single-source data can

still provide a useful resource for the examination of the measurement properties of and

structural relations among self-report variables (Kelloway, 1995). There are procedures

designed to assess the gravity of common method variance which will be discussed

specifically in relation to the analysis of survey data using confirmatory factor analysis and

structural equation modelling.

49

Reliability and validity

One criterion for evaluating the rigour of a research method is reliability, whether a

particular technique applied repeatedly to the same object yields the same result each time.

Another major criteria for assessing research quality is validity, the extent to which an

empirical measure adequately reflects the real meaning of the concept under consideration.

Survey research is generally weak on validity and strong on reliability (Babbie, 2000). There

is a tension between reliability and validity, as increasing one is often at the expense of

decreasing the other.

Theoretical constructs cannot be observed directly or indirectly, but are represented by

researchers’ observations or participant’s responses to questionnaire items. In the present

research, latent variables comprised of responses to questionnaire items are used to represent

the constructs of interest. Using a questionnaire to ask exactly the same questions of all

participants and having to impute the same intent to their responses has both advantages and

disadvantages. The advantage of this standardisation is enhanced reliability. By presenting

participants with standardised stimulus, surveys can eliminate the unreliability or bias in

observations made by researchers. Careful wording of questions can also reduce the

participant’s own unreliability (Babbie, 2000). The disadvantage of this standardisation is

reduced validity. People’s opinions seldom take the form of strongly agreeing, agreeing or

disagreeing with a specific statement, meaning that the assessment of attitudes may be

somewhat restricted or superficial. A questionnaire seldom deals with the total life situation

in which respondents are thinking and can thus be considered an inflexible and artificial

means of understanding complex phenomena (Babbie, 2000). Hence, survey responses must

be regarded as approximate indicators of a concept.

50

To increase reliability in the present program of research, a number of strategies were

used. Where possible, known measures of the constructs of interest were employed in the

questionnaires. Where measures were developed for use in the questionnaires based on

interviews, the data gathering techniques are thoroughly described. Another method used to

increase the reliability of the results involved pre-testing questionnaires (Babbie, 2000). It is

also important to demonstrate that the operations of a study, such as the data collection

procedures, can be repeated with the same results.

To increase ecological or external validity (Denzin, 1978) in this research, the pilot

interviews were used to gather contextual information relevant in explaining some of the

empirical results and confirm the salient climate elements to be measured in each

organisation. The external validity of survey findings refers to the establishment of the

domain to which a study’s findings can be generalised. Both surveys have sampled

employees in organisational field settings and, thus, have generalisability specifically to

health and public sector employees.

Sampling

Employees of organisations are the population of interest in the present research.

Organisations (groups of employees) are studied in order to generalise to other similar

organisations. When designing a survey, the type of sample drawn from the population of

interest is an important consideration. As noted earlier, the size of the sample is also an

important factor in determining the type of statistical analyses which can be performed on the

data.

A probability sampling technique was used in distribution of the hospital survey. One

of two versions of the survey was randomly mailed to all employees; thus, half of the

51

hospital population was the ‘sampling frame’. This decision was influenced by the size of

the total sample at the hospital (over 5000 employees) and the fact that a number of projects

that were part of the present research grant needed to access the hospital sample. Therefore,

the sample was randomly split into two different sub-samples. In relation to the state public

sector department survey, the whole organisation was the sampling frame as only one version

of the survey was sent to each employee.

The response rate of surveys is an important sampling issue. Response bias occurs

when certain respondents are more likely to provide data than other respondents. An

example of systematic sampling error could be non-response of persons not interested in

filling out the questionnaire or employees with language and literacy difficulties. When

gathering a sample, researchers aim to have a pool of respondents that look essentially like a

random sample of the organisation and, thus, constitute a somewhat smaller random sample

of the total population (all employees in similar organisations). Thus, the representativeness

of the sample should be established. Analyses which compare the sample to the population

on a range of characteristics are standard means of assessing representativeness. Such

analyses confirmed that the samples used in the present research were, in fact, representative

of the organisational populations from which they were obtained on a range of demographic

characteristics.

Both surveys in this research were completed on a voluntary basis. In order to

increase the response rate, the surveys were widely advertised throughout the organisations

with communication strategies including e-mail messages, leaflets, posters and

announcements during staff meetings. Also, assistance with completing the survey was

offered for employees with a non-english speaking background or literacy issues. The

52

response rates obtained in the samples reported in the present research both exceeded 50%

which, according to Babbie (2000), is considered adequate.

Analytic Techniques

Both of the analytic techniques used in the present research rely on null hypothesis

testing in which statistical significance criteria are applied. The p < .05 cut-off ensures that

chances of the findings being due to chance is five percent or less (Azar, 1999). However, as

noted by Locascio (1999) many researchers have argued that excessive weight is given to the

statistical significance of a study’s results in determining whether they are reported/and or

discussed in the literature. In addition, although a controversial practice, results which

border on significance (p < .10) are sometimes discussed as theoretically interesting

(although not statistically significant) as they indicate a trend toward significance which may

be useful to pursue in future research. It is noted here that in two instances such results will

be reported in the present research.

The survey data from both organisations were analysed using two different statistical

techniques. Studies 1 and 2 used confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation

modelling to test the utility of two theoretical models which proposed antecedent, mediating

and outcome variables deemed critical to understanding the process of employee adjustment

during organisational change. Studies 3 and 4 used Multivariate Analysis of Variance

(MANOVA) to examine group differences in employee adjustment during organisational

change. What follows is a description of each of these methods of data analysis and a

discussion of the specific issues important to understanding their appropriate application and

interpretation.

53

Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling

The analysis of survey data using structural equation modelling (SEM) is an

increasingly popular technique as it allows the researcher to test the utility of a complex

theory on empirical data. The testing of structural (i.e. path) models shares some similarity

with the more familiar use of multiple regression, but has some distinct advantages,

particularly in relation to its capacity to address issues of measurement error (Kelloway,

1995). SEM, also known as covariance structure modelling, allows for global hypothesis

testing by comparing a predicted covariance matrix (an a priori model) to the covariance

matrix observed in a data sample. The extent to which the predicted matrix “matches up”

with the observed matrix represents the “fit” of the model to the data. Various indices of

model fit will be further discussed later in this section.

Models tested using SEM can include both observed or manifest variables (raw data)

and latent variables (factors or theoretical constructs). A structural model represents the

manner in which variables are related to each other using diagrams and arrows implying

statistical prediction. Latent variable models allow for estimation of the parameters of a

model without the measurement error associated with manifest variables. Thus, path

coefficients reflect relationships between factors that are analogous to “true” scores

(Brannick, 1995). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is the appropriate means of assessing

the measurement properties of a model, prior to testing the structural relations among the

constructs. The adequacy of the measurement model is also assessed using “fit” statistics

calculated from comparing the proposed factor structure with sample data. The analysis is

confirmatory because the model specifies the relationships between the measured and latent

54

variables, or the indicators and the constructs. In survey research, the indicators are usually

scores on questionnaire items.

A detailed examination of the mathematical basis and estimation methods of SEM and

CFA is beyond the scope of this discussion, but is widely available in the statistical literature

(see, for example, Bentler, 1989; Bollen, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984). The utility of

statistical tools depends on the manner in which they are applied (Kelloway, 1995).

However, as noted by Brannick (1995), many researchers have violated the basic

assumptions and necessary conditions for using SEM, resulting in the inappropriate

application of the technique. What follows is a discussion of the major concepts important in

the evaluation and application of CFA and SEM techniques.

Model specification. Brannick (1995) argued that, for sound application of the SEM

technique, information about measurement properties of the variables of interest and the

structural relations among them is necessary. Unlike more traditional data analytic

techniques, such as exploratory factor analyses and multiple regression, SEM is not well

suited to the initial development of measures and theoretical models.

Models based on constructs that are operationalised by multi-item scales with known

psychometric properties would seem to offer greater potential for the unambiguous

specification of a measurement structure. Researchers need to develop theoretically every

relationship or model parameter, including those thought to be zero (Kelloway, 1995). In

more established research areas, an extensive review of the literature should provide

information about factor structures and structural relations among the variables of interest,

enabling the researcher to propose an a priori model.

55

The two models proposed and tested in the present research were specified based on

the theoretical structure of Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological stress

and coping framework. The literature review also identified potential alternative antecedent

and outcome variables to be tested. The measurement model was specified according to

existing factor structures for measures used in previous research.

Model fit. Model estimation is conducted using a loss function, usually the Maximum

Likelihood procedure. Computation of an approximate chi-square statistic is then used to test

the fit of the reproduced matrix to the sample matrix. A chi-square difference statistic that is

non-significant is indicative of a model that fits the data well (Bentler & Hu, 1995). As it is

extremely rare to find a non-significant chi-square when working with a large sample, such

as in the present studies, a range of other fit indices should also be examined before a model

is rejected (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

An important indicator to calculate is the χ2/dƒ ratio, where values below three are

considered favourable (Kline, 1988). Incremental fit indices are also used to assess the

validity of the model. The non-normed fit index (NNFI) is designed to provide an adequate

index of fit at all sample sizes and the comparative fit index (CFI) provides a population

estimate of the model fit. These indices, varying between zero and one, should exceed .95 to

indicate a good fit of the model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The distribution of

residuals should also be examined. As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), it is

desirable that the distribution is symmetric (around zero) and absolute indices such as the

average off-diagonal standardized residuals and the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) should not exceed .05.

56

Model re-specification. Although a ‘purely’ confirmatory approach to model testing

was advocated by early researchers (James, Mulaik & Brett, 1982), it has become common

practice to examine the modification indices provided by the specification search

computations included in SEM programs such as EQS and LISREL. Very few a priori

models that hypothesised latent factors and were tested in a large sample size were able to

yield an adequate fit. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) developed a two-step approach to deal

with this problem. This procedure is used in the present studies. The first stage involves

fitting and adjusting a measurement model to the data prior to testing the structural

component of the model.

Adjustments to the measurement model are usually made based on a number of

criteria. Indicators may fail to have substantial loadings on the factors to which they were

proposed to belong. They may have significant cross-loadings on other factors or have large

and positive correlated residuals with an indicator of another factor. Options for dealing with

these issues are deleting problem indicators or re-specifying the model to include multi

dimensional factors (indicators loading on more than one factor), the latter option being more

controversial (Kline, 1998).

Researchers are frequently advised to consider the substantive implications of any post

hoc modifications to their models (Kelloway, 1995), as deleting problem indicators may pose

a threat to the content validity of the latent factor. Although the models reported in the

present research did utilise modification indices in order to delete problem indicators, some

of the items were considered important to retain in terms of the content validity of the factors

representing the constructs of interest. In some instances, items were retained for this reason

even where the measurement properties of an indicator may not have been desirable. In

57

addition, as instructed by Bollen (1989), each latent construct retained a minimum of three

indicators.

Kline (1998) has noted some additional considerations in judging the adequacy of a

measurement model. Correlations between the latent factors should be examined as a means

of assessing discriminant validity (i.e., they should not be too high). Conversely, high

correlations between the indicators of each latent factor are desirable for establishing

convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, computed for the items used as indicators

for a latent construct, provided a measure of reliability and convergent validity. Three of the

measures in the models presented in the current research could be considered low, however

as long as the alpha level is greater than 0.6 the data is still adequate (Carmines & Zeller,

1979). The low level of reliability could be a function of the small number of indicators used

to measure a construct (in some cases only three items). However, the present research

attempted to balance the trade-off between increased model fit and reduced reliability and

content validity that occurs when indicators are deleted.

The squared multiple correlation (r2) for each indicator is also an important statistic to

examine. Values of r2 less than .5 are not desirable as more than half of an indicator’s

variance is unexplained by the factor it is proposed to measure. Finally, it is important to

check that none of the measurement error terms associated with measured variables are

significantly correlated.

After the measurement model is evaluated, a structural model is estimated. The fit of

the structural model is assessed and modification indices are again examined. In the EQS

program, the Wald test results list the parameters that are non-significant and could be

omitted without any substantial loss of model fit. Lagrange Multiplier tests indicate how

58

much the model could be improved by adding in significant but unspecified paths.

Modification of the structural model based on the inclusion of paths that were shown to be

significant in the specification searches, but were not theoretically predicted, is considered

suspect by many proponents of SEM as it increases the probability of Type 1 errors (Kline,

1998). Cross validation using different samples is suggested as a way of strengthening

models that have been modified due to specification searches (Kelloway, 1995). To address

these concerns, the present research did not add non-specified paths to the models and

attempted to cross validate the basic theoretical and measurement structure across two

different samples.

Assumptions of estimation methods. West, Finch and Curran (1995) note that a major

source of inappropriate use of SEM has been the failure of investigators to satisfy the scaling

and normality assumptions on which estimation and testing are based. The commonly used

Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation method assumes that the measured variables are

continuous and have a multivariate normal distribution. The results of simulation studies

designed to test the analysis of CFA models with severely non-normal data generally suggest

that, although parameter estimates are fairly accurate in large samples, type I error is more

common (Kline, 1998). Thus, when data are severely non-normal, results of significance

tests tend to be significant too often, mainly due to the underestimation of standard errors.

The distributions of all model variables were suitable for ML estimation with the

exception of the absenteeism measure in Study 2, which was converted to a dichotomous

variable “absent or not”. Categorical data such as ordinal or dichotomous variables are often

estimated in SEM models. However, Kline (1998) notes several issues to be considered in

relation to the analysis of non-continuous variables using SEM. Firstly, correlations between

59

dichotomous or ordinal variables tend to be truncated relative to correlations between the

underlying continuous latent variables. Thus, estimates may not accurately reflect the

corresponding values for latent variables. Second, scores on such variables are not normally

distributed which may violate the assumptions of ML described above. In addition,

participants’ responses to individual items tend not to be as reliable as scale scores composed

of many items.

West et al. (2000) reported that investigations into the effects of coarse categorization

of continuous variables have found that correlations were generally lower than those found

for the continuous version of the same variables. The greatest attenuation occurred when

fewer categories were employed. As with non-normally distributed data, coarse

categorization of variables may lead to biased tests of model fit and other model estimates.

The conclusion drawn in their meta-analysis of simulation studies suggested that the use of

dichotomous outcome variables is admissible but the results should be interpreted with

caution.

Causality. It is important to note that like other statistical techniques, SEM cannot

establish proof of causality. Laboratory studies using experimental designs are the

methodology of choice for examining causal relationships. It is not possible to infer

causality among the variables in a model by fitting a covariance structure model to cross-

sectional survey data (Brannick, 1995). However, properly identified models can support

inferences of causality (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). The majority of empirical research in

organisational behaviour relies on cross sectional data as true experimental designs are not

possible in what is inherently a “field” setting. Even quasi-experimental designs are quite

60

rare due to the limited opportunity for such methodologies to be applied. Hence, the

elimination of alternative explanations for relations among the variables is necessary.

Testing the fit of “nested” models and comparing them with the proposed structural

model is a means of providing support for the theoretical utility of a model and attempting to

rule out rival models. In particular, for a test of mediated relationships of the form A → B →

C (Baron & Kenny, 1986), the model should be compared with a test of the partially

mediated model that also includes a path from A to C. In addition, a non-mediated model

can be derived by eliminating the path from B to C and incorporating the path A to C. Both

the fully mediated and non-mediated models are nested within the partially mediated model.

This sequence of tests was used in the present research to provide evidence of the necessity

and sufficiency of the mediated relationships (Kelloway, 1995).

The use of cross sectional survey methodology means that an important consideration

is whether common method variance poses a significant problem to the validity of the

measurement model. A standard means of addressing concerns about common method

variance in same-source data is Harman’s Single Factor procedure (Harris & Mossholder,

1996; McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). This procedure assumes that if

method variance is largely responsible for the co-variation among the measures, a single

(method) factor model should fit the data well. This step was taken in both models presented

in the present research in order to discount the presence of severe method variance.

Although concerns about the inappropriate use of SEM techniques have been raised

(Brannick, 1995), the researcher must choose the techniques that best suit the development of

the research question (Kelloway, 1995) and provide a considered rationale for defence of the

methodology based on the all of the issues discussed above. Questions and debates about

61

model fit can be extrapolated to almost all statistical analyses. As noted by Kelloway (1995),

the assessment of model fit is exceedingly complex and has been subject to intense empirical

and theoretical scrutiny. He argued that at present there is no simple answer to the question

‘does the model fit the data’. The best researchers can do is consider a range of model fit

indices, be consistent in decision rules within and across any analyses, include a

consideration of the admissibility of the solution and ensure that each of the individual

parameters, residuals and modification indices are considered (Joreskog, 1993). As noted

previously, it is also important that competing models be compared for model fit.

Analysis of survey data using Multivariate Analysis of Variance

One of the research questions of this dissertation requires an investigation of the extent

to which status or role based groups vary in their perceptions of climate, change and

adjustment. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) is a suitable technique for such

an investigation. MANOVA is primarily used to test the statistical significance of

differences between the means of two or more groups on two or more dependent variables,

considered simultaneously (Polit & Hungler, 1993). Researchers often describe subsets of

cases or respondents for comparative purposes. Analysis of variance is based on the

assumption of causality that group membership causes attitudes (Babbie, 2000). As the use

of MANOVA is well established, a very brief overview of the technique and the major

factors involved in interpreting the results of such an analysis is now provided.

There are several advantages to using MANOVA as it allows the researcher to

examine simultaneously several dependent measures that are orthogonally related. Suitable

in field settings or survey research where the independent measures are categorical,

MANOVA can provide insights into not only the nature and predictive power of the

62

independent measures but also the inter-relationships and differences seen in the set of

dependent measures. An intrinsically multivariate research question involves a set of

dependent measures in which the principal concern is how they differ as a whole across the

groups. Differences on individual dependent measures are of less interest than their

collective effect. The null hypothesis that is tested is the equality of vectors of means on

multiple dependent variables across groups (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1995).

Like the other analytical techniques discussed above, the researcher should assess all

aspects of the research question carefully and ensure that MANOVA is applied in the correct

manner. Issues to consider regarding the appropriateness and validity of the technique

include how the dependent measures are determined and ensuring the basic assumptions of

the technique are not violated. Dependent measures should be selected and grouped

according to a sound conceptual or theoretical basis. In the present research, dependent

measures are grouped according to their theoretical function in the model as either

organisational antecedents (coping resources), mediating variables (change appraisals) or

adjustment indicators (individual and organisational outcomes). Also, before presenting

results of a MANOVA analysis, important considerations include the adequacy of the sample

sizes in each cell (group) of the analysis, and the assessment of normality, linearity and

multicollinearity among the dependent variables.

Interpreting the results of a MANOVA involves examining several criteria. In the

group differences studies reported in this dissertation, main effects, or overall model fit was

assessed with Wilks’ lambda, which considers whether groups are different without being

concerned with whether they differ on at least one linear combination of dependent variables.

Secondly, inspection of effect size (η2), a standardised measure of group differences,

63

provided an indication of the amount of variance explained in the dependent measure (Hair et

al., 1995). Finally, post hoc analyses, statistical tests of mean differences were conducted

after the statistical tests for main effects had been performed. It is important to note that

these tests have quite low levels of power due to the number of possible combinations.

These analyses identified which comparisons among groups had significant differences. The

Student Neuman-Keuls test, a common post-hoc test (Hair et al., 1995), was used to

determine these differences.

Conclusions

The present program of research is epistemologically situated in the scientific realism

paradigm, which provides a sound basis for both theory testing and theory development,

allowing the researcher to draw upon previously developed models and adjust them to

empirical data. The data collected in the present research used surveys that were developed

based on measures used in previous research and the results of pilot interviews. A

justification for the methodological approach to the present program of research has been

provided including an examination of the major issues pertaining to reliability and validity in

the design of the studies. The analytic techniques employed have also been discussed,

particularly in relation to important considerations in the interpretation of results from such

analyses.

64

CHAPTER THREE

Study One

The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change:

A Model Predicting Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-being

Organisational change is a significant source of occupational stress which can have a

negative effect on a range of employee outcomes such as job satisfaction and psychological

well-being (Ashford, 1988; Mack et al., 1998; Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry et.al., 1996).

It is well established that the diminished effectiveness of employees who have reduced job

satisfaction and psychological well-being can impair many aspects of organisational

performance (Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Quick et al., 1997). The impact of organisational

change on employee adjustment has emerged as an important area of research due to the high

emotional and financial costs to employees and organisations when change is not managed

well. In the pursuit of developing a theoretical model of employee adjustment during

organisational change, Terry et al. (1996) found that the application of Lazarus and

Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological framework proved a useful approach. As

outlined in Chapter 1, this model focused on how individuals appraise the change event, their

coping responses and the extent to which access to personal and social coping resources

determine their levels of adjustment to corporate change.

The current research builds upon this model by investigating organisational factors that

contribute to higher levels of employee adjustment to corporate change in a hospital

environment. Changes in the health care system are inevitable and a major issue is

employees’ fear that the cost containment policies in health care reform compromise patient

65

care (Johnston, 1998). Sverke, Hellgren and Oehrming (1997) noted that, although the health

sector has undergone large scale changes, relatively little research has examined how hospital

employees are affected by organisational change.

The present research directs attention to the organisational rather than personal

resources that facilitate adjustment during change in order to develop much broader, system

level interventions that avoid attempting to adapt employees to stressful conditions (Murphy,

1988; Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). It is increasingly being argued that the unique aspects of

an organisation’s climate need to be taken into account to ensure organisation-specific stress

management programs are implemented. Many interventions designed to deal with

workplace stress are ineffective because they fail to recognize the wider contextual issues

within which organisational behaviour takes place (Callan, 1993; Dewe & O’Driscoll, 1999;

Hart & Wearing, 1995). Understanding the role of these contextual factors in reducing stress

is an important research objective.

