An Affect-Based Model of Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change Events PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304341830 An Affect-Based Model of Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change Events Article in The Academy of Management Review · June 2016 DOI: 10.5465/amr.2014.0335 CITATIONS READS 145 4,719 4 authors: Shaul Oreg Jean M Bartunek Hebrew University of Jerusalem Boston College, USA 51 PUBLICATIONS 5,665 CITATIONS 207 PUBLICATIONS 10,801 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Gayoung Lee Boram Do Boston College, USA University of Windsor 2 PUBLICATIONS 149 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 458 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Research Handbook of Responsible Management View project scholarly conflict in practice View project All content following this page was uploaded by Jean M Bartunek on 25 June 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Academy of Management Review AN AFFECT-BASED MODEL OF RECIPIENTS’ RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE EVENTS Journal: Academy of Management Review Manuscript ID AMR-2014-0335-Original.R4 Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript Keywords: Change, Job Attitudes, Emotions Following a long period during which attention has been paid predominantly to the role of change agents in organizational change, change recipients and their experiences have finally begun to take center stage. Yet the typical view of recipients has been as passive reactors to change. In this paper we take steps towards highlighting the central, active roles change recipients play in organizational change events. We discuss Abstract: and distinguish between dimensions of valence and activation and introduce a circumplex of recipients’ affective and behavioral responses to change events. We describe the primary and secondary appraisal processes through which each response type emerges and discuss outcomes of each response type. We use our model to explain how change context and process variables affect recipients’ responses to change. Finally, we discuss implications of our model for theory, research and practice. Page 1 of 59 Academy of Management Review 1 1 2 3 4 5 AN AFFECT-BASED MODEL OF RECIPIENTS’ RESPONSES TO 6 7 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE EVENTS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Shaul Oreg 15 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 16 [email protected] 17 18 19 Jean Bartunek 20 Boston College 21 [email protected] 22 23 24 Gayoung Lee 25 Boston College 26 [email protected] 27 28 Boram Do 29 University of Windsor 30 31 [email protected] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Note: We thank Micki Eisenman, Sean Martin, John McAvoy and the review team led by 52 Russell Johnson for their insightful and very constructive comments on earlier versions of this 53 manuscript. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 2 of 59 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 AN AFFECT-BASED MODEL OF RECIPIENTS’ RESPONSES TO 7 8 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE EVENTS 9 10 11 12 13 ABSTRACT 14 15 Following a long period during which attention has been paid predominantly to the role of 16 17 18 change agents in organizational change, change recipients and their experiences have finally 19 20 begun to take center stage. Yet the typical view of recipients has been as passive reactors to 21 22 change. In this paper we take steps towards highlighting the central, active roles change 23 24 25 recipients play in organizational change events. We discuss and distinguish between dimensions 26 27 of valence and activation and introduce a circumplex of recipients’ affective and behavioral 28 29 responses to change events. We describe the primary and secondary appraisal processes through 30 31 32 which each response type emerges and discuss outcomes of each response type. We use our 33 34 model to explain how change context and process variables affect recipients’ responses to 35 36 37 change. Finally, we discuss implications of our model for theory, research and practice. 38 39 40 41 Keywords: Reactions to change, change events, affect, change appraisal 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 3 of 59 Academy of Management Review 3 1 2 3 INTRODUCTION 4 5 6 Consider the following description of undertaking a new initiative, very liberally adapted 7 8 from McAvoy and Butler (2007). A project manager in a software development company 9 10 11 decided to adopt a new software development approach which relies on descriptions of user 12 13 experiences rather than traditional documentation as a way to gain feedback for development. 14 15 Following the announcement of this change, the team members responded favorably to the idea 16 17 18 and supported it, without raising any substantial questions or issues about it. To the satisfaction 19 20 of the project manager, this led to a smooth launch of the change. But over the next months, as 21 22 team members attempted to use the new approach, numerous problems emerged with its 23 24 25 implementation that had not been considered, which ultimately led to its cancellation and to the 26 27 company reverting to their previous software development approach. In retrospect, many of these 28 29 problems could have been identified and dealt with early on, had the team given the introduction 30 31 32 of the new approach greater scrutiny. 33 34 Although many such cases exist in practice, this is not the standard story of change told 35 36 37 in research and theorizing, and seems incongruent with the typical conclusion about the sources 38 39 of success or failure of organizational change implementation. Contrary to resistance, which is 40 41 often said to be responsible for the failure of organizational change (e.g., Battilana & Casciaro, 42 43 44 2013; Hon, Bloom, & Crant, 2014), change recipients’ initial response to this change was 45 46 entirely positive, and yet the change ultimately failed. Thus, aside from the favorable response 47 48 recipients had to the change, something was missing when they tried to implement it. 49 50 51 Accordingly, we propose that the distinction between positive (e.g., acceptance) and negative 52 53 (e.g., resistance) responses to change fails to capture a meaningful component of recipients’ 54 55 56 responses to change that could have a strong impact on the organization, the change, and its 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 4 of 59 4 1 2 3 recipients. 4 5 6 We offer in this paper a nuanced elaboration of recipients’ responses to change, explain 7 8 the meaningfulness of each response type, and delineate the processes through they develop. 9 10 11 Specifically, we challenge the strong tendency of much research on organizational change to 12 13 focus almost exclusively on the valence of change recipient responses – how positively or 14 15 negatively they respond to change (Choi, 2011; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011; Oreg & 16 17 18 Goldenberg, 2015; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013) – while largely ignoring the degree 19 20 of activation (i.e., passivity versus activity) involved in recipients’ responses. Further, whereas 21 22 multidimensional views of responses have been offered (e.g., Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010; 23 24 25 Smollan, 2006), they have not been systematically linked with the antecedents and outcomes of 26 27 these responses. 28 29 Our purpose is to develop a much more comprehensive understanding of the variety of 30 31 32 change recipients’ behavioral responses. Specifically, we develop a model that includes both 33 34 valence and activation dimensions of affect and behavioral intentions in response to 35 36 37 organizational change, the cognitive appraisal processes that precede them, and their likely 38 39 impacts. A better understanding of recipients’ responses to change is important not only for top- 40 41 down changes initiated from above, such as the example opening the paper, but also bottom-up 42 43 44 changes, given that both change recipients and agents may be positioned anywhere in the 45 46 organizational hierarchy (Plowman et al., 2007). 47 48 Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change 49 50 51 Recent research has begun to yield insights about organizational change from change 52 53 recipients’ perspectives (e.g., Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Oreg, Michel, & 54 55 56 By, 2013; Oreg et al., 2011), including some questioning of the usual role of resistance that is 57 58 59 60 Page 5 of 59 Academy of Management Review 5 1 2 3 more or less implicitly assigned to them (e.g., Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 4 5 6 2008; Piderit, 2000). Such attention has culminated in at least three relatively recent literature 7 8 reviews on the topic (Choi, 2011; Oreg et al., 2011; Rafferty et al., 2013). As discussed in these 9 10 11 reviews, recognition of the range of recipient responses to change has been expanded beyond 12 13 resistance per se (e.g., George & Jones, 2001; Oreg, 2006) to include cynicism (Stanley, Meyer, 14 15 & Topolnytsky, 2005), withdrawal behaviors (e.g., Martin, Jones, & Callan, 2005), readiness 16 17 18 (e.g., Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007), support (Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & 19 20 Topolnytsky, 2007), and commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), among others (see Oreg et 21 22 al., 2011 for a list of the concepts often used for describing recipients’ reactions). 23 24 25 These reviews have been very helpful in integrating multiple findings on change recipient 26 27 responses to change, and reveal that most of the terms used to describe such responses derive 28 29 from a view of recipients as resistant at worst to passive supporters at best, responding with 30 31 32 readiness or openness to others’ initiatives. Change recipients, as described through all of these 33 34 terms, are implicitly, if not explicitly, passive. Even the term resistance, which was originally 35 36 37 used by Lewin (1947) to describe the active application of a force to counter change, was later 38 39 conceptualized and operationalized as a reactive passive attitude toward change (Oreg, 2006). 