Minds, hearts and deeds

Minds, Hearts and Deeds: Cognitive,
Affective and Behavioural Responses to
Change
ROY KARK SMOLLAN
Faculty of Business, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
ABSTRACT When people are faced with changes to some aspect of their working lives they respond
on a number of levels: cognitive, affective and behavioural. The behavioural responses are outcomes
of the cognitive and emotional reactions, and are mediated and moderated by a number of variables,
some of which lie in the context of the employee, some in the context of the change managers, and
some in the context of the organisation. In this article a model will be presented that identifies a
range of reactions to change and a series of propositions that can be tested empirically.
KEY WORDS: Organisational change, cognitive, affective, behavioural responses
Introduction
Leaders of change will hope, if not expect, that organisational members will
comply with the change initiative, and preferably enthusiastically support it
with appropriate action (Piderit, 2000). Duck (1993) suggests that organisations
that introduce change need to gain the hearts and minds of their members if the
change is to be successful. A number of researchers into organisational behaviour
have criticised the neglect of emotion, both by managers and fellow researchers
(e.g. Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995; Fisher and Ashkanasy, 2000). Studies of
organisational change in particular have also been criticised for excluding the
affective domain and focussing on cognitive and behavioural aspects (Mossholder
et al., 2000). Since change is often an “affective event” (Weiss and Cropanzano,
1996; Basch and Fisher, 2000) analysing its emotional impacts is critical.
Journal of Change Management
Vol. 6, No. 2, 143–158, June 2006
Correspondence Address: Roy Kark Smollan, Management and Employment Relations, Faculty of Business,
Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail:
roy.smollan@aut.ac.nz
1469-7017 Print=1479-1811 Online=06=020143–16 # 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080=14697010600725400
Gersick (1991) has distinguished between incremental and radical change and
points to the resulting positive and negative emotions. While she did not differentiate
between the emotions that are likely under different types of change it seems
logical that radical change will produce more emotional reaction than incremental
change, since the ramifications of the former are much greater. It must also be
noted that change is often a process that unfolds over time, sometimes years
(Piderit, 2000; Isabella, 1990; Paterson and Cary, 2002), and that the human
responses will be as dynamic as the changes themselves. Changes of greater complexity
are likely to generate more negative and more intense emotions (Kiefer,
2004) and more resistance (George and Jones, 2001), and therefore require
more careful and sustained management. However, it will be suggested in this
article, that no matter what type of change is contemplated, leaders will need to
gauge how employees might respond on all three levels.
In this article I will review literature on the relationship between cognition and
emotion in the context of change, present a model of cognitive, affective and behavioural
responses to change, analyse the variables that mediate and moderate these
responses, and derive a related set of propositions that can be tested empirically.
Cognition and Emotion in the Context of Change
The relationship between emotion and cognition has been debated for centuries by
philosophers, psychologists, novelists and organisational theorists, with a number
of different conclusions—emotion is the opposite of reason (Weber, 1946),
emotion is deeply interwoven with reason (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995),
emotion can occur independently of reason (Zajonc, 1980; Izard, 1992).
Cognition is a process of thought in which a person first becomes aware of
stimuli, appraises the significance of those stimuli and then considers possible
behavioural responses (Scherer, 1999). Emotions are immediate responses to
environmental stimuli that are important to the individual and tend to be short
in duration (Frijda, 1988; Gray and Watson, 2001). Emotion needs to be distinguished
from moods, which are more diffuse in nature, not specifically linked to
events or objects, lower in intensity and longer lasting (Gray and Watson, 2001;
Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996), and from temperament, which is a facet of disposition
and is a relatively stable and biologically-rooted pattern of individual
differences (Bates, 2000). Affect comprises emotion, mood and temperament.
Circumplex models of affect have analysed its dimensions along two main axes,
pleasantness (positive and negative emotions) and arousal or activation (high
and low) (Tellegen et al., 1999; Russell and Carroll, 1999).
Lazarus (1991) suggests that the relationship between cognition and emotion is
bidirectional—emotion influences cognition, cognition elicits emotion. He asserts
that while cognition does not necessarily lead to emotion, emotion cannot occur
without cognition. Emotion alerts the individual to factors in the environment
which are potentially significant. For example, a feeling of anxiety may heighten
awareness of the need to take action, while guilt and anger produce thoughts that
may lead to redress of an injustice.