Organisational-level coping resources are elements of the work context that act as a

source of support during stressful situations. An obvious source of organisational coping

resources is the organisational climate. Climate theory dictates that the way employees

perceive the psycho-social aspects of their work environment contributes to their cognitive

evaluation of the events that occur within it (such as a program of organisational change).

In order to identify salient aspects of the organisational climate and contextualize the

present research, pilot interviews were conducted (see Chapter 2). Interview participants

highlighted the importance of the need to deliver and maintain quality care to patients despite

changes to resources, relocation problems and decreasing staffing levels. Whether or not

supervisors were perceived to be a source of support and information during the change also

66

appeared to be an important element of the organisational climate. In addition, the

effectiveness of relations between staff was considered important. Overall, the interviews

confirmed that the climate elements under investigation in the present study were salient in

the organisation, and provided input into the preparation of the patient care and employee

relations measures in the questionnaire. Thus, the model being tested in the present study

included independent variables developed partly through a qualitative, organisation-specific

process.

As outlined in Chapter 1, a major element of climate is organisational communication.

One aspect of communication, social support from supervisors, was identified as a key

organisational coping resource. The relevance of this construct in the hospital’s

organisational climate was confirmed in the interviews. The interviews also revealed that the

manner in which employees relate to each other and to clients was a particularly salient

aspect of the organisational climate. A service-oriented climate is characterised by respect

for employees, a desire among employees to work together to serve the client, and a focus on

client and employee satisfaction (Hatch, 1993; Parasuraman, 1987; Schein, 1985;

Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). Schneider (2000, p. 21) defined a climate for service as “the

sense that people who work for and/or come into contact with an organisation have with

regard to the service quality emphasis of the organisation”.

In service-oriented climates, the nature of the relationships between staff and between

staff and clients can provide a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a

community of service, even during periods of transformational change (Harber, Ashkanasy &

Callan, 1997; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). Customer orientation or quality emphasis in

organisational climates is associated with employee satisfaction and high levels of

67

organisational performance (Wiley & Brooks, 2000). Hence, the current study includes a

focus on the quality of patient care as a potential organisational-level coping resource.

Aims

The present study aimed to test the utility of a model of employee adjustment during

organisational change which proposed links between supports from the organisational

climate and employee appraisals of the change, and, in turn, levels of employee adjustment.

In this study, employee adjustment was indicated by employee levels of job satisfaction and

psychological well-being. Figure 3.1 illustrates the hypothesised relationships.

The hypothesised model proposed that employees with more positive perceptions of

the organisational climate (relations between staff, quality of patient care and levels of social

support from their direct supervisor) would report higher levels of adjustment (lower change

stress and higher change control and self-efficacy, psychological well-being and job

satisfaction). In addition, it was expected that the effects of climate-based coping resources

upon employee well-being and job satisfaction would be mediated by how positively

employees appraised the changes (perceived change stress, self-efficacy and control).

Figure 3.1.

Organisational Climate(Coping Resources)

• Quality of patient care • Employee relations • Supervisor support

Change Appraisals • Change stress • Change self-efficacy • Change control

Employee Adjustment Indicators

• Psychological well-being• Job satisfaction

Proposed Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change

68

Method

Background

The research was conducted in a large public hospital where employees were

experiencing the introduction of large-scale organisational change. Changes included the

redevelopment of the hospital site, downsizing of staff and significant structural and cultural

change including the implementation of multi-disciplinary teams. The research was

conducted whilst the change management unit were in the midst of planning the changes

including the design of the new building, organisational structure and work practices.

Procedure

Firstly, the questionnaire was pilot tested on a group of 20 employees from various

departments and organisational levels to ensure that questions were clear, wording and

terminology were appropriate and that the layout of questions enabled ease of response. All

of the hospital staff were randomly allocated one of two survey versions. The version

containing the questions of interest in the present research was mailed to 1600 employees.

The survey was a self-administered questionnaire with a postage-paid, return envelope and

took place approximately three months after the completion of the exploratory interviews

(see Chapter 2). A cover letter from the hospital’s District Manager was attached. The letter

told employees that the aim of the survey was to gather their opinions about working at the

hospital and assess the effects of the change program. Confidentiality of responses was

assured and the survey was to be completed anonymously. Participation in the survey was

promoted through the use of posters and messages on payslips.

69

Sample

A total of 779 surveys were returned for analysis, providing a 49% response rate. The

sample consisted of 70% women and 30% men. Sixty two percent of participants were aged

20 to 40 years and 38% were aged 41 and over. Most of the participants (37%) had been

working at the hospital for a period of two to five years and a large number (23%) had

worked there from 6 to 10 years. The occupational categories represented in the sample were

medical managers (1%), medical clinicians (7%), nurse managers (5%), nurse clinicians

(41%), junior medical officers (1%), other health professionals – managers (3%), other health

professionals – clinicians (10%), non-clinical managers (2%), non-clinical supervisors (3%),

operational, administrative, technical and trade officers (20%), executives (1%) and others

(6%). Analysis of hospital statistics showed that the sample was representative of the

composition of the organisation’s entire workforce.

Measures

Participants provided background information on gender, age, length of service, length

of time in current position, and employment status (e.g., casual, full time, part-time, contract,

temporary). They also selected one of 12 staff classifications to describe their position (e.g.,

Nurse-Manager, Nurse-Clinician, Medical-Manager).

Three types of organisational coping resources were measured as a result of the pilot

interviews: employee relations, quality of patient care and the availability of social support

from direct supervisors. The nature of employee relations was measured with three items

that asked staff to rate their level of agreement with statements about different aspects of

working at the hospital (e.g., “In my experience at the hospital, managers/supervisors respect

staff”; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). The focus on the quality of patient care

70

was measured using four items. Using a six point scale, staff rated the extent of agreement

with statements such as: “In my view, the hospital provides good quality patient care”, (1 =

strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Social support from supervisors was measured

using six items. Participants rated how much they relied on their direct supervisor for

various types of support on a four point scale (e.g., 1 = not at all to 4 = very much). These

questions were selected from items used by Terry et al. (1996).

There were five outcome variables measured in the study to profile various types of

employee adjustment during organisational change. These indices of adjustment included the

mediating variables - change-specific attitudes about situational control, self-efficacy and

perceived stress, and the dependent variables - psychological well-being and job satisfaction.

Perceived change-related stress was measured using four items. These questions asked

participants to rate the change process on six point bipolar scales regarding the level of stress,

disruption, difficulty and extent of upset (e.g., 1 = not at all stressful and 6 = extremely

stressful). These questions were adapted from previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Change

control was measured with three items (e.g., “I will be able to influence the extent to which

the changes will affect my job”, 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). One item was

reverse-scored: “I have no control over the extent to which the changes will affect my job”.

Items were adapted from previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Self-efficacy or the extent to

which participants felt they could perform the behaviours required to deal with the changes

was assessed with four items (e.g., “I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned

structural changes”, 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). One item was reverse

scored “I have reason to believe I will not perform well in my job following the introduction

of planned changes”. These items are similar to those used by Ashford (1988). Job

71

satisfaction was assessed with five items adapted from those used by Caplan, Cobb, French,

Van Harrison and Pinneau (1975). The scale assesses generalized levels of job satisfaction

(e.g., “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?; 1 = very dissatisfied to 5

= very satisfied). Psychological well-being was measured with six items from Goldberg’s

(1972) psychological symptoms scale of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The 6

items were a subscale of negative psychological health symptoms. Only one of the two GHQ

subscales was used as SEM models do not allow for the specification of many items for a

particular construct. Including both subscales would increase the number of model

parameters and reduce the likelihood of finding acceptable model fit. Participants were

asked to estimate how often they experienced 6 different symptoms, using a 4 point scale

(e.g., “Felt constantly under strain”, 1 = not at all to 4 = much more than usual). The scores

on these items were reversed to provide an assessment of psychological well-being. A

complete copy of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.

Results

Data screening for respondent errors and omissions was conducted prior to analysis.

Missing values analyses revealed that the missing data ranged from 0.6% to 3.1%. Structural

equation analyses are unable to deal with any missing data and are considered more robust

with larger sample sizes. To retain as many cases as possible, missing values were replaced

with the linear trend for that point (the existing series is regressed on an index variable scaled

1 to n and missing values are replaced with their predicted values). Diagnostic procedures

conducted on the data revealed that multivariate kurtosis was not marked. Hence, the data

were analysed using the maximum likelihood procedure (Bentler & Hu, 1995).

72

The measurement model

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (see Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) was used to test the

adequacy of the measurement model. The items used to measure each of the eight theoretical

constructs were used as indicators of latent variables. Factor variances were set to one in

order to identify the model and a range of model fit and modification indices were computed.

The pattern of results from the test of the a priori measurement model indicated that

the model was a reasonably good fit to the data (χ2 (532) = 1605, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 3.02, CFI

= .92, RMSEA = .05), but as the CFI did not reach the recommended cut-off of .95, the

model was improved with some minor re-specification. As it is often difficult to obtain

adequate fit for models with large numbers of indicators (Kline, 1998), a procedure for

reducing the number of indicators was employed. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) proposed

that deleting problem indicators is the preferred solution for improving the fit of

measurement models. There are several criteria upon which to base the decision to delete an

indicator (see Chapter 2).

Inspection of the standardized correlations among residuals and the Lagrange

Multiplier modification indices revealed that the model could be improved by dropping some

of the items which showed evidence of multiple factor loadings. Kline (1998) has noted that

some researchers allow indicators to load on more than one factor. The present analysis

applied the more conservative principle of unidimensional measurement and did not make

any re-specifications that allowed items to load on multiple factors. In addition, factors with

only three items were not re-specified, as a minimum of three indicators per latent variable

was required for model identification. Substantive considerations regarding an indicator’s

73

contribution to the content validity of each of the latent constructs were also taken into

account.

Indicators with large correlated residuals and/or highly significant cross-loadings on

other factors were deleted. Nine of the original 35 items were dropped from the model.

However, each construct still retained three to four indicators, which is standard for a CFA

model with multiple factors (Bollen, 1989). The modified measurement model yielded an

improved pattern of results in terms of the goodness of fit indices (χ2 (279) = 499, p < .001,

χ2/dƒ = 1.84, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .03). Table 3.1 presents the standardised path

coefficients and r2 values for all of the items in the measurement model.

The correlations between the latent variables in the present model were all within a low

to moderate range, indicating good discriminant validity (Kline, 1988). Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients were computed for items used in the final measurement model and all inter-item

correlations demonstrated satisfactory to high levels of reliability and good convergent

validity (Kline, 1988). Table 3.2 presents the means, standard deviations, inter-correlations

and internal consistency alphas for the latent variables. Finally, it is also important to note

that none of the measurement error terms were significantly correlated.

A one-factor, or baseline model did not fit the data well (χ2 (275) = 4548, p < .001,

χ2/dƒ = 16.5, CFI = .46, RMSEA = .14) and had a large and significant chi-square difference

when compared with the eight-factor measurement model tested in the CFA described above

(χ2 diff (4) = 4050, p < .001). It has been suggested that such results provide an indication

that common method variance did not pose a substantial threat to the validity of the

measurement model (Harris & Mossholder, 1996; McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992; Podsakoff &

Organ, 1986).

74

Table 3.1.

Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of

Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change

Summary of item content β r2

Patient care

Patients at the hospital are treated with sensitivity

The hospital provides good quality care to patients

The hospital maintains a safe environment for patients

.77

.83

.71

.59

.69

.51

Employee relations

Staff at my level treat each other with respect

Open and free communication is encouraged at the hospital

Supervisors and managers respect staff

.81

.60

.81

.65

.40

.66

Supervisor support

Gives sound advice about what you could do when you experience work-

related problems

Provides information which helps to clarify your work-related problems

Listen to you when you need to talk about work-related problems

Express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you

.87

.87

.86

.67

.76

.75

.75

.45

Change stress

The changes are extremely stressful

The changes are extremely disrupting

The changes are extremely difficult

.87

.86

.87

.76

.74

.76

75

Summary of item content β r2

Change self-efficacy

However the changes affect me, I am sure I can handle it

I may not perform well in my job given the introduction of planned

changes(R)

I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes

Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no

doubt I can perform well in the new hospital

.63

.46

.60

.60

.40

.21

.36

.37

Change control

I have no control over the extent to which the changes will affect my job (R)

I will be able to influence the extent to which the changes will affect my job

It is up to individual employees how much they want the changes to influence

their job

.60

.75

.46

.35

.56

.21

Job satisfaction

Satisfied with the quality of the resources available to you to do your job well

Satisfied with the quality of the working conditions available to you to do your

job well

Would you want to work in your present job if you did not have to

.78

.85

.48

.61

.72

.23

Psychological well-being

Felt constantly under strain

Felt you could not overcome your difficulties

Been losing confidence in yourself

.72

.85

.70

.52

.72

.48

76

Table 3.2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Patient care 4.59 .88 (.81)

2. Employee relations

4.06 1.23 .61 (.78)

3. Supervisor social support

2.62 .88 .26 .60 (.89)

4. Change stress 3.36 1.34 -.13 -.24 -.14 (.90)

5. Change self-efficacy

4.05 .70 .31 .37 .29 -.16 (.64)

6. Change control

2.68 .92 .26 .43 .38 -.12 .32 (.60)

7. Job satisfaction

3.25 .93 .41 .57 .44 -.12 .37 .36 (.71)

8. Psychological Well-being

3.13 .67 .19 .34 .32 -.23 .42 .23 .49 (.79)

Note. All correlations are significant at p < .05; Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are in parentheses.

It is important to note the measurement properties of some of the variables are not

satisfactory. The amount of explained variance (r2) in 9 of the 26 indicators of the latent

constructs was less than .5, suggesting that more than half of an item’s variance is

unexplained by the factor it is supposed to measure (Kline, 1998). In addition, two of the

scale scores computed based on the final indicators used in the measurement model showed

low but acceptable levels of reliability (Carmines & Zeller, 1979) as assessed by Cronbach’s

alpha coefficients of .60 (control) and .64 (self-efficacy). However, these low levels of inter-

item correlation are also a function of the small number of items in the scales (three to four).

Despite these limitations, the overall measurement model showed good fit to the data and the

majority of assessments made supported the model’s sound measurement properties.

77

Test of the structural model

Structural equation modelling (using version 5.7b of the EQS program, Bentler, 1989)

was used to test the utility of the theoretical model proposed in the present study (see Figure

3.1). The model predicted that the quality of patient care, the effectiveness of employee

relations and the availability of supervisor support would act as organisational coping

resources. These climate-based coping resources were expected to promote more positive

appraisals of change (lower stress, higher self-efficacy and control), which, in turn, would

result in higher levels of the employee adjustment indicators (job satisfaction and

psychological well-being). In addition to the mediated effects through appraisal variables,

direct effects of the organisational coping resources on adjustment criteria were also

proposed.

The pattern of results from the test of the a priori model suggested that the model was

indeed a good fit to the data (χ2 (275) = 537, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 1.95, CFI = .97, RMSEA =

.04). However, one of the modification indices, the Wald test, indicated that 7 of the 21

specified paths between the latent variables were non-significant and could be omitted

without any substantial loss of model fit. Hence, the final structural model (shown in Figure

3.2) omitted all of the non-significant paths. These paths were between patient care and

change stress (χ2 =.08; p = .78), patient care and change control (χ2 = .40 ; p = .53), patient

care and well-being (χ2 = .76; p = .38), social support and change stress (χ2 = .04 ; p = .84),

change stress and job satisfaction (χ2 = .33 ; p = .57), change control and job satisfaction (χ2

= .49; p = .47) and change control and well-being (χ2 = .16; p = .69). All of the paths shown

in the final model were significant at p < .001 level except one, which indicated a possible

trend (employee relations and well-being; χ2 = 3.04; p = .08). In terms of the endogenous, or

78

criterion, variables the final model explained 40% of the variance in job satisfaction and 26%

of the variance in psychological well-being.

Two alternative (or nested) models that could be proposed to account for the relations

among the variables were also tested. There was evidence that the final model presented

above (a hybrid model which contained both direct and mediated paths) compared favourably

with a fully mediated model (χ2(284) = 1135, p < .001, χ2/ Dƒ = 4.0, CFI = .89, RMSEA =

.06). The final model provided superior fit to a model predicting direct effects only (each of

the climate and appraisal variables impacting on the outcome measures directly) (χ2(287) =

1219, p < .001, χ2/ Dƒ = 4.25, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .07). Chi-square difference tests

revealed that the differences between each of the alternative models and the final model were

significant (χ2diff.(2) = 596, p < .001; χ2diff.(5) = 680, p < .001). These results suggest that

the final structural model presented in Figure 3.2 best represents the relationships found in

the data.

79

Patient Care

.61

.61

.26 .15

-.24 .42

.15

-.13 Job

Employee Relations

Supervisor Support

S

.10

.18

.21 .15

.31

.17

.11

χ2(282) = 539, p < .001, χ

Figure 3.2.

Final Structural Model

The general aim of the presen

about patient care, effective employ

support from supervisors as resourc

As predicted, the results of the struc

indeed have significant links to the

All climate factors had main effects

appraisal variables. As predicted, a

Change Stress

Satisfaction

.10

Change elf-Efficacy

Change Control

Psychological Well-being

.33

2/dƒ = 1.91, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04,

Discussion

t research was to examine the role of positive attitudes

ee relations and the perceived availability of social

es that help employees adjust to organisational change.

tural equation modelling revealed that these factors did

various measures of employee adjustment during change.

on the adjustment indicators and most of the change

number of indirect effects of organisational coping

80

resources on the measures of adjustment, mediated by change appraisals, were observed.

These results confirm the basic theoretical structure of the proposed model, and support the

argument of Schaubroeck and Merritt (1997, p. 740) who stated that “the subjective

perceptions of demand, control and self-efficacy are the primary mediators of stress

reactions.”

Employees’ beliefs in the organisation’s ability to provide services of high quality had

a direct impact on job satisfaction and employees’ self-efficacy in relation to the changes.

Many participants in the pilot interviews reported fears that quality standards may be

compromised due to too much focus on cost cutting in the change agenda, explaining why

employees who believe patient care remains at a high level will be better adjusted. These

findings are consistent with those of Baglioni, Cooper and Hingley (1990) who reported

considerable role conflict amongst hospital employees stemming from discrepancies between

the goals of clinical care and the goals of economic rationalism.

Positive employee relations had a strong main effect on job satisfaction and a non-

significant but theoretically interpretable effect on psychological well-being. It also had a

consistently strong impact on employees’ appraisals of change, resulting in lower stress and

higher change self-efficacy and change control. Again, the interviews highlighted the fact

that during a change program, effective communication with others was a major factor in

promoting positive adjustment during change. Comments about some of the challenges

during change included references to general interpersonal tensions such as co-worker

attitudes, a lack of co-operation between professional groups and unprofessional or

aggressive behaviour from management. Harris and Mossholder (1996) found that

81

organisational climates characterised as people-oriented and supportive are often associated

with positive affective outcomes including job satisfaction.

As expected, employee perceptions of the availability of social support from their

supervisor had main effects on both job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Like the

pattern of results for effective employee relations, high levels of supervisor support could be

considered synonymous with a supportive organisational climate or work environment,

possibly explaining the direct effect on job satisfaction. The availability of this resource also

had positive effects on employees’ appraisals of self-efficacy and situational control during

organisational change. Social support assists employees with situational control by providing

instrumental aid or advice about how to modify a situation and with self-efficacy by fostering

an their sense of self-worth during a stressful situation (Thoits, 1986). Effective social

support from a supervisor can also supply information relevant to employee’s positive self-

evaluation and social comparison (House, 1981).

An unexpected finding was the non-significant path between supervisor social support

and change stress. The literature on the buffering role of social support on employee stress

levels suggests that it can divert the employee’s attention away from a stressor, or help

reinterpret it so that it seems less threatening. Thus, support that provides caring,

understanding or affirmation should help to decrease the level of distress suffered by the

employee (Terry et al., 1996). Even though social support did not prevent assessments of the

change process on survey ratings as being perceived as “stressful, disruptive and difficult”, it

did increase overall psychological well-being, a reliable indicator of overall stress levels.

In the present study, self-efficacy played a key role in mediating the effects of all of

the proposed coping resources on both adjustment variables. Positive perceptions of

82

employee relations and patient care promoted higher change self-efficacy, which, in turn, led

to higher job satisfaction and well-being. A similar pattern of results was observed for the

level of supervisor social support. Self efficacy was a key variable in predicting employee

adjustment during organisational change. Individuals vary in their confidence about learning

new roles. A person’s efficacy expectancy or their level of confidence in their ability to

perform the behaviours necessary to deal with a stressor is an important determinant of

adjustment (Bandura, 1982; Judge et al., 1999; Terry, 1991).

Change-related stress mediated the relationship between employee relations and

psychological well-being. More positive assessments of the quality of employee relations

resulted in lower levels of stress in relation to the changes. However, those who rated the

change process as stressful were more likely to report reduced levels of psychological well-

being. This result adds to the growing body of evidence that organisational change is a

source of stress which impacts significantly on employee well-being (Ashford, 1988;

Johnson & Sarason, 1979; Mack et al., 1998; Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry et al., 1996.

Positive perceptions of employee relations and supervisor social support resulted in

feelings of greater control over the changes. However, change control failed to function as a

mediating variable, showing no significant relationship with job satisfaction or well-being.