40 41 Other terms that conceptually involve an active stance toward change, such as “active resistance” 42 43 44 or “championing” have been placed on a single continuum, alongside a passive stance, such as 45 46 “compliance” and “cooperation” and treated as reflecting the degree to which a change is 47 48 supported (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Thus, even research models that address multiple types 49 50 51 of responses to change, which are sometimes labeled as “multidimensional” (e.g., Herscovitch & 52 53 Meyer, 2002), typically position the multiple response types on a single valence dimension 54 55 56 ranging from a highly negative to highly positive. 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 6 of 59 6 1 2 3 That is, regardless of whether the term used is resistance, readiness, or commitment, the 4 5 6 focus has been almost exclusively on the valence of recipients’ responses. Yet as we elaborate 7 8 below, in addition to valence, individuals’ responses to change events also vary in their degree of 9 10 11 activation. In this paper we draw on the literature on circumplex models of emotion (Russell, 12 13 1980) and on applications of this literature (Bartunek et al., 2006; Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010; 14 15 Liu & Perrewé, 2005) to describe a circumplex of responses to change events, combining both 16 17 18 affective and behavioral response valence and response activation dimensions. These responses, 19 20 together with the cognitive appraisals that accompany them (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 21 22 1984; Roseman, 2001) are the components of emotional episodes (Frijda, 1993; Russell, 2003) 23 24 25 triggered by change events. 26 27 CHANGE RECIPIENTS’ RESPONSES TO CHANGE EVENTS AS EMOTIONAL 28 29 30 EPISODES 31 32 We begin our discussion of affective responses to change by defining the concept of 33 34 emotional episode. This concept is often used for linking events with individuals’ affective 35 36 37 responses to them (Elfenbein, 2007; Russell, 2003). It has been described as “the sequence of 38 39 affective processes, which integrate the emotion, cognition, and behavior that arise in response to 40 41 the triggering event or object” (Frijda, 1993: 382). More specifically, it is a situation in which a 42 43 44 single event of affective significance leads to the unfolding of a series of subevents, including 1) 45 46 a feeling component which can be either positive or negative and activated or deactivated, 2) an 47 48 appraisal component, and 3) action tendencies, all of which are integrated with each other 49 50 51 (Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013; Russell & Barrett, 1999; Weiss & Cropanzano, 52 53 1996). In the context of organizational change, such events have been termed change events 54 55 56 (such as the decision to use new software development approach in the case example we describe 57 58 59 60 Page 7 of 59 Academy of Management Review 7 1 2 3 in the paper’s opening) and refer to the particular events that occur during change (Pettigrew, 4 5 6 Woodman and Cameron, 2001: 698). Rather than focusing broadly on an overall change (e.g., 7 8 the complete implementation of a new work procedure), we use the term change event to refer to 9 10 11 the particular components, or sub-events, that comprise the overall change (e.g., the 12 13 announcement of the new work procedure, first attempt to implement it, etc.). Change events 14 15 (Huy, 2002; Matheny & Smollan, 2005; Pettigrew et al., 2001) trigger emotional episodes by 16 17 18 evoking affective processes intertwined with cognitive appraisals that affect change recipients’ 19 20 behavioral responses to the change events. 21 22 When, for example, an employee hears an announcement of a substantial structural 23 24 25 change to be implemented in her organizational unit, she may experience excitement. In this case, 26 27 the announcement is a trigger of her emotional episode which has excitement as its feeling 28 29 component. Her excitement is, however, not a standalone, pure emotion. She may feel excited 30 31 32 because she appraises the change as highly relevant to her and as likely to benefit her, the 33 34 organization, or both. Her excitement may lead her to take some action, such as meeting with her 35 36 37 direct supervisor to share some of her thoughts about how the change might be implemented 38 39 more effectively. 40 41 To capture such responses comprehensively, we flesh out in this paper emotional 42 43 44 episodes in response to change events by separately identifying the role of cognitive appraisal 45 46 and the roles of affect and behavior, which we present in a circumplex (Russell, 1980). Lazarus 47 48 (1999) suggested that although affect, cognitive appraisal, and motivation for behavior are 49 50 51 always conjoined and interdependent in nature, they can be separated for the purposes of clarity 52 53 of discussion. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 8 of 59 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 A Multidimensional View of Affective Responses to Organizational Change 7 8 Affect plays a key role in organizational behavior, characterizing and influencing the 9 10 11 responses of organization members in diverse organizational contexts and positions, such as 12 13 leaders, followers, change agents, and change recipients, on whom we focus in this paper. 14 15 Among the numerous studies of reactions to change, several have highlighted the central role of 16 17 18 affect in shaping change recipients’ overall experience and behavior (for reviews of this 19 20 literature, see Oreg et al., 2011; Rafferty et al., 2013). Huy (2002: 34), for example, suggested 21 22 that “emotions first serve as relevance detectors, focusing people's attention on change events, 23 24 25 then as motivators of action.” A well-established conceptualization of emotion suggests that core 26 27 affect, or purely affective experiences, are organized by two fundamental, independent, 28 29 dimensions: degree of pleasantness or positivity (or valence) and degree of arousal (or 30 31 32 activation) (Feldman, 1995; Kuppens, Tuerlinckx, Russell, & Barrett, 2013; Russell, 1980). The 33 34 bipolar valence dimension ranges from unpleasant to pleasant (or negative to positive). 35 36 37 Pleasantness, or positive affectivity, is an affective state characterized by feelings such as joy, 38 39 elation, content and happiness (e.g., Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). Unpleasantness, or 40 41 negative affectivity, is associated with feelings such as anger, upset or sadness. The activation 42 43 44 dimension refers to the energy associated with affect (Seo et al., 2004). It too is bipolar, ranging 45 46 from high activation to deactivation. Examples of low activation affective responses include 47 48 calm and apathetic, and examples of high activation responses include excited and angry (Seo et 49 50 51 al., 2004). 52 53 Russell and Barrett (1999: 12) argued that these two dimensions form a circumplex 54 55 56 structure of core affect, in which various types of emotions are “spread more or less evenly 57 58 59 60 Page 9 of 59 Academy of Management Review 9 1 2 3 around the perimeter of the space,” with multiple types of affective experiences fitting into each 4 5 6 quadrant. The circumplex contains four quadrants of emotion types, those that are negative and 7 8 deactivated (e.g., depressed), negative and activated (e.g., anxious), positive and deactivated (e.g., 9 10 11 satisfied), and positive and activated (e.g., excited). 12 13 In line with the predominant approach in studies of responses to change, most studies of 14 15 the emotional response to change have also focused on the valence dimension of the emotional 16 17 18 responses. A few studies, however, acknowledge both dimensions and thus provide a more 19 20 complex and realistic view of recipients’ affective experiences (Bartunek et al., 2006; Beaudry & 21 22 Pinsonneault, 2010; Liu & Perrewé, 2005). Bartunek et al. (2006), for example, distinguish 23 24 25 between the pleasantness (i.e., valence) and activation of recipients’ emotional responses. They 26 27 do not distinguish, however, between the predictors and outcomes of each. 28 29 Both Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2010) and Liu and Perrewé (2005) used two 30 31 32 dimensional systems to classify recipients’ emotional responses to innovation or change. Their 33 34 models are important not only for distinguishing between emotion dimensions but also for 35 36 37 linking emotions with the cognitive appraisal that evokes them. Neither model, however, gives 38 39 sufficient attention to activation. In both models the emotional responses considered involve 40 41 (implicitly, at least) moderate levels of activation, with little attention to the variance in the 42 43 44 degree of activation these responses include. Furthermore, in discussing the antecedents of the 45 46 emotional responses, both models lack a clear distinction between antecedents of valence and 47 48 activation. We therefore extend the affective circumplex to more fully incorporate both of these 49 50 51 dimensions and further use them as a basis for exploring the types of behaviors likely associated 52 53 with them and the cognitive appraisal components that precede them. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 10 of 59 10 1 2 3 A Circumplex Model of Recipients’ Behavioral Responses to Change Events 4 5 6 It is widely recognized that the elements of an emotional episode are congruent with each 7 8 other (Frijda, 1993; Russell, 2003; Russell & Barrett, 1999). Accordingly, the valence and 9 10 11 activation of individuals’ emotions tend to correspond with the valence and activation of their 12 13 behavioral responses. Positive emotions toward an event or object tend to be associated with 14 15 behaviors aimed at supporting the object or event, and negative emotions toward the object/event 16 17 18 tend to be associated with behaviors aimed at stymieing it. Similarly, the level of emotion 19 20 activation will tend to correspond with the level of behavioral activation. Indeed, Frijda (1986) 21 22 argued that affective experiences represent experienced states of action readiness or unreadiness, 23 24 25 and Russell (2003: 155) noted that “high arousal states are preparations for action.” Empirical 26 27 findings support this correspondence between affect and behavior or behavioral intentions. 