In the context of organisational change employees become aware of change
through a variety of mechanisms, from formal communication, peer discussion
144 R. K. Smollan
and other observable cues. Through primary appraisal (Lazarus, 1999) employees
evaluate the significance of the change event for themselves (Weiss and
Cropanzano, 1996) and can extend this to the impact on others and the organisation
itself. Secondary appraisal focuses on the causes and agents of change,
and on possible coping strategies (Lazarus, 1999; Scherer, 1999; Paterson and
Hartel, 2002; Jordan et al., 2002). George and Jones’ (2001) model of resistance
to change delineates the steps that occur when employees use a combination of
cognitive and affective processes to make sense of the impending changes, particularly
when the existing schemata (cognitive frameworks that help people to
understand events) are challenged.
Cognitive and affective responses create attitudes to change that may contain
positive and negative elements (Piderit, 2000) and will be influenced by a range
of factors, including perceived favourability of outcomes and fairness of outcomes,
processes of decision making and communication (Weiss et al., 1999;
Paterson and Hartel, 2002; Matheny and Smollan, 2005).
The question that now arises is to what extent cognitive and affective processes
predict behavioural responses. Do employees follow their minds and their hearts
when deciding how to respond to organisational stimuli, and specifically in the
context of this article, change events? The model presented below depicts the
nature of the responses and the factors that affect them.
A Model of Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Responses to Change
Figure 1 shows that organisational change triggers cognitive responses (positive,
negative, neutral or mixed evaluations) which are mediated by perceptions of the
favourability of the outcomes, and the justice, scale, pace and timing of change.
Cognitive responses impact on, and are impacted by, affective responses (positive,
negative, neutral or mixed emotions) (Lazarus, 1991). Before behaviour occurs
(positive, negative, neutral or mixed—from the view of the organisation),
people usually consider the implications of behavioural choices. Piderit (2000),
for example, suggests that employees rarely engage in resistant behaviour
without considering the possible personal consequences. Some, however, may
be moved to act on affective impulses without considering the ramifications of
their actions. Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses are moderated by
factors within the individual (emotional intelligence, disposition, previous experience
of change, change and stressors outside the workplace); factors within the
change manager/s (leadership ability, emotional intelligence and trustworthiness);
and within the organisation (culture and context). Employee responses may alter
some aspect of the change programme, highlighting the dynamic and circular
nature of the process. The model is applicable to a wide spectrum of change
events but the nature of the change will clearly have differing impacts on employees.
An organisational restructuring to accommodate growth, accompanied by the
recruitment and promotion of staff, will naturally evoke different emotions from
one that results in downsizing. The concept of the change context will be revisited
towards the end of the paper as a moderating variable to cognitive, affective and
behavioural responses.
Minds, Hearts and Deeds 145
Positive responses: Employees may believe that the changes will be beneficial,
to the organisation, some of its external stakeholders, to groups of employees or
the individual employee. Positive cognitions should lead to positive emotions
that could range in intensity from exhilaration and enthusiasm to pleasure and contentment
(French, 2001; Antonacopoulou and Gabriel, 2001). On the behavioural
level employees willingly engage in the tasks expected of them and may even
attempt to exceed performance expectations. Organisational Citizenship Behaviours
(Organ, 1988; Spector and Fox, 2002), which encompass a range of prosocial
behaviours, such as helping others, showing initiative, altruistic actions,
loyalty and increased effort, may result.
Neutral responses: The changes may have little perceived impact on some
employees including little, if any, emotional arousal. They are likely to demonstrate
acquiescence or submissive collaboration (Bacharach et al., 1996).
Negative responses: Employees who experience strong cognitive reactions,
accompanied by strong negative emotions, such as fear or anger, will be likely
to reject the changes (Kiefer, 2004). Rejection is a term that encompasses but is
not confined to the term resistance, and manifests itself in many ways: disloyalty,
neglect, exit or intention to quit (Turnley and Feldman, 1999), lower trust (Kiefer,
2004; Brockner et al., 1997), active campaigning against the change (Mishra and
Spreitzer, 1998), deception (Shapiro et al., 1995), sabotage (La Nuez and Jermier,
1994; Spector and Fox, 2002), violence and aggression (Spector and Fox, 2002;
Fox et al., 2001; Neuman and Baron, 1998), industrial action, such as strikes,
go-slows and refusal to work or complete certain tasks (Skarlicki et al., 1999).