In the present model, this variable was included with the intention to measure how much

control the individual has over the actual stressor (organisational change). Situational control

influences whether individuals are able to develop the problem-focused coping strategies that

are linked with better adjustment (Terry, Rawle, et al., 1995; Terry et al., 1996). However, it

is unlikely that employees are able to control the occurrence of organisational change.

Rather, they may be able to control some elements of the change process. The extent to

83

which they have generalised control in their jobs may influence whether they feel in control

of the changes. The items used to measure change control did not assess control over change

process elements or general job-control. In addition, the measure was only marginally

acceptable in terms of measurement properties. Future research should give some

consideration to how this variable might be best operationalised and how the measure might

be improved.

Overall, the final model provided evidence to support the majority of the hypothesised

relationships, suggesting that the cognitive-phenomenological framework provided a useful

theoretical approach for investigating employee adjustment during change. Results

suggested that a service-oriented climate not only results in higher job satisfaction and well-

being, but also helps to promote more positive appraisals of organisational change. In this

sense, climate acted as a coping resource by enhancing employees’ ability to deal with any

psychological demands associated with the changes. Employee relations and change self-

efficacy were particularly influential factors in the final model.

Implications for change management

Stress management training, which covers cognitive re-appraisal processes,

counselling and relaxation techniques, is often the sole form of intervention offered to

employees experiencing stress during organisational change. It has been noted that this may

not be the most effective strategy (Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Results of this research

suggest that a much broader, organisation-wide approach to intervention would have a

powerful impact in facilitating employee adjustment during organisational change. Such an

approach should focus on developing a strong service climate with positive employee

relations as a central feature. A training program which highlights the quality agenda and

84

improves employee relations and social support by focussing on the key role of

communication during change could be a useful intervention. Heaney, Price and Rafferty

(1995) found encouraging results, such as improved work-team functioning and employee

mental health, with an intervention in which employees were taught how to mobilise

available support from, and provide support to others at work.

Conclusion

The present study provided support for the application of a stress and coping

perspective to the development of theory in the area of employee adjustment during

organisational change. The study expanded the concept of coping resources by investigating

organisational factors rather than individual differences. Pilot interviews provided evidence

that a service-oriented climate, effective employee relations and social support were

important factors in promoting employee adjustment during organisational change. The

model of employee adjustment during change tested in the present study confirmed these

predictions, providing a good fit to the data in relation to the adequacy of the measurement

properties and the overall accuracy of the theoretical predictions. The model provided a clear

indication that both organisational and individual factors influence employee adjustment

during organisational change. At an applied level, the results confirmed that organisational-

level interventions may assist employees to adjust, particularly by enhancing their self-

efficacy in relation to the changes.

85

CHAPTER FOUR

Study Two

The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change:

A Model Predicting Commitment, Turnover Intentions and Absenteeism

The utility of a model of employee adjustment during organisational change was

established in Study 1. In particular, Study 1 identified antecedent organisational factors

which acted as coping resources in facilitating positive employee adjustment during change.

The current research aimed to provide a further assessment of the basic model structure by

testing a similar model in a second change context, a state public service department.

Widespread reform in the Australian public sector has meant large-scale changes have been

implemented including downsizing, increased performance orientation, and

commercialisation. As a result, stress claims in the public sector are increasing (Sargent,

1995).

The present research involves testing the role of additional climate factors and

expanding the range of employee adjustment indicators to include organisational

commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism. The experience of work stress has been

associated with lowered organisational commitment (Gillespie et al., 2001). Hence,

commitment is an important criterion variable for assessing the impact of organisational

change on employee-organisation relations (Becker, 1992; Becker, Billings, Eveleth &

Gilbert, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997). The actions required to implement a desired change

may result in employees experiencing reduced organisational commitment (Armenakis &

Bedeian, 1999). The role of employee commitment in the management of change is central,

86

especially considering the likely future success of ongoing change programs (Bennett &

Durkin, 2000).

Organisational commitment relates to the degree that the individual is concerned with,

and identifies with, the organisation within which he or she works (James & Hendry, 1991).

Bennett and Durkin (2000) argued that organisational commitment can serve as a summary

index of work-related experiences and as a predictor of work behaviours and behavioural

intentions. Commitment influences the psychological attachment employees feel toward an

organisation. This attachment affects the extent to which employees perform their jobs,

experience swings in stress, cynicism and forms of workplace withdrawal (e.g., absenteeism

and lateness), and ultimately, their turnover intentions and eventual turnover behaviour

(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Mowday et al., 1977, 1984).

Consistent relationships between organisational commitment and turnover have been

reported in the literature and it is thought that commitment is a key predictor of both turnover

intentions and absenteeism (Bennett & Durkin, 2000; James & Hendry, 1991; Lum, Kervin,

Clark, Reid & Sirola, 1998; Mowday, Koberg & McArthur, 1984; Sager, 1994). It has been

suggested that employee attitudes toward a pending change may also have an impact on

turnover intentions (Iacovini, 1993; McDonald & Siegal, 1993; McManus et al., 1995).

Following the procedure outlined in Study 1, pilot interviews in Organisation B

confirmed the salient elements of organisational climate. Interview participants highlighted

the importance of managing change with a focus on customer satisfaction. The role that

leadership played in the organisational climate, especially the way leaders communicated

their vision for the organisation, was also considered important. It was generally felt that

change needed to be managed by leaders who were seen as positive and who cared about

87

people and recognised the efforts of staff. Whether or not supervisors were perceived to be a

source of support and information during the change also appeared to be an important

element of the organisational climate. Overall, the interviews confirmed that the climate

elements under investigation in the present study were salient in the organisation and

provided input into the preparation of the customer service measure in the questionnaire.

Service orientation provides a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a

community of service during periods of transformational change (Harber, Ashkanasy &

Callan, 1997; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). The perceived level of support gained through

the interpersonal relationship an employee has with their supervisor can assist them to

appraise stressful events less negatively and develop situationally appropriate coping

strategies (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Terry et. al, 1996).

Leadership is an important element of organisational climate that was not tested in the

first model, but was highly salient in Organisation B. Leaders of change must envision,

enable and enculturate a new organisational paradigm to the members of the organisation

(Kotter, 1987). This type of leadership is termed visionary leadership and is comprised of

two key components: leader attributes and behaviour. Visionary leadership has also been

discussed as ‘charismatic’ or ‘transformational’ leadership (Conger, Kanugo & Menon,

2000). Charismatic leaders differ from other leaders in their “ability to formulate and

articulate an inspirational vision and by behaviours and actions that foster an impression that

they and their mission are extraordinary” (Conger et al., 2000, p. 748). Almaraz (2000)

found that visionary leadership was significantly predictive of perceived change success,

although she noted that the construct has been little studied in the specific context of

transformational change.

88

Aims

The present study aimed to test the utility of a model of employee adjustment during

organisational change which proposed links between supports from the organisational

climate and employee appraisals of the change, and, in turn, levels of employee adjustment

during change. In this study, employee adjustment was measured as levels of organisational

commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism. Figure 4.1 depicts the hypothesised

relationships between the study variables.

The hypothesised model proposed that employees with more positive perceptions of

the organisational climate (leader vision, customer service and levels of social support from

their direct supervisor) would have higher levels of commitment. In addition, two sets of

mediated relationships were proposed. It was expected that the effects of climate-based

coping resources upon organisational commitment would be mediated by how positively

employees appraised the change event. It was also expected that the effects of the climate

and appraisal variables on turnover intentions and absenteeism would be mediated by

organisational commitment.

Figure 4.1.

Proposed Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change

Organisational Climate(Coping Resources)

• Customer service • Leader vision • Supervisor support

Change Appraisals • Change stress • Change self-efficacy • Change control

Absenteeism

Turnover intentions

Employee Adjustment

Organisational commitment

89

Method

Background

The research was conducted in a large, state public sector organisation. The

department had undergone significant change and restructuring, including an amalgamation

and de-amalgamation with another department.

Procedure

Firstly, the questionnaire was pilot tested on a group of 20 employees from various

departments and organisational levels to ensure that questions were clear, wording and

terminology were appropriate and that the layout of questions enabled ease of response.

Next, a survey of all employees in the organisation took place in October, 2000. A self-

administered employee opinion questionnaire was mailed to staff with a reply paid envelope

in which to return it. The questionnaire included a cover letter which explained that the

survey aimed to examine the individual and organisational outcomes of adaptation to on-

going change in the workplace (due, in part, to the nature of working within a political

environment). The survey questionnaire was completed anonymously and confidentiality of

responses was assured.

Sample

Of the 1,283 questionnaires distributed, 877 completed questionnaires were received,

representing a 68.4% response rate. This rate was considerably greater than in Organisation

A (study 1) as management support for the survey was higher and employees were strongly

encouraged by their supervisors to participate. The sample was 47% male and 53% female.

Ages ranged from under 20 years to over 50 years, and 26-30 years was the most frequently

selected category. Over half the participants had worked in the department for at least four

90

years and the majority were permanent full time workers (72%). Occupational categories

represented were: Direct Client Contact (21%), Administrative (20%), Management (15%),

Technical/Professional (11%), Trade Staff (6%), Policy/Planning (6%), Secretarial (5%),

Project Work (11%) and Other (5%). Overall, comparisons on key demographic variables

using departmental statistics revealed that the sample was representative of the organisation’s

workforce.

Measures

Participants provided background information on gender, age, length of service, length

of time in current position, and employment status (e.g., casual, full time, part-time, contract,

temporary). They also selected 1 of 6 job types to describe their position (e.g., direct client

contact, administrative, management etc).

Three types of organisational coping resources were measured as a result of the pilot

interviews: customer service, leader vision and the availability of social support from direct

supervisors. Customer service was measured with seven items that assessed the perceived

level of client satisfaction in the department (e.g., “we achieve high levels of client

satisfaction”; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). These items were developed for

use in the present research based on the pilot interview data. Leader vision was measured

with 6 items taken from Kouzes and Posner’s (1993) Leadership Practices Inventory (e.g.,

“senior staff show excitement about future possibilities”; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 =

strongly agree). Perceived availability of social support was measured using six items.

Employees rated how much they relied on their direct supervisor for various types of

emotional and informational support using a four point scale (e.g., 1 = very much to 4 = not

at all). These questions were selected from items used by Terry et al. (1996).

91

There were five outcome variables measured in the study to profile various types of

employee adjustment during organisational change. These indices of adjustment included the

mediating variables - change-specific attitudes about situational control, self-efficacy and

perceived stress, and the dependent variables - organisational commitment, turnover

intentions and absenteeism. Perceived change-related stress was measured using four items.

These questions asked participants to rate the nature of on-going changes in the department

on six point bi-polar scales (e.g., 1 = not at all stressful to 6 = extremely stressful), including

the level of disruption, difficulty and extent of upset. These questions were adapted from

previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Change control was measured with 6 items (e.g., “I

can influence the nature of change in my work unit”, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly

agree). Two of the items were adapted from previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Four

additional items were taken from Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish and Di Fonzo (2000) to

measure global perceptions of employees’ perceived control over their future in the

organisation. Change self-efficacy or the extent to which participants felt they could perform

the behaviours required to deal with the changes was assessed with four items (e.g., “I am

confident in my ability to deal with the on-going changes in the department”, 1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree). One item was reverse scored: “I have reason to believe I will

not perform well in my job following the introduction of changes”. These items are similar

to those used by Ashford (1988).

Organisational commitment was assessed with five items adapted from Mowday,

Steers and Porter (1979). The scale assesses generalized levels of commitment (e.g., “What

happens in the department is really important to me; 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly

agree). One item was reverse scored: “I don’t care what happens to the department as long as

92

I get my pay”. Turnover intentions were measured with six items adapted from those used

by Fried and Teigs (1995) and Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) (e.g., “I am planning to search

for a new job within the next 12 months”; 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).

A measure of self-reported absenteeism was obtained using the procedure outlined by

Parker and Kulik (1995). Organisations often resist providing records-based data and make

participant anonymity a condition for access. Hence, many studies have used self-report

measures to assess absenteeism (Johns, 1994). Participants were asked to estimate the

number of days they had been absent due to reasons other than physical ill health or leave

entitlements. Participants were asked “How many days in the past 6 months have you been

absent from work due to work-related reasons” (e.g., feeling depressed or stressed,

emotionally run down, taking a ‘sickie’, unfair workload, difficult work relationships). A

complete copy of the questionnaire is contained in Appendix B.

Results

Data screening for respondent errors and omissions was conducted prior to analysis.

Structural equation analyses are unable to deal with any missing data and are considered

more robust with larger sample sizes. Missing values analyses revealed that the percentage

of missing data for scaled items ranged from 0.6% to 5.5%. To retain as many cases as

possible, missing values were replaced with the linear trend for that point (the existing series

is regressed on an index variable scaled 1 to n and missing values are replaced with their

predicted values). Diagnostic procedures conducted on the scaled data revealed that

multivariate kurtosis was not marked. Hence, the data were analysed using the maximum

likelihood procedure (Bentler & Hu, 1995). However, it is important to note that the

distribution for the number of days absent due to work-related reasons was markedly skewed

93

(skew = 14.70, SE = .085). This common problem is due to the number of staff who have

zero days absent (Hemmingway & Smith, 1999). Even with various types of transformation,

the distribution did not approach normality, meaning that the assumptions for maximum

likelihood procedure would be violated. These data were re-coded into a dichotomous

variable (0 = not absent, 1 = absent) so that the relationship between the model variables and

whether or not employees reported any absence due to work related reasons could be

estimated.

The measurement model

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (see Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) was used to test the

adequacy of the measurement model. The items used to measure each of the eight theoretical

constructs were used as indicators of latent variables. A ninth variable, the dichotomous

measure of absenteeism, was not estimated in the measurement model as no underlying

factor structure or hypothetical construct was assumed. Absenteeism was not a suitable

variable for confirmatory factor analysis. However, this variable was included in the

structural model (specified as a categorical variable) so that the proposed relationship

between commitment and absenteeism could be tested. The results of the test of this path

should be interpreted with some caution (see Chapter 2).

Factor variances were set to one in order to identify the model and a range of model fit and

modification indices were computed. As in Study 1, a procedure for reducing the number of

indicators was employed to maximise model fit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Indicators

with large residuals and/or highly significant cross-loadings on other factors were deleted.

Eighteen of the original forty-five items were dropped from the model. However, each

construct still retained at least three indicators (Bollen, 1989). The modified measurement

94

model was a good fit to the data (χ2 (296) = 688, p<.001, χ2/dƒ = 2.32, CFI = .97, RMSEA =

.04). Table 4.1 presents the standardised path coefficients and r2 values for the confirmatory

factor model. As can be seen, correlations between the eight latent variables in the

measurement model were all within a low to moderate range, providing evidence of good

discriminant validity (Kline, 1998). Correlations between the indicators of each latent factor

were computed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and all inter-item correlations

demonstrated satisfactory to high levels of reliability, indicating reasonable convergent

validity (see Table 4.2). Finally, it is also important to note that none of the measurement

error terms were significantly correlated.

A one-factor, or baseline model, did not fit the data well (χ2 (324) = 8337, p <.001,

χ2/dƒ = 25.73, CFI = .45, RMSEA = .17) and had a large and significant chi-square

difference when compared with the eight-factor measurement model tested in the CFA

described above (χ2 diff (28) = 7649, p<.001). These results suggest that common method

variance did not pose a substantial threat to the validity of the measurement model (Harris &

Mossholder, 1996; McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

95

Table 4.1.

Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of

Employee Adjustment During Change

Summary of item content β r2

Customer service

We achieve high levels of customer service

We provide the client with “value for money”

We “go the extra mile” to provide service to clients

We are responsive to client problems

.76

.73

.84

.80

.57

.53

.70

.63

Leader vision

Describe the kind of future they would like for us to create together

Appeal to others to share their dreams of the future as their own

Clearly communicate a positive and hopeful outlook for the future

Look ahead and forecast what they expect the future to be like

Show contagious excitement and enthusiasm about future possibilities

.90

.89

.91

.90

.88

.81

.79

.83

.82

.77

Supervisor social support

Help you feel better when you experience work related problems

Gives sound advice about what you could do when you experience problems

Express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you

.86

.89

.89

.74

.79

.79

Change stress

On-going changes are extremely stressful

On-going changes are extremely upsetting

On-going changes are extremely difficult

.75

.83

.78

.56

.68

.60

96

Summary of item content β r2

Change self-efficacy

However changes to my job affect me, I am sure I can handle it

I am confident in my ability to deal with on-going changes in the department

Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no doubt I

can perform well if my job were to change

.74

.90

.80

.55

.81

.63

Change control

I feel I can influence the nature of change in my work unit

What I do in the department is largely under my control

I can influence the extent to which changes at work affect my job

.76

.74

.84

.58

.54

.70

Organisational commitment

I don’t care what happens the department as long as I get my pay(R)

I feel very committed to the department

It would take very little change in my job to cause me to leave the department(R)

.60

.69

.55

.36

.48

.30

Turnover intentions

I am planning to search for a new job during the next 12 months

If I have my own way I will leave the department to work in another organisation

one year from now

I often seriously think about making a real effort to enter a new and different job

.84

.93

.82

.70

.87

.67

97

It is important to note the measurement properties of some of the variables were not

satisfactory. The amount of explained variance (r2) in 3 of the 27 indicators of the latent

constructs was less than .5, suggesting that more than half of an items variance is

unexplained by the factor it is supposed to measure (Kline, 1998). These three items were

the measures of organisational commitment. In addition, the scale score computed based on

the final indicators for the organisational commitment variable demonstrated a low but

acceptable level of reliability (Carmines & Zeller, 1979) as assessed by a Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient of .63. The low level of reliability could be a function of having only three items

in the scale. This finding is unexpected given the established nature of the measure

(Mowday et al., 1979). Despite these limitations, the overall measurement model showed

good fit to the data and the majority of assessments made supported the model’s sound

measurement properties.

Table 4.2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables

M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Customer service 4.85 .82 (.86)

2. Leader vision 3.67 1.23 .34 (.95)

3. Supervisor social support 2.99 .90 .31 .46 (.91)

4. Change stress 3.66 .97 -.10 -.17 -.15 (.83)

5. Change self-efficacy 4.14 .70 .22 .21 .16 -.36 (.85)

6. Change control 3.94 1.30 .30 .50 .39 -.26 .33 (.82)

7. Commitment 4.00 .84 .35 .47 .33 -.15 .34 .45 (.63)

8. Turnover intentions 3.23 1.94 -.23 -.38 -.36 .14 -.16 -.33 -.62 (.90)Note. All correlations are significant at p < .05, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are in parentheses.

98

Test of the structural model

Structural equation modelling (using version 5.7b of the EQS program, Bentler, 1989)

was used to test the utility of the theoretical model proposed in the present study (see Figure

4.1). The model predicted that customer service, leader vision and supervisor social support

would act as organisational coping resources, promoting more positive appraisals of

organisational change (lower stress, higher self-efficacy and control) and, in turn, result in

higher levels of commitment to the organisation. In addition to the mediated effects through

appraisal variables, direct effects of the organisational coping resources on organisational

commitment were also proposed. Finally, it was also hypothesised that higher levels of

commitment would be associated with lower incidence of absenteeism and turnover

intentions. The effects of organisational coping resources and change appraisals on

absenteeism and turnover intentions were proposed to be mediated by organisational

commitment.

The pattern of results from the test of the a priori model suggested that the model was

indeed a good fit to the data (χ2 (334) = 869, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 2.61, CFI = .96, RMSEA =

.04). However, one of the modification indices, the Wald test, indicated that 3 of the 17

specified paths between the latent variables were non-significant and could be omitted

without any substantial loss of model fit. Hence, the final structural model (presented in

Figure 4.2) omitted the non-significant paths. These paths were between change stress and

commitment (χ2 = .01; p = .928), customer service and change stress (χ2 = 1.03; p = .30),

and supervisor social support and change self-efficacy (χ2 = 1.32 ; p = .25). All of the paths

shown in the final model were significant at the p <.001 level. In terms of the organisational

99

outcome variables measured with latent constructs, the final model explained 38% of the

variance in organisational commitment and 46% of the variance in turnover intentions.

Two alternative or nested models that could be proposed to account for the relations

among the variables were tested. There was evidence that the final model presented above (a

hybrid model which contained both direct and mediated paths) compared favorably with a

fully mediated model (χ2 (334) = 956, p<.001, χ2/dƒ = 2.86, CF I= .95, RMSEA = .05, χ2 diff

(0) = 87, p<.001). The final model had superior fit to a model predicting direct effects only

(each of the climate and appraisal variables impacting on the outcome measures directly) (χ2

(330) = 1308, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 3.96, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .06, χ2 diff (4) = 439, p <. 001).

These results suggest that the final structural model presented above (as hypothesised based

on theory) best represents the relationships found in the data.

100

-.68

-.37 Absenteeism

Turnover Intentions

Customer Service

Leader Vision

Change Stress

Change Self-Efficacy

Change Control

Organisational Commitment

.

.

.

.

.34

.46

.31

Supervisor Support

.19

.13

.15

.18

.15

-.09

.38 .15

.27

-.13

.18 .12

χ² (334) = 869, p < .001, χ²/dƒ = 2.60, NNFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04

Figure 4.2.

Final Structural Model

101

Discussion

The general aim of the present research was to examine the role of leader vision,

supervisor support and beliefs about customer service as resources that help employees adjust

to organisational change. As predicted, the results of the structural equation modelling

revealed that these factors did indeed have significant links to the measures of employee

adjustment during change. All climate factors had main effects on organisational

commitment and most of the change appraisal variables. As predicted, a number of indirect

effects of organisational coping resources on the measures of adjustment, mediated by

change appraisals, and by organisational commitment were observed.