28 29 Anger and resentment, for example, both of which are activated emotions, trigger active 30 31 32 behaviors such as voice (Edwards, Ashkanasy, & Gardner, 2009; Harvey, Martinko, & Douglas, 33 34 2009); they are also more likely to prompt active behaviors than are deactivated emotions such 35 36 37 as boredom and contentment (Lang, 1995).1 38 39 Extending research that highlights the multidimensional nature of recipients’ affective 40 41 responses to change (e.g., Bartunek et al., 2006; Liu & Perrewé, 2005) we introduce a 42 43 44 circumplex of behavioral responses to change that builds on Russell’s (1980) affective 45 46 circumplex (see Figure 1). Understanding the distinctions offered in this circumplex among the 47 48 various behavioral responses is important because the responses correspond with distinct sets of 49 50 51 implications for change recipients, for subsequent steps in the change, and for the organization. 52 53 We show four types of behavioral responses along with the affect that generates them. 54 55 56 We term these: 1) Change acceptance, 2) Change disengagement, 3) Change resistance, and 4) 57 58 59 60 Page 11 of 59 Academy of Management Review 11 1 2 3 Change proactivity. We introduce the affect and behavior in each quadrant below, along with the 4 5 6 expected implications of each for recipients, the organization, and the change. Contrary to the 7 8 valence of recipients’ emotion, which is naturally considered from the recipients’ perspective, 9 10 11 the valence of behavioral responses can be considered from the perspectives of both the recipient 12 13 and the change agent. To be consistent with how affective responses are treated, we refer here to 14 15 recipients’ perspectives and focus on their behavioral intentions. 16 17 18 ------------------------------- 19 Insert Figure 1 here 20 ------------------------------- 21 22 Change acceptance. As shown in Figure 1, change acceptance (such as occurred in the 23 24 25 case example we described in the introduction) involves the combination of positive valence and 26 27 low activation. The types of emotions that characterize this pleasant, de-activated quadrant 28 29 (Barrett & Russell, 1998) include serene, content, and relaxed. Change recipients’ behavioral 30 31 32 intentions associated with this quadrant, namely, their passive support of change, are described in 33 34 similar ways. For example, change recipients who feel content following the announcement of a 35 36 new change may be passively supportive and exhibit behaviors such as attentive listening and 37 38 39 unobtrusive compliance. Previous research has referred to this type of response using terms such 40 41 as change acceptance (e.g., Paterson & Cary, 2002; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994), support 42 43 44 willingness (e.g., Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994), readiness for change (e.g., Armenakis, Harris, 45 46 & Mossholder, 1993; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007), openness to change (e.g., 47 48 Wanberg & Banas, 2000), and intentions to support the change (e.g., Daly & Geyer, 1994). 49 50 51 Given that much of the research on recipients’ responses to change has focused on the 52 53 valence of recipients’ (implicitly passive) responses, scholars have a fairly good understanding 54 55 of the outcomes of change acceptance. Employee acceptance of organizational change has been 56 57 58 linked with positive outcomes for recipients (e.g., improved wellbeing; for a review of these 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 12 of 59 12 1 2 3 outcomes see Oreg et al., 2011), as well as a smooth implementation of change (e.g., Amiot, 4 5 6 Terry, Jimmieson, & Callan, 2006; Holt et al., 2007; Logan & Ganster, 2007). Thus, change 7 8 agents are likely to view it positively. 9 10 11 At the same time, whereas change acceptance may facilitate the exploitation of a 12 13 proposed change, it is not likely to produce constructive feedback for change agents to modify or 14 15 improve ongoing change (March, 1991). Change acceptance may therefore have a differential 16 17 18 impact on the effectiveness of the change, depending on when acceptance is exhibited. Change 19 20 acceptance will likely yield a smooth implementation of the change, but it will fail to yield 21 22 meaningful feedback for change agents during planning (see Table 1 and the opening example). 23 24 25 Thus, the positive framing of change acceptance that has been adopted in the change literature 26 27 (e.g., Paterson & Cary, 2002; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994) may obscure its potential disadvantages 28 29 for the successful application of change (see Table 1). 30 31 32 ------------------------------- 33 Insert Table 1 here 34 ------------------------------- 35 36 Change disengagement. Change disengagement involves the combination of negative 37 38 39 valence and low activation. The types of emotions that characterize this unpleasant, de-activated 40 41 quadrant (Barrett & Russell, 1998) include depressed, detached, and bored. The action 42 43 44 tendencies associated with these passive responses to change are comparable to withdrawal 45 46 behavior (e.g., Farrell, 1983; Pinder & Harlos, 2001) and responses to job dissatisfaction (e.g., 47 48 Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970). These include being absent, doing nothing, and making errors. 49 50 51 In the literature on voice such passive negativity has been referred to in the terms acquiescent 52 53 silence, as in withholding important information, and acquiescent voice, involving “a disengaged 54 55 voice based on resignation” (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). As earlier studies of reactions to 56 57 58 change have suggested, when change recipients feel fatigued or bored by change events, such as 59 60 Page 13 of 59 Academy of Management Review 13 1 2 3 a series of meetings and interventions, they may exhibit foot dragging, passivity, and feigned 4 5 6 acceptance during the change (e.g., Oreg, 2006; Pierce & Dunham, 1992; Szulanski, 1996). 7 8 In contrast to the positive outcomes of change acceptance, change disengagement has 9 10 11 been linked with negative outcomes for change recipients, including higher cynicism (e.g., 12 13 Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997), lower engagement in change efforts and overall more 14 15 negative job-related attitudes (e.g., Reichers et al., 1997; Stanley et al., 2005) and neglect 16 17 18 behaviors (e.g., tardiness, absenteeism, errors, (Farrell, 1983). Given the passive nature of 19 20 change disengagement, however, recipient negative responses are not overt, and therefore may 21 22 resemble change acceptance in their implications on the planning and implementation stages of 23 24 25 the change (see Table 1). In particular, little feedback can be expected in the planning stage of 26 27 the change, thus preserving the status quo or any given inertia (Farrell, 1983), and losing 28 29 opportunities for improving the design of the change. Implementation may not be as smooth as in 30 31 32 the case of change acceptance, given possible foot-dragging, but relative to the more active 33 34 responses to change, as we discuss below, setbacks in implementation would likely be limited. 35 36 37 Change resistance. The change resistance quadrant combines negative valence with high 38 39 activation. The types of emotions that characterize this unpleasant, activated quadrant (Barrett & 40 41 Russell, 1998) include stressed, upset and angry. The form of recipient action tendency most 42 43 44 consistent with this quadrant is resistance to change as Lewin (1947) originally conceived it, as 45 46 an active application of a force to counter change (e.g., Coch & French, 1948; Stewart, 1957). 47 48 Active opposition is comparable with active responses to dissatisfaction, such as voice or exit 49 50 51 (Farrell, 1983; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Despite the relative neglect in the literature of activated 52 53 responses, several studies have considered activated negative affective responses to change such 54 55 56 as anger (e.g., Fugate, Kinicki, & Scheck, 2002; Kiefer, 2005), stress (e.g., Amiot et al., 2006; 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 14 of 59 14 1 2 3 Bordia, Jones, Gallois, Callan, & Difonzo, 2006), as well as active aggression (e.g., Ramirez & 4 5 6 Bartunek, 1989) as forms of resistance. Individual recipients who get angry, upset, or irritated by 7 8 a change event (e.g., announcements and actions by change agents) may actively spread critical, 9 10 11 debasing information and opinions about the change (Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014; Ramirez & 12 13 Bartunek, 1989). 14 15 Activated change resistance may also be expressed in turnover (e.g., Fried, Tiegs, 16 17 18 Naughton, & Ashforth, 1996; Fugate, Harrison, & Kinicki, 2011; Schweiger & Denisi, 1991). 19 20 Such turnover may have significant negative consequences for change, as it causes additional 21 22 costs for recruiting and training new employees (e.g., Shaw, Delery, Jenkins , & Gupta, 1998), 23 24 25 and lowers organizational and team performance (especially in knowledge-oriented 26 27 organizations, Koys, 2001; Ton & Huckman, 2008). It also increases remaining employees’ work 28 29 load, lowers their work morale, and may have negative contagion effects (Bartunek, Huang, & 30 31 32 Walsh, 2008; Felps et al., 2009). 33 34 Change resistance is therefore mostly detrimental, at least in the short-term, to both the 35 36 37 organization and its members (see Table 1). It aims at disrupting the current change and can 38 39 sometimes lead to disruptions of the organization’s functioning, such as in the case of strikes 40 41 (e.g., Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992). Following the aggressive behaviors described in the Ramirez 42 43 44 and Bartunek (1989) study, for example, the change agent was no longer able to operate 45 46 effectively, and some of the important and necessary changes expected to be accomplished had 47 48 to be postponed indefinitely. 49 50 51 Yet alongside its negative implications, change resistance may also have benefits. First, 52 53 recipients who actively express their disagreement with the change may find the expression of 54 55 56 their resistance cathartic and stress-relieving, as suggested in the literature on voice (Morrison, 57 58 59 60 Page 15 of 59 Academy of Management Review 15 1 2 3 2011). By voicing their objections, recipients may have less need to withdraw from the 4 5 6 organization (e.g., Batt, Colvin, & Keefe, 2002; Coch & French, 1948; Farrell, 1983). More 7 8 importantly, recipients’ open expression of their negative stance toward the change may benefit 9 10 11 the planning stage of the change. The voiced expression of recipients' objections to a change 12 13 event may include valuable information that can be used for improving the ongoing 14 15 organizational change. 