Researchers have used the terms Organisational Resistance Behaviours
Figure 1. Model of responses to organisational change
146 R. K. Smollan
(Skarlicki et al., 1999) and Counterproductive Work Behaviours (Spector and Fox,
2002) to categorise a number of dysfunctional and anti-social behaviours, some of
which are targeted at organisational members, and some at the organisation itself.
It should also be noted that negative cognitive and affective responses are often
well-intentioned (Piderit, 2000). They may result in action construed as appropriate,
and which lead to further discussion and the implementation of more acceptable,
and possibly more beneficial, organisational outcomes.
The term resistance to change has been criticised by Dent and Goldberg (1999)
and Piderit (2000). They allege that it is overused and inaccurately used. Resistance
is often seen as refusal to engage in the change or subverting it, but can
also be conceptualised as reluctance (Piderit, 2000) or inertia (George and
Jones, 2001). Anticipated resistance becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby
managers have been educated and trained to see resistance as inevitable, negative
and largely due to the ignorance or wilfulness of recalcitrant employees. Resistance
is not always confined to “workers”—managers themselves are often
sources of resistance too (Spreitzer and Quinn, 1996; La Nuez and Jermier, 1994).
Mixed responses: Employees who have mixed cognitive evaluations of different
aspects of change, mixed positive and negative emotions, or, say, a positive cognition
but a negative emotion, may demonstrate positive, negative, neutral or mixed
behaviours. For example, employees could consider an extended work schedule
to be in the interests of the customers, and therefore the organisation, but not
believe that all employees should be required to work inconvenient shifts, and
feel anxiety and anger if they are forced to do so. The behavioural outcome could
be to persuade management to change the schedule or a colleague to change
shifts. An employee may however simply accept new methods of record keeping
that accompany the change, and comply with them, yet simultaneously experience
happiness in dealing with different customers and perform at a high level. Piderit
(2000) notes the ambivalence within and among the three dimensions of attitudes
to change. Behavioural responses in particular, can be contradictory, for example
overt support for the change, accompanied by a covert rejection by means of an
anonymous submission to a suggestion box. The need for a specific change might
be accepted on a cognitive level but there could be emotional resistance. The
nature of the behavioural response is therefore not a simple outcome of cognitive
and affective reactions. There are a number of forces at work that prevent what
would seem a logical, if not preferred, response (Piderit, 2000). Research propositions
cannot automatically state, for example, that negative cognitive and
emotional responses to change will lead to negative behavioural responses.
Variables Mediating Cognitive Responses to Change
Before a judgement takes place (a cognitive evaluation), people use a number of
lenses through which they view the changes:
Perceived Favourability of Outcomes
Employees will analyse the favourability of outcomes for themselves, others and
for the organisation, and there may be differing outcomes for various stakeholders
Minds, Hearts and Deeds 147
(Paterson and Cary, 2002). For example, Matheny and Smollan (2005) found that
individuals saw different outcomes for themselves, for others and for the organisation.
Where employees find it difficult to predict outcomes their responses will
remain either neutral or ambivalent. Disposition (which will be considered in
more depth later) can play a significant role, with optimists and pessimists
experiencing opposite forms of anticipation (Wanberg and Banas, 2000).
Proposition 1: Cognitive responses to change are mediated by the perceived favourability
of the outcomes of change.
Perceived Justice of Change
Employees’ cognitive and affective responses to change are tempered by their
perceptions of fairness (Cobb et al., 1995; Skarlicki et al., 1999). A considerable
body of research on organisational justice has identified distinctive elements.
Distributive justice refers to the fairness of outcomes (Homans, 1961). Procedural
justice relates to perceptions of the fairness by which decisions are
made (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Leventhal, 1980; Tyler and Lind, 1992).
This includes interactional justice (Bies and Moag, 1986), divided into interpersonal
justice and informational justice (Greenberg, 1993), and is manifested in
the ways in which managers communicate outcomes and procedures to staff.
Systemic justice (Sheppard et al., 1992; Harlos and Pinder, 2000) is an overarching
term for the perceived fairness of a wide variety of practices over
time, and is a facet of the organisational culture. In the context of organisational
change employees may view announced changes against the backdrop of historical
practices, including previous change initiatives.