Leader vision had a strong main effect on organisational commitment and consistently

predicted all of the measures of employee appraisal of change, resulting in lower stress and

higher self-efficacy and control. Leader vision had a particularly strong impact on employee

perceptions of change control. Leader behaviour is particularly crucial during organisational

change, as leaders provide a vision of the change, support to employees and model

appropriate behaviour in the changing organisation (Nadler, 1988). Effective leaders provide

energy and inspiration through the communication of a powerful vision about why the

change is occurring and what it is trying to achieve (Pfeffer, 1992). Leader vision

contributes to individual judgements about change by creating excitement and enthusiasm

about future possibilities (Kotter, 1995). Employees need strategic direction to feel they are

being led rather than managed into change. Studies of effective transformational leaders

show how important it is for them to have a clear vision of the destiny of the organisation and

use this vision to gain the support and confidence of key employees (Reichers, Wanous &

Austin, 1997; Terry et al., 1996). These actions help to build stability during the change and

102

enhance employee commitment to the change (Covin & Kilman, 1990; Schweiger et al.,

1987).

Another coping resource, employees’ beliefs in the organisation’s ability to provide

good customer service, had a direct impact on organisational commitment and employees’

self-efficacy and control in relation to the changes. Customer service orientation or quality

emphasis in organisational climates is generally associated with employee satisfaction and

high levels of organisational performance (Wiley & Brooks, 2000). Service-oriented

climates provide a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a community of

service, even during periods of transformational change (Harber et al., 1997; Schmalensee &

Gust, 1985; Schneider, 2000).

As expected, employees’ perceptions of the availability of social support from their

supervisor had a main effect on organisational commitment. The availability of this resource

was also linked to reduced stress and increased control during organisational change. The

literature suggests that social support diverts employees’ attention away from a stressor or

helps them reinterpret it so that it seems less threatening. Social support assists employees

with situational control by providing instrumental aid or advice about how to modify a

situation (Terry et al., 1996).

An unexpected finding was the non-significant path between supervisor social support

and change self-efficacy. Social support has been shown to increase self-efficacy by

fostering an their sense of self-worth during a stressful situation (Thoits, 1986). Effective

social support from a supervisor can also supply information relevant to employees’ positive

self-evaluation and social comparison (House, 1981). However, in the present study, it was a

103

belief in customer service and perceptions of visionary leaders that were significantly

predictive of increased self-efficacy.

As predicted, a number of indirect effects were observed where organisational coping

resources effects on the measures of adjustment were mediated by change appraisals.

Change control played a key role in mediating the effects of all of the proposed coping

resources on organisational commitment. Having control over changing situations tends to

be associated with less negative reactions to specific changes (Lau & Woodman, 1995).

Positive perceptions of climate promoted higher change control which, in turn, led to higher

organisational commitment. Situational control is also thought to influence whether

individuals are able to develop the problem-focused coping strategies that are linked with

better adjustment (Terry et al., 1996).

A similar pattern of mediation via change self-efficacy was observed, with the

exception of supervisor social support. Merritt (1996) reported that self-efficacy has a major

influence on an indivdual’s assessment of a situation as either challenging or threatening.

Although positive perceptions of leader vision and supervisor support resulted in lower levels

of stress, change stress failed to act as a mediating variable and was not significantly linked

to organisational commitment.

A number of indirect effects of organisational coping resources and change appraisals

on the other measures of adjustment (absenteeism and turnover intentions), mediated by

organisational commitment, were observed. Each of the coping resources and two of the

appraisal variables (self-efficacy and control) had an indirect effect on absenteeism and

turnover intentions. This finding suggests that the development of organisational climate

104

may not only improve employee appraisals of change, but that this process could also have

an impact on important cost-related organisational outcomes.

Overall, the final model provided evidence to support the majority of the hypothesised

relationships, again suggesting that the cognitive-phenomenological framework provided a

useful theoretical approach for investigating employee adjustment during change. Results

suggested that a positive climate not only resulted in higher levels of commitment, but also

acted as a coping resource by enhancing employees’ ability to deal with any psychological

demands associated with organisational change. The model provided a clear indication that

both organisational and individual factors influenced employee adjustment during

organisational change. Leader vision and change control were particularly influential factors

in the final model.

In both Study1 and Study 2 climate factors generally had both direct and indirect

effects on the adjustment indicators. In terms of direct effects, there were specific paths that

were consistently significant in both samples. High levels of the indicators of a service

climate (quality of patient care and customer service) predicted increased change self-

efficacy. Supervisor support predicted increased change control. Change self-efficacy was a

significant mediating variable in both models, predicting job satisfaction and well-being in

Study 1 and commitment in Study 2. Across both studies there was a consistently non-

significant path: no relationship was found between change stress and work attitudes (job

satisfaction or organisational commitment) in either study. The similarities and differences

between the two studies will be further discussed in the final chapter.

105

Implications for change management

It has been noted that stress management training may not be the most effective

intervention for employees experiencing stress during organisational change (Reynolds &

Shapiro, 1991). Results of this research suggest that a much broader, organisation-wide

approach to intervention which aims to improve the climate, particularly in terms of

leadership development, may have a powerful impact in facilitating employee adjustment

during organisational change.

Conclusion

The present study provided support for the application of a stress and coping

perspective to the development of theory in the area of employee adjustment during

organisational change. The study expanded the concept of coping resources by investigating

organisational factors rather than individual differences. Pilot interviews confirmed that

aspects of the organisational climate such as customer service, leader vision and supervisor

support were important facets of the organisational climate. The model of employee

adjustment during change tested in the present study found that these climate factors played

an important role in the model of employee adjustment during organisational change. The

results of the model demonstrated a good fit to the data in relation to the adequacy of the

measurement properties and the overall accuracy of the theoretical predictions. The model

provided a clear indication that employee perceptions of both organisational and individual

factors influenced employee adjustment during organisational change. At an applied level,

the results confirmed that organisational-level interventions would assist employees to adjust,

particularly by enhancing their perceptions of control and self-efficacy in relation to the

changes.

106

CHAPTER FIVE

Study Three

Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of

Organisational Level

Social and organisational identity play a significant role in the cognitive evaluation of

workplace events as employees interact with each other not only as individuals but also as

members of the organisational groups to which they belong (Kramer, 1991). During

organisational change, identity may be more salient, particularly when the change is

appraised as threatening (Hartley, 1996, Terry & Callan, 1998). However, much of the

empirical literature on organisational change (including the models presented in Studies 1

and 2) fails to distinguish between the diversity of participants in change programs, treating

them as a homogenous group of employees (Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Lewis, 1999).

Several recent studies have demonstrated that an employee’s position in the

hierarchical structure of an organisation, or organisational level (Miller, 1978), has been

associated with differences in perceptions of change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998; Miles et al.,

1996; Watson et al, 2001), the communication of change (Bordia et al., 2001) and acceptance

of organisational change (Ahmad, 2000). Hence, the identification of variation in perceptions

of climate, appraisals of change and levels of adjustment during change, according to an

employee’s organisational level, is identified as an important research objective.

In addition, the applied value of explanatory models, such as those presented in this

dissertation, can be improved by linking the model to diagnostic analyses that investigate the

extent to which meaningful group differences are found among the variables. Different

107

aspects of climate may be more salient to different groups. Thus, the implementation of

strategies to improve climate could target different elements for different groups, increasing

the possibility of intervention effectiveness. Overall, this approach would ensure

organisation-specific stress management programs are implemented rather than the

application of generic models of stress management (Dewe & O’Driscoll, 1999; Hart &

Wearing, 1995).

The pilot interviews in Organisation B confirmed organisational level-based identity

was the most salient group variable in the public service environment. Participants

commented on the public sector “ladder” analogy, indicating that the various staff

classification levels (e.g., A01-A08) were often used as labels for employees. The interviews

confirmed that staff of different levels varied in their reactions to organisational change

including their informational needs, assessment of risk and complexity (Lewis, 1999) and the

desire to participate in change implementation and decision making.

Aims

The present study re-analyses the data from Organisation B (see Study 2) and is

designed to investigate the following research question:

To what extent are there differences between organisational levels in their perceptions

of climate, psychological appraisal of change and levels of adjustment during

organisational change?

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were the same public servants described in Study 2 (Organisation B, see

Figure 2.1) hence the sample and data collection methods were outlined in Chapter 4. Cases

108

that were not in the administrative officer (AO) staff classification were excluded from the

analysis so that a single occupational group with a large sample size could be examined.

Once these cases were removed, the original sample of 877 participants was reduced to 669

participants. The analysis of data from Organisation B is presented first as the study has a

simpler design, allowing for the examination of employee’s organisational level within a

single occupational stream. A more complex design allowing the examination of both level

and occupational groups was permitted by the structure of the data collected in Organisation

A, and is presented in Study 4 (Chapter 6).

Measures

Participants provided background information on gender, age, length of service,

length of time in current position, and employment status (e.g., casual, full time, part-time,

contract, temporary). On the basis of the staff classifications provided by survey participants,

three groups of employees were created, reflecting their organisational level. The three

categories were lower level employees (A01-A03 e.g., base-grade administrative, clerical and

customer service roles); middle level employees (A04-A06 e.g., policy, research and

supervisory roles); and upper level employees (A07-A08 e.g., unit managers, senior policy

officers and senior executives).

The latent variables from the model in Study 2 were converted to scale scores for each

participant. The scores were computed using a mean of the indicators/items representing

each variable in the measurement model. The climate variables were leader vision,

supervisor support and service orientation. Psychological appraisal measures were change

stress, change self-efficacy and change control. Indicators of adjustment were organisational

109

commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism. For a list of the variables and item

content, see Table 4.1.

Results

Data screening

All of the computed scales were of a satisfactory to high level of reliability assessed by

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.63 to 0.95. There was no evidence of

multicollinearity among the variables. None of the variables was significantly skewed with

the exception of the absenteeism data, which was converted to a dichotomous variable (see

Chapter 4). Missing values analyses revealed that the amount of missing data ranged from

0.6 to 5.5%. As described in Study 2, missing values were replaced with the linear trend.

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was utilised to examine group

differences in ratings of climate, change appraisal and adjustment indicators. Three one-way

MANOVAS were run to assess separately the effects of organisational level on the

antecedent (leader vision, supervisor support and customer service), mediating (change

stress, change self-efficacy and change control) and adjustment indicators (organisational

commitment, turnover intentions). Main effects or overall model fit was assessed with

Wilks’ lambda. Differences between groups for significant univariate effects were assessed

with Student-Newman Keuls tests. Table 5.1 shows the significant multivariate and

univariate effects. Table 5.2 shows the group means for each of the significant and trend

effects and the results of the post-hoc analyses. Tables presenting the means and standard

deviations for all variables by each of the levels are provided in Appendix C.

The first MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between organisational levels

on three climate variables: leader vision, service orientation and supervisor support. A

110

significant overall multivariate effect was obtained. Inspection of univariate effects found a

significant difference between groups on the measures of leader vision and supervisor

support. Post-hoc tests indicated that upper level employees reported significantly higher

levels of leader vision than middle and lower level employees and significantly higher levels

of supervisor support than lower level employees.

A second MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between organisational

levels on change appraisals: change stress, self-efficacy and control. A significant overall

multivariate effect was obtained. Inspection of univariate effects found a significant

difference between groups for change self-efficacy and change control. Post-hoc tests

indicated that upper level employees reported significantly higher levels of change self-

efficacy than middle or lower level employees. Upper level employees also reported

significantly higher levels of change control than middle and lower level employees. In

addition, middle level employees reported significantly higher levels of change control than

lower level employees.

A third MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between organisational levels

on two of the adjustment criteria: organisational commitment and turnover intentions. A

significant overall multivariate effect was obtained. Inspection of univariate effects found a

significant difference between groups on the measure of organisational commitment. A trend

(p = 0.08) was found for turnover intentions. Post-hoc tests indicated that upper level

employees reported significantly higher levels of organisational commitment than middle and

lower level employees. The trend for turnover intentions suggested that lower level staff

were more likely to report intending to leave their job than middle or upper level staff

111

although this finding should be interpreted with caution as it was not statistically significant

at p< .05.

To assess the differences between groups for the dichotomous adjustment indicator

(absenteeism), cross tabulations were computed and chi-square analyses were utilised to

determine if the differences were statistically significant. Table 5.3 shows the frequencies

for participants reporting of absence by organisational level. Chi square tests revealed that

the differences observed between groups on whether or not employees were absent due to

work-related reasons were not significant.

Table 5.1.

Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects

Significant Multivariate

F dƒ η2 Significant Univariate

F dƒ η2

Climate 5.98*

6, 1328 .026 Leader vision Supervisor support

13.68*** 3.94*

2, 666

2, 666

.039 .012

Appraisal 12.03*** 6, 1336 .051 Change self-efficacy Change control

3.30* 34.68***

2, 670

2, 670

.010 .094

Adjustment 3.59*** 4, 1362 .015 Organisational commitment Turnover intentions

7.71*** 2.56†

2, 685

2, 685

.022 .007

Note. * p < .05 ** p < .01 ***p < .001 † p<.10

112

Table 5.2.

Mean Scores of Significant Results and Post Hoc Tests for Organisational Level

Lower Level Middle Level Upper Level

Climate

Leader vision 3.49 3.60 4.24 a

Supervisor support 2.88 3.04 3.15 b

Change Appraisal

Change self-efficacy 4.10 4.11 4.30 a

Change control 3.61 3.96 b 4.81 a

Adjustment

Organisational commitment 3.91 4.01 4.30 a

Turnover intentions 3.45 3.09 3.20

a This mean is significantly different from all other means in this row b This mean is significantly different from the first group in this row

Table 5.3

Absenteeism by Organisational Level

Level Lower

n=284

Middle

n=292

Upper

n=100

Absent 225 (79.2%) 229 (78.4%) 70 (70.0%)

Not Absent 59 (20.8%) 63 (21.6%) 30 (30.0%)

113

Discussion

The aim of this study was to determine whether there were statistically significant

differences between employees at different organisational levels in their perceptions of

climate, change appraisals and levels of employee adjustment during change. Although there

were some similarities between the groups, a number of significant group differences were

found. In relation to the climate variables, differences between groups for both supervisor

social support and leader vision were found. Also, groups differed in their appraisals of

change for change self-efficacy and control. For the employee adjustment indicators,

differences between groups were observed for organisational commitment.

An overall pattern of group differences emerged. Upper level staff were consistently

more likely than middle or lower level staff members to report a range of positive attitudes

during change. In comparison to both the other groups, they reported significantly higher

levels of leader vision, change self-efficacy and organisational commitment. Upper level

employees also reported higher levels of supervisor support than the lower level staff.

Perceptions of change control were higher for upper level staff in comparison to middle level

staff, and middle level staff were more likely to report higher levels of control than lower

level employees.

The results indicate that higher status staff respond more positively to the work

environment, to organisational change and generally adjust better than lower status staff.

This pattern of results is not surprising. Similar findings have been reported elsewhere (see

Ahmad, 2000; Armstrong-Stassen 1997, 1998; King et al., 1991; Olson &Tetrick, 1988;

Watson et. al, 2001). Luthan and Sommer (1999) argued that the cause of these different

114

attitudes between managers and staff is that managers are more involved in the change

process.

Lower level staff may feel less support from their supervisors as their supervisors are

occupied with implementing change. In addition, lower level employees generally perceive

that there is comparatively less information and more equivocality during change than upper

level employees (Miles et al., 1996). This uncertainty about the changes may also be

associated with decreased satisfaction with their supervisor. In contrast, managers and

supervisors have been shown to report higher levels of organisational support, including

supervisory support and informational support (Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan &

Sommer, 1999; Watson et al., 2001).

Upper level staff had more positive perceptions about the extent to which leaders

exhibited a vision for the organisation. Senior staff are often more aware of the vision for the

organisation. In this organisation, the upper level group was comprised of senior policy

officers and unit managers for whom an understanding of the vision for the organisation was

an integral part of their role. It is also important to note that upper level staff have much

more contact with the CEO and leadership of an organisation (Young & Post, 1993) and,

thus, have more opportunity to appraise their leadership behaviours.

Upper level staff appraised change more positively, with significantly higher levels of

perceived control over the changes and confidence in relation to their ability to continue to

perform well. There is some evidence that managers report more control over decisions

concerning the future of their jobs than non-supervisory employees (Armstrong-Stassen,

1997, 1998; Esty, 1984; Watson et al., 2001). Senior managers have more expedient access

to information and are more involved as they “drive” the changes (St Amour, 2001).

115

Managers have more control over change than middle managers or staff and are much more

understanding of the rationale for change (Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan & Sommer,

1999; Watson et al., 2001).

In addition, higher status, more senior staff may experience less threat of negative

consequences from the change than low status staff (Kanter et al., 1992). Lower level

employees tend to distance themselves psychologically from the restructuring, avoiding

thought about the potential threat and denying its implications (Olson & Tetrick, 1988). In

contrast to senior staff, lower level employees often feel disempowered and less confident

during organisational change (Haugh & Lauschinger, 1996), hence their lower levels of

change self-efficacy. Nelson, Cooper and Jackson (1995) also argued that those in positions

of less control and higher uncertainty suffer the greatest negative effects of major

organisational change.

The increased control that managers perceive is also likely to promote better coping

responses. Olson and Tetrick (1988) argued that because top level managers believe they

have more control over the event they respond to change by seeking more information and

responding to feedback about the event. Armstrong-Stassen (1998) found that supervisors

were more likely to engage in control-oriented coping, compared to the coping strategy of

avoidance typically employed by non-supervisors. Positive coping strategies such as these

have also been linked to better adjustment during stressful situations (Terry et al., 1996).

In the present study, upper level staff demonstrated better adjustment by reporting

significantly higher levels of organisational commitment. Lower level staff also reported

greater turnover intentions. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as the

effect was not significant using the conventional criteria (p < .05). Ahmad (2000) and

116

Luthan and Sommer (1999) found that supervisors and managers had higher levels of

organisational commitment than non-supervisors. O’Driscoll and Randall (1999) also found

commitment to be significantly higher amongst managerial staff. Commitment would

generally be expected to be higher on the part of more senior members of staff because the

pro-social, extra-role behaviours and higher level of performance associated with higher

commitment would have been instrumental in securing promotion for such individuals

(Bennett & Durkin, 2000).

Study 2 demonstrated that employee’s perceptions of climate had an important effect

on the indicators of adjustment during change. The results of this study revealed that upper

level staff were consistently more positive in their reports of climate and change appraisals,

possibly explaining their higher levels of the adjustment indicators. Together, these results

suggest that the significance and magnitude of the relationship between climate and the

indicators of adjustment during change may vary for employees at different levels within the

organisation. However, this proposition could only be tested using a complex, multilevel

modelling approach and will be further discussed as a direction for future research in the

final chapter.

Implications for change management

The results of the present study suggest that change agents should consider the needs

of different organisational groups in order to achieve effective and successful change

(Watson et al., 2001). In this particular organisation, an employee’s organisational level was

an important grouping variable and the differences between groups indicate that strategies

which differentially target lower, middle and upper level staff would be a useful approach.

For example, lower level staff may benefit from having their supervisors and senior staff

117

participate in training. In order to improve lower level staff’s perceptions of climate,

supervisors could be trained in providing greater social support during change and senior

staff could be involved in a leadership development program which focuses on their need to

create and communicate a vision for the organisation.

Conclusion

Overall, the results showed there were more differences in perceptions of climate,

appraisal of change and levels of adjustment than there were similarities. These differences

reflected the differential amounts of status and control of the three groups within the

organisation. In particular, it appears that lower and middle level employees are less well

adjusted than upper level employees. The results highlight the importance of organisations

undergoing change developing targeted interventions which differentiate between managerial

and non-managerial staff.

118

CHAPTER SIX

Study Four

Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of

Occupational Group Membership and Organisational Level

An important research objective identified in Chapter 1 was the examination of role-

based variation in adjustment during change. It was also suggested that the important group

membership divisions or delineating identity variables may vary across organisations. A

limited number of studies have distinguished between the participants in change programs

(Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Lewis, 1999). The results of Study 3 indicated that there were

significant differences between organisational levels in the variables tested in the model

presented in Study 2. The applied value of these findings is important (Dewe & O’Driscoll,

1999; Hart & Wearing, 1995). Diagnostic processes should examine the sub-cultural or

group differences in perceptions of climate, change appraisals and adjustment indicators to

inform more effective change management interventions.

As noted by Degeling et al. (1998) hospital subcultures such as nursing, medicine and

administration have a strong influence on employees’ attitudes, values and behaviours. The

pilot interviews in Organisation A confirmed that occupational identity was the most salient

sub-group variable in a hospital environment. Divisions between groups were often made

based on whether the participant was, for example, a doctor or a nurse rather than what

division or work unit participants worked for. Interview participants commented that

different occupational groups within the hospital had varying levels of status, access to

resources and were differentially informed about the changes. The interviews revealed that

119

groups varied in their reactions to organisational change including their informational needs,

assessment of risk and complexity (Lewis, 1999) and the desire to participate in change

implementation and decision making.

Although occupational group differences are proposed to be salient in this sample, the

influence of organisational level will be controlled for by simultaneously examining the

managerial or non-managerial status of participants. Thus, to avoid confounding

occupational group and organisational level, a two-way design was employed which

examined the separate effects of the two group variables and any interaction between the

two.

Aims

The present study re-analyses the data from Organisation A (see Study 1) and is

designed to investigate the following research questions:

To what extent are there differences between occupational groups in their perceptions

of climate, psychological appraisal of change and levels of adjustment during

organisational change?