16 17 18 Further, although using different terms, Van Dyne et al., (2003) suggested that change 19 20 agents may experience less ambiguity in understanding change recipients' resistant behaviors 21 22 than in understanding their disengagement behaviors, and will thus be more likely to accurately 23 24 25 interpret recipients’ reasons for having negative views of the change. Having a better 26 27 understanding of change recipients’ objections, change agents are more likely to consider 28 29 necessary revisions or improvements of the organizational change.2 Although this is more time 30 31 32 consuming, and thus possibly detrimental in the short run, redesigning the change to address the 33 34 concerns raised in the planning stage and to incorporate recipients’ interests may improve the 35 36 37 change and will ultimately change the valence of recipients’ responses to be more positive, thus 38 39 lessening their resistance in the implementation stage of the change. 40 41 Change proactivity. The change proactivity quadrant combines positive valence with 42 43 44 high activation. The types of emotions that characterize this pleasant, activated quadrant (Barrett 45 46 & Russell, 1998) include excited, elated, and enthusiastic. The action tendencies associated with 47 48 this quadrant are intended to positively influence the change and its implementation. Similar to 49 50 51 other forms of proactive behavior, change proactivity is self- (i.e., recipient-) initiated, future 52 53 focused, and oriented toward improvement (e.g., Morrison, 2011). Change proactivity, however, 54 55 56 refers specifically to responses to organizational change events that are initiated by others. This 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 16 of 59 16 1 2 3 is similar to self-determined autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation, such as identification or 4 5 6 even integrated regulation, in which individuals’ actions are internally driven, but still have an 7 8 external perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In such proactivity, the individual 9 10 11 change recipient works in response to change agents to promote successful change in a way that 12 13 may foster interdependence and collaboration between agents and recipients. This may include 14 15 expressing their support for organizational change through actions such as speaking out in 16 17 18 defense of change and/or further developing its design and implementation. 19 20 Change proactive responses will therefore be particularly valuable in the planning stage 21 22 of the change (see Table 1). Indeed, mood-creativity research indicates that the combination of 23 24 25 positive and active emotions is the most likely to elicit creative solutions (e.g., Baas, De Dreu, & 26 27 Nijstad, 2008). Similarly, proactive behaviors have proved beneficial for implementing new 28 29 ideas in organizations (e.g., Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, & Lawrence, 2001), for reconciling 30 31 32 disagreements regarding a change approach, and for envisioning and promoting a different, 33 34 better, future for both the employee and the organization (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). 35 36 37 Accordingly, change proactivity in response to particular change events is likely to generate 38 39 outcomes that enhance and improve the design, and thus long-term outcomes, of the change, for 40 41 change recipients and for the organization as a whole. 42 43 44 This does not mean that change proactivity is always change agents’ most desired 45 46 response to a particular change event. Whereas change proactivity should result in more 47 48 thoughtful planning for and implementation of the change, capitalizing on the abilities and 49 50 51 perspectives of a larger set of individuals, it may also cause planning to take longer than agents 52 53 may have anticipated. Such responses will also require change agents to be willing to 54 55 56 accommodate changes in their ideas and design for change, which may be particularly 57 58 59 60 Page 17 of 59 Academy of Management Review 17 1 2 3 challenging. In this respect, change proactivity may be a double-edged sword, because of what 4 5 6 Campbell (2000: 57) termed the initiative paradox – “employees are expected to use independent 7 8 judgment and initiative, and simultaneously expected to think and act like their bosses.” Thus, 9 10 11 although change proactive responses may be advantageous for the organization, they require 12 13 change agents to be willing to accommodate changes in their initial ideas.3 14 15 Thus, each of the four types of responses to change has its advantages and disadvantages 16 17 18 for the change, the organization, and change recipients (Table 1). We next describe the 19 20 mechanisms through which the responses to change are formed. 21 22 THE ROLES OF COGNITIVE APPRAISAL IN THE FORMATION OF AFFECTIVE 23 24 25 AND BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO CHANGE EVENTS 26 27 Cognitive appraisal is the process through which individuals evaluate events and their 28 29 potential impact on the self (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; 30 31 32 Lazarus, 1991). As such, it contributes to the types of affect and action tendencies that emerge in 33 34 response to the events encountered (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Lazarus (1991) described a 35 36 37 sequence of two appraisals: primary appraisal through which people evaluate the event’s 38 39 relevance to the self, and secondary appraisal through which they evaluate their ability to cope 40 41 with the event. It is the combination of these appraisals that determines the affect that emerges.4 42 43 44 Although some differences exist across appraisal theories in their specifics (Frijda, 1986; 45 46 Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 2001; Scherer, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), there is general 47 48 agreement that primary appraisal involves two main, relatively independent, assessments: 1) the 49 50 51 degree to which the event is congruent with the individual’s goals (i.e., goal congruence) and 2) 52 53 the degree to which the event is relevant and significant for the individual (i.e., goal relevance). 54 55 56 Secondary appraisal focuses on the individual’s perceived ability to cope with the event (i.e., 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 18 of 59 18 1 2 3 coping potential). Coping potential (also known as control or power, Moors et al., 2013) refers to 4 5 6 the appraisal that the individual can control or modify the event experienced (Smith & Ellsworth, 7 8 1985). 9 10 11 Appraisal theory has been used in a small number of studies to explain change recipients’ 12 13 reactions to change initiatives (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010; Fugate et al., 2011; Liu & 14 15 Perrewé, 2005; Smollan, 2006). The main argument in these studies has been that the conditions 16 17 18 (e.g., change context and change process) that shape change recipients’ affective responses to 19 20 change do so by influencing their cognitive appraisals of it (e.g., Fugate, Prussia, & Kinicki, 21 22 2012). In most of these studies, however, cognitive appraisal is treated broadly, without 23 24 25 distinguishing among appraisal components and their differential effects on the emotion 26 27 dimensions. Where distinctions among components have been made (Liu & Perrewé, 2005), they 28 29 are used for predicting differences only in the valence of the emotional response to change. We 30 31 32 propose, however, that appraisal components can be used to predict the full response circumplex. 33 34 Appraisals and valence. As noted above, primary appraisal is the process through which 35 36 37 people evaluate the significance of events to the self. This involves determining the degree to 38 39 which the event is aligned with one’s personal goals (i.e., goal congruence) and is personally 40 41 relevant to the individual (i.e., goal relevance). As we elaborate below, we propose that the two 42 43 44 components have differential effects on change recipients’ responses and that it is goal 45 46 congruence which is related to the valence of recipients’ responses. 47 48 Appraisals of goal congruence in the change literature are represented by multiple terms, 49 50 51 such as “perceived benefit/harm” (Oreg et al., 2011), “change content” (Choi, 2011), or 52 53 “personal valence” (Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999). These appraisals are frequently used to 54 55 56 refer to individuals’ perceptions of personal benefit or harm. Overall, the degree to which an 57 58 59 60 Page 19 of 59 Academy of Management Review 19 1 2 3 event is congruent with the individual’s goals determines whether the event is judged as positive 4 5 6 or negative (Elfenbein, 2007). Accordingly, in his description of primary appraisals, Lazarus 7 8 (1991) linked goal congruence, which he also described as the degree of benefit or harm an 9 10 11 individual perceives in an event, with the valence of the individual’s affective response. 12 13 Perceived harm yields negative affect and perceived benefit yields positive affect. Thus, 14 15 appraisal theories of emotion suggest that high goal congruence yields positive emotions and low 16 17 18 goal congruence yields negative ones (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 19 20 2001; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). 21 22 A positive association between goal congruence and valence is consistent with Liu and 23 24 25 Perrewé’s (2005) propositions about the distinction between excitement and fear during 26 27 organizational change. Although they do not refer in their propositions to either valence or 28 29 activation, some predictions of valence can nonetheless be inferred from their predictions about 30 31 32 these two emotions. They propose that goal congruence will be positively associated with 33 34 excitement (a positive activated emotion, versus fear which is a negative activated emotion). 