While perceptions of each form of justice have their own distinctive impact
(Paterson and Cary, 2002; Matheny and Smollan, 2005) Lind’s (2001) Fairness
Heuristic Theory suggests that people take a holistic view of events and issues
when making fairness judgements. While perceptions of justice would tend to
produce positive emotions, perceptions of injustice will lead to more intense
negative emotions (Mikula et al., 1998; Weiss et al., 1999). Negative perceptions
and feelings are likely to lead to negative behavioural responses.
Violations of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1988; Robinson and
Rousseau, 1989) also produce a sense of injustice and strong emotional reactions.
The psychological contract, an employee perception of mutual obligations of
employer and employee, is a distinct construct to that of organisational justice
but there are considerable overlaps (Cropanzano and Prehar, 2001). Violations
of the psychological contract lead to various negative behavioural responses,
such as intentions to quit, neglect and a decrease in Organisational Citizenship
Behaviours (Turnley and Feldman, 1999; Kickul et al., 2002).
Proposition 2: Cognitive responses to change are mediated by employees’
perceptions of justice.
148 R. K. Smollan
The Scale of the Change
Cognitive reactions to change will be influenced by the scale of the change
(Mossholder et al., 2000). Dirks et al. (1996) propose that individuals with a
strong sense of psychological ownership of some aspect of their jobs will
find revolutionary change threatening, and tend to resist it. George and Jones
(2001) argue that changes to existing schemata will have a more profound
impact on people than changes within the schemata themselves, a point also
made by Gersick (1991). While welcome change outcomes may engender positive
reactions (French, 2001) the sheer scale of the change or too many new
events occurring simultaneously (Blount and Janicik, 2001; Kiefer, 2004)
may trigger negative reactions.
Proposition 3: Cognitive responses to change will be affected by the perceived scale
of the change.
Perceived Speed and Timing of the Change
There is little management literature dealing with individual responses to the
speed of change. Most research has focussed on organisational pacing from a strategic
and tactical perspective (e.g. Gersick, 1994; Sastry, 1997) or the extent to
which an individual’s work pace is affected by schedule changes. For example,
Blount and Janicik (2001) propose that an unwanted schedule delay will be
viewed particularly negatively if it is unexpected, if the period of delay is
unknown, and if impatience is a dispositional influence. Conversely, if the pace
of change is deemed too fast employees may believe they cannot take the necessary
steps in time, or do so with severe disruption to normal routines, and they are
likely to react negatively (Blount and Janicik, 2001; Huy, 2001).
Huy (2001) provides a useful model of how different styles of management
intervention impact on different types of change. For example, more radical
forms of change require a longer time frame for implementation. Since using an
inappropriate approach creates negative employee perceptions he urges managers
to be aware of individual responses to not only the pacing, but also the timing and
sequencing of organisational changes. The introduction of a major change at the
busiest time of the year or month, or the announcement of a new executive
bonus scheme following downsizing, are bound to be perceived negatively by
many employees.
Proposition 4: Cognitive responses to change are mediated by the perceived speed
and timing of the change.
Variables Moderating Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Responses to Change
A cognitive response triggers an affective response although the impact has also
been considered bi-directional (Lazarus, 1991). Perceived favourability of outcomes,
justice, scale, and speed and timing of change, all have affective elements.
Minds, Hearts and Deeds 149
There are a number of variables that moderate cognitive, affective and behavioural
responses. Some of the moderators lie within the individual, and some within the
manager(s) leading or implementing the change, and some within the broader
context of the organisation itself.
Variables within the Employee
Employees’ Emotional Intelligence (EI)
Competing models of emotional intelligence have focussed on EI as ability
(Salovey and Mayer, 1990) and on EI as a combination of ability and disposition
(Goleman, 1998; Bar-On, 1997). Goleman (1998), for example, identifies empathy
and integrity as key characteristics of EI. Focussing on the ability model emotional
intelligence is seen as the ability to accurately perceive the emotions of oneself
and others, to regulate one’s emotions and respond appropriately to the emotions
of others (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). In the context of organisational change
employees who are high in EI are able to discern and control the feelings they
experience. Employees high in EI will be aware of the potential impact of their
behaviour on their peers and managers and moderate their words and actions. Cognitive
processes are thus embedded in the affective processes and the two promote
or constrain behaviour. For example, Jordan et al. (2002) propose that employees
with high EI are able to cognitively and affectively process issues pertaining to job
insecurity, and devise appropriate coping strategies.