Is there an interaction between occupational group and organisational level which

affects employee perceptions of climate, psychological appraisal of change, and levels

of adjustment during organisational change?

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were the same public hospital employees described in Study 1

(Organisation A – see Figure 2.1) hence the sample and data collection methods were

outlined in Chapter 3. Due to the need to examine the occupational group variable, cases

120

with missing data in relation to staff classification were excluded from the analysis. Once

these cases were removed, the original sample of 779 participants was reduced to 732

participants.

Measures

The first section of the questionnaire gathered demographic and descriptive data such

as sex, age bracket, length of service at the hospital, length of time in current position,

employment status and staff classification. Staff classifications were reduced from 12

categories to four major occupational backgrounds (non-clinical, allied health, medical and

nursing). These groupings were based on discussions with hospital personnel. Re-

classifying the staff was a simple task and did not require any reliability checking.

Computerised recoding of the datafile created the new occupational variable. The group

labelled non-clinical staff contains a wide variety of staff including administrative officers,

receptionists, ward assistants, cleaning/catering staff and operational/trade staff. The groups

labelled medical, nurses and allied health professionals were made up of clinical practitioners

of medicine, nursing and allied health specialities (e.g., psychology, occupational therapy,

dietetics, physiotherapy, audiology) respectively.

Each of the occupational groups described above included participants from all

hierarchical levels in the organisation and the staff classification data enabled participants to

be divided into two groups: managers and staff. Non-clinical managers and supervisors

generally co-ordinate the services of these non-clinical support staff. The clinical managers

are senior doctors, nurses and allied health professionals who manage the provision of

clinical services (e.g., Heads of Departments, Directors of Nursing).

121

The latent variables from the model in Study 1 were converted to scale scores for each

participant. The scores were computed using a mean of the indicators/items representing

each variable in the measurement model. The climate variables were employee relations,

supervisor support and patient care. Psychological appraisal measures were change stress,

change self-efficacy and change control. Indicators of adjustment were job satisfaction and

psychological well-being. For a list of the variables and item content, see Table 3.1.

Results

Data screening

All of the computed scales were of a satisfactory to high level of reliability assessed by

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.60 to 0.90 and there was no evidence of

multicollinearity among the variables (see Table 3.2). None of the variables was

significantly skewed. Missing values analyses revealed that the missing data ranged from

0.6% to 3.1%. As described in Study 1, missing values for scaled items were replaced with

the linear trend.

Analyses

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine group

differences in ratings of climate, change appraisal and adjustment indicators. Three two-way

MANOVAs were run to assess separately the effects of the between subjects variables

(occupation and organisational level) on the antecedent (supervisor support, employee

relations, patient care), mediating (change stress, change self-efficacy, change control) and

outcome variables (job satisfaction and psychological well-being). Main effects, or overall

model fit was assessed with Wilks’ lambda and Student-Newman Keuls tests were used for

the occupational group post hoc analyses. The significant and trend results are presented in

122

Table 6.1 and the means and results of the post-hoc analyses for these variables are shown in

Table 6.2. Tables presenting the means and standard deviations for all variables by

occupation, organisational level and occupation by organisational level are provided in

Appendix D.

Table 6.1.

Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects

Significant Multivariate

F dƒ η2 Significant Univariate

F dƒ η2

Climate

Occupation

1.96* 9, 1757 .008

Employee relations

4.10**

3, 724

.017

Change appraisal

Level

3.39* 3, 723 .014

Change stress

3.07†

1, 725

.004

Change control 5.55* 1, 725 .008

Level x Occupation 2.03* 9, 1759 .008 Change stress 3.43* 3, 725 .014

Note. * p < .05 ** p < .01 ***p < .001 † p<.10

The first MANOVA was conducted using the climate indicators (employee relations,

patient care and supervisor social support) as dependent variables. A significant overall

multivariate effect was obtained for occupational group. Inspection of the univariate effects

found a significant difference between occupational groups on the measure of employee

relations. Post-hoc tests indicated that non-clinical staff rated employee relations as less

effective than nursing, medical and allied health staff. In addition, allied health professionals

rated employee relations as more effective than nursing and medical staff.

123

A second MANOVA was conducted using change appraisals (change stress, self-

efficacy and control) as dependent variables. A significant overall multivariate effect was

obtained for organisational level and for the interaction between occupation and

organisational level. Inspection of the univariate effects found a significant difference

between organisational levels for change control and a trend for change stress, p = .08 (the

interpretation of which is subsumed by the interaction presented below). Analyses of simple

effects showed that managers rated their level of change control higher than non-managers.

In addition, there was a significant multivariate interaction between occupation and

organisational level. The only significant univariate difference was found on the measure of

change stress. Analyses of simple effects revealed that nurses who were managers reported

significantly higher levels of change stress than nurses who were not managers (p <.01). In

addition, within the non-managerial staff, the non-clinical group rated the change as more

stressful than the allied health, medical or nursing groups (p <.001).

A third MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between the groups on the 2

adjustment criteria: job satisfaction and psychological well-being. No significant overall

multivariate effect was obtained.

124

Table 6.2.

Mean Scores for Significant Main effects and Results of Post-hoc Tests

Medical Nursing Allied

Health Non-

Clinical Overall

Employee relations

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

4.55

4.01

4.09

4.29

4.06

4.09

4.35

4.65

4.59 b

4.11

3.64

3.72 a

4.33

4.09

Change stress

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

3.47

2.94

3.02

3.84 c

3.15

3.22

3.22

2.95

3.00

3.35

3.68 a

3.61

3.47 c

3.18

Change control

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

3.00

2.28

2.39

2.91

2.72

2.74

2.94

2.67

2.72

2.55

2.64

2.62

2.85 c

2.58

a This mean is significantly different from all other means in this rowb This mean is significantly different from the medical and nursing groups c This mean for managers is different from the mean for non-managers

Discussion

The aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences between

occupational groups and organisational levels in perceptions of climate, psychological

appraisal of change and levels of adjustment during organisational change. Differences were

found for occupation and organisational level and for the level x occupation interaction.

125

Although there were many similarities between the occupational groups, two

significant group differences were observed. In relation to the climate variables, differences

between occupational groups on the measure of employee relations were found. Also, when

the interaction between occupation and organisational level was examined for non-

managerial staff, occupational groups differed in their appraisal of the level of change stress.

In relation to occupational groups, a clear pattern of results emerged. Non-clinical

staff were more likely than other groups to report more negative perceptions of climate and

change. They reported the highest levels of change stress and the poorest perceptions about

the effectiveness of employee relations within the hospital. These results are not surprising

as non-clinical (support) staff often fare worse than professional groups during organisational

change, particularly in relation to downsizing and the amount of political influence they are

able to exert.

In contrast, allied health professionals reported the most positive perceptions of

employee relations. In the context of the current study, the pilot interviews revealed that

allied health staff had good levels of morale in comparison to other groups of staff. Over the

past decade, major efforts have been made to develop a strong source of group identification,

“allied health professionals”, for the various clinical (but not medical or nursing) staff

working in hospitals. This strong inter-group identity may act as a buffer against the stress of

organisational change (Terry et al., 1996). Also, in this particular change context, issues

such as competition for resources and downsizing were not as relevant to allied health

professionals as they were for other groups.

Interestingly, there were fewer differences between organisational levels than in Study

3. There were many similarities between managerial and non-managerial staff. The major

126

difference between organisational levels was in their appraisals of change. As in Study 3,

managers reported significantly higher levels of change control than non-managers. There

was also a trend for them to report higher levels of change stress. In addition, when the

interaction between occupation and organisational level was examined, it was evident that

nursing managers reported more stress than nursing staff. Although managers are more

empowered and have more control over the change process, it could also be argued that the

managerial responsibility for this process places increased pressure on this group, which

explains the high levels of stress. In addition, these managers often have to deal with

increased hostility and or uncertainty from employees in response to the changes. Watson et

al. (2001) found that managers were more likely to report dealing with conflict as a negative

aspect of change than lower level employees. Callan and Dickson (1992) found that

managers experience high levels of stress during change due to a range of pressures.

Study 1 demonstrated that employee perceptions of the effectiveness of employee

relations had a substantial influence on the indicators of adjustment during change. The

results of this study revealed that perceptions of employee relations differed depending on

the occupational group to which they belonged. Together, these results suggest that the

significance and magnitude of the relationship between employee relations and the indicators

of adjustment during change may vary for different occupational groups. However, this

proposition could only be tested using a complex, multilevel modelling approach and will be

further discussed as a direction for future research in the final chapter.

Implications for change management

Like Study 3, the results of the present study suggest that change agents should

consider the needs of different organisational groups in order to achieve effective and

127

successful change (Watson et al., 2001). In this particular organisation, both occupational

group and organisational level were important grouping variables. The differences between

groups indicated that strategies that differentially target managerial and non-managerial staff

and different occupational groups would be a useful approach. For example, managers may

benefit from stress management training, whilst non-managerial staff’s change appraisals

might be improved by increasing their involvement, and, thus, their perceptions of control.

Also, improving employee relations would benefit non-clinical staff in particular.

Conclusion

Overall, the results showed that, while there were many similarities between the

groups, some significant differences in perceptions of climate and appraisal of change were

detected. These differences reflected the differing positions and roles of the groups in the

organisation. The results highlight the importance of organisations undergoing change

developing and targeting interventions for specific occupational groups and differentiating

between managerial and non-managerial staff. In particular, this study reported a pattern of

negative perceptions for one group in particular (non-clinical staff). These results suggest

that this group could benefit from a number of specifically targeted intervention strategies

focusing on improving their perceptions of organisational climate and their appraisals of

change in order to ensure employee adjustment indicators are not adversely affected by

change.

128

CHAPTER SEVEN

Discussion of Key Findings and Conclusions

This chapter summarises the major findings of the present program of research,

integrates the results of all four studies and discusses the theoretical and practical

implications of the findings. The limitations of the research design and directions for future

research are also presented. Finally, overall conclusions are provided.

The present program of research had two central objectives. Firstly, the research

examined the role of organisational climate factors in facilitating employee adjustment

during organisational change. This investigation was achieved by testing two models based

on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological account of stress and coping

processes. In particular, the concept of coping resources was expanded by focussing on

organisational factors rather than individual attributes. Also, the models examined a range of

outcome variables as indicators of employee adjustment during change. Secondly, the

research investigated the extent to which organisational sub-groups differed in their

perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment during change.

A Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change

Several general conclusions can be drawn when the results of the structural equation

modelling studies are examined together (see Chapters 3 and 4). Overall, both studies

empirically confirmed the majority of the hypothesised relationships. It was also

encouraging that both models demonstrated good fit between the proposed theoretical model

and the two different data sets, essentially replicating the theoretical structure of the

cognitive-phenomenological model. The present research has addressed several of the

129

limitations of the application of the cognitive-phenomenological approach to the study of

employee adjustment during change identified in the literature review. There were three

major limitations. Firstly, the literature has given limited attention to organisational factors

in attempting to understand employee adjustment to stress experienced during organisational

change. The models tested in the present research confirmed that the organisational climate

contains important resources for coping with organisational change. Secondly, a need to

expand the range of indicators of adjustment during organisational change was identified. In

the present research, employee responses to organisational change were linked to job

satisfaction, employee well-being, organisational commitment, turnover intentions and

absenteeism. Thirdly, there has been a lack of attention to group differences in this process.

Two studies presented in this dissertation found differences in among some of the model

variables according to employees’ occupational role and organisational level.

Figure 7.1 depicts the overall theoretical model of employee adjustment during

organisational change which was empirically confirmed in the present research. The model

indicates that climate variables are directly linked to employee outcomes during change and

that these effects are also mediated by employee appraisals of change. The major findings

relating to each of the components in the model will now be discussed.

In Chapter 1, stress was defined as a transactional process involving interaction

between environmental features and an individuals’ internal processes (Reynolds & Shapiro,

1991). More specifically, the cognitive-phenomenological model proposed that an

individuals’ cognitive/affective responses to a stressful situation are determined by their

coping resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In the present research, change appraisals

130

(individuals’ cognitive/affective responses to a stressful situation) were consistently

predicted by organisational climate factors (environmental coping resources).

Organisational

Climate (Coping Resources)

Change

Appraisals

• Quality of patient care

• Employee relations

• Supervisor support

• Leader vision • Customer service

Employee Adjustment Indicators

• Psychological

well-being • Job satisfaction • Organisational

Commitment • Turnover

Intentions • Absenteeism

• Change stress • Change self-efficacy• Change control

Figure 7.1.

Theoretical Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change

The results provided evidence that organisational climate is linked to better adjustment

during change both directly and indirectly. Climate factors that acted as coping resources

were high levels of client service/quality, effective employee relations, supervisor support

and leader vision. Results showed both main effects (direct paths) on adjustment and

mediated effects (indirect paths) via change appraisals. The direct effects supported the

research evidence concerning links between climate and affective outcome measures like job

satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intentions (Schneider et al., 2000). The

indirect effects demonstrated that employee perceptions of change are positively shaped by

their perceptions of the work environment (Eby et al., 2000). In particular, the results

showed that communication aspects of climate are important in predicting change

131

perceptions (Ford & Ford, 1995), especially employee relations, supervisor behaviour

(Larkin & Larkin, 1994) and leadership style (Schweiger et al., 1987).

Positive employee perceptions of the organisation-specific elements of climate

predicted higher levels of employee adjustment during organisational change. The measure

of employee relations was included as a climate factor in the hospital context as a result of

the exploratory interviews. Likewise, the measure of leader vision was only included in the

public sector context because it was identified as a salient climate factor. Interestingly, these

measures were the strongest predictors in each of the models, supporting the trend towards

research that is more organisation and situation specific (Callan, 1993; Dewe & O’Driscoll,

1999; Hart & Wearing, 1995; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987).

Employee relations

The pilot interviews in Organisation A indicated that a major aspect of the

organisational climate was the manner in which management and employees related to each

other, particularly characterised by perceptions of respect for employees. A social climate

that is supportive and non-conflictual can directly enhance worker health by meeting basic

human needs for affiliation, approval and a sense of belonging (Repetti, 1983). Harris and

Mossholder (1996) found that organisational climates characterised as people-oriented and

supportive are often associated with a range of positive employee affective outcomes.

Employee relations was a powerful explanatory variable in the model presented in

Study 1 as it was significantly predictive of all of the indicators of employee adjustment

during organisational change. Perceptions of effective employee relations was associated

with more positive change appraisals (lower change stress, higher change self-efficacy and

control) and with better adjustment (higher job satisfaction and psychological well-being).

132

Leader vision

The pilot interviews in Organisation B revealed that leadership was an important

aspect of organisational climate. Leaders can enhance employee commitment to the change

by modelling behaviour appropriate in the changing organisation (Covin & Kilman, 1990;

Nadler, 1988; Schweiger et al., 1987). Leader vision contributes to individual judgements

about change by creating, for example, excitement and enthusiasm about future possibilities

(Kotter, 1995).

Remarkable accomplishments can result from people sharing a common vision and

sense of purpose (Covey, 1992; St Amour, 2001). Leader vision was also a powerful

explanatory variable in the model presented in Study 2. Employees who perceived that their

leaders exhibited an enthusiastic vision for the organisation were more likely to report higher

levels of adjustment across all of the indicators. Leader vision was linked to more positive

change appraisals (lower change stress, higher change self-efficacy and control) and better

adjustment (higher commitment, and in turn, lower absenteeism and turnover intentions).

Supervisor social support

In relation to the effects of social support, evidence that support-adjustment links are

direct (Cohen & Wills, 1985) was seen in the main effects of supervisor support on all of the

adjustment indicators (job satisfaction, well-being and commitment) and change appraisals

(stress, control and self-efficacy). However, evidence that support-adjustment links are

mediated by situational appraisals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1990; Terry et al.,

1996) was also seen in the indirect effects found in both models (support→control→

commitment; support→self-efficacy→job satisfaction; support→self-efficacy→well-being).

133

‘It can be argued that supervisor support assisted employees process of adjustment

during change in two ways. Firstly, the perception of availability of social support in the

work environment is directly associated with a range of general work attitudes such as

satisfaction. Secondly, as suggested by Terry et al. (1996), support from supervisors can

assist employees to appraise change positively by providing information relevant to self-

affirmation (self-efficacy) or modification of the stressful aspects of change (control) and by

reducing the perceived level of threat or emotional distress (stress).

Service climate (customer service and patient care)

Interviews in both organisations revealed that an important facet of the organisational

climate related to the way employees perceive the level or quality of service they provide to

clients. A service climate is characterised by a desire among employees to work together to

serve the client, and a focus on client and employee satisfaction (Hatch, 1993; Parasuraman,

1987; Schein, 1985; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). This desire to satisfy clients is thought to

provide a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a community of service, even

during periods of transformational change (Harber et al., 1997; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985).

Service climate predicted increased change self-efficacy and was directly linked to job

satisfaction in Study 1. In Study 2 it predicted increased change self-efficacy and change

control and was directly linked to organisational commitment (and, in turn, to absenteeism

and turnover intentions). However it is important to note that the only non-significant path in

both models was that between the service climate factor (customer service/quality of patient

care) and change stress.

134

The mediating role of change appraisals

In terms of the effects of change appraisals on adjustment, the present research

confirmed the assertion that organisational change is a major work stressor which impacts on

employee well-being (Ashford, 1988; Johnson & Sarason, 1979; Mack et al., 1998; Roney &

Cooper, 1997; Schabracq & Cooper, 1998; Terry et al., 1996). High levels of change stress

have been linked to increased reporting of psychological symptoms and decreased job

satisfaction (Terry et al., 1996). Study 1 demonstrated that higher levels of change stress

predicted lower levels of psychological well-being. However, no significant links were

found between change stress and work attitudes (job satisfaction and organisational

commitment) in either of the models.

Change stress constitutes a primary level of situational appraisal, whereas secondary

appraisal was assessed with measures of change self-efficacy and control (Terry et al., 1996).

Control (Karasek, 1979) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) have been important constructs in

organisational psychology and are consistently linked with a range of work attitudes.

Absence of control is associated with both physiological and emotional detriment (Murphy,

1988) and the presence of self-efficacy enhances individual responses to stressful situations

(Bandura, 1986).

In Study 1, change self-efficacy acted as a mediating variable between all of the

climate factors and both of the adjustment measures. Control, although predicted by two of

the climate factors, did not link to any of the adjustment indicators, failing to demonstrate a

mediating role. In Study 2, both self-efficacy and control acted as mediating variables

between climate factors and commitment. These results meant that both self-efficacy and

control were also linked indirectly to absenteeism and turnover intentions (mediated by

135

commitment). Consistent in both studies was the role of change self-efficacy as an important

mediator between climate and adjustment.

Some of the predicted mediation effects were not confirmed. In Study 1, change

control failed to mediate and in Study 2 change stress did not mediate. In addition, the

mediation effects that were significant, were not particularly strong. However, the beta

weights of the change appraisal – adjustment paths generally compare with those reported by

Terry et al. (1996).

There are some possible reasons that these relationships failed to be observed or were

not stronger. Firstly, the impact of other mediating variables cannot be overlooked. Coping

behaviours were not assessed in this study as the focus of the research was on organisational

factors which may prevent change being appraised negatively rather than individual

responses to negative appraisals. Coping behaviours have been shown to mediate between

appraisal and adjustment (Terry et al., 1994, 1996). The omission of coping variables could

be a possible reason why the appraisal-adjustment relationships were not stronger. A

possible reason that these relationships were not stronger relates to the measurement of

change control in Study 1. The measure of control exhibited a low but acceptable level of

reliability α = .60 (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). The control measure was improved in Study 2

and showed evidence that it was a more reliable measure (α = .82).

As discussed above, change appraisals generally mediated the relationship between

climate factors and adjustment indicators. These effects support Hemmingway and Smith’s

(1999) argument that climate-outcome links are mediated by specific stressors (e.g.,

organisational change) and that the particular aspects of climate that predict (or reduce)

stressors must be identified for intervention to be effective.

136

Although the effects of climate on adjustment did tend to be mediated by appraisals of

organisational change, it was the direct effects that were very strong. These results suggest

that although organisational change does affect a range of employee/organisational

outcomes, the more stable elements of the work environment continue to explain a large

proportion of the variance in these variables. The strongest predictors of adjustment were

effective employee relations and leader vision. The link between organisational commitment

and both absenteeism and turnover intentions was also quite strong.

It needs to be acknowledged that the strong direct effects of climate on adjustment may

be influenced by the level that the constructs were measured. Climate and work attitudes are

global measures whereas change appraisals are more micro-level in that they measure

individuals’ self-assessments of their reactions to a specific work event (organisational

change).

Overall, climate variables were generally associated with positive employee appraisals

of change and increased levels of adjustment during change. The climate-appraisal links

confirmed the propositions of Eby et al. (2000) and Tetenbaum (1998) who claimed that

characteristics of the work environment shape employee perceptions of the change process.

The appraisal-adjustment links supported the argument of Terry et al. (1996) that employee

cognitive and affective responses to change are important predictors of adjustment. These

findings also add to the growing body of evidence that the experience of organisational

change can impact on a range of employee adjustment indicators (Roney & Cooper, 1997;

Wanberg & Banas, 1997).

Gillespie et al. (2001) argued that a comprehensive understanding of the cognitive-

phenomenological model of stress and coping processes (Lazarus & Fokman, 1984) must

137

include a consideration of the key environmental antecedents and consequences of subjective

perceptions of stress. The present research has important implications for theory in that it

demonstrated the need for studies to consider the organisational context within which the

appraisal of stressful events occurs. Although there are common elements of climate across

organisations, there are also elements that are unique to a particular organisation or more

salient in one organisation than another.

Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change

Another important research objective was to examine how the measures from the

theoretical models differed across the groups within each organisation. Bacharach and

Bamberger (1992) reported differential reactions to stressful events at work as a function of

the type of position employees held with the organisation. Studies 3 and 4 found that, while

there were some similarities, significant group differences in perceptions of climate,

appraisal of change and levels of adjustment were detected. These differences demonstrated

that an employee’s organisational level and occupational group can affect their perceptions of

the variables involved in the process of employee adjustment during change outlined in the

models presented in Studies 1 and 2.

In relation to employee level, a pattern of results was evident in that upper level staff

were more likely than middle or lower level staff to report more positive perceptions of

climate and responses to change and higher levels of the adjustment indicators. Five of the 9

dependent variables showed significant variation as a function of organisational level. The

differences found in the present research confirmed some of the initial findings about status-

based group differences in perceptions of change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998; Miles et al.,

138

1996; Watson et al., 2001). These differences were not suprising as the literature review

identified several reasons why senior staff might adjust to change more positively.

Managers and supervisors generally report higher levels of organisational support

(Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan & Sommer, 1999; Watson et al., 2001) and appraise

leadership more positively (Young & Post, 1993). They also respond to change by seeking

more information from these sources of support, leading to a greater understanding of the

rationale for change (Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan & Sommer, 1999; Watson et al.,

2001). They are more involved in implementing changes (Luthan & Sommer, 1999) and thus

have more perceived control over the event (Olson & Tetrick, 1988). In contrast, lower level

employees have less control over the process and feel disempowered and less confident

during organisational change (Haugh & Lauschinger, 1996; Nelson et al., 1995). The result

is that commitment is often higher for upper level staff (Ahmad, 2000; Bennett & Durkin,

2000; Luthan & Sommer, 1999; O’Driscoll & Randall, 1999).

These differing perceptions and outcomes can create problems for the effective

implementation of organisational change. Resistance to change and cynicism about change

among lower level employees has been documented (Burke, 2000). The attitudes and

behaviours associated with such resistance and cynicism are directly associated with whether

change efforts are successful (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).

In Study 4, a two-way design was employed to avoid confounding occupational group

and organisational level. This study examined the separate effects of the two group variables

and whether there was an interaction between them. Overall, occupational groups differed in

relation to climate. An interaction effect (occupation x level) also showed a difference for

change appraisal. Among the eight dependent variables, only two showed evidence of

139

differing among the occupational groups (employee relations and change stress). Non-

clinical staff were more likely than any of the other groups to report poorer perceptions of

employee relations and more change stress than the other occupational groups.

Despite the suprisingly small number of differences between occupational groups, the

results confirmed that hospital occupational subcultures do have some influence on employee

attitudes (Degeling et al., 1998). These results also add some support to the claims of

Hemmingway and Smith (1999) who argued that occupational differences would impact on

perceptions of climate and stress.

In relation to organisational level, fewer differences were found in this study than in

Study 3. Overall differences between managerial and non-managerial staff were found only

for change appraisal. An interaction effect (occupation x level) also showed a difference for

change appraisal. Among the eight dependent variables, only two showed evidence of

differing as a function of organisational level (change control and change stress). Managers

felt more in control of change than non-managers but were more stressed by it. Nurse

managers felt more stressed by change than non-managerial nurses. Although managers

have more control over the change process, the managerial responsibility for its

implementation places a range of additional pressures on this group, which explains the high

levels of stress (Callan & Dickson, 1992; Watson et al., 2001).

Across both studies of group differences, some general patterns in the results were

observed. Employees’ psychological appraisals were the group of variables that most

consistently differed according to an employee’s sub-group membership. In particular,

change control was higher for upper level or managerial staff in both studies. Change related

self-efficacy and control varied in relation to organisational level in Study 3. Change related

140

stress varied in relation to occupational group and organisational level and change related

control varied as a function of organisational level in Study 4. Differences in adjustment

indicators were found only in Study 3.

In terms of climate differences, variation in the factors that were specific to each

organisation (measured as a result of the pilot interviews) was significant. These factors

were also the strongest predictors of employee adjustment during change in each of the

respective models. In studies 2 and 3, leader vision was a powerful variable, both as a

predictor of adjustment and as a significant dependent variable in the identification of

organisational level differences. In studies 1 and 4, employee relations was a powerful

variable, both as a predictor of adjustment and as a significant dependent variable in the

identification of occupational group differences. These results highlight the importance of

including particularly salient, unique or organisation-specific aspects of the work

environment in studies of organisational climate.

Implications for Change Management and Stress Management During Change

Implementation

The results of the present research have some important implications for promoting

positive employee adjustment during organisational change. The models provided evidence

that organisational climate factors were important antecedents to positive change appraisal

and employee adjustment indicators. Understanding the antecedents of job satisfaction,

organisational commitment, and turnover intentions is vital to increasing productivity,

reducing costly turnover in the workforce, and maintaining a psychologically healthy

workforce. Managers can affect these outcomes by learning to manipulate their antecedents

(Lease, 1998).

141

The results inform the management of employee stress during organisational change.

In Chapter 1, it was argued that the most effective and ethical form of stress intervention is

primary prevention (Ganster et al., 1982; Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Such an approach

utilises strategies in which intervention is directed towards identifying, modifying and

eliminating organisational stressors and promoting a healthy and supportive work

environment (Cooper & Cartwright, 1996). The results of Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence

that organisational climate factors provide an effective target for intervention in terms of

primary prevention strategies. The results of the research demonstrated the utility of

undertaking diagnostic processes that determine the elements of organisational climate in an

organisation that facilitate employee adjustment during organisational change. Efforts to

strengthen and develop these factors should result in both improved employee adjustment

and enhanced employee perceptions of change programs.

According to McManus et al. (1995) and Schneider and Bowen (1993), if an

organisation is attempting to create a climate that values change, the importance of change

must be evident in employee attitudes, relationships, job characteristics, availability and

quality of resources, and the context in which the organisation operates. Hence, to improve

employee adjustment during change, priority should be placed on improving the

organisational climate and developing aspects of it which act as resources that assist

employee’s to engage in positive appraisals of change (reduced change stress, increased

change self-efficacy and control). Whilst this is a worthwhile endeavour, the slow and

difficult path to changing negative climates in organisations should not be underestimated

(Gunnarson & Niles-Jolly, 1994).

142

These resources are, to some extent, organisation specific and identifying and

improving these elements of climate should result in improved employee change appraisals

and, in turn, enhanced employee adjustment. Organisational climates may contain unique or

differentially salient elements. Hence, managers and change agents should not underestimate

the importance of conducting diagnostic processes. In particular, qualitative forms of inquiry

such as interviews or focus groups, can determine the aspects of climate that have a

relationship with employee perceptions of stress, or in this case, employee perceptions about

organisational change.

The most influential of the climate variables in the two models were leader vision and

effective employee relations. The development of leader vision is extremely important

during change. In fact, Wiley and Brooks (2000, p. 185) have argued that “the foundation to

organisational success is the ability of a senior management team to create a credible and

potent sense of confidence that the organisation is well led”. Leaders can play an important

role by explaining organisational change decisions and giving realistic previews of the

change (Sargent, 1995; Schweiger & Denisi, 1991). Effective employee relations ensures co-

operation and support during the challenge of implementing change. Organisational climates

characterised as people-oriented and supportive are often associated with a range of positive

employee affective outcomes (Harris & Mossholder, 1996). Valuing, respecting and

communicating with people are basic behaviours necessary for effective change management

(St Amour, 2001). To some extent, these behaviours can be taught or enhanced through

training. Peterson, Cooper and Scherer (2000) demonstrated that a team building program

involving the establishment of departmental and cross-functional process groups and

143

participation supervisors training in team facilitation was linked with an improvement in

employee perceptions of climate during change.

Although the results of Studies 1 and 2 suggested that primary prevention would be

most effective, secondary/tertiary level interventions that focus on improving the appraisal

process could also have some utility. Dollard (1996) recommended a multifaceted approach

to stress management that includes individual and organisational level interventions. For

example, organisations could consider offering workshops, and counselling sessions that aim

to reduce change stress. An increasingly popular approach to managing stress is through the

psychotherapy services provided by an organisation’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP).

In the hospital described in the present research, a series of workshops aimed at reducing

change stress were offered to staff. The workshops covered topics such as “dealing with the

grief and loss of change”, “effective communication during change”, and “managing stress

during change”. Investments made in training managers and employees how to manage

change will reap benefits in relation to a variety of organisational outcomes including the

success of change initiatives (St Amour, 2001).

Increasing situational control could also have some impact on adjustment.

Organisations implementing change are often urged to involve employees and use a

participative approach to change management in order to increase employee acceptance and

enthusiasm for change. In particular, enhancing employees’ perceived control through

meaningful participative decision-making processes can be an effective strategy in reducing

work-related stress (Heaney et al., 1995). If employees are able to influence decisions at the

workplace, their perceptions of their ability to exercise control over worksite stressors may

be enhanced (Ganster, 1985). In addition, by way of participating in organisational decision

144

making, employees often have access to information which can help in understanding

stressors and others experiences of them. Understanding, prediction and control act as a

powerful antidotes to work-related stress (Sutton & Kahn, 1987). However, it should be

noted that for participative decision making to be implemented effectively, employees must

want to be involved, have the requisite skills and knowledge, and enough time for discussion

of issues and concerns (Kanter, 1983).

The key role of self-efficacy in predicting all of the adjustment indicators suggests that

increase change self-efficacy would be a useful secondary-level intervention strategy.

Resistance to change can stem from fear of being unable to perform under new work

arrangements. Training can address these fears directly by providing skills and indirectly by

providing opportunities for peer support (Michela & Burke, 2000). Alternatively, Orlikowski

(1996) advocated a major paradigm shift toward the implementation of situated change

(Schabracq & Cooper, 1998), which is described as ongoing incremental adjustment and

adaptation, as opposed to planned or transformational change. An incremental approach to

change is consistent with Bandura’s (1986) concept of enactive mastery; the gradual

accumulation of successively more complex skills. Such an approach would maximise

feelings of self-efficacy and minimises stress that results from the realization that established

(automatic) responses are no longer effective in a new setting.

In addition, the findings of Studies 3 and 4 provided further evidence that change

agents should consider the needs of different organisational groups in order to achieve

effective and successful change (Bordia et al., 2001; Watson et al., 2001). As noted by Mack

et al. (1998), broad interventions must be supplemented by interventions targeted towards

specific individuals and groups, making preventative stress management a multi-level

145

endeavour. Diagnostic processes should incorporate an investigation into the most salient

group differences and test whether these differences predict any variation in perceptions of

climate and adjustment during change. This strategy will ensure that intervention programs

can be tailor-made to ensure that the needs of all employees are addressed in the change

process (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998).

Overall, the practical implications of the present research concur with the ideas of

Sargent (1995) who argued that decision-makers should embed stress intervention strategies

in their change process. She urged public sector organisations to take a more proactive

approach in choosing the targets and mechanisms for managing change by actively planning

primary interventions in a strategic manner and embedding these in the change agenda. They

must also identify “at risk” groups within the department and target interventions

accordingly.

The present research suggested that the best way to manage stress during change

implementation is to use informed diagnostic data. Change should be implemented in

conjunction with ongoing organisational development processes involving diagnostic

research that identifies the elements of climate that employees draw upon for support in the

process of adjustment. Interventions should be based on improving and strengthening these

resources. Diagnostic processes should also pay attention to the salient groupings of staff

within an organisation so that interventions can be specifically targeted. Michela and Burke

(2000, p. 240) asserted that “diagnosing and monitoring employees’ beliefs, perceptions, and

motivations, especially those related to culture and climate are critical to any change effort”.

Properly designed organisation-based measures of climate are a key tool for the diagnosis of

146

many aspects of organisational success. The results of these diagnoses can provide a “road

map” for organisational development (Wiley & Brooks, 2000).

Strengths and Limitations Identified in the Present Research

There are several major strengths of the research reported in this dissertation. The

research was conducted in an applied setting with participants who were employees in two

diverse organisations undergoing change and the findings were linked to practice by

discussing the implications of the results. The studies achieved theoretical extension by

testing models that enabled the role of organisational climate factors in promoting adjustment

during change to be investigated. The soundness of the constructs measured was enhanced

by the utilisation of a confirmatory approach. The analyses were performed on reasonably

large data samples and both models explained a reasonable proportion of the variance in the

outcome measures (26 to 46%). The research also made an empirical contribution to the

literature by documenting the existence of group differences in a range of the model

variables.

Kalliath, O’Driscoll, Gillespie and Bluedorn (2000) recently identified a number of

methodological limitations in relation to SEM studies in the organisational psychology

literature. The fact that none of these criticisms can be levelled at the SEM studies reported

here is a major strength in the present research. Each of the concerns identified by Kalliath et

al. will now be linked to the models tested. Allowing error terms to correlate or items to load

on multiple factors in models has been a common, but unacceptable, practice. The models

presented in the present research did not contain any correlated error and all factors were

unidimensional.

147

Further, unlike the approach taken in the present research, many studies have failed to

specify a full measurement model. Rather, they have used summative measures (or scale

scores/means) of constructs instead of latent factors comprised of item-level indicators. This

means that the information about the contribution of individual scale items to a construct is

lost. Many studies have also been criticised for reporting less than acceptable results for

goodness of fit tests. The models presented in Studies 1 and 2 achieved good fit to the data

across all of the indicators, assessed using the cut-off criteria determined in the review of the

SEM literature (see Chapter 2).

Many studies have also failed to cross-validate their model by testing it in more than

one sample. The results of the models tested in the present research are strengthened by the

demonstration of a pattern of predictive relationships of similar magnitude for two different

data sets. Repeatedly testing structural models with successive data sets also introduces an

element of reliability that is otherwise missing in cross-sectional studies (Fogarty et al.,

1999).

The major limitation of the research is that all the analyses presented are based on a

cross-sectional design. Hence, it is not possible to draw any inferences regarding causal

relations among the variables. The possible presence of common method variance (CMV) is

a concern with such designs (see Chapter 2). However, two procedures were used to address

this concern and allow more confidence in the results. Firstly, Harman’s Single Factor test

(see Harris & Mossholder, 1996) was used. This procedure assumes that if method variance

is largely responsible for the co-variation among the measures, a single (method) factor

model should fit the data well. Both of the measurement models used to test the structural

relations between the variables failed to demonstrate support for a one factor solution.

148

Secondly, the use of replication provided some evidence of consistent relationships among

similar or identical variables that were of similar magnitude and direction across two

independent samples.

Another factor to consider in evaluating the present research is the measurement of

organisational climate. As discussed in Chapter One, climate can be viewed as either an

organisational or individual level phenomena. Methodologies which allow levels of

agreement between organisational members in their perceptions of climate to be determined

are an important new direction in organisational climate research. However, the lack of such

an approach in the present research means that organisational climate remains a

psychological construct in the models presented.

A further potential limitation of the present studies is the omission of an often studied

variable in stress research. Negative affect, a higher order personality construct that

encompasses neuroticism, trait anxiety and low self-esteem (Watson & Clark, 1984) has been

conceptualised by some researchers as a confounding variable (Fogarty et al., 1999). The

present studies did not specify any relationship between negative affect and the model

variables due to the focus on organisational factors. However, it is encouraging to note that

several researchers have found that there is still a reliable relationship between stress and

strain, once negative affect is partialed out (Chen & Spector, 1991; Decker & Borgen, 1993;

Korotkov & Hannah, 1994; Spector & O’Connell, 1994). In addition, Spector, Zapf, Chen &

Frese (2000) argued that affective disposition may be important to a study theoretically but

addressing it at a methodological level is not appropriate. They claim that measuring a

negative affect construct purely to control for measurement bias should not be advocated.

149

It could also be argued that an examination of the moderating effects of social support

was neglected in the present research. Both of the models presented examined the effects of

supervisor support on appraisal (a mediating process). The potential for moderating effects is

not denied. However, in keeping with the previous research that this dissertation is based

upon (Terry et al., 1996) only the mediated paths were of interest.

Finally, it should be noted that the effect sizes (η2) in the MANOVA analyses

indicated that a very small amount of variance in the dependent variables was due to the

influence of employee groupings. Although these differences were interpreted due to their

statistical significance, the results will need to be confirmed in future research.

Directions for Future Research

One means of addressing the common method variance problem is to conduct

longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies in future research. The results of all of the

studies reported here could guide the design of such a research program. Time separation

between measures of stress and strain would improve the methodology (Fogarty et al., 1999).

Research which includes multiple waves of data collection would be able to detect any

effects of an intervention designed to improve the aspects of organisational climate that were

predictive of positive appraisals of change and higher levels of adjustment. These

interventions should be differentially applied at the sub-group level based upon the results of

diagnostic studies. Model variables should also be linked to additional sources of data that

do not rely on self-report measures. The present model could be extended beyond single

source data by examining organisational outcomes such as supervisor assessments of

performance or customer satisfaction. Such studies would make an important further

contribution to the literature and constitute an important direction for future research.

150

The application of alternative methodologies to the current research agenda should

also be considered as a direction for future research. The approach taken in the present

research was primarily quantitative. Qualitative methods would be useful for gathering data

that may illuminate some of the mechanisms underlying the significant paths in the SEM

models and the differences between groups in the MANOVA studies. For example, methods

such as Critical Incident Analysis could be applied to the study of employee adjustment

during organisational change. O’Driscoll and Cooper (1994) recommended the use of this

method for understanding stress and coping processes in work settings. They proposed that

employee interviews should focus on describing stressful transactions (i.e., the

implementation of organisational change) in terms of their antecedents, responses, and

consequences.

The differences found between occupational groups and organisational levels

represent another direction for future research. Studies should aim to replicate/confirm the

role of occupational differences in other hospitals and wider organisational settings. The

results of the current research also provide some indication that the development of a multi-

level model of employee adjustment to change would be a useful endeavour. A recent

critique of the use of single-level models in psychosocial research urged researchers to apply

some of the recently advanced techniques now available for multilevel analyses (Rowe,

2000). Such techniques allow data that is hierarchical in structure (e.g., employees within

departments within organisations) to be fitted to models with several levels that attempt to

explain variation in the studied constructs. A recent example used a two-level model to

simultaneously account for separate amounts of teacher-level and school-level variance in

teacher’s morale scores. The final model provided estimates of the direct effects of the

151

exogenous variables on the endogenous variable at each level, concluding that more of the

variance in teacher morale was explained at the school level (Rowe, 2000).

The use of such a technique is beyond the scope of this dissertation and would require

much larger samples than those obtained for the present research. However, the application

of multi-level modeling would enable future research to test a more sophisticated model of

employee adjustment during organisational change which takes into account the group

differences reported in the present research. Such a model would include estimates of the

variance explained in each of the variables for each level of data. For example, the effects of

the different climate variables on appraisal and adjustment could be partitioned for

employees within hierarchical/occupational groups within organisations. The ability to

examine organisational climate variables at different levels of aggregation would be

particularly useful given the debates about the level at which climate can be measured

(Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Glick, 1985; Rousseau, 1985).

Overall Conclusions

The identification of a parsimonious set of theoretically meaningful dimensions that

account for significant variance in adjustment and pinpoint sites for intervention are

important research outcomes (Dollard et al., 2000). The present research demonstrated that

the cognitive-phenomenological model is a useful framework for examining employee

adjustment during change, and the utility of the model was improved with the addition of

environmental coping resources drawn from the organisational climate. These resources are,

to some extent, organisation-specific, and identifying and improving these elements of

climate should result in improved employee change appraisal. It is important that managers

recognise the utility of using key climate factors in shaping employee adjustment during

152

change, such as leading with a clear and appealing vision, enhancing employee relations,

developing a client or service orientation, and promoting effective communication for

supervisors. Climate and change appraisal were linked with a range of important

individual/organisational outcome variables such as employee well-being, job satisfaction

and organisational commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism.

The research found that differences in perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment

during change can be seen at the sub-group level within organisations. These findings

contributed to the recent interest in the relevance of professional identity in organisational

behaviour (Beck et al., 2000; Carpenter & Platt, 1997; De Corse & Vogtle, 1997; Kanter,

1991; Moravec, 1994; Netting & Williams, 1996) and confirmed the initial findings of

research into the effects of status on how change is perceived (Ahmad, 2000; Armstrong-

Stassen, 1998; Bordia et al., 2001; Miles et al., 1996; Watson et al, 2001). The results also

demonstrated a need for change management interventions to be targeted at a more micro

level than usually occurs in practice.

153

REFERENCES

Ahmad, A. (2000). Organisational commitment versus organisational change: A

comparative study of blue-collar and white-collar employees of service manufacturing

companies. Social Science International, 16, 20-32.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl

& J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behaviour. Heidelberg: Springer.

Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A re-examination of the

relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,

337-348.

Almaraz, J. (2000). Has the profile of effective organisational culture changed over

time? A look at successful transformational change implementation. Paper presented at the

Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 4-9 August, 2000, Toronto, Canada.

Anderson, J. G., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Antonovosky, A. (1984). The sense of coherence as a determinant of health. In J. D.

Matarazzo, S. M. Weiss, J. A., Herd, N. E. Miller, & S. M. Weiss. Behavioural health: A

handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention. New York: Wiley.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organisational change: A review of

theory and research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for

organisational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.

154

Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998). The effect of gender and organisational level on how

survivors appraise and cope with organisational downsizing. Journal of Applied Behavioural

Science, 34, 125-142.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organisational

transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 24, 19-36.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation.

Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Widerom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of

organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.

Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to

stress. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 286-303.