35 36 37 Similarly, in an empirical study of the discrete emotions of joy, anger and sadness, Nyer (1997) 38 39 found that greater goal congruence was associated with more joy (positive valence) and with less 40 41 anger and sadness (negative valence). Together, these findings suggest that goal congruence will 42 43 44 be associated with the valence of recipients’ response to the change. 45 46 Following our proposal that the behavioral response corresponds with the affective 47 48 response, we suggest that the appraisal of goal congruence (incongruence) not only relates to the 49 50 51 affective response, but also motivates a positive (negative) behavioral response to a change 52 53 event, aimed at supporting (preventing/stalling) the change. This type of pattern is suggested, for 54 55 56 example, in a study of appeals to hope as part of an effort to take steps towards climate change 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 20 of 59 20 1 2 3 prevention (Chadwick, 2015). In that study, appraisals of goal congruence predicted subjective 4 5 6 feelings of hope (positive valence), which in turn led to greater interest in climate protection as 7 8 well as perceptions that messages about climate change had been persuasive. We therefore 9 10 11 propose: 12 13 Proposition 1: Change recipients’ appraisal of personal goal congruence will be 14 15 positively related to the valence of their affect toward the change event, and, 16 17 18 correspondingly, to the valence of their behavioral response. 19 20 21 Beyond appraisals of personal benefit or harm, goal congruence may also refer to 22 23 individuals’ perceptions of the benefit or harm of an event to the organization. These involve the 24 25 26 degree to which the change event is viewed as consistent with the organization’s goals (Holt et 27 28 al., 2007). All else being equal, a change recipient who perceives that a change is consistent with 29 30 31 the goals of her organization is likely to experience positive emotions toward the change, and 32 33 engage in corresponding positive (either accepting or proactive) behaviors, relative to a recipient 34 35 who perceives the change as incongruent with organizational goals. 36 37 38 Proposition 2: Change recipients’ appraisal of organizational goal congruence 39 40 will be positively related to the valence of their affect toward the change event, 41 42 and, correspondingly, to the valence of their behavioral response. 43 44 45 46 While we propose that both personal and organizational goal congruence will be 47 48 positively related to the valence of recipients’ responses, we do not propose that the two will 49 50 necessarily coincide. In other words, there may certainly be cases in which individuals appraise a 51 52 53 change event as beneficial for the organization although personally detrimental, or vice versa. 54 55 Such incongruence will likely yield ambivalence toward the change event (Oreg & Sverdlik, 56 57 58 2011; Piderit, 2000), which constitutes the simultaneous experience of positive and negative 59 60 Page 21 of 59 Academy of Management Review 21 1 2 3 valence toward the event. Contrarily, the more congruent the two appraisals, the stronger will the 4 5 6 ultimate emotional and behavioral response to the change event. We thus argue that their effects 7 8 are additive. 9 10 11 Appraisals and activation. We argue that response activation is influenced by factors in 12 13 both the primary and secondary appraisal stages. In primary appraisal, we propose that goal 14 15 relevance – the degree to which an event has a “significant and demonstrable bearing on the 16 17 18 well-being of the individual” (Scherer, 2013: 150), or the degree to which the individual is 19 20 personally involved with the event (Nyer, 1997) – contributes to the degree of activation an 21 22 individual will experience. Whereas goal congruence has to do with the types of implications 23 24 25 (positive or negative) the event has, goal relevance is about the importance or centrality of these 26 27 implications to the individual. A minimal level of goal relevance has been described as a 28 29 prerequisite for the experience of any emotion, with increases of goal relevance associated with 30 31 32 increases in the activation of the emotion experienced (Nyer, 1997; Smith & Kirby, 2009). 33 34 Goal congruence and goal relevance are relatively independent of one another; both 35 36 37 congruent and incongruent events can be of high or low relevance. The two are said to jointly 38 39 contribute to affective responses. Goal congruence determines its valence and goal relevance 40 41 determines its activation, such that activation increases as the triggering event is more goal 42 43 44 relevant (Kreibig, Gendolla, & Scherer, 2012). 45 46 Although relationships between goal relevance and dimensions of emotion have not been 47 48 explicitly tested, a few studies support a relationship between goal relevance and emotion 49 50 51 activation. In one study goal relevance assessed through managers’ appraisals of a task’s 52 53 importance was related to the activation of both negative and positive emotions experienced 54 55 56 during the task (Fisher, Minbashian, Beckmann, & Wood, 2013). In another study, goal 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 22 of 59 22 1 2 3 relevance was related to individuals’ level of emotional arousal, as manifested in participants’ 4 5 6 heart rate acceleration (Aue, Flykt, & Scherer, 2007). Similarly, focusing on high activation 7 8 emotions, Nyer (1997) found a positive relationship between the intensity of both negative and 9 10 11 positive emotions and goal relevance. Accordingly, we propose: 12 13 Proposition 3: Change recipients’ appraisal of goal relevance will be positively related to 14 15 the activation of their affect toward a change event and, correspondingly, to the 16 17 18 activation of their behavioral response. 19 20 21 In secondary appraisal we propose that perceived coping potential, which reflects 22 23 controllability (Folkman, 1984) and modifiability (Frijda, Kuipers, & Ter Schure, 1989), also 24 25 26 influences the level of emotion activation. When encountering an event, once the event’s 27 28 personal relevance and degree of congruence with one’s goals have been determined, the 29 30 31 individual assesses the degree to which he or she can cope with the event and control its 32 33 outcomes. This appraised coping potential influences the level of activation in one’s emotional 34 35 response to the event (Frijda et al., 1989). High activation emotions, including enthusiasm and 36 37 38 exuberance (positive), as well as anger and annoyance (negative), have all been traced back to 39 40 high levels of controllability or modifiability, whereas low activation emotions, such as sadness 41 42 or helplessness, have been traced back to low levels of controllability (Frijda et al., 1989). 43 44 45 As another example, in a study of the concept of interest, conceptualized as an activated 46 47 emotion, participants’ appraisals of their ability to cope with complex material was positively 48 49 associated with their interest in the material (e.g., complex poems; Silvia, 2005). In an 50 51 52 experience sampling study, individuals’ appraisals of their control over, and ability to cope with, 53 54 events were associated with the activation of the emotions they experienced during these events 55 56 57 (Kuppens et al., 2012). These findings also correspond with affect control theory, which 58 59 60 Page 23 of 59 Academy of Management Review 23 1 2 3 distinguishes between emotions that involve varying degrees of perceived control, such as anger 4 5 6 (high activation) and sadness (low activation) (e.g., Heise, 1979; Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 7 8 1999). We therefore propose that: 9 10 11 Proposition 4: Change recipients’ appraisal of their coping potential will be 12 13 positively related to the activation of their affect toward a change event, and, 14 15 correspondingly, to the activation of their behavioral response. 16 17 18 19 Both Propositions 3 and 4 involve the activation of recipients’ responses to change; one 20 21 highlights primary appraisal (goal relevance) and the other highlights secondary appraisal 22 23 (coping potential). We do not propose, however, that goal relevance and coping potential will 24 25 26 necessarily coincide in the direction of their effect. There could very well be situations in which 27 28 a change is appraised as relevant (thus yielding high response activation), yet coping potential is 29 30 31 low (thus yielding low response activation), or vice versa (although in this opposite case, at least 32 33 a minimum level of relevance would be necessary for any emotion to emerge, as discussed 34 35 above, cf. Smith & Kirby, 2009). We do propose that their cumulative impact is additive. We 36 37 38 further address this point in the Discussion. 39 40 This discussion leads us back to the four quadrants of the behavioral responses to change 41 42 events (Figure 1). Based on Propositions 1-4, change acceptance is likely to occur when there is 43 44 45 high goal congruence, relatively low goal relevance and relatively low perceived coping 46 47 potential; change disengagement will likely occur when goal congruence, goal relevance, and 48 49 perceived coping potential are low; change resistance will likely occur when goal congruence is 50 51 52 low but goal relevance and coping potential tend to be high; finally, change proactivity will 53 54 likely emerge when all cognitive appraisal components – goal congruence, goal relevance and 55 56 57 coping potential – are high. Thus, if an employee appraises a change event as congruent with her 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 24 of 59 24 1 2 3 personal interests or with her vision for the organization, such as better serving its community 4 5 6 (versus, for example, greater profit, cf. Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999), her responses will likely 7 8 be supportive. It is the perceived relevance of the change event and the employee’s perceived 9 10 11 coping potential that determine whether her supportiveness will be in the form of change 12 13 acceptance or change proactivity. Given their role in the formation of the affective and 14 15 behavioral response to change, we next propose that appraisals can be used to explain the effects 16 17 18 of the change context and change process on change recipients’ responses. 