Proposition 5: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderated
by employees’ emotional intelligence.
Disposition of Employees
It is commonly believed by lay people that the way in which employees respond to
organisational change is directly related to disposition (Wanous et al., 2000).
Change often involves uncertainty and those who have what French (2001,
p. 482) refers to as negative capability are able to “tolerate ambiguity and
paradox” since they have the “capacity to integrate mental and emotional
states” and consequently adapt their behaviour. Watson and Clark (1997) specifically
identified a predilection for change in various facets of life as representative
of people with high positive affectivity, a characteristic which will also be found in
organisational contexts (Spector and Fox, 2002).
In an empirical study Judge et al. (1999) found seven personality factors predicted
reactions to change, which they grouped into two main categories. Positive
self-concept included locus of control, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positive
affectivity, while risk tolerance included openness to experience, tolerance of
ambiguity and risk aversion. In particular, tolerance for ambiguity and positive
affectivity were strongly correlated to self-reported ability to deal with change.
Wanberg and Banas (2000) revealed that self-esteem, optimism and perceived
control were related to acceptance of change. Jimmieson et al. (2004) reported
change-related efficacy to be a significant variable in determining responses to
150 R. K. Smollan
organisational change. In developing and testing a scale to measure dispositional
reactions to change, Oreg (2003) found four major relevant personality factors:
need for routine, emotional responsiveness, short-term focus on outcomes and
cognitive rigidity. In a number of empirical studies he found that disposition
predicted reaction to change, regardless of context.
Proposition 6: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderated
by employee disposition.
Employees’ Previous Experience of Change
Previous experience of change has the potential of producing two opposing
responses to a newly announced change. An employee who has previously
experienced a positive change, or who has coped well with a negative
change, may respond positively, while an employee with a negative experience
would view the new change with unease. Past failures in organisational change
breed cynicism, which, according to Wanous et al. (2000), becomes a selffulfilling
prophecy. In this context the employees are pessimistic about outcomes,
attribute blame to management (Wanous et al., 2000), and their lack
of commitment can undermine the changes (Abraham, 2000). Even if previous
initiatives have been successful frequent changes will trigger negative reactions
(Kiefer, 2004).
Proposition 7: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderated
by employees’ previous experience of change.
Change and Stress Producing Events Outside the Workplace
An organisational change impacts on one part of an employee’s life. The manner
in which an employee reacts to the change depends on the broader context of his/
her life. The Holmes-Rahe Social Readjustment Rating scale, developed in 1967,
and other instruments that have followed, have over the years demonstrated high
correlations between recent life changes and physical and psychological symptoms
(Rahe et al., 2000). An individual faced with a major change outside of
work, or a number of minor changes, may react negatively—on cognitive, affective
and behavioural levels—to an organisational change. Any stress-inducing
issue outside of work can trigger negative responses to change at work, as employees’
coping resources are depleted. Employee disposition is a related factor—
those with higher resilience are better able to cope with additional demands
(Wanberg and Banas, 2000).
Proposition 8: Employees responses to organisational change are moderated by
changes and any stress-producing event outside of work.
Minds, Hearts and Deeds 151
Variables within the Change Manager(s)
Two or more levels of management may be involved in designing and implementing
organisational change and the perceptions of employees of the contributions of
different managers will produce different evaluations.
Leadership Ability of Change Manager(s)
The links between leadership and successful organisational change have been
documented in many works (e.g. Eisenbach et al., 1999). Two major types of
leadership have been associated with change, transformational leadership (Bass,
1999; Yukl, 1999) and charismatic leadership (Conger et al., 2000; Yukl, 1999).
These literatures have emphasised the ability of leaders to drive change and motivate
followers to higher levels of performance. While there are many other types of
leadership successful change managers have to adopt styles that engage followers
(Huy, 2001). Participative forms of leadership (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979;
Chawla and Kelloway, 2004) have long been considered to have considerable
impact in overcoming resistance to change and simultaneously affecting perceptions
of organisational justice (Thibaut and Walker, 1975).
Propositian 9: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderated
by the leadership ability of the change manager(s).