Azar, B. (1999) APA statistics task force prepares to release recommendations for

public comment. APA Monitor Online, 30, accessed 14 June, 2002 from

www.apa.org/monitor/may99/task.html.

Babbie, E. (2000). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement

and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction.

Journal of Retailing, 72, 287-307.

Bacharach, S., & Bamberger, P. (1992). Causal models of role stressor antecedents and

consequences: The importance of occupational differences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour,

41, 13-34.

Baglioni, A. J., Cooper, C. L., & Hingley, P. (1990). Job stress, mental health and job

satisfaction among UK senior nurses. Stress Medicine, 6, 9-20.

155

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American

Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beck, S. E., Kaplan, D., Smith, H., & Moroco, J. (2000). The behavioural health

professional: A mental health professional identity model for the 22nd Century. Counseling

and Human Development, 33, 1-17.

Becker, T. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth

making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.

Becker, T., Billings, R., Eveleth, D., & Gilbert, N. (1996). Foci and bases of employee

commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-

482.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal.

Boston: Havard Business School Press.

Bennett, H., & Durkin, M. (2000). The effects of organisational change on employee

psychological attachment: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 126-

147.

Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. BMDP Statistical

Software: Los Angeles.

156

Bentler, P. M., & Hu, L. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Los

Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities and behaviours. New York:

Academic Press.

Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 525-537.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bordia, P, Martin, A. J., Jones, E. S., Irmer, B. E., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J. (2001).

Disseminating information during organisational change: Communication channel

preferences as a function of organisational level. Unpublished Manuscript.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2000). Communication

and uncertainty during organisational change: Its’ all about control. Unpublished Manuscript.

Brannen, J. (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot:

Avebury.

Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling.

Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 16, 201-213.

Burke, R. J. (1993). Organisational level interventions to reduce occupational stressors.

Work & Stress, 7, 77-87.

Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1980). The Type A experience: Occupational and life

demands, satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Human Stress, 6, 28-38.

Callan, V. J. (1993). Individual and organisational strategies for coping with

organisational change. Work and Stress, 7, 63-75.

157

Callan, V. J., & Dickson, C. (1992). Managerial coping strategies during organisational

change. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 30, 47-59.

Callan, V. J., Terry, D. J., & Schweitzer, R. J. (1995). Coping resources, coping

strategies and adjustment during organisational change: Direct or buffering effects? Work

Stress, 8, 372-383.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr.

(1975). Job demands and worker health. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare:

Washington.

Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly

Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Carpenter, M. C., & Platt, S. (1997). Professional identity for clinical social workers:

Impact of changes in health care delivery systems. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25, 337-

351.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. (1996). Managing mergers, acquisitions and strategic

alliances: Integrating people and cultures. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Carver, C.S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A

theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of

correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398-407.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

158

Collins, N., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Lobel, C. and Scrimshaw, S. (1993). Social support in

pregnancy: Psychosocial correlates of birth outcomes and postpartum depression. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 65, 1243-1258.

Conger, J. A., Kanugo, B. N. and Menon, S. J. (2000). Charismatic leadership and

follower effects. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21, 747-767.

Cotton, P. (Ed.). (1995). Psychological health in the workplace: Understanding and

managing occupational stress. Carlton, VIC: The Australian Psychological Association.

Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle-centred leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Covin, T. J., & Kilmann, R. H. (1990). Participant perceptions of positive and negative

influences on large–scale change. Group and Organisation Studies, 15, 233-248.

Coyne, J. C., & Raccioppo, M. W. (2000). Never the twain shall meet? Closing the gap

between coping research and clinical intervention research. American Psychologist, June,

655-646.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro-

organisational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 67-76.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organization development and change (6th

ed.). Cincinatti, Ohio: South Western College Publishing.

Dawis, R. V., & Loftquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

159

De Corse, C. J. B., & Vogtle, S. P. (1997). In a complex voice: The contradictions of

male elementary teachers' career choice and professional identity. Journal of Teacher

Education, 48, 37-47.

De Frank, R. S., & Cooper, C. L. (1987). Worksite stress management interventions:

Their effectiveness and conceptualisations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2, 4-9.

De Luca, J. R. (1984). Managing the socio-political context in planned change efforts.

In A. Kakabadse & C. Parker (Eds.), Power, politics, and organisations: A behavioural

science view. New York: John Wiley.

Decker, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (1993). Dimensions of work appraisal: Stress, strain,

coping, job satisfaction, and negative affectivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 470-

478.

Degeling, P. Kennedy, J., Hill, M., Carnegie, M., & Holt, J. (1998). Professional sub-

cultures and hospital reform. Sydney: The Centre for Hospital Management and Information

Systems Research.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company

Dewe, P., & O’Driscoll, M. (1999). Stress management interventions: What do

managers actually do? Unpublished conference paper: Annual conference of Industrial and

Organisational Psychology, Brisbane, Australia.

Di Fonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty

during organisational change. Human Resource Management, 37, 295-304.

Dick, R. (1986). Convergent interviewing. Chapel Hill, Qld: Interchange.

160

Dollard, M. F. (1996). Work stress: Conceptualisations and implications for research

methodology and workplace intervention. Doctoral thesis submitted at the University of

South Australia.

Dollard, M. F., Winefield, H. R., Winefield, A. H., & de Jonge, J. (2000). Psychosocial

job strain and productivity in human service workers: A test of the demand-control-support

model. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 73, 501-510.

Dunkel-Schetter, C., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1987). Correlates of social support

receipt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 71-80.

Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of

organisational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the

implementation of team based selling. Human Relations, 53, 419-442.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 532-550.

Elloy, D. F., Everett, J. E., & Flynn, R. W. (1995). Multidimensional mapping of the

correlates of job involvement. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 79-91.

Esty, K. C. (1984). Job distress in contracting organizations: When smaller is not

beautiful. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3976.

Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). A meta-analysis of the correlates of employee

absence. Human Relations, 41, 211-227.

Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Standfeld, S., Smith, G. D. (1998). The

health effects of major organisational change and job insecurity. Social Science and

Medicine, 46, 243-254.

161

Fogarty, G. J., Machin, M. A., Albion, M. J., Sutherland, L. F., Lalor, G. I., & Revitt,

S. (1999). Predicting Occupational Strain and Job satisfaction: The role of stress, coping,

personality and affectivity variables. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54, 429-452.

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional

change in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541-570.

Fried, Y., & Tiegs, R. B. (1995). Supervisors' role conflict and role ambiguity

differential relations with performance ratings of subordinates and the moderating effect of

screening ability. Journal-of-Applied-Psychology, 80, 282-291.

Ganster, D. C., Fusilier M. R. and Mayes, B. T. (1986). The role of social support in

the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102-110.

Ganster, D. C., Mayes, B. T., Sime, W. E., & Tharp, G. D. (1982). Managing

organisational stress: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 533-542.

Ganster, D. J. (1985). Exploring the role of control in occupational stress. Paper

presented at NIOSH Workshop on Occupational Stress Management, New Orleans, USA.

Gardner, J., Paulsen, N., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Monaghan, P. (2001).

Communication in organisations: An intergroup perspective. In W.P. Robinson & H. Giles

(Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons.

Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001).

Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and

moderators of stress. Work and Stress, 15, 53-72.

162

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualising and measuring organisational and psychological

climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.

Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illnesses by questionnaire.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grice, T. (2001). Examining the theoretical and practical importance of the multiple

targets view of organisational identification. Unpublished honours thesis, submitted in the

School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University.

Gunnarson, B. K., & Niles-Jolly, K. (1996). Creating the climate and culture of

success. Organisational Dynamics, 23, 17-30.

Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data

analysis with readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Hammersley, M. (1992). Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide. In J.

Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot: Avebury.

Harber, D. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Callan, V. J. (1997). Implementing quality service

in a public hospital setting: A path-analytical study of organisational antecedents of

employee perceptions and outcomes. Public Productivity and Management Review, 21, 13-

29.

Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived

congruence with culture dimensions during organisational transformation. Journal of

Management, 22, 527-547.

Hart, P. M., & Wearing, A. J. (1995). Occupational stress and well-being: A systematic

approach to research, policy, and practice. In P. Cotton (Ed.), Psychological health in the

163

workplace: Understanding and managing occupational stress. Melbourne: The Australian

Psychological Society.

Hartley, J. F. (1996). Inter-group relations in organisations. In M. A. West (Ed.),

Handbook of work group psychology. London: John Wiley & Sons

Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organisational culture. Academy of Management

Review, 18, 657-693.

Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1982). Perceptual congruence about communication

as related to satisfaction: Moderating effects of individual characteristics. Academy of

Management Journal, 25, 349-358.

Haugh, E. B., & Laschinger, H. S. (1996). Power and opportunity in public health

nursing work environments. Public Health Nursing, 13, 42-49.

Heaney, C. A., Price, R. H., & Rafferty, J. (1995). Increasing coping resources at

work: A field experiment to increase social support, improve work-team functioning and

enhance employee mental health. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 16, 335-352.

Hemingway, M. A., & Smith, C. S. (1999). Organisational climate and occupational

stressors as predictors of withdrawal behaviours and injuries in nurses. Journal of

Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 72, 1-10.

Hennessy, J., & West, M. A. (1999). Intergroup behaviour in organisations: A field test

of social identity theory. Small Group Research, 30, 361-382.

Hirsch, G. (1996). Health care reform and physician stress. Physician Executive, 22,

31-32.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of

intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

164

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. The Philippines: Addison Wesley.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-

55.

Iacovini, J. (1993). The human side of organisation change. Training and

Development, 47, 65-69.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Nurses and stress: Time to examine the

potential problem. Journal of Nursing, 11, 17-22.

Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. (1990). Worksite

stress management interventions. American Psychologist, 45, 252-261.

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art.

Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201-1222.

Jablin, G., & Putnam, L. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of organisational communication:

An interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park: Sage.

Jacobson, B. H., Aldana, S. G., Goetzel, R. Z, Vardell, K. D. (1996). The relationship

between perceived stress and self-reported illness-related absenteeism. American Journal of

Health Promotion, 11, 54-61.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions,

models and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

James, S., & Hendry, B. (1991). The money or the job: The decision to leave policing.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 24, 169-189.

165

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in

action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611

Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported

absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 574-591.

Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. (1979). Recent developments in research on life stress.

In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition: An information

processing approach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Jones, E., Martin, A., Bordia, P., Callan, V. and Gallois, C. (2001). Organizational

climate, employee appraisals of organizational change and job satisfaction. Unpublished

manuscript.

Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S.

Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural

relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software

Ltd.

Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life

satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 929-948.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial

coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 84, 107-122.

Kalliath, T. J., O’Driscoll, M. P., Gillespie, D. F., & Bluedorn, A. C. (2000). A test of

the Maslach Burnout Inventory in three samples of healthcare professionals. Work and

Stress, 14, 35-50.

166

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Transformations in the American corporate

environment 1860-1980’s. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational

change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. NewYork: Free Press.

Karasek R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain:

Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-307

Kasl, S. (1986). Stress and disease in the workplace: A methodological commentary on

the accumulated evidence. In M. F. Cataldo & T. J. Coates (Eds.), Health and industry: A

behavioural medicine perspective. New York: Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed.). New

York: Wiley.

Kaufmann, G. M. and Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and

social support: Some counter-intuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522-526.

Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modelling in perspective. Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 16, 215-224.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. London:

Guilford Press.

Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (1994). Extraversion and emotionality as proposed

superordinate stress moderators: A prospective analysis. Personality and Individual

Differences, 16, 787-792.

Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformational efforts fail. Harvard Business

Review, March-April, 59-67.

167

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why

people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kramer, R. B. (1991). Inter-group relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of

categorisation processes. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 13, 191-228.

Kuhn, A. (1966). The study of society: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Social

Science Paperbacks.

Kumari, K., & Sharma, S. (1990). Social support, organisational role stress and well

being: A study of medicos. Psychological Studies, 35, 163-169.

Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: How to win employee

support for new business directions. New York: McGraw Hill.

Latack, J. C. (1986). Coping with job stress: Measures of future directions for scale

development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 377-385.

Lau, C., & Woodman, R. W. Understanding organisational change: A schematic

perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537-54.

Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-

13.

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American

Psychologist, June, 665-673.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York:

Springer Publishing Company.

Lease, S. H. (1998). Annual review, 1993-1997: Work attitudes and outcomes. Journal

of Vocational Behaviour, 53, 154-183.

168

Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organisation: An

Empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday’s model of turnover. Academy of

Management Journal, 30, 721-743.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An Unfolding Model of

Employee Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5-35.

Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned

organisational change: Implementers’ targets, sources and channels for communicating.

Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 43-75.

Locascio, J. J. (1999) Shared perspective: Significance tests and ‘results blindness’.

APA Monitor Online, 30, accessed 14 June, 2002 at www.apa.org/monitor/may99/task.html.

Lokk, J., & Arnetz, B. (1997). Psychophysiological concomitants of organisational

change in health care personnel: Effects of a controlled intervention study. Psychotherapy

and Psychosomatics, 66, 74-77.

Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., Sirola, W. (1998). Explaining nursing turnover

intent: Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organisational commitment? Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 19, 305-320.

Mack, D. A., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1998). The stress of organisational change:

A dynamic process model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 219-232.

McCann, B. S., Russo, J., & Benjamin, G. A. H. (1997). Hostility, social support, and

perceptions of work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 175-185.

McDonald, T., & Siegal, M. (1993). Enhancing self-efficacy. Training and

Development Journal, July, 66-7.

169

McManus, S. E., Russell, J. E. A., Freeman, D. M., & Rohricht, M. T. (1995). Factors

related to employees’ perceptions of organisational readiness for change. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August, 1995.

Merritt, D. E. (1996). The effects of self-efficacy and cognitive appraisal on stress

outcomes: An extension of the job demands-job decision latitude model of stress.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2766.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualisation of

organisational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 538-551.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and

application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Michela, J. L., & Burke, W. W. (2000). Organisational culture and climate in

transformations for quality and innovation. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Widerom, & M. Peterson

(Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.

Michela, J. L., Lukaszwski, M. P., & Allengrante, J. P. (1995). Organisational climate

and work stress: A general framework applied to inner-city schoolteachers. In S. L. Sauter, &

L. R. Murphy (Eds.), (1995). Organisational risk factors for job stress. Washington, D.C.:

American Psychological Association, pp. 61-80.

Miles, E., W., Patrick, S. L., & King Jr., W. C. (1996). Job level as a systematic

variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job

satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 69, 277-292.

170

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw Hill.

Miller, K. L., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about

organisational change. Human Communication Research, 11, 365-386.

Miller, S. M. (1979). Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence, and theory.

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 287-304.

Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to

participate in a planned organisational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research,

22, 59-80.

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job

satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.

Moravec, M. (1994). The 21st century employer-employee partnership. HR Magazine,

January, 126-128.

Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & McArthur, A. W. (1984). The psychology of the

withdrawal process: A cross-validational test of Mobley’s intermediate linkages model of

turnover in two samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 79-94.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The Measurement of

Organisational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14, 224-247.

Murphy, L. R. (1988). Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention. In

C. L. Cooper, & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work.

Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

171

Nadler, D. (1988). Organisational frame bending: types of change in the complex

organisation. In R. Killman and T. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalising

organisations for competitive world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nelson, A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, P. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The

impact of privatisation on employee satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational and

Organisational Psychology, 68, 57-71.

Netting, F. E., & Williams, F. G. (1996). Case manager-physician collaboration:

Implications for professional identity, roles, and relationships. Health and Social Work, 21,

216-219.

Newman, W. L. (1994). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress. Human

Relations, 2, 107-126.

O’Driscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). Coping with work stress: A critique of

existing measures and proposal for an alternative methodology. Journal of Occupational and

Organisational Stress, 67, 343-355.

O’Driscoll, M. P., & Randall, D. M. (1999). Perceived organisational support,

satisfaction with rewards, and employee job involvement and organisational commitment.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 197-209.

Olson, D. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1988). Organisational Restructuring: The impact on

role perceptions, work relationships, and satisfaction. Group and Organisation Studies, 13,

374-388.

172

Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improving organisational transformations over time: A situated

change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63-92.

Parasuraman, A. (1987). Customer-oriented corporate cultures are crucial to services

marketing success. Journal of Services Marketing, 1, 39-46.

Parker, P. A., & Kulik, J. A. (1995). Burnout, self and supervisor-related job

performance and absenteeism among nurses. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 18, 581-599.

Parkes, K. R., & Von Rabenau, C. (1993). Work characteristics and well-being among

psychiatric health-care staff. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 3, 243-

259.

Parkhe, A. (1993). “Messy” research, methodological predispositions, and theory

development in international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 18, 227-268.

Parks, K. A. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity and the work environment: Additive

and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 399-409.

Payne, R. L. (2000). Climate and culture: How close can they get? In N. Ashkanasy, C.

Widerom, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California:

Sage.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1979). Some extensions of "The structure of coping":

Reply to comments by Marshall and Gore. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 20, 202-

205.

Petersen, M. F., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Sources of meaning, organisations, and culture:

Making sense of organisational events. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, & M. F.

Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.

173

Peterson, F. L., Cooper, R. F., & Scherer, R. F. (2000). Organisational change: Initial

results in a health care setting. Psychological Reports, 86, 608-610.

Pettigrew, A. (2000). Foreword in Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P.M., & Peterson,

M. F. (Eds.). Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organisational

change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Review,

44, 697-713.

Pisarski, A., Bohle, P., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Effects of coping strategies, social

support and work-nonwork conflict on shift worker’s health. Scandinavian Journal of Work,

Environment and Health, 24, 141-145.

Polit, D. E., & Hungler, B. P. (1993). Essentials of nursing research: methods,

appraisal and utilization. Philedelphia: J.B Lipincott.

Porras, J. L., & Robertson, P. (1992). Organisation development: Theory, practice, and

research. In M. D. Dunette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organisational

psychology (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.

Przygodda, M., Arentz, K. P., Quast, H. H., & Kleinbeck, W. (1997). Leadership style

and absenteeism in organisations: A study of medical emergency personnel in a community

medical emergency service. Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 35, 179-

186.

Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (1984). Organisational stress and preventative

management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J. (1997). Preventative stress

management in organisations. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

174

Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (Eds.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in

evaluation research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Repetti, R. L. (1983). The effects of workload and the social environment at work on

health. In L. Goldberger & S. Brezntiz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical

aspects (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Reynolds, S., & Briner, R. B. (1994). Stress management at work: With whom, for

whom and to what ends? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 75-89.

Reynolds, S., & Shapiro, D. A. (1991). Stress reduction in transition: Conceptual

problems in the design, implementation and evaluation of worksite stress management

interventions. Human Relations, 44, 717-733.

Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger, & S. H. Chaffee

(Eds.), Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Roney, A & Cooper, C. (1997). Professionals on workplace stress: The essential facts,

John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organisational research: Multi-level and

cross-level perspectives. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 7, 1-37.

Rowe, K. J. (2000). Simultaneous estimation of interdependent effects among

multilevel composite variables in psychosocial research: An annotated example of the

application of multilevel structural equation modelling. In N. Duan & S. Reise (Eds.),

Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues and applications. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

175

Sargent, L. (1995). Public sector change: Organisational stressors and strategic

interventions. In P. Cotton (Ed.), Psychological health in the workplace: Understanding and

managing occupational stress. Carlton, Victoria: The Australian Psychological Association.

Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science. A realist approach. London: Biddles Ltd.

Schabracq, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Toward a phenomenological framework for

the study of work and organisational stress. Human Relations, 51, 625-648.

Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, E. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping

with work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 38-

754.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. Ashkanasy,

C. P. M. Widerom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate.

California: Sage.

Schmalensee, D. H., & Gust, N. (1995). Keys to successful services marketing:

Customer orientation, creed, consistency. In T. M. Block, G. D. Upah, & V. A. Zeitham,

(Eds.), Services marketing in a changing environment. Chicago: American Marketing

Association.

Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organisations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C.

P. M. Widerom, & M. F. Peterson, (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate.

California: Sage.

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1993). The service organisation: Human resources

management is crucial. Organisational Dynamics, 21, 39-52.

176

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel

Psychology, 36, 19-39.

Schneider, B., Bowen, D. E., Ehrhart, M. G., & Holcombe, K. M. (2000). The climate

for service: Evolution of a construct. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, & M. F.

Peterson, (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.

Schweiger, D. L., Ivancevich, J. M., & Power, F. R. (1987). Executive action for

managing human resources before and after acquisition. Academy of Management

Executive, 2, 127-138.

Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a

merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110-135.

Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Smeltzer, L. R. (1991). An analysis of strategies for announcing organisation-wide

change. Group and Organisation Studies, 16, 5-24.

Somers, M. J. (1995). Organisational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An

examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 16, 49-58.

Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Occupational differences in the work-strain

relationship: Towards the use of situation-specific models. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 72, 219-229.

Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits,

negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent report of job stressors and

job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 67, 1-11.

177

Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y. and Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity

should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21, 79-95.

Spelton, E., Barton, J., & Folkard, S. (1993). Have we underestimated shift workers’

problems? Evidence from a “reminiscence” study. Ergonomics, 36, 307-312.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological

empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

St Amour, D. (2001). Successful organisational change: Effective management of

people and cultural issues. Canadian Manager, Summer, 20-22.

Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision

accommodation processes. In L. L Cummings & B. M. Straw (Eds.), Research in

Organisational Behaviour (3rd ed.), Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.

Sutton, R. I., & Kahn, R. L. (1986). Prediction, understanding and control as antidotes

to organisational stress. In Lorsch, J. W. (Ed.). Handbook of Organisational Behaviour,

Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Oehrming, J. (1997). Hospital corporatization: How are

nurses’ job perceptions and work-related attitudes affected? Reports from the Department of

Psychology, University of Stockholm, Oct, 839.

Terry, D. J. (1991). Coping resources and situational appraisals as predictors of coping

behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1031-1047.

Terry, D. J. (1994). The determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational

factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 895-91.

178

Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1997). Employee adjustment to large-scale organisational

change. Australian Psychologist, 32, 203-220.

Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Intergroup differentiation in response to an

organisational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 67-81.

Terry, D. J., & Jimmieson, N. L. (1999). Work control and employee well-being: A

decade in review. In E. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of

Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 14, 95-148.

Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & Sartori, G. (1996). Employee adjustment to an

organisational merger: Stress, coping and intergroup differences. Stress Medicine, 12, 105-

122.

Terry, D. J., Neilsen, M., & Perchard, L. (1993). The effects of job stress on well-

being: A test of the buffering effects of social support. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45,

168-175.

Terry, D. J., Rawle, R., & Callan, V. J. (1995). The effects of social support on

adjustment to stress: The mediating role of coping. Personal Relationships, 2, 97-124.

Terry, D. J., Tonge, L., & Callan, V. J. (1995). Employee adjustment to stress: The role

of coping resources, situational factors and coping responses. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 8,

1-24.

Tetenbaum, T. J. (1998). Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos. Organisational

Dynamics, 26, 21-32.

Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding prediction and control as

moderators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psychological

well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538-543.

179

Thoits, P. A. (1983). Dimensions of life events as influences upon the genesis of

psychological distress and associated conditions: An evaluation and synthesis of the

literature. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychological stress: Trends in theory and research,

Academic Press: New York.

Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 54, 416-423.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables

on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,

80, 6-15.

Thompson, J. A., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2001). Commitment shift during

organisational upheaval: Physicians’ transitions from private practitioner to employee.

Journal of Vocational Behaviour, available on-line at http://www.idealibrary.com

Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for

change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of Organisational Change

Management, 12, 120-134.

Tsoukas, H. (1989). The Validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 551-561.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to change

in a reorganising workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.

Watson, B., Jones, E., Hobman, E., Bordia, P., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J. (2001).

Employees’ perceptions of organisational change: Impact of organisational level and gender.

Unpublished Manuscript.

180

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience

aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.

Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress and distress:

Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.

Webb, K. (1995). An introduction to problems in the philosophy of social sciences.

London: Wellington House.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organising (2nd ed). Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-

normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.). (1995), Structural equation

modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wiley, J. W., & Brooks, S. M. (2000). The high-performance organisational climate:

How workers describe top-performing units. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, & M.

F. Peterson, (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.

Winefield, A. H. (2000). Stress in academe: Some recent research findings. In D. T.

Kenny, J. G. Carlson, F. J. McGuigan, & J. L. Sheppard (Eds.), Stress and health: Research

and clinical appllications. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Wollin, D. (1996). Rigour in theory building from cases. Unpublished conference

paper, ANZAM 1996 Conference, Wollongong.

Wyatt, T. A. (1996). Stress management programmes in Singapore: An exploratory

study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 13, 77-99.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and method. London: Sage.

Publications.

181

Young, M., & Post, J. E. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to

manage: How leading companies communicate with employees. Organisational Dynamics,

22, 31-43.

Zikmund, W. G. (1997). Business Research Methods. Orlando: Harcourt Brace

College Publishers.

182

APPENDIX A

Survey Questions – Organisation A

183

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear staff member, This is your copy of The Hospital Survey which is being completed by all staff. The aim of the survey is to gather your opinions about the hospital. We are interested in the effect of the re-building programme, changes to staffing, structures, technology and methods, and generally how the hospital goes about its business. Your personal opinions about such issues are very important to the hospital. Our research team will prepare a report for the Executive after analysis of the information you give us. Your careful completion of this questionnaire is critical for the report to be useful to your hospital. The questionnaire has been developed throughout the last 4 months in consultation with your District Manager, the Executive, key staff and individual staff members from across the hospital. The survey is being conducted by the Graduate School of Management at The University of Queensland and the School of Psychology at Griffith University. This in order to ensure a high level of confidentiality, and to provide independent professional resources to conduct the research. Please do not attach a name to the questionnaire - all responses are strictly confidential and anonymous. Once the questionnaire is completed, place it in the post-paid envelope provided and return to the University of Queensland by 30 October, 1998. No one from the hospital will see any completed questionnaires. In addition to the summary report of findings provided to your District Manager and the Executive, all staff will receive a 2-3 page summary of the major findings. Thank you for your involvement in this important task. If you have any questions about the survey, please telephone Professor Victor Callan on (07) 3365 6225 (work). (L. Pyne) District Manager

184

Part A: Background Information

Firstly, we need some information about you and about your job. This information will only be used to describe, in general terms, the group of people who complete the survey.

Q1. What is your sex? (please circle): 1. Male 2. Female Q2. What is your age? (please circle): 1. Under 20 yrs 4. 31-35 yrs 7. 46-50 yrs

2. 20-25 yrs 5. 36-40 yrs 8. Over 50 yrs 3. 26-30 yrs 6. 41-45 yrs

Q3. How long have you been working at the hospital? _______ yrs Q4. How long have you worked in your current position? ________yrs _______months Q5. What are your terms of employment ? (please circle one or more numbers): 1. Permanent full-time 4. Temporary part-time 7. University joint appt. 2. Permanent part-time 5. Casual 8. Visiting medical officer 3. Temporary full-time 6. Contract Q6. What is your staff classification? This is a new way of describing appointments at the hospital so please take your time and circle the one which best describes your current duties (please circle):

Medical - manager A medical officer who has significant operational management responsibilities. (e.g., Unit Director)

Medical – clinician A medical officer whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care. (e.g., Registrar, VMO, Staff Specialist)

Nurse – manager A nurse who has significant operational management responsibilities (e.g., NPC, ADON, CNC)

Nurse – clinician A nurse whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care. (e.g., EN, RN, L2)

Junior medical A medical officer whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care at Resident/ Junior House Officer level. (e.g., Resident)

Other Health professional – manager

A health officer (non-medical or non-nursing) who has significant operational management responsibilities (e.g., Senior physiotherapist, Senior scientist, Senior technicians)

Other Health professional – clinician

A health officer (non-medical or non-nursing) whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care or clinical support or diagnostic services. (e.g., pharmacist, physiotherapist)

Non-clinical Manager A non-clinical officer who has significant operational management responsibilities usually at Departmental/Cost Centre level. (e.g., Director of Food Services, Director of IMSU)

Non-clinical Supervisor A non-clinical officer who has operational supervisory responsibilities usually below departmental head level. (eg. Senior Personnel Officer, Manager- Environmental services)

. Operational, Administrative, Technical & Trade Officer

Operational, Administrative, Technical & Trade officer with no supervisory responsibilities

. Executive Divisional service management

. Other (specify)

185

Please circle the number that best indicates how much you agree or disagree with the

statements made throughout the questionnaire.

Part B: What’s it like to work in the hospital at present?

Now we’d like to know a little about how you feel the hospital is progressing through this period of change. Please use the following scale to choose your answers:

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Mildly Disagree

Mildly Agree Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 The following questions relate to the quality of patient care at the hospital. In my view patients in the hospital are treated with sensitivity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 In my view the hospital provides good quality care to patients 1 2 3 4 5 6 In my opinion the hospital maintains a safe e\nvironment for patients.

1 2 3 4 5 6

There is an innovative approach to providing quality service to patients at the hospital.

1 2 3 4 5 6

The following questions relate to what it is like to work at the hospital at the moment. In my experience, managers/supervisors respect staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Staff at my level treat each other with respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Open and free communication is encouraged. 1 2 3 4 5 6

We would now like to ask you how easy you find it to talk to others about problems at work (in relation to the hospital changes) and how you feel about these problems.

Very

Much Some-what

A little

Not at all

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to help you feel better when you experience work related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to give you sound advice about what you could do when you experience work-related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to provide information which helps to clarify your work related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to listen to you when you need to talk about work related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much does your direct supervisor express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you?

1 2 3 4

How much can you trust your direct supervisor to treat confidentially the discussions you have about work related problems?

1 2 3 4

186

Part C: Dealing with change at work

The following questions relate to how you feel about the changes going on at the hospital. (Please circle the number nearest to how you feel for each of the above lines). In general, the change process is: not at all stressful 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely stressfulnot at all disruptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely disruptivenot at all upsetting 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely upsettingnot at all difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely difficult

Please use the following scale to choose your answers:

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 These questions relate to how you think the changes might affect you personally. However the changes affect me, I am sure I can handle it. 1 2 3 4 5 I have no control over the extent to which the changes will affect my job. 1 2 3 4 5 I have reason to believe that I may not perform well in my job following the introduction of planned changes.

1 2 3 4 5

I will be able to influence the extent to which the changes will affect my job. 1 2 3 4 5 I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes. 1 2 3 4 5 It is up to individual employees how much they want the changes to influence their job.

1 2 3 4 5

Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no doubt I can perform well in the new hosptial

1 2 3 4 5

Part D: Satisfaction with working at the hospital These questions focus on how you feel about working in your work unit. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement by circling a number from 1 to 5. Don’t think too long about each statement - go on your first reaction. Very

DissatisfiedDissatisf

ied In

Between Satisfied Very

SatisfiedAll things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?

1 2 3 4 5

How satisfied are you with the quality of the resources available to you to do your job well?

1 2 3 4 5

How satisfied are you with the quality of the working conditions available to you to do your job well?

1 2 3 4 5

187

If a good friend of yours told you he or she was interested in working in your work unit, what would you tell him/her?

1 2 3 4 5 Advise against

Have doubts

about it Unsure Partially

recommend Strongly

recommend

Would you want to work in your present job if you did not have to?

1 2 3 4 5 Definitely

not Probably not Don’t know Yes

probably Yes

definitely

Part E: How do you feel?

We are interested in how you have been feeling of late. Have you recently:

Not at all No more than usual

Rather more than

usual

Much more than

usualLost much sleep over worry? 1 2 3 4 Felt constantly under strain? 1 2 3 4 Felt you could not overcome your difficulties? 1 2 3 4 Been feeling unhappy and depressed? 1 2 3 4 Been losing confidence in yourself? 1 2 3 4

Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person? 1 2 3 4

188

APPENDIX B

Survey Questions – Organisation B

189

CONFIDENTIAL Dear staff member The aim of this survey is to ask your opinion on how you feel about working within the Department. The results of the survey will provide valuable information in determining the future direction of all service areas. Your opinion will help to identify ways of improving your workplace. Thank you for participating in this survey.

Confidentiality: v Please do not attach your name to the completed questionnaire. v Responses to this questionnaire will be strictly confidential. v Professor Victor Callan and his team at the University of Queensland are the only people who will see the completed questionnaires, which will remain the property of the University. No individual response will be identifiable because all reports arising from the survey data will use large groupings of staff. v The Department will not have access to any completed questionnaires.

Completion: v Time will be made available for you to complete the survey at work. However, you may complete it in your own time if you wish. v Please work through the questions quickly, as first impressions are often best.

Please return the completed survey in the attached postage-paid envelope by

Friday 17 November 2000

For more information or assistance with the questionnaire, please contact Liz Hobman, at the University of Queensland on (07) 33656417.

190

PART A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION First, we need some information about you and your job. This information will be used only by the University team to describe, in general terms, the group of people who complete the survey. Q1. What is your sex? (please circle): 1. Male 2. Female Q2. What is your age? (please circle): 1. Under 20 years 2. 20-25 years 3. 26-30 years 4. 31-35 years 5. 36-40 years 6. 41-45 years 7. 46-50 years 8. 0ver 50 years Q3. How long have you been working in the Department? _____ years ______ months Q4. How long have you worked in your current position? _____ years ______ months Q5. What are your terms of employment? (please circle): 1. Permanent full-time 4. Temporary part-time 7. Contractor/Consultant 2. Permanent part-time 5. Casual 8. Job share 3. Temporary full-time 6. Agency staff Q6. What is your permanent appointed staff classification? (please circle): 1. AO1-AO3 2. AO4-AO6 3. AO7-AO8 4. PO1-PO3 5. PO4-PO6 6. TO1-TO3 7. TO4-TO5 8. OO1-OO7 9. SES/Senior Officer 10. Wages 11. Other 12. N/A

191

PART B: ATTITUDES ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT For the remainder of the questions, we would like you to go with your first reaction. When a list of statements or questions appears, please circle a number for each statement. Don't think too long about your answer. These questions focus on how you feel about working in the Department. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement - go on your first reaction.

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied In between Satisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job? 1 2 3 4 5 How satisfied are you with the quality of the resources available to you to do your job well?

1 2 3 4 5

How satisfied are you with the quality of the working conditions available to you to do your job well?

1 2 3 4 5

If a good friend asked you whether you liked working in the Department, what would you tell him/her?

Really terrible Terrible Unsure Good Really good 1 2 3 4 5

Would you want to work in your present job if you did not have to?

Definitely not Probably not Don't know Yes probably Yes definitely 1 2 3 4 5

How do you feel about working in the Department?

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

What happens to the Department is really important to me 1 2 3 4 5 I don't care what happens to the Department as long as I get my pay 1 2 3 4 5 I feel very committed to the Department 1 2 3 4 5 It would take very little change in my job to cause me to leave the Department 1 2 3 4 5 There’s not too much to be gained by sticking with the Department indefinitely 1 2 3 4 5 W e are interested in whether you feel in control of things at work.

Strongly Strongly Disagree AgreeI feel I am in control of my future with the department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel I can influence the nature of change in my work unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel in control of the direction in which my career is headed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel in control of issues related to my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 What I do in the department is largely under my control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can influence the extent to which changes at work affect my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

192

H ow do you feel about the quality of the service you provide to clients? Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree We achieve high levels of client satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 We provide the client with "value for money" 1 2 3 4 5 6 We "go the extra mile" to provide service to clients 1 2 3 4 5 6 We are easily accessible to the client 1 2 3 4 5 6 We are seen by the client as a leader in our field 1 2 3 4 5 6 We are responsive to client problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 We develop products and services in line with client needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 N ow we'd like to know whether you intend or are contemplating leaving the Department. Strongly Strongly Disagree AgreeI often seriously think about asking for a transfer to another job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am planning to search for a new job during the next 12 months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I often seriously think about resigning from my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If I have my own way I will leave the department to work in another organisation one year from now

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I often seriously think about making a real effort to enter a new and different occupation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I frequently think of quitting my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART C: ATTITUDES ABOUT ON-GOING CHANGES IN THE DEPARTMENT

This part of the survey deals with your feelings about on-going changes occurring in the Department. Please rate your views about the nature of on-going changes:

not at all stressful 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely stressful not at all disruptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely disruptive not at all upsetting 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely upsetting not at all difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely difficult

These questions relate to how you think on-going changes might affect your confidence in doing your job Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree However changes to my job affect me, I am sure I can handle it 1 2 3 4 5 I may not perform well in my job following the introduction of changes 1 2 3 4 5 I am confident in my ability to deal with on-going changes in the Department 1 2 3 4 5 Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no doubt I could perform well if my job were to change

1 2 3 4 5

193

PART D: PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT

This section of the survey deals with your feelings about how people communicate in the Department. We would now like to ask you how easy you find it to talk to others about problems associated with your work.

Very Much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to help you feel better when you experience work related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to give you sound advice about what you could do when you experience work-related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to provide information which helps to clarify your work related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to listen to you when you need to talk about work related problems?

1 2 3 4

How much does your direct supervisor express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you?

1 2 3 4

How much can you trust your direct supervisor to treat confidentially the discussions you have about work related problems?

1 2 3 4

Now we are interested in your opinions about leadership abilities of staff more senior to you in your Service Area. S taff more senior to me in my Service Area: Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Describe the kind of future they would like for us to create together 1 2 3 4 5 6 Appeal to others to share their dream of the future as their own 1 2 3 4 5 6 Clearly communicate a positive and hopeful outlook for the future 1 2 3 4 5 6 Show others how their long-term future interests can be realized by enlisting in a common vision

1 2 3 4 5 6

Look ahead and forecast what they expect the future to be like 1 2 3 4 5 6 Show excitement and enthusiasm about future possibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6

194

PART E: ABSENTEEISM The Department is also interested in why absenteeism occurs. Please estimate the number of days absent from work for physical health, work-related and other reasons. How many days in the past 6 months have you been absent from work due to physical health reasons (e.g., illness, colds, flu, injury, medical condition etc.) How many days in the past 6 months have you been absent from work due to work-related reasons (e.g., feeling depressed, emotionally run down, stressed, taking a "sickie", unfair workload, or difficult work relationship) How many days in the past 6 months have you been absent from work due to other reasons (e.g., leave entitlements, personal commitments/appointments, but excluding flexi-time/ rostered/ planned ATL)

195

APPENDIX C

Variable Means for Study 3

196

Means (SD) of Climate, Appraisal and Adjustment Variables by Organisational Level

Lower Level

N = 291

Middle Level

N = 295

Upper Level

N = 99

Climate

Customer service 4.89 (0.79) 4.79 (0.81) 4.95 (0.66)

Leader vision 3.49 (1.20) 3.60 (1.25) 4.24 (1.18)

Supervisor support 2.88 (0.95) 3.04 (0.88) 3.15 (0.86)

Change Appraisal

Change stress 3.71 (1.01) 3.78 (0.92) 3.62 (0.82)

Change self-efficacy 4.11 (0.71) 4.10 (0.70) 4.30 (0.57)

Change control 3.61 (1.25) 3.96 (1.26) 4.81 (1.08)

Adjustment

Organisational commitment 3.91 (0.83) 4.02 (0.85) 4.30 (0.81)

Turnover intentions 3.45 (2.01) 3.09 (1.90) 3.20 (1.97)

197

APPENDIX D

Variable Means for Study 4

198

199

Descriptive statistics for Climate, Appraisal and Adjustment Variables by Occupation and Organisational Level

Climate variables Medical

Nursing

Allied Health Non-Clinical Overall

Supervisor support

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

M

2.61

2.61

2.61

SD

0.65

0.89

0.86

N 9

51

60

M

2.73

2.66

2.66

SD

0.92

0.83

0.84

N

35

310

345

M

2.85

2.90

2.89

SD

0.70

0.91

0.87

N

17

85

102

M

2.62

2.48

2.51

SD

0.88

0.98

0.96

N

40

185

225

M

2.70

2.63

2.64

SD

0.84

0.90

0.89

N

101

631

732

Employee relations

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

4.56

4.01

4.09

0.94

1.04

1.04

9

51

60

4.29

4.06

4.09

1.24

1.11

1.12

35

310

345

4.35

4.65

4.59

1.00

1.04

1.03

17

85

102

4.11

3.64

3.72

1.20

1.42

1.40

40

185

225

4.25

4.01

4.05

1.15

1.23

1.22

101

631

732

Patient care

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

5.08

4.79

4.83

0.57

0.88

0.84

9

51

60

4.69

4.71

4.70

0.92

0.82

0.83

35

310

345

4.54

4.85

4.80

0.97

0.77

0.81

17

85

102

4.58

4.62

4.62

0.73

0.93

0.89

40

185

225

4.66

4.71

4.70

0.83

0.85

0.85

101

631

732

200

Appraisal variables Medical

Nursing

Allied Health Non-Clinical Overall

Change stress

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

M

3.48

2.94

3.02

SD

1.28

1.28

1.28

N

10

53

63

M

3.84

3.15

3.22

SD

1.28

1.28

1.29

N

36

308

344

M

3.22

2.96

3.00

SD

1.30

1.31

1.31

N

17

84

101

M

3.35

3.68

3.62

SD

1.31

1.42

1.40

N

42

183

225

M

3.51

3.26

3.30

SD

1.30

1.35

1.35

N

105

628

733

Change self-efficacy

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

4.32

4.19

4.21

0.54

0.69

0.67

10

53

63

4.17

4.12

4.13

0.53

0.62

0.61

36

308

344

4.24

4.25

4.25

0.58

0.55

0.56

17

84

101

4.25

4.10

4.13

0.71

0.74

0.73

42

183

225

4.23

4.14

4.16

0.61

0.65

0.65

105

628

733

Change control

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

3.00

2.28

2.39

0.80

0.80

0.83

10

53

63

2.91

2.72

2.74

1.07

0.83

0.88

36

308

344

2.94

2.67

2.72

0.89

0.95

0.94

17

84

101

2.56

2.64

2.63

1.02

1.05

1.04

42

183

225

2.78

2.66

2.67

1.00

0.92

0.93

105

628

733

201

Adjustment variables Medical

Nursing

Allied Health Non-Clinical Overall

Job satisfaction

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

M

3.69

3.45

3.49

SD

0.79

0.97

0.95

N 9

52

61

M

3.52

3.49

3.49

SD

0.93

0.84

0.85

N

34

311

345

M

3.53

3.70

3.67

SD

0.57

0.72

0.70

N

17

85

102

M

3.43

3.25

3.28

SD

0.88

1.01

0.99

N

41

187

228

M

3.50

3.44

3.45

SD

0.84

0.90

0.89

N

101

635

736

Well-being

Managers

Non-managers

Overall

3.30

3.14

3.16

0.59

0.69

0.68

9

52

61

3.08

3.25

3.24

0.66

0.60

0.61

34

311

345

3.16

3.28

3.26

0.46

0.57

0.55

17

85

102

3.18

3.15

3.15

0.66

0.73

0.72

41

187

228

3.15

3.22

3.21

0.62

0.65

0.64

101

635

736