19 20 The Roles of Appraisals in Explaining Effects of External Factors on Change Responses 21 22 We have described the core of our model above: change recipients’ emotional episodes in 23 24 25 response to change events include corresponding appraisals, affect, and behavioral responses. 26 27 We propose that this core helps explain many of the relationships that have been previously 28 29 established between attributes of organizational change and recipients’ responses. Based on 30 31 32 extensive reviews of change studies, we focus here on aspects of the change processes (Oreg et 33 34 al., 2011) through which particular change events come about, and of the change contexts (Choi 35 36 37 et al., 2011; Oreg et al., 2011), involving the attributes of the environments in which change 38 39 events occur. We propose that many of the factors that have been shown to predict responses to 40 41 change have their effect through one or more of the appraisal components. We discuss here how 42 43 44 change process and change context influence response valence, response activation, or both by 45 46 means of their impacts on appraisal. 47 48 To specify the types of process and context factors that are relevant for predicting each 49 50 51 appraisal component, we return to the appraisal components’ definitions and set criteria to be 52 53 met by the predictors. These criteria are the key attributes that variables are to include if they are 54 55 56 to predict a given appraisal component. We follow with examples of predictors that meet these 57 58 59 60 Page 25 of 59 Academy of Management Review 25 1 2 3 criteria. 4 5 6 Predictors of goal congruence. As noted above, goal congruence represents the degree 7 8 to which an event is appraised as being aligned with one’s own interests. In the context of an 9 10 11 organizational change event, goal congruence depends on the degree to which the change is 12 13 perceived by the change recipient as aligned with her or his interests. Accordingly, the more 14 15 change agents are aware of, and care about, recipients’ interests, the more likely they will 16 17 18 construct change events to be congruent with recipients’ goals. A key criterion for predictors of 19 20 goal congruence would therefore be that they pertain to recipients’ perceptions of the degree to 21 22 which their interests are accounted for by the change agent. 23 24 25 For example, one predictor which constitutes part of the change context (Oreg et al., 26 27 2011) and that should directly influence recipients’ perceptions that their interests are accounted 28 29 for is organizational trust. Recipient trust has been shown to be a strong and consistent predictor 30 31 32 of the valence of recipients’ responses to change (see Oreg et al., 2011). Indeed, a key definition 33 34 of trust is the possession of positive expectations regarding another's conduct (Lewicki, 35 36 37 McAllister, & Bies, 1998: 439), based on individuals’ expectations that their interests will be 38 39 protected and promoted (Real, 1962). In any change event, recipients’ expectations that their 40 41 interests will be protected by the change agent should thus be directly related to their appraisals 42 43 44 of the goal congruence of the change event. As our core model suggests, this effect of trust on 45 46 goal congruence, in turn, affects the valence of recipients’ responses. Thus, goal congruence 47 48 constitutes a psychological mechanism that underlies the well-established relationship between 49 50 51 trust and the valence of recipients’ response to change events. 52 53 Another prominent aspect of the change process that influences recipients’ perceptions 54 55 56 that their interests are accounted for is recipient participation in change. In many studies, 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 26 of 59 26 1 2 3 participation in the change is positively associated with the valence of recipients’ reactions to it 4 5 6 (for a review see Oreg et al., 2011). Participation has been defined as the degree of “perceived 7 8 influence a given individual may exert within a particular decision domain” (Nurick, 1982: 418); 9 10 11 it provides “individuals an opportunity to influence the goal that is ultimately established” (Lind, 12 13 Kanfer, & Earley, 1990: 953). As such, one means through which participation yields positively 14 15 valenced responses to change events is by allowing recipients to directly ensure that their 16 17 18 interests are accounted for. In other words, one route through which participation influences the 19 20 valence of recipients’ responses to change is through its influence on goal congruence. We 21 22 therefore propose: 23 24 25 Proposition 5A: Factors that increase change recipients’ perceptions that their interests 26 27 are accounted for (e.g., trust, participation) will increase appraisals of goal congruence. 28 29 30 31 Proposition 5B: Goal congruence will mediate the relationship between factors that 32 33 increase perceptions of accounted interests and the valence of change recipients’ 34 35 responses. 36 37 38 39 Predictors of goal relevance. As noted above, goal relevance is the degree to which the 40 41 implications of an event are meaningful and important to the individual (Lazarus, 1991; Moors et 42 43 al., 2013). Others have termed this as “personal involvement” (Nyer, 1997). Higher goal 44 45 46 relevance of a change event to a change recipient therefore means that the recipient is more 47 48 personally involved with the event. 49 50 A meaningful way to understand goal relevance is through the concept of psychological 51 52 53 distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Given that psychological distance is egocentric, whereby 54 55 the reference point for determining distance is the “self in the here and now” (p. 440), smaller 56 57 58 psychological distances reflect closer proximity to the self, or in other words, higher goal 59 60 Page 27 of 59 Academy of Management Review 27 1 2 3 relevance. Thus, any factors that decrease recipients’ psychological distance from the 4 5 6 organizational change should increase the change’s goal relevance. 7 8 The construal-level theory of psychological distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010) and the 9 10 11 empirical research supporting it outline factors that predict the psychological distance of an 12 13 object (e.g., an organizational change). These include the object’s hypotheticality (i.e., how 14 15 hypothetical versus concrete the object is), and its temporal, physical, and social distance from 16 17 18 the individual. Changes that are concrete, are set to take place next week, within the recipient’s 19 20 department, and that involve the recipient or his/her friends should likely yield higher appraisals 21 22 of goal relevance (and ultimately higher response activation) than should a hypothetical change 23 24 25 that may take place in two years, in another department, and involves employees with whom the 26 27 recipient is not personally familiar. 28 29 Some variables that have been previously linked with responses to change can be 30 31 32 classified into the social distance category. For example, organizational identification has to do 33 34 with the social distance between an individual and the organization (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) 35 36 37 and is a predictor of recipients’ responses to change (e.g., Oreg et al., 2011; Seppälä, Lipponen, 38 39 Bardi, & Pirttilä‐Backman, 2012; van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006). Organizational 40 41 identification is defined as a “perceived oneness with an organization” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992: 42 43 44 110) – the greater one’s identification with the organization, the smaller the psychological 45 46 distance between the individual and the organization. Accordingly, the greater one’s 47 48 organizational identification, the higher will be the appraisal of the change event’s goal 49 50 51 relevance. 52 53 As another example, through its influence on recipients’ identification with the 54 55 56 organization and involvement with their jobs, charismatic and transformational leadership can 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 28 of 59 28 1 2 3 serve to reduce the psychological distance between change recipients and the organization (e.g., 4 5 6 Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). For example, charismatic 7 8 leadership can increase social identification with the organization (i.e., decrease the distance 9 10 11 between the employee and the organization) by raising the salience of the organization’s 12 13 collective identity in employees’ self-concepts (Shamir et al., 1998). This is achieved through an 14 15 emphasis on ideology and shared values (Shamir et al., 1998) and by priming organizational 16 17 18 members’ collective selves (Kark & Shamir, 2002). Accordingly, transformational leadership has 19 20 been empirically linked with followers’ identification with their organization (Epitropaki & 21 22 Martin, 2005). 23 24 25 Although both identification (e.g., Ullrich, Wieseke, & Dick, 2005) and leadership styles 26 27 (e.g., Oreg & Berson, 2011; van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008) have been linked with recipients’ 28 29 responses to change, the studies that established these links did not distinguish between the 30 31 32 valence and activation of recipients’ responses. We propose that such factors influence responses 33 34 to change through their impacts on change recipients’ goal relevance. This is done by decreasing 35 36 37 the psychological distance between the recipient and the change, which will, in turn, influence 38 39 the activation of recipients’ responses. 40 41 Proposition 6A: Factors that decrease the psychological distance between the change 42 43 44 recipient and the organization (e.g., organizational identification, transformational 45 46 leadership) will increase recipients’ appraisals of goal relevance. 47 48 49 Proposition 6B: Goal relevance will mediate the relationship between distance 50 51 52 decreasing factors and the activation of change recipients’ responses. 