Emotional Intelligence of Change Manager(s)
Transformational leadership has been associated with emotional intelligence
(Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000). Leaders with high EI demonstrate both empathy
and integrity (Parry and Proctor-Thomson, 2002) which are key qualities in developing
employee trust since leaders are able to influence people on both the cognitive
and affective levels (George, 2000; Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000). Leaders need
to be particularly adept at discerning the emotional reactions of employees to
change and providing the necessary support, especially given the uncertainty
and negative emotions that accompany many changes (Kiefer, 2004).
Proposition 10: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses of employees to
change are moderated by the emotional intelligence of the change manager(s).
Perceived Trustworthiness of the Change Manager(s)
Perceptions of the trustworthiness of the managers will also influence employees’
responses to change. Leventhal (1980) and Tyler and Lind (1992) noted trust to be
a significant factor in the formation of employee perceptions of procedural justice
and that this impacts directly on their choice of behaviour. Brockner et al. (1997)
demonstrated empirically that employees’ trust in managers derives from perceptions
of procedural justice and has a significant impact on their acceptance of
changes, particularly when the outcomes are unfavourable, a link which was
152 R. K. Smollan
confirmed by Paterson and Cary (2002) in a study on downsizing. Chawla and
Kelloway (2004) found trust to be related to procedural and informational
justice during a merger. Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) discovered that integrity
contributes strongly to transformational leadership ability, while Conger et al.
(2000) found a similar relationship with charismatic leadership. Kiefer (2004)
demonstrated that negative emotions during periods of change lead to reduced
trust in leaders.
Proposition 11: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderated
by employees’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of the change manager(s).
Variables within the Context of the Organisation
Organisational Culture
The ways in which individuals interpret organisational events, including change
events, depend to a large extent on their previous history with the organisation.
An organisation where speedy response to change is a major driver will encounter
different individual responses to one that is more bureaucratic and less agile. Paradoxically,
an organisation that seldom consults staff may find that a unilateral
change, even an unpalatable one, is accepted as the norm, whereas an organisation
that invites participation as general rule, but fails to do so during a change, may
find a surprised and somewhat hostile reception. Perceived systemic injustice
(Sheppard et al., 1992; Harlos and Pinder, 2000) will nevertheless lend weight
to views that an announced change is unfair.
Where the culture itself is the object of change, there may be more resistance as
the “deep structure” (Gersick, 1991) or schemata (Bartunek and Moch, 1987;
George and Jones, 2001) are dismantled, and the implications and mechanisms
are complex (Porras and Robertson, 1992). There is a strong emotional undertone
to organisational culture (Porras and Robertson, 1992) and if this is damaged the
consequences can be severe (Huy, 2001).
In an empirical study Kabanoff et al. (1995) found that organisations with different
value structures depicted and communicated change differently, but the
authors did not specifically address individual responses. Turnbull (2002),
however, studied the ways individuals responded to an organisation’s attempts
to deliberately change its culture to one of trust, openness, innovation and
loyalty, in workshops laden with emotional appeals. She found that employees
did experience both cognitive and affective reactions, but often in unintended
ways, with mistrust, anger and embarrassment often eventuating. Employees
reported the need to hide their feelings and in many cases pretended to comply
with the changes.
Proposition 12: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are
moderated by organisational culture.
Minds, Hearts and Deeds 153
Organisational Change Context
To return to a point made during the introduction of the model, the context of the
change underpins many of the responses. The mostly frequently cited example of
negative change is downsizing, which has a profound affect on victims (Paterson
and Cary, 2002) and a lesser, but noticeably significant, impact on survivors
(O’Neill and Lenn, 1995; Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). A merger (even without
any redundancies) may create winners and losers, as some people are given
greater responsibilities and more status while others may experience the opposite
(Kiefer, 2002). Office relocations may also produce perceived winners and losers
(Daley and Geyer, 1994). An expansion programme will generally produce positive
reactions. Naturally, with any change there is the possibility of mixed
responses within individuals. A person who gains promotion from a change, or
a bigger department to manage, or who may need to travel more, will consider
the extra demands that these changes will bring. Heightened anxiety and a
sense of regret may exist alongside the more joyous outcomes.
Proposition 13: Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change are moderated
by the change context.
Conclusion
Change is a potentially affective event (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) and the
model and propositions advanced above extend the literature on organisational
change, and in particular, the impact of cognitive and affective reactions on behaviour.
Testing of these propositions by means of quantitative and qualitative
research will uncover the complexities of these relationships and the myriad of
variables involved, and add to knowledge of how organisational change can be
better understood and managed.