53 54 55 Predictors of coping potential. As noted, coping potential refers to individuals’ 56 57 58 perceived ability to cope with an event (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Smith & Kirby, 2009), 59 60 Page 29 of 59 Academy of Management Review 29 1 2 3 particularly in our model, a change event. This appraisal component has been studied extensively 4 5 6 in the occupational stress literature (Vagg & Spielberger, 1998), in which coping is described as 7 8 an interaction between the person’s internal resources and external environmental demands, and 9 10 11 coping appraisal reflects the individuals’ perception or evaluation of how well they can deal with 12 13 the situation at hand (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping resources are the resources that people 14 15 draw upon in order to deal with a given situation. They have been shown to predict individuals’ 16 17 18 (secondary) appraisal of the situation and their ability to effectively cope with it (e.g., Callan, 19 20 Terry, & Schweitzer, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996). 21 22 Two of the most consistent and significant resources linked with individuals’ perceived 23 24 25 coping potential are social support and perceptions of control (e.g., Skinner, 1995; Viswesvaran, 26 27 Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Both incorporate an active coping approach, which is oriented toward 28 29 problem-solving, versus a more passive approach which focuses on the emotions that accompany 30 31 32 stress (Ashford, 1988; Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). More 33 34 specifically, social support may facilitate change recipients’ coping potential as it increases 35 36 37 recipients’ self-esteem through their sense of being supported (La Rocco & Jones, 1978) and also 38 39 their change-related self-efficacy through social persuasion and/or vicarious learning (e.g., 40 41 Bandura, 1982). Similarly, perceived control increases coping potential by enhancing individuals’ 42 43 44 internal locus of control (Folkman, 1984). Change recipients are thus more likely to focus on 45 46 what they can do during the change process, instead of blaming others or complaining about 47 48 what they cannot do (Callan et al., 1994). 49 50 51 Change process and context factors that pertain to the social support and perceived 52 53 control recipients experience are likely to increase change recipients’ perceived coping potential. 54 55 56 For example, a supportive environment during the change likely enhances change recipients’ 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 30 of 59 30 1 2 3 change-related self-efficacy. In one study, change recipients’ supportive social network helped 4 5 6 their adaptation following an Information-Technology-induced change by increasing their self- 7 8 efficacy (Bruque, Moyano, & Eisenberg, 2008). In another study, social support during an 9 10 11 organizational change (in the form of supervisor support and open communication) increased 12 13 change recipients’ perceived control, and decreased their stress (Shaw, Fields, Thacker, & Fisher, 14 15 1993). 16 17 18 Further, beyond its impact on goal congruence (see above), participation in the change 19 20 process also increases perceived control and in turn enhances change recipients’ coping potential. 21 22 Several explanations of the benefits of participation in workplaces focus on its positive impact on 23 24 25 employees’ general needs for control (Argyris, 1957; Spector, 1986). In change contexts in 26 27 particular, Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, and Callan (2004) showed that participation in 28 29 decision making during the change lowers perceived uncertainty and thus increases perceived 30 31 32 control. Participation thus influences not only the valence of recipient responses (through its 33 34 effect on goal congruence), but also the activation of their response (through its effect on 35 36 37 recipients’ perceived coping potential). Overall, we propose: 38 39 Proposition 7A: Factors that increase perceived control and support (e.g., supportive 40 41 environment, participation) during a change event will increase change recipients’ 42 43 44 appraisals of their coping potential. 45 46 47 Proposition 7B: Coping potential will mediate the relationship between factors that 48 49 increase perceived control and support and the activation of change recipients’ 50 51 52 responses. 53 54 DISCUSSION 55 56 57 Our goal in this paper has been to bring forward a much broader spectrum of recipient 58 59 60 Page 31 of 59 Academy of Management Review 31 1 2 3 responses to change than has been offered before and to describe the underlying mechanisms that 4 5 6 explain these responses. To this end we have presented a comprehensive model of the core 7 8 mechanisms through which recipient responses to change events occur as emotional episodes, 9 10 11 including appraisal, affect and behavior as an integrated whole. We have showed how recipients’ 12 13 experiences of change events as emotional episodes can be represented in four quadrants that 14 15 reflect an affective and behavioral circumplex. We summarize in Figure 2 our theoretical model 16 17 18 of responses to change events and their predictors. Below we delineate some of our conceptual 19 20 contributions, limitations, and suggested next steps in research. 21 22 ------------------------------- 23 24 Insert Figure 2 here 25 ------------------------------- 26 27 Theoretical Contributions 28 29 First, we highlighted a crucial component of organizational change: the emotional 30 31 32 episodes through which recipients respond to change events. Our conceptualization of such 33 34 emotional episodes as composed of cognitive appraisals and valence and activation dimensions 35 36 of affect and behavioral intentions, and our discussion of their antecedents and outcomes, gives a 37 38 39 much fuller picture than has been previously developed of responses to organizational change. 40 41 Specifically, we delineate the complex form that recipients’ responses can take, the conditions 42 43 44 that bring them about, and multiple ways through which they might affect directions of change. 45 46 Second, we have attempted to better portray prior understandings of recipients’ responses 47 48 to change by identifying the role of activation. A considerable amount of research on 49 50 51 organizational change, especially that which either ignores the role of activation or confounds it 52 53 with valence (e.g., Choi, 2011; Oreg et al., 2013; Rafferty et al., 2013) is inadequate. The same 54 55 can be said of items constructed to measure responses to change which confound valence and 56 57 58 activation (e.g., Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Fugate et al., 2002; Herscovitch & Meyer, 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 32 of 59 32 1 2 3 2002; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Oreg, 2006). We have provided a conceptual 4 5 6 basis for more adequate measures of responses to change. 7 8 Third, much prior research is based on the assumption that acceptance of change is, by 9 10 11 definition, good, whereas resistance is bad (e.g., Battilana & Casciaro, 2013; Hon et al., 2014). 12 13 However, by means of our circumplex we have shown how this distinction is simplistic and 14 15 incorrect. By distinguishing the activation of change from its valence, we explain how passive 16 17 18 responses, even if positive, may retard change, whereas active responses, even if negative, may 19 20 sometimes facilitate it in the long run by clarifying problems with the change. As an example, 21 22 the acceptance of change in the case example at the beginning of this paper meant that some 23 24 25 serious issues regarding the new software development approach were not surfaced. Proactive 26 27 responses on the part of team members would likely have required more attention to the new 28 29 approach early on. They would have likely slowed down the change, but would have prompted 30 31 32 long-term benefits in implementing it. Our model makes evident the need for a more complete 33 34 consideration of the meanings of particular combinations of valence and activation in responses 35 36 37 to change. 38 39 Fourth, we defined key criteria for factors that should influence the three appraisal 40 41 components responsible for the valence and activation of recipients’ responses. Existing studies 42 43 44 which focus almost entirely on the factors that influence the valence of recipients’ responses, 45 46 such as their personal concerns (e.g., Liu & Perrrewé, 2005) are not adequate for predicting 47 48 responses to change events and as such are not sufficient for effectively implementing 49 50 51 organizational change. For example, even when recipients’ concerns are well-addressed, if the 52 53 change process fails to reduce the psychological distance between recipients and the change or to 54 55 56 increase recipients’ perceived control and support during the change, recipients’ responses are 57 58 59 60 Page 33 of 59 Academy of Management Review 33 1 2 3 likely to remain passive. By adopting a full range of cognitive appraisal components that include 4 5 6 not only goal congruence, but also goal relevance and coping potential, we provide a more 7 8 comprehensive framework in the organizational change literature (e.g., Fiss & Zajac, 2006; 9 10 11 Kotter, 1996). 12 13 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 14 15 We recognize that the work we have done has limitations. First, whereas many of our 16 17 18 arguments have some grounding in empirical research, these should be followed by empirical 19 20 studies of the complete set of propositions we have included here. Testing the mediated links we 21 22 have proposed will provide a more integrative view of change contexts, change agent processes, 23 24 25 their effects on recipients’ responses and on possible impacts of these responses. Future 26 27 empirical research should also explore the four distinct response categories we highlighted, and 28 29 how differentiated these are. 30 31 32 Second, because we focus mostly on change recipients’ responses, our model does not 33 34 fully capture how change agents respond to recipient behaviors. For example, consistent with our 35 36 argument that change agents’ interpretations of recipients’ actions may not necessarily 37 38 39 correspond with recipients’ intentions, there may be times when change proactivity takes a form 40 41 that change agents label as resistance, especially when the change recipients’ proactive behavior 42 43 44 is not in accordance with change agents’ intentions, regardless of how (truly or intendedly) 45 46 helpful to the change this behavior is (Courpasson, Dany, & Clegg, 2012). How change agents 47 48 respond to change recipients’ responses to change is important because these responses influence 49 50 51 recipients’ subsequent responses to change, creating a feedback loop between change agents and 52 53 recipients. Our work suggests the value of exploring change leaders’ responses to the responses 54 55 of change recipients. This type of interaction has yet to be adequately addressed in studies of 56 57 58 change. 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 34 of 59 34 1 2 3 Third, we have operated on an implicit assumption that organizational change is initiated 4 5 6 from those who are higher in the organizational hierarchy, as in the example with which we 7 8 opened this paper. This, of course, corresponds with the predominant assumption in most 9 10 11 theories of change, in which little or no consideration is given to those occasions in which 12 13 change is initiated from below (cf., Livne-Tarandach & Bartunek, 2009; Plowman et al., 2007). 14 15 In those cases, organization members serve as the change agents, and leaders serve as the 16 17 18 recipients. Although we expect that our general theoretical model will hold regardless of the 19 20 source of change events, there may be components in it that nevertheless differ (e.g. the 21 22 likelihood that goals will be experienced as congruent and relevant, differing appraisals of those 23 24 25 in different parts of the hierarchy). These other possibilities should be explored in further 26 27 research. 28 29 Further, we recognize the need for further exploration of emotional responses to change. 30 31 32 A disadvantage of circumplex models of emotion is that they fail to sufficiently differentiate 33 34 among emotions within a given quadrant. In particular, different types of emotions within a 35 36 37 given quadrant may lead to different behaviors. Both anger and anxiety, for example, are 38 39 activated emotions with negative valence, yet their behavioral responses may vary substantially 40 41 (e.g., Lazarus & Cohen-Charash, 2001). It will be important in future research to explore in more 42 43 44 detail how differences among particular emotions within a given quadrant play out with respect 45 46 to types of behavioral responses (and possible impacts). Moreover, it will also be necessary to 47 48 explore shared emotions that change recipients may collectively experience (e.g., Barsade, 2002; 49 50 51 Elfenbein, 2007, 2014; Huy, Corley, & Kraatz, 2014). Because shared emotions often contain the 52 53 same core cognitive and behavioral components as individual emotions (Barsade, 2002), we can 54 55 56 expect a corresponding response circumplex of recipients’ shared emotions. Future research may 57 58 59 60 Page 35 of 59 Academy of Management Review 35 1 2 3 also explore collective processes that take place at the group or organizational level, such as 4 5 6 emotional contagion, emotional norms, and cooperative behaviors (e.g., Barsade, 2002; Kelly & 7 8 Barsade, 2001; Martin et al., 1998). 9 10 11 Finally, we proposed that the impact of personal congruence and organizational 12 13 congruence on valence will be additive, and similarly proposed that the impact of goal relevance 14 15 and coping potential on activation will be additive. Yet it is certainly possible that the different 16 17 18 components have different weights in their effects. For example, for some people, personal goal 19 20 congruence may override the effects of organizational congruence. With respect to goal 21 22 relevance and coping potential, a distinction can be made based on the stage at which each 23 24 25 occurs: appraisals of goal relevance occur first, as part of the primary appraisal process, and 26 27 appraisals of coping potential follow, as part of the secondary appraisal process (e.g., Lazarus, 28 29 1991). Appraisals of coping potential are thus more proximal to the emotional response relative 30 31 32 to the more distal relevance appraisals, and may thus have a more prominent effect. These 33 34 possibilities should be considered and empirically tested in future research. 35 36 37 Implications for Practice 38 39 Our work has a number of implications for the practice of organizational change. First, it 40 41 has implications for change agents, who may unduly downplay recipients’ responses to their 42 43 44 initiatives. We highlight the importance of paying considerable attention to recipients’ appraisals 45 46 of particular change events, their feeling about them, and resulting behavioral responses to them. 47 48 In particular, change agents should appreciate the potential long-term benefits that may result 49 50 51 from recipients’ activated responses and should accordingly view the possible short-term delays 52 53 in a more positive light. 54 55 56 Second, our work has implications for managing change, and especially transitions 57 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 36 of 59 36 1 2 3 between stages of change. In addition to Kotter’s (1996) work referenced above, there are a 4 5 6 number of contemporary planned change interventions such as appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider 7 8 & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987), future search (Weisbord & Janoff, 1995), and 9 10 11 world café (Brown & Isaacs, 2005) that include multiple phases to be implemented in order. 12 13 Their descriptions focus on the actions change agents should undertake at each stage. Yet our 14 15 work shows that how participants respond affectively and behaviorally at each phase has 16 17 18 significant impacts on change processes and outcomes, whether change agents are aware of this 19 20 or not. Thus, change agents need to give greater consideration to the variety of possible recipient 21 22 responses. In this paper we have proposed a new, affect-based, perspective of how responses to 23 24 25 organizational change events are formed. We have challenged the predominant view of 26 27 recipients as passive reactors, drawn attention to the two affective and behavioral response 28 29 dimensions of valence and activation, their impacts, the appraisals that foster them and the key 30 31 32 factors that determine recipients’ appraisals. By doing so our paper opens up new avenues for 33 34 research and practice that may incorporate more adequate appreciation of the full set of dynamics 35 36 37 associated with change. 38 39 CONCLUSION 40 41 Responses to organizational change comprise a much broader range of cognitions, 42 43 44 emotions, and behaviors than are typically considered. In particular, affective and behavioral 45 46 responses are characterized not only by their valence, but also their degree of activation. Change 47 48 takes place in change episodes over time, not all at once. Considering responses this way has the 49 50 51 potential for opening up a very different perspective on how change develops, how it is 52 53 experienced by its recipients at different times, and how these experiences play a central role – 54 55 56 one well beyond “resistance” in the overall unfolding of the change. 57 58 59 60 Page 37 of 59 Academy of Management Review 37 1 2 3 ENDNOTES 4 5 6 1. Certainly, emotion and behavior do not always correspond with each other and some research 7 8 addresses the conditions that moderate the emotion-behavior relationship (e.g., Jordan, 9 10 11 Ashkanasy, & Hartel, 2002; Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998). Nevertheless, because they 12 13 tend to be congruent and often reinforce each other, we focus here on those cases in which the 14 15 two are generally aligned (e.g., Frijda, 1987). 16 17 18 2. Of course, whether or not voicing these concerns will result in effective organizational 19 20 21 learning and improvements of the change will depend on how change agents respond to 22 23 recipients’ initiatives (Ton & Huckman, 2008). Some research has shown that when concerns are 24 25 voiced in a challenging (versus supportive) manner, as would likely be the case among active 26 27 28 resistors, managers are less likely to endorse the concerns raised and more likely to negatively 29 30 evaluate those voicing the concerns (Burris, 2012). 31 32 33 3. The proactivity literature has argued that supervisors sometimes see proactive behaviors as 34 35 threats (Frese & Fay, 2001; Miceli & Near, 1994) or an ill-timed distraction (Chan, 2006) rather 36 37 38 than potentially constructive behaviors. To benefit from change proactive responses, agents need 39 40 to be open to reconsider the process and outcomes of the change they had envisioned. When 41 42 implementing change under a tight schedule and stressful conditions, change agents may 43 44 45 sometimes be unwilling or unable to accommodate the short-term disruptions that results from 46 47 change proactivity, thus sacrificing its long-term benefits. 48 49 50 4. The order in which cognitive appraisals and emotions influence one another has been debated 51 52 (e.g., Lazarus, 1982; Zajonc, 1984). There is general agreement (e.g., Lazarus, 1999), however, 53 54 55 that the influence is reciprocal, cyclical, and dynamic. For means of presentation, we discuss 56 57 cognitive appraisals as antecedents of affect. 58 59 60 Academy of Management Review Page 38 of 59 38 1 2 3 REFERENCES 4 5 6 Amiot, C., Terry, D., Jimmieson, N., & Callan, V. 2006. A longitudinal investigation of coping 7 8 processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational 9 10 11 identification. Journal of Management, 32(4): 552-574. 12 13 Argyris, C. 1957. Personality and organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 14 15 Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. 2007. Organizational change 16 17 18 recipients' beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. Journal of Applied 19 20 Behavioral Science, 43(4): 495-505. 21 22 Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. 1999. Making change permanent: A model for 23 24 25 institutionalizing change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12: 26 27 97-128. 28 29 Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. Creating readiness for 30 31 32 organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703. 33 34 Ashford, S. J. 1988. Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. 35 36 37 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1): 19-36. 38 39 Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. 2009. Leader–member exchange, feelings o

An Affect-Based Model of Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change Events PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue