employee adjustment during organisational change: the … · the role of climate, organisational...
TRANSCRIPT
EMPLOYEE ADJUSTMENT DURING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE:
THE ROLE OF CLIMATE, ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL AND OCCUPATION.
Submitted as a Dissertation for the award of Doctor of Philosophy by:
Angela Jayne Martin, B.A., B.Com. (Hons)
School of Applied Psychology
Griffith University
Supervisors: Dr Liz Jones and Professor Victor Callan
December, 2001
ABSTRACT
The present studies were designed to advance theoretical understanding of
employee adjustment during organisational change. There were two broad aims of the
thesis. Firstly, the role of organisational climate factors in facilitating employee
adjustment during change was examined by testing models based on Lazarus and
Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological account of stress and coping processes.
In particular, the concept of coping resources was expanded to examine organisational
factors rather than individual attributes. Secondly, the extent to which organisational
sub-groups differ in their perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment indicators
during change was investigated. The research also aimed to inform diagnostic processes
within organisational change management by examining the applied value of the
empirical findings of each of the studies.
The first two studies were empirical tests of a theoretical model of employee
adjustment. Study 1 tested a model of employee adjustment to organisational change that
examined employee well-being and job satisfaction as outcomes of positive adjustment
during change. Firstly, pilot interviews with 67 hospital employees enabled salient
aspects of the organisational climate that may facilitate adjustment during organisational
change to be confirmed. Next, 779 employees in the same organisation completed a
structured questionnaire that examined their perceptions of organisational coping
resources, appraisals of change and adjustment indicators. Confirmatory factor analyses
established the sound measurement properties of the proposed model and structural
equation analyses provided evidence that supported the majority of theoretical
ii
predictions. Overall, the final model showed that employees who had positive
perceptions about employee relations within the hospital, strong beliefs about the quality
of patient care, and felt supported by their supervisors were more positive in their
appraisals of the change and reported better personal adjustment. The effects of climate
variables on adjustment were direct and indirect (mediated by change appraisals). A
particularly influential variable in the model was the effectiveness of employee relations
within the organisation.
Study 2 tested a model of employee adjustment to organisational change which
examined organisational commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism as outcomes
of positive adjustment during change. Firstly, as in Study 1, pilot interviews with 20 state
public sector employees enabled salient elements of the organisational climate that may
function as resources for coping with organisational change to be confirmed. Next, 877
employees in the same organisation completed a structured questionnaire that examined
their perceptions of organisational coping resources, appraisals of change and adjustment
indicators. Like Study 1, confirmatory factor analyses established the sound
measurement properties of the proposed model and structural equation analyses provided
evidence which supported most of the theoretical predictions. Overall, the final model
showed that employees who had positive perceptions about customer service, believed
that their leaders communicated a vision for the organisation, and felt supported by their
supervisors were more positive in their appraisals of the change and reported better
personal adjustment. The effects of climate variables on adjustment were direct and
indirect (mediated by change appraisals). The extent to which leaders exhibited a vision
for the organisation emerged as an important predictor in the model. Together, the results
iii
of studies 1 and 2 provided evidence that organisational climate variables are important
predictors of the way employees appraise and respond to organisation change.
The next two studies presented were focused on group differences in the model
variables from studies 1 and 2. Study 3 investigated group differences in perceptions of
climate and levels of adjustment during organisational change as a function of an
employee’s organisational level. The pilot interviews revealed that an employee’s
organisational level was the most salient source of sub-group identification in the climate
of a public sector department. Survey data from study 2 were analysed using
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). The responses of 669 public sector
employees were grouped into 3 categories: lower, middle and upper level employees.
Results revealed that upper level staff reported higher levels of adjustment during change,
across a range of indicators.
Study 4 investigated occupational group and organisational level differences in
perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment during organisational change. The pilot
interviews in this organisation revealed that it was an employee’s occupational group
membership that provided the most salient group delineator in the hospital climate.
Survey data from Study 1 were analysed using MANOVA. The responses of 732
hospital employees were grouped into 4 major occupational categories: medical, nursing,
allied health and non-clinical staff. Participants were also grouped on the basis of
whether they occupied a management or non-management position. Results revealed
statistically significant differences between groups and an interaction between occupation
and level. Non-clinical staff were less well adjusted during change than other
occupational groups. Managers appraised change as more stressful than non-managers,
iv
but felt more in control of the situation. Together, the results of Studies 3 and 4
highlighted the importance of examining employee perceptions at the sub-group level
when implementing change and indicated the need for interventions to be targeted at the
sub-group level.
Overall, the research reported in this dissertation extended a theoretical model of
employee adjustment to change and improved the application of the model. This
outcome was achieved by investigating the role of environmental coping resources drawn
from the organisational climate in improving employee adjustment during change and the
degree to which groups differed in their perceptions of these variables. Climate and
change appraisal factors were linked with a range of important individual/organisational
outcomes such as employee well-being, job satisfaction, organisational commitment,
turnover intentions and absenteeism. Differences in perceptions of climate and levels of
adjustment during change were also observed at the organisational sub-group level. The
findings of the research have implications for the effective management of organisational
change. Change should be implemented in conjunction with ongoing organisational
development processes involving diagnostic research that identifies the elements of
climate that employees draw upon for support in the process of adjustment. Interventions
should be based on improving and strengthening these resources. Diagnostic processes
should also pay attention to the salient groupings of staff within an organisation so that
interventions can be targeted specifically to relevant sub-groups.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The one person who was instrumental in the entire journey of this thesis is Dr Liz
Jones, my principal supervisor and someone I consider a great mentor. I want to
acknowledge many things about Liz. Firstly, I am grateful for her initial encouragement
to undertake this research. I feel that my training as a researcher has been influenced in
such a positive way by her academic guidance, skills and way of approaching problems.
Amazingly, Liz was consistently available, caring and understanding. Finally, the way
she supported me on a personal level was also very important.
Contributions from my associate supervisor, Prof. Victor Callan, were appreciated.
Under his supervision, my research gained an initial empirical grounding. His assistance
needs to be acknowledged in relation to editing, provision of constructive criticism and
theoretical input.
Financial support from the School of Management and the School of Applied
Psychology in the form of Griffith University Postgraduate Research Awards is
acknowledged. I would also like to thank Stephen Cox for teaching me the basics of
structural equation analyses and answering my endless questions about statistics.
The research reported in this dissertation was supported by an Australian Research
Council Strategic Partners in Industry, Research and Training (SPIRT) grant held from
1998-2000 by V. Callan, C. Gallois, E. Jones and P. Bordia. I learned so much through
my involvement in this project and many of the people who were part of it need to be
thanked. Two of the chief investigators acted as my supervisors and are mentioned above.
I would also like to acknowledge Professor Cindy Gallois and Dr Prashant Bordia for
vi
their valuable contributions to my professional development. I am also grateful to Dr
Bernadette Watson and Peter Monaghan who played important roles in co-ordinating the
data collection process. Sandra Lawrence and Margaret Tluchowska, fellow PhD
students on the grant, provided friendship, collegial advice, and lots of ‘debriefing’. Liz
Hobman and Bernd Irmer, who were also involved in the project, and with whom I
shared an office, gave me daily support, and most importantly, shared my caffeine and
sugar addictions.
I also want to express my heartfelt appreciation of some of the people who have
personally supported me in many different ways throughout the past three and a half
years. Katy White was a very special friend and a fantastic housemate with whom a lot
of laughter (and tears) were shared. Always there to listen, Katy helped me both
personally and professionally. I also really appreciate her help in proof-reading this
document. Life, and writing a thesis, is a little bit easier when you have a kindred spirit
to share your ups and downs with. Imogen was that person to me. She kept me sane and
helped me to feel that I could achieve anything. Special thanks go to my wonderful
boyfriend (and Microsoft Word hero) Sam, who loved and encouraged me through the
toughest part – the dreaded writing up process. He also made me laugh, even when I felt
cranky or depressed. Also instrumental were the housemate from heaven (Di) and the
cutest puppies ever (Chiko and Rufus). Finally, I wouldn’t have made it without the love
of my family, my parents Jenny and Barry, and my sister Wendy, who had unwavering
belief in me. This work is especially dedicated to them.
vii
SUBMISSION STATEMENT
The work presented in the thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
original and my own work, except where acknowledged in the text. The material has not
been submitted, either in whole, or in part, for a degree at this or any other university.
____________________________
Angela Jayne Martin
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE Introduction and Aims of the Present Program of Research..................................................... 1
Organisational Change as a Source of Occupational Stress ............................................. 2 The Major Findings of Stress Research ............................................................................ 5 The Cognitive–Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping.................................... 11
Situational appraisals .................................................................................................. 12 Coping strategies......................................................................................................... 13 Coping resources......................................................................................................... 14
Limitations of the Cognitive-Phenomenological Perspective on Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change.................................................................... 18
Outcome variables – adjustment indicators ................................................................ 19 Organisational coping resources ................................................................................. 21 Organisational climate factors as coping resources .................................................... 24 Group differences........................................................................................................ 30
Aims of the Present Program of Research ...................................................................... 35 CHAPTER TWO Methodological Issues ............................................................................................................ 38
The Epistemological Approach of the Present Program of Research............................. 38 Overview of the Research Design................................................................................... 39 Convergent Interviewing ................................................................................................ 43 Survey Methodology....................................................................................................... 47
Reliability and validity................................................................................................ 50 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 51
Analytic Techniques ....................................................................................................... 53 Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling................................. 54
Model specification................................................................................................. 55 Model fit.................................................................................................................. 56 Model re-specification ............................................................................................ 57 Assumptions of estimation methods ....................................................................... 59 Causality ................................................................................................................. 60
Analysis of survey data using Multivariate Analysis of Variance.............................. 62 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 64
ix
CHAPTER THREE Study One: The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change: A Model Predicting Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-being .......... 65
Aims................................................................................................................................ 68 Method ............................................................................................................................ 69
Background................................................................................................................. 69 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 69
Sample..................................................................................................................... 70 Measures ................................................................................................................. 70
Results............................................................................................................................. 72 The measurement model ............................................................................................. 73 Test of the structural model ........................................................................................ 78
Discussion....................................................................................................................... 80 Implications for change management ......................................................................... 84
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER FOUR Study Two: The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change: A Model Predicting Commitment, Turnover Intentions and Absenteeism ..................................................................................................................... 86
Aims................................................................................................................................ 89 Method ............................................................................................................................ 90
Background................................................................................................................. 90 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 90 Sample......................................................................................................................... 90 Measures ..................................................................................................................... 91
Results............................................................................................................................. 93 The measurement model ............................................................................................. 94 Test of the structural model ........................................................................................ 99
Discussion..................................................................................................................... 102 Implications for change management ....................................................................... 106
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 106 CHAPTER FIVE Study Three: Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of Organisational Level .................................................................................. 107
Aims.............................................................................................................................. 108 Method .......................................................................................................................... 108
Participants and procedure........................................................................................ 108
x
Measures ................................................................................................................... 109 Results........................................................................................................................... 110 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 114
Implications for change management ....................................................................... 117 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 118
CHAPTER SIX Study Four: Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of Occupational Group Membership and Organisational Level..................... 119
Aims.............................................................................................................................. 120 Method .......................................................................................................................... 120
Participants and procedure........................................................................................ 120 Measures ................................................................................................................... 120
Results........................................................................................................................... 122 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 125
Implications for change management ....................................................................... 127 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 128
CHAPTER SEVEN Discussion of Key Findings and Conclusions ...................................................................... 129
A Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change............................. 129
Employee relations.................................................................................................... 132 Leader vision............................................................................................................. 133 Supervisor social support.......................................................................................... 133 Service climate (customer service and patient care)................................................. 134 The mediating role of change appraisals .................................................................. 135
Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change.............. 138 Implications for Change Management and Stress Management During Change Implementation ............................................................................................................. 141 Strengths and Limitations Identified in the Present Research ...................................... 147 Directions for Future Research ..................................................................................... 150 Overall Conclusions...................................................................................................... 152
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 154
xi
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Survey questions Organisation A………………………………………..183
Appendix B - Survey questions Organisation B…………………………………….….189
Appendix C - Group means for Study 3………………………………………………..196
Appendix D – Group means for Study 4……………………………………………….198
xii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Stress Prevention in Organisations....................................................................... 10 Figure 1.2. The Cognitive-Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping .......................... 12 Figure 2.1. Overview of the Research Design ........................................................................ 40 Figure 3.1. Proposed Model.................................................................................................... 68 Figure 3.2. Final Structural Model.......................................................................................... 80 Figure 4.1. Proposed Model.................................................................................................... 89 Figure 4.2. Final Structural Model........................................................................................ 101 Figure 7.1. Theoretical Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change ... 131
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change.......................... 75 Table 3.2. Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables ..................................................................................................... 77 Table 4.1. Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of Employee Adjustment During Change .................................................. 96 Table 4.2. Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables ..................................................................................................... 98 Table 5.1. Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects .................................................. 112 Table 5.2. Mean Scores of Significant Results and Post Hoc Tests for Organisational Level............................................................................................ 113 Table 5.3. Absenteeism by Organisational Level ................................................................. 113 Table 6.1. Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects .................................................. 123 Table 6.2. Mean Scores for Significant Main Effects and Results of Post-hoc Tests .......... 125
xiv
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction and Aims of the Present Program of Research
The increasing pace of global, economic and technological development makes change
an inevitable feature of organisational life (Cummings & Worley, 1997). Organisations are
often ineffective at managing the psychological components of organisational change
(Bennett & Durkin, 2000) and it has been noted that there is considerable room for improving
the effectiveness of change efforts (Porras & Robertson 1992). Kotter (1995) noted that as
many as 90% of change initiatives fail to achieve their strategic objectives, mainly due to
human factors such as change-related responses, attitudes and behaviours.
Organisations cannot achieve their strategic change objectives until a critical mass of
employees have successfully completed their individual transitions (St Amour, 2001).
Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) argued that employee attitudes toward
organisational change affect not only the success of the change process but other important
organisational outcomes such as job satisfaction, productivity, morale, absenteeism and
turnover (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000; Iacovini, 1993; McDonald & Siegal, 1993;
McManus, Russell, Freeman & Rohricht, 1995). The costs involved with such consequences
may be directly attributable to the distress that is created when an organisation’s employees
encounter constant change (Mack, Nelson & Quick, 1998).
Large-scale organisational change is defined as change that encompasses the entire
organisation, has occurred over a number of years, and involves fundamental modifications
in ways of thinking about the business, the organisation, and how the organisation is
managed (Nadler, 1988). This type of change has important and often underestimated
1
psychological implications for employees. The necessary adjustments can foster enthusiasm
and opportunities for learning and growth or, alternatively, can lead to frustration and
alienation (Thompson & Van de Ven, 2001).
Judge, Thoresen, and Welbourne (1999) argued that organisational change research has
been dominated largely by a macro systems-oriented focus and that a limited number of
studies of organisational change have taken a micro-level, psychological approach. Hence,
assessing the impact of organisational change on employee attitudes and behaviours is
identified as an important research direction.
The present program of research aimed to develop a theoretical understanding of
employee adjustment during organisational change, informed by a stress and coping
perspective. This chapter provides a literature review that introduces the issue of employee
adjustment during organisational change. The review draws primarily on the stress literature,
focusing on the negative outcomes for individuals and organisations. The stress and coping
framework developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) is described and the application of this
model in the context of employee adjustment during organisational change is evaluated. A
critique of the model and the relevant literature is integrated with the development of the
aims of the present program of research.
Organisational Change as a Source of Occupational Stress
O’Driscoll and Cooper (1994) identified an increasing concern about the impact of
work conditions on the health and well-being of employees. In particular, considerable
research energy has been devoted to the effects of stress experienced at work. Studies that
have investigated the effects of organisational change on employee psychological well-being
have focused on change as a source of work stress (Ashford, 1988; Mack et al., 1998;
2
Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry, Callan & Sartori, 1996). Employee’s emotional responses
to organisational change often include feelings of uncertainty and anxiety, particularly in
relation to how change will affect employees’ job security, the nature of their work, career
paths, co-worker relations and reporting relationships (Ashford, 1988; Kanter, 1983).
Organisational change can be threatening for many individuals, with negative outcomes often
including job loss, reduced status, loss of identity and interpersonal conflict (Schweiger &
Ivancevich, 1985).
Each individual evaluates change by filtering it through their own unique perceptual
process, estimating the potential impact of the change and determining whether it is a threat
or a challenge. Lau and Woodman (1995) proposed that this determination is based on a
schema about change, through which the employee cognitively organises and integrates
information about the change. An anticipated positive impact would be classified as a
challenge. If the change is determined to have a negative effect, it is classified as a threat and
may produce a stress response (Mack et al., 1998).
Holmes and Rahe’s (1967) early work on the social readjustment rating scale identified
the experience of change as a central defining feature of potentially stressful events. It has
been argued that stress at work is primarily caused by “the fundamentals of change”- the
uncertainty, lack of control and high workload brought about by increased pressures to
perform, lack of job certainty/security, and constant changes in work patterns or management
(Roney & Cooper, 1997). These work characteristics are prominent features of modern
employment relationships. Organisational change can exacerbate existing stressors that
employees may experience in their day-to-day jobs. Thus, a common employee outcome of
the introduction of change in the workplace is increased levels of stress.
3
Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot, Standfeld and Smith (1998) found that anticipation of a major
organisational change resulted in increased self-reported symptoms of stress and small
increases in clinical measurements of stress (e.g., via use of an electrocardiogram).
Experiencing change resulted in similar increases in self-reported morbidity, with larger and
more consistent adverse changes in clinical measurements of stress.
Schabracq and Cooper (1998) explained that the major reason change creates stress is
because individuals develop general automatic responses to work and life events which
enable them to meet recurring needs in set ways. This set of “situated roles” provides a sense
of control and reduces uncertainty in everyday interactions. Organisational change can mean
that many of these roles/skills/behaviours may become invalid.
A complex process of reciprocal determinism between change at the organisational
level and stress at the individual level occurs (Mack et al., 1998). The change impacts on the
employee by forcing him or her to function in a different manner. The employee, in turn, has
an impact on the change because his or her active or passive acceptance of the change or,
alternatively, active or passive resistance to the change, will have a direct effect on the
outcome of the change. Thus, stress caused by the demands that are placed on individuals
charged with enacting new behaviours can act as a barrier to the implementation of effective
change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
Individuals vary in their ability to learn new roles, and stress is experienced as new
skills and behaviours are acquired (Callan, 1993). When changes are substantial, established
situated skills become less effective, resulting in greater uncertainty. Coping and adaptation
processes are then activated. Individuals who have difficulties coping and developing
revised situated skills will experience higher levels of stress. Maladaptive coping over a long
4
period of time can induce a chronic and debilitating form of stress known as burnout
(O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1994). Individual differences, or personality variables, play an
important role in predicting perceptions of change and levels of adjustment during change
(Terry et al., 1996; Terry & Callan, 1997, 1998). These differences will be discussed further
in a review of the stress literature.
Johnson and Sarason (1979) argued that organisational change, depending on how it is
perceived, is one of the primary causes of workplace stress. Preventing and managing the
negative effects of stress is one of the major concerns of organisational psychologists. In
particular, stress experienced during organisational change has been identified as a
significant area of job-related stress that needs attention due to the seemingly ever-increasing
occurrence of, and impact on employees of, organisational change (Ashford, 1988; Mack et
al., 1998; Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry et al., 1996). It is also in the organisation’s best
interests, both ethically and financially, to intervene and minimise the amount of damage that
is caused to the employee by the negative effects of stress from organisational change (Mack
et al., 1998).
The Major Findings of Stress Research
The stress literature contains a plethora of research on the various forms of life stress,
including stress experienced in an organisational context. It is beyond the scope of this
dissertation to review all of the literature. However, an overview of the major findings will
now be provided.
In early research in the area, stress was aligned with stimulus - response behaviourist
models. One of the first major findings was the “inverted U shape” relationship between
stress and performance, indicating that, to an extent, stress can increase performance but the
5
relationship becomes negative once the level of stress becomes too high (Yerkes & Dodson,
1908, cited in Quick et al., 1997). Hans Selye’s (1956) pioneering research suggested that
stress is an adaptive response to stressors and that people react physically to environmental
stressors in three stages: alarm, resistance, and then exhaustion. These earlier conceptions of
stress were replaced by transactional models that emphasised the role of psychological
processes in determining an individual’s response to environmental stressors (Reynolds &
Shapiro, 1991).
Contemporary models have extended knowledge about some of these internal
processes and their links with a range of positive and negative outcomes for the individual.
Needless to say, there are currently many theoretical approaches to the study of human stress.
Hence, a considerable amount of conceptual confusion exists in the literature and it is
difficult to find a clearly articulated ‘definition’ of stress. It has been defined as the
excessive environmental demands confronting a person, as an event or condition that disrupts
an individual’s ability to engage in everyday activities, as a subjective perception or appraisal
and purely as a response or reaction (Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Stress is as a multifaceted
process with numerous influences and effects (Burke & Weir, 1980; Kasl, 1986; Thoits,
1986; Wyatt, 1996), involving a complex interaction between environmental features and
personal characteristics. The cognitive-phenomenological theory of stress and coping
defines stress as a process involving the cognitive/affective appraisal of an event as stressful
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1990). The effects of these perceptions on the
individual’s level of strain are determined by the effectiveness of the coping strategies they
enact in order to deal with the event. Both appraisal and coping are processes influenced by
the personal and social resources the individual has access to (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
6
This theory provides a conceptual foundation for the present research and will be discussed
in detail later in this chapter.
Various terms are used interchangeably when discussing stress. Quick et al. (1997, p.
3-5) have provided working definitions of some of the key terms commonly used in the
literature:
a stressor, or demand, is "the physical or psychological stimulus to which an
individual responds";
a stress response is "the generalised, patterned, unconscious mobilization of the
body's natural energy resources when confronted with a demand or stressor";
eustress is "the healthy, positive, constructive outcome of stressful events and the
stress response";
distress or strain is "the degree of physiological, psychological and behavioural
deviation from an individual's healthy functioning".
Individuals react to stressors in a variety of ways that could lie on a continuum
between positive (eustress) and negative adjustment (strain). Positive adjustment occurs
when effective coping resources enable an individual to encounter a stimulus, appraise it as
stressful, yet deal with it in some way before a strain response occurs (Fogarty et al., 1999).
Generally, most contemporary approaches to stress research focus on the relationships
between three main sets of variables: external demands and stressors; the function of
individual characteristics and processes in reaction to the stressors; and the resulting
responses/outcomes (the negative outcomes are often referred to as strain).
In relation to external demands, the present research is interested in sources of stress
experienced by employees in organisational life. Cooper and his colleagues have identified
7
six types of occupational stressors: those intrinsic to the job, role conflict and ambiguity,
interpersonal relationships, career development, organisational structure and culture and the
home/work interface (Roney & Cooper, 1997). Organisational change has an effect on all of
these sources of stress. For example, job insecurity and career development issues have more
recently emerged as major sources of stress for employees which can be linked directly to the
restructuring, merging, decrease in tenured employment and downsizing of organisations that
has characterised organisational change in the last two decades.
The manner in which individual characteristics and processes modify the stress
response has also been the subject of extensive enquiry. Studies have examined the effects of
demographic features (e.g., sex, age, ethnicity), personality characteristics (e.g., locus of
control, hardiness, optimism-pessimism, neuroticism, self-esteem, Type A behaviour pattern)
and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, diet and exercise). Each of these individual differences
has been shown to predict variance in either self-reported or physiological stress symptoms
(Quick et al., 1997). Social influences, such as an individual’s access to social supports, also
impact on the stress process. A consistent finding is people with high levels of social support
cope better with stress and are in better psychological and physical health than those with
less supportive relationships (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
Stress responses in individuals result in a range of negative consequences.
Behavioural outcomes that have been documented include increased smoking, alcohol abuse,
drug abuse, accident proneness, violence and eating disorders. Psychological outcomes of
stress often reported are job burnout, family problems, anxiety and depressive disorders.
Physiological outcomes linked to stress include sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction.
Medical research has associated stress with increased risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer,
8
gastrointestinal conditions, headache, diabetes mellitus, and other emerging diseases such as
chronic fatigue syndrome (e.g., Kasl, 1886; Quick et al., 1997; Repetti, 1993).
Such outcomes have serious implications for organisations including both direct and
indirect costs. Direct costs associated with employee stress include increased absenteeism,
turnover, tardiness, strikes and work stoppages, grievances, accidents, health care costs and
compensation awards (e.g., Cotton, 1995; Roney & Cooper, 1997). In 1994/95, 83% of
workers compensation claims citing stress were based on factors such as interpersonal
conflict, organisational change and pressure to meet deadlines (Fogarty et al., 1999). There
are also many indirect costs that can be incurred through employee stress such as impaired
organisational flexibility, communication and decision-making inefficiencies, and poorer
quality of work relations (Quick et al., 1997).
It is rare to find research on occupational stress that uses physiological indices of
arousal such as salivary cortisol and systolic blood pressure (e.g., Lokk & Arnetz, 1997) as
indicators of stress responses. These measures are expensive in terms of data collection and
often invasive or inconvenient for participants. More frequently, studies use subjective self-
reports of psychological and physical well-being (e.g., depressive symptoms, anxiety, general
health, job satisfaction) as dependent variables, or indicators of negative responses to stress.
Behavioural measures such as performance, turnover and absenteeism are less often utilised
as outcome measures in occupational stress research.
Mounting evidence of the aforementioned range of outcomes has led to an assumption
in the literature that stress has negative consequences for individuals and organisations and
is, therefore, something to be managed or reduced. Like “stress”, the many forms of “stress
management” are difficult to capture in a simple definition and this literature is also subject
9
to conceptual confusion (Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman & Phillips, 1990). However,
Wyatt (1996, p. 78) proposed a workable definition of Stress Management Programs as
“those activities or interventions instigated by the organisation that attempt to prevent and/or
alleviate work-related stress experienced by its employees”.
Stress management interventions are classified as primary, secondary and tertiary
strategies (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Quick et al., 1997). As can be seen in Figure 1.1,
primary strategies are concerned with taking action to identify and modify/eliminate
organisational stressors, and positively promoting a supportive and healthy work
environment. Secondary strategies involve attempting to change individual stress responses
to necessary demands, and the prompt detection and management of any stress-related
symptoms. Tertiary strategies aim to deal with the consequences of stress responses that
have not been adequately controlled. These strategies include the rehabilitation of
individuals who have suffered or are suffering from serious ill-health as a result of stress.
Figure 1.1.
Eustress (positive
adjustment)
Secondary strategies
Tertiary strategies Psychological
& physiological distress
Primary strategies Organisational
demands & stressors
Individual responses to
stressors
Moderators of the stress response
Stress Prevention in Organisations
10
The Cognitive–Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping
A particularly influential conceptual approach to understanding adjustment to stress in
the social psychology literature is Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive–
phenomenological model of stress and coping. Their work examined the relationships
between variables such as an individual’s situational appraisals, their coping responses and
the extent to which they have access to personal and social coping resources, in attempting to
explain the stress-adjustment process. Lazarus (2000, p. 665) recently stated: “the
conceptual bottom line of my approach is the relational meaning that an individual constructs
from the person-environment relationship. That relationship is the result of appraisals of the
confluence of the social and physical environment and personal goals, beliefs about self and
world, and resources”.
Widespread support for this model has been found in relation to a variety of stressful
events and contexts, including the workplace (Terry, Rawle & Callan, 1995; Terry, Tonge &
Callan, 1995, Terry, et al., 1996; Terry & Callan 1997). This research informs the theoretical
structure of the models formulated and tested in the present program of research. Each of the
major components of the model (see Figure 1.2) will now be discussed.
11
Figure 1.2.
Coping strategies
Coping resources
Situational appraisal
Strain/ adjustment
Potentially stressful events
The Cognitive-Phenomenological Model of Stress and Coping
Situational appraisals
Situational appraisals represent a person’s cognitive evaluation regarding how a
situation or event will affect their level of well-being (Folkman, 1984). In other words,
situational appraisals reflect how much the person predicts the event will be stressful for
them. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) label this type of appraisal as primary, proposing that
secondary appraisal occurs when an individual evaluates what can be done to manage the
situation. Terry (1991, 1994) expanded this definition, arguing that secondary appraisal
consists of two distinct judgements about the situation: efficacy expectations and perceived
controllability. Control is a multifaceted construct (Ganster, 1985) and Murphy (1988) noted
that researchers must measure control over a specific element of the work environment.
Similarly, Bandura (1986) argued that self efficacy must be measured in reference to
handling a specific situation or behaviour.
A person’s efficacy expectancy or their level of confidence in their ability to perform
the behaviours necessary to deal with a stressor is an important determinant of adjustment.
12
Self-efficacy has been shown to be particularly influential in situations that individuals may
regard as unpredictable or stressful, such as career changes and job loss (Judge et al., 1999).
Bandura (1982) found that, in threatening situations, low self-efficacy had adverse effects on
psychological and physiological functioning and Terry (1991) found evidence that low self-
efficacy can negatively influence an individual’s adjustment to stress.
The extent to which a person perceives that a situation is amenable to personal control
also influences their level of well-being. People seek to control their environment,
particularly when faced with adverse situations (Murphy, 1988). Miller (1979) argued that
controllable events “hurt less” than uncontrollable events. Laboratory studies have
demonstrated that having control over aversive stimuli results in enhanced performance and
well-being (Averill, 1973; Miller, 1979). Karasek’s (1979) work directly links the extent to
which employees are able to exert control over their work to their health and well-being. It is
widely recognised that control is a construct that is central in our understanding of
psychological functioning and adjustment (Terry & Jimmieson, 1999).
The effects of control and self-efficacy on well-being are also mediated by coping
behaviours. Employees who have little control over stressful aspects of their jobs may not
engage in the problem-focused strategies (which aim to modify or eliminate the stressor),
which are generally linked with better adjustment (Folkman, 1984; Latack, 1986).
Conversely, employees who have high levels of self-efficacy in relation to a stressful
situation would be more likely to use such strategies.
Coping strategies
The effects of stressors on employees can be influenced by their coping strategies
(cognitive and behavioural responses to stressors). Coping strategies aim to reduce the
13
adverse effects of stressors. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) argued that these strategies tend to
be either emotion-focused or problem-focused, and that any stressful event is likely to
engender a combination of both types. Emotion-focused strategies are used to manage the
emotional distress resulting from the situation. Most commonly these strategies involve
mentally disengaging from the problem and attempts to minimise its significance such as
escapism, self-blame, avoidance, and wishful thinking (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Carver,
Scheier &Weintraub, 1989; Dunkel-Schetter, Folkman & Lazarus, 1987). These strategies
usually avoid dealing with the problem or stressor and are generally proposed to have a
negative effect on adjustment (Pisarski, Bohle & Callan, 1998; Spelten, Barton & Folkard,
1993).
In contrast, problem-focused strategies are directed toward the management and active
confrontation of the problem. These strategies are generally proposed to have a positive
effect on adjustment (Pisarski et al., 1998; Terry, Tonge et al., 1995). However, it is
important to note that the use of problem-focused coping strategies is related to the amount
of perceived control an individual has in a stressful situation. When situational control is
low, people tend to use emotion-focused strategies to manage their distress and will generally
exhibit poorer levels of adjustment (Terry et al., 1996).
Coping resources
Personality and environmental characteristics are the personal and social resources that
influence a person’s response to a stressor. The effects of stressors on employees depend on
their cognitive and behavioural responses to them. These responses, appraisal and coping
behaviours, are determined by the amount and quality of the resources that the employee can
draw upon when faced with a problem or potential stressor.
14
The effects of personal resources such as self-esteem, locus of control and other
personality characteristics (e.g., negative affectivity, hardiness, optimism/pessimism) on
adjustment to stress has been the subject of much enquiry. Ashford (1988) and Callan and
Dickson (1992) found that individuals with high self-esteem rely more on problem-focused
coping strategies and less on emotion-focused strategies than individuals with low self-
esteem. Those with high self-esteem are likely to have a history of coping with stress,
(Callan, Terry & Schweitzer, 1995), thus raising their efficacy expectations about their
ability to deal with it. Research on locus of control has shown that individuals with internal
control beliefs adapt better to stress than individuals with an external locus of control,
perhaps due to internal control beliefs aligning with active or problem-focused coping
behaviour (Callan & Dickson, 1992).
Watson and Pennebaker (1989) argued that individuals high in negative affectivity,
typically assessed with measures of anxiety and neuroticism, have a tendency to experience
high levels of emotional distress. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism have been
found to rely on emotion-focused strategies in response to stressors more than individuals
with low levels of neuroticism (Bolger; 1990; Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989). Thus, a
range of individual differences have been associated with stress and coping processes.
In contrast to the individual difference literature, there is considerably less research
that examines the role of environmental or organisational coping resources in the appraisal,
coping and adjustment process. Worksite coping resources have been correlationally
associated with positive mental health, but little experimental evidence demonstrates the
causal role of worksite coping resources in improving mental health, nor how worksite
coping resources can be enhanced (Heaney, Price & Rafferty, 1995). It is also not clear
15
whether the effects of coping resources on mental health are direct or indirect. For instance,
it is possible that coping resources influence levels of adjustment or measures of well-being
either by facilitating the enactment of coping strategies or regardless of the coping strategies
employed. Hence, the model in Figure 1.2 could be modified to include a path which
represents the direct effects of coping resources on adjustment.
The study of organisational coping resources has predominantly centred on the level of
social support in the workplace. Social support is determined by the quality of interpersonal
relationships an employee has with co-workers and supervisors (those with whom one shares
a similarity of experience). House (1981, p. 39) defined social support as “an interpersonal
transaction involving one or more of the following: emotional concern (liking, love,
empathy); instrumental aid (goods and services); information (about the environment); and
appraisal (information relevant to self-evaluation).”
Kumari and Sharma (1990) found that employees reporting high levels of social
support perceived less stress in their organisational roles, were less anxious, had higher job
satisfaction and better general well-being than their counterparts who reported lower levels of
social support. The availability and quality of social support at the workplace can impact on
employee appraisal of stressful situations and the development of coping strategies (Newton
& Keenan, 1985; Parkes, 1986). Thoits (1986) suggested that social support assists
individuals to develop effective coping strategies through discourse about the problem, by
diverting the employee’s attention away from a stressor or helping them to reinterpret it so
that it seems less threatening. Supportive interactions provide the opportunity to gain
instrumental aid or advice about how to modify a situation to make it less stressful and can,
thus, enhance an individual’s appraisals of situational control. Support can also facilitate
16
adjustment by fostering the recipient’s sense of self-worth or situational self-efficacy during
the stressful encounter. In addition, support which provides caring, understanding or
affirmation can help to decrease the emotional distress suffered by the employee.
There is some controversy about the manner in which social support variables exert
influence on strain responses by acting on mediating variables or functioning as a moderating
variable. Mediating variables facilitate the effect of an independent variable on a dependent
variable. That is, the relationship exists via the mediating variable. Moderating variables
exert their influence on the relationship between the independent and dependent variable by
“turning on or off” the relationship at high and low levels of the independent variable (Baron
& Kenny). This issue is discussed in more depth in relation to methodology in Chapter 2.
In regard to the social support literature, the evidence is not conclusive one way or
another. Cohen and Wills (1985) posited the “buffering hypothesis” which argued that social
support buffers (moderates) the negative effects of stress on well-being and that these
buffering effects will be most marked at high levels of stress. Other researchers argued that
social support has beneficial effects on levels of adjustment, regardless of the level of stress
(direct effects model). More recently, Terry, Rawle and Callan (1995) found clear evidence
of indirect effects of social support on adjustment, via its effects on (mediated by) coping
responses to stress.
As reported above, adjustment to stress is a complex process. Although stress has been
the subject of extensive enquiry, relatively little attention has been paid to the development
and testing of theory-based models of stress and employee adjustment during organisational
change. By drawing on the model described above, research attention has recently been
17
given to how the stress-adjustment relationship operates specifically in relation to
organisational change.
Terry et al. (1996) tested the utility of a model of employee adjustment during
organisational change, largely based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-
phenomenological theory of stress and coping processes. As predicted, both situational
appraisals and coping responses mediated the effects of event characteristics and coping
resources on adjustment. Event characteristics are features of potentially stressful events that
might affect the appraisal of the event. In this particular study, event characteristics
measured were change process issues such as the extent of communication and consultation.
Employees were more likely to report higher levels of psychological distress and lower job
satisfaction if they appraised the change as stressful. In particular, the model showed that
change self-efficacy or feeling confident in one’s ability to perform well in a changing role,
had a strong, positive effect on well-being. Perceptions of situational control or influence in
the change process also had an indirect effect on job satisfaction by promoting the use of
problem-focused coping (Terry et al., 1996).
Limitations of the Cognitive-Phenomenological Perspective on Employee Adjustment
During Organisational Change
The cognitive-phenomenological approach discussed earlier represents a transactional
process in which cognitive appraisal, coping resources and coping behaviours act as
modifiers of an individual’s level of adjustment during stressful situations. The model is
influential in social and organisational psychology because it captures the subjective nature
of an individual’s perceptions of stressful situations. However, there are several limitations
to this approach in terms of its application to an organisational change context.
18
Outcome variables – adjustment indicators
The success of organisational change initiatives is often determined by employee
attitudes towards the change (Almaraz, 2000; Beer, Eisenstadt, & Spector, 1990). In addition
to their effect on the success of a change initiative, employee attitudes toward a pending
change can have a wider impact in terms of job satisfaction, organisational commitment,
morale, productivity and turnover intentions (Iacovini, 1993; McDonald & Siegal, 1993;
McManus et al., 1995; Wanberg & Banas, 1997). Such responses can serve as markers for
tracking the likelihood of employees enacting behaviours necessary for achieving the desired
changes. It is common practice to assess organisational members reactions to change using
self-report methodologies (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
One problem with the application of the Lazarus and Folkman (1984) approach in an
organisational context is that outcome measures are usually limited to measures of employee
well-being (e.g., depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion). Terry et al. (1996) did include
job satisfaction, along with well-being, as an indicator of employee adjustment during
organisational change. However, organisational outcomes such as organisational
commitment, absenteeism and turnover have not been studied in relation to the cognitive-
phenomenological framework.
Job satisfaction and organisational commitment are two of the most frequently studied
constructs in organisational psychology (Lease, 1998). Job satisfaction reflects the degree of
the employee’s affective orientation toward the work roles occupied in the organisation
(either globally or with individual facets of the job). It is the primary outcome variable in
Dawis and Lofquist’s (1984) theory of work adjustment. Organisational commitment is an
affective bond or linking of the individual to the organisation which makes it difficult to
19
leave. It can be affective, continuance or normative based (Meyer & Allen, 1991). It has
been defined as an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organisation
(Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974).
Job satisfaction and organisational commitment are antecedents to important work
outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover intentions, and turnover (Lease, 1998). O’Driscoll
and Randall (1999) noted that work attitudes are highly relevant predictors of employee
behaviour and that there has been a marked interest in the impact of commitment on job
performance, absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover. All facets of commitment are negatively
related to turnover (Meyer & Allen, 1991) but affective commitment is the most consistent
predictor of absences (Somers, 1995).
Attempts to reduce the incidence of absenteeism and turnover are motivated by the
assumption that work-related stress is a major antecedent of such behaviours. In a qualitative
study, Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua and Stough (2001) found that withdrawal cognitions
and behaviours were major consequences of stress, with participants reporting ‘closing
down’ from their role in terms of their effort and commitment and increased absenteeism.
Ganster et al. (1982) argued that workers experiencing stress are less productive, have higher
absentee rates and generally have a higher rate of sick leave usage, thereby incurring greater
health costs for the organisation. Jacobson, Aldana, Goetzel and Vardell (1996) also
demonstrated significant relationships between high levels of perceived stress and
absenteeism in a sample of 79 070 workers across 250 US companies.
If organisational change is a major source of occupational stress (Johnson & Sarason,
1979), it would be expected that negative employee responses to change may also influence
outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover. Absenteeism and turnover are undesirable
20
outcomes that have immediate financial consequences for organisations and can possibly
worsen the working conditions of fellow employees by increasing workload and loss of peer
support (Hemmingway & Smith, 1999). It is, thus, important for organisations to monitor
and minimise the likelihood of a range of unfavourable employee affective and behavioural
reactions during change. Therefore, although well-being and job satisfaction are key
indicators of psychological adjustment to work stress, it is an important theoretical objective
of the present program of research to expand the outcome variables in models of employee
adjustment during organisational change to include organisational commitment, absenteeism
and turnover.
Organisational coping resources
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) argued that both personal and environmental
characteristics interact to determine an individual’s appraisal of stressful situations and their
resultant coping behaviours. However, their model neglects contextual factors or
environmental coping resources (with the exception of social support) in favour of individual
coping resources such as personality characteristics. In their application of the stress and
coping approach to understanding adjustment during change, Terry et al. (1996) urged
researchers to investigate further the organisational determinants of positive adjustment. The
present program of research extends their conceptual framework by determining whether
additional organisational factors act as coping resources that facilitate positive change
appraisals and higher levels of employee adjustment during change.
There is some evidence that organisational determinants of adjustment to change may
be more powerful than individual characteristics. Eby et al. (2000) found that, although
individual factors do influence how work situations are perceived, contextual factors
21
contribute more to employee attitudes and responses to events such as change. Lease (1998)
argued that work characteristics, if powerful enough, overwhelm the impact of individual
dispositional characteristics in predicting a range of work attitudes.
The origins of work stress are situated primarily in the structural or organisational
aspects of the work environment rather than in personal attributes or demographics (Dollard,
Winefield, Winefield & de Jonge, 2000; Karasek, 1979). Fogarty et al. (1999) proposed that
personality variables may not be important when the outcomes are strain and job satisfaction
as none of the personality variables they measured were able to predict job satisfaction in a
series of studies. They claimed that job satisfaction is determined primarily by factors within
the work environment. In a review of the literature, Parks (1990) concluded that the work
environment exerts a causal influence on mental and physical health.
Also, in relation to the prevention and reduction of stress (e.g., the stress produced by
change), organisational factors are more readily altered than individual difference variables
and, thus, have a more powerful span of influence (Murphy, 1988; Reynolds & Briner, 1994;
Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Interventions that aim to reduce occupational stress have largely
focused on secondary and tertiary strategies. The occupational stress interventions literature
is dominated by the evaluation of psychological programs targeting change in individual
employees, despite recommendations that researchers address organisational issues
(Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). When interventions focus on improving individual perceptions
and not improving the work environment, they can only be seen as an attempt to increase
employee tolerance of noxious or unacceptable job characteristics (De Frank & Cooper,
1987; Ganster et al., 1982; Murphy, 1988). Burke (1993) proposed that organisational level
interventions have been found to be generally more effective than individual level
22
interventions, especially in the long term. Instead of managing stress by attempting to alter
employees’ perceptions of situations in order to achieve an improved person-environment fit,
practitioners need to change the organisational environment to realign person-environment
fit.
Hence, the focus on organisational coping resources in the present research aims not
only to extend theoretical understanding of employee adjustment during organisational
change, but also to inform stress management interventions by identifying contextual factors
which can be developed/improved to reduce the level of change-related stress experienced by
employees.
Interventions that target individual coping responses could be considered strategies that
emphasize adaptation of the worker to stressful conditions. It could be argued that the role of
coping responses is more relevant in the counselling and psychotherapy arena, the context
within which Lazarus and Folkman (1984) originally developed their stress and coping
perspective. The effectiveness of coping strategies in organisational contexts has been
considered questionable. Coping strategies that are effective in domestic settings may fail to
alleviate distress in occupational settings. The evidence supporting the efficacy of individual
coping efforts in work settings is weak (O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1994; Parks, 1990). The
constraints inherent in organisational life limit the possibilities for constructive action by
employees. Pearlin and Schooler (1979) found that some organisationally-generated
stressors exhaust coping resources and are resistant to coping efforts. For example, in
situations where individuals have no control over stressors the enactment of problem-focused
coping strategies is fruitless. Coyne and Racioppo (2000, p. 655) recently stated that the
23
coping literature “is in crisis because of its failure to yield substantive findings concerning
the role of coping in adaptation”.
Therefore, instead of directing attention to coping, the present research gives
precedence to the identification of organisational antecedents that strongly influence
employee appraisals of change. It is imperative that such research guides organisations in
how to create a work environment that assist employees to cope with the considerable levels
of uncertainty and confusion associated with organisational change (Tetenbaum, 1998).
St Amour (2001) claimed that employees have three basic requirements to navigate
change successfully: structure, information and support. The supportive element, a nurturing
environment, helps to create safe passage through times of transition. Eby et al. (2000)
argued that more stable characteristics of the work environment reduce employee uncertainty
and apprehension about organisational change, especially by shaping employee perceptions
of the change process itself. Some of these characteristics (e.g., employee relations,
supervisor communication and leadership) are now discussed in relation to organisational
climate.
Organisational climate factors as coping resources
An important set of variables involved in how people cope with stress are found in the
individual’s interpersonal and cultural context (Lazarus, 2000). The construct of
organisational climate provides a means of identifying some of the characteristics of the
organisational environment that may act as coping resources. Climate variables attempt to
measure the perceptual and experiential components of a reciprocal interaction between the
work environment and the employee (Michela, Lukaszwski & Allegrante, 1995; Schneider &
Reichers, 1983). Climate refers to a broad class of organisational and perceptual variables
24
that reflect individual-organisational interactions and affect employee behaviour in
organisations (Glick, 1985).
There is some controversy over whether climate is an organisational level attribute or
an individual-level phenomenon. For example, Pettigrew (2000) distinguished between
psychological climate (the quantitative study of work attitudes) and organisational climate
(the statistical measurement of the degree to which climate is shared by organisational
members). However, this distinction is difficult to make because individual perceptions are
not completely unique as they are informed by others’ perceptions. Multiple individuals are
reacting to some of the same experiences and situations and people talk to one another about
their groups, leaders and jobs. Thus, the perceptions of one person shape the interpretations
of others and this is how a shared climate evolves (Ashkanasy, Wilderom & Peterson, 2000).
Organisational climate research typically investigates the ways in which employees
experience different aspects of their organisational lives and the outcomes of how they
construct, process and attach meaning to these situations. Through survey methods, climate
studies statistically document employee experiences of organisational practices and
procedures, as well as identifiable organisational imperatives (Ashkanasay et. al, 2000).
Climate questionnaires ask people to agree or disagree with descriptions about the
organisational environment (e.g., leader behaviour, how people treat each other).
Climate has important implications for employees’ affective reactions to organisational
life and other elements of organisational functioning and effectiveness. Indeed, employee
behaviour is often described as a function of employee perceptions of the organisational
climate (Schneider, 2000). Positive climates are linked to higher levels of job satisfaction,
25
commitment and intention to stay with the organisation (Schneider, Bowen, Ehrhart &
Holcombe, 2000) and absenteeism (Przygodda, Arentz, Quast & Kleinbeck, 1997).
It is evident that employee perceptions of the workplace play a powerful role in
shaping their work-related attitudes and beliefs. People actively perceive their environments
and are influenced by these perceptions rather than by some objective reality (Eby et al.,
2000; Spreitzer, 1996). It is through this interpretative sense-making process that individuals
develop a frame of reference for organising and understanding work-related events and
experiences (Weick, 1979). It follows that organisational climate, as a means of measuring
such processes, would have a major influence on how employees perceive an event such as
organisational change.
In their review of the theoretical and empirical literature on organisational change from
1990-1998, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) identified an intensifying focus on designing
organisational culture and climate as a means of managing change. Moreover, Pettigrew
(2000) argued that organisational climate is inextricably linked to the understanding and
management of change and mergers/acquisitions. Schneider (2000, p. 21) argued that
“changes in the variables associated with climate might provide a useful entree to achieving
the changes in behaviour that will result in changes in the more fundamental beliefs and
values required for durable organisational change”.
However, research on organisational climate as a predictor of employee adjustment
during organisational change is limited. In fact, a lack of attention to climate and culture
issues is a major reason why transformational change efforts fail (Kotter, 1995). The present
program of research aims to address this deficit by linking facets of organisational climate to
the concept of coping resources. As discussed earlier in the chapter, coping resources
26
facilitate adjustment during stressful events. In the context of the present studies,
organisational change is assumed to be a stressful event.
Hemmingway and Smith (1999) suggested that employee stress can be diminished by
manipulating organisational climate, but those aspects of organisational climate that are
clearly predictive of a specific stressor (e.g., the implementation of organisational change)
must be identified and interventions should be targeted accordingly. An interesting analogy
with the principle of salutogenesis, which emphasises health rather than illness and examines
facilitators of health not preventors of greater sickness (Antonovsky, 1984), can be made in
relation to the organisational environment and stress. The organisational environment
contains many resources which enable people to cope with negative stimuli (Johnston, 1998).
There are some aspects of climate commonly found in the literature that could be
expected to influence employee perceptions of organisational change. However, it is
important to note that climate is a multidimensional construct with many potential facets.
Schneider et al. (2000) argued that because of the huge array of climate factors, studies using
climate to predict organisational outcomes need to conceptualise and measure climate
according to a specific focus, such as a “climate for service”, “climate for innovation” or
“climate for change”. Glick (1985) also encouraged researchers to use climate dimensions
that are likely to influence or be associated with the study’s criteria of interest.
Jones, Martin, Bordia, Callan and Gallois (2001) examined the effect of climate on
change attitudes and job satisfaction. They measured “climate for change” as a composite,
higher order construct, comprised of leader vision, supervisor communication and work unit
effectiveness. They found that the “climate for change” construct influenced employee’s
openness to change and their perceptions of management’s performance in relation to the
27
communication of change. These attitudes towards the change influenced their level of
satisfaction with the change process. This level of satisfaction explained a significant
amount of variance in overall job satisfaction.
Driving this research were a number of models of change implementation that have
emphasised the importance of effective communication by managers and supervisors
(Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999). Employee relationships with their supervisors and teams
shape their attitudes to the organisation including their perceptions of the change climate
(Tierney, 1999). Effective supervisor and leader communication also directly enhances
levels of employee well-being and job satisfaction (Gardner, Paulsen, Gallois, Callan &
Monaghan, 2001).
In attempting to determine what aspects of climate would act as coping resources in the
process of adjustment to the stress experienced during change, the literature suggests that the
role of interpersonal and organisational communication is central. For example, supportive
supervisors and high staff morale have been found to help employees cope with workplace
stress (Gillespie et al., 2001). Climate was originally defined as social climate or social
atmosphere (Askanasay et al., 2000). Hence, the issues of relationships and communication
have been central to the generic study of organisational climate (Schneider, 2000). Ford and
Ford (1995) argued that change is created, sustained, and managed by communication. As a
result, effective organisational communication reduces anxiety and uncertainty about change
and is consistently linked to higher levels of employee adjustment and more positive
organisational outcomes (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish & DiFonzo, 2000; Di Fonzo &
Bordia, 1998, Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; Miller & Monge, 1985; Smeltzer, 1991; Terry
et al., 1996).
28
Communication with immediate supervisors is especially important as they have
power to influence and change employee behaviour (Bordia, Martin, Jones, Irmer, Gallois &
Callan, 2001; Larkin & Larkin, 1994). In fact, climate is shaped substantially by behaviours
of the supervisor such as listening and providing feedback (Michela & Burke, 2000). Elloy,
Everett and Flynn (1995) found that supervisors who were seen as trusting, fair and who
reinforced employees for good work were seen as facilitating a climate that fostered high
work involvement in which workers were more likely to perceive opportunities for growth
and to be committed to their work. Terry et al., (1995) argued that the effects of social
support on coping with stress are likely to vary as a function of the source of support being
considered. They argued that in addition to colleagues, supervisors are important support
providers in a work context as they are both proximal and similar to the support recipient and
have the ability to provide instrumental aid by assisting the employee to develop problem
focussed coping strategies. In addition, the perceived availability of social support from a
supervisor is directly linked to job satisfaction (Iverson & Roy, 1994; McCann, Russo &
Benjamin, 1997; Parkes & Von Rabenau, 1993; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).
Perceptions of the way senior management communicate with staff are important in the
creation of a positive climate for change. Young and Post (1993) focused on the importance
of CEO visibility in achieving corporate goals, including the communication of
organisational change. Effective leadership helps to create employee confidence in relation
to change (Schweiger, Ivancevich & Power, 1987; Young & Post, 1993) and plays an
important role in reducing the levels of disruption associated with change. Leaders also use
vision to shape the meanings that others place on events by explaining the implications that
present events have for a desired future (Petersen & Smith, 2000).
29
Schein (2000) argued that not all elements of climate are equally potent in the degree
to which they determine employee behaviour. Qualitative research can tell us which
elements of an organisation’s climate are more salient to employees and are, thus, potentially
stronger determinants of adjustment during change. Payne (2000) argued that climate scales
should be designed in collaboration with members of the organisation to increase their
ecological validity. To address these concerns, the present program of research includes
measures of particularly salient climate factors specific to the organisations studied. These
measures were informed by an exploratory, qualitative process (described in Chapter 2).
In summary, aspects of the organisational climate that may act as coping resources
during organisational change include effective interpersonal and organisational
communication between employees, supervisors and senior managers. It is also important to
determine if there are elements of climate specific to an organisation that may facilitate
greater adjustment during change.
Group differences
The previous section established that organisational climate, particularly those aspects
related to communication, is an important influence in the process of adjustment during
organisational change. However, it is important to note that research has identified some
major discrepancies in the way organisational communication is perceived by different
groups of employees. These differences can depend on their social identity in a situation,
such as their superior or subordinate status in the workplace (Hatfield & Huseman, 1982;
Jablin, 1979; Jablin & Putnam, 1987; Roloff, 1987).
Social identity consists of those aspects of the self that are based on group membership
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Employees interact with each other not only as individuals, but
30
also as members of the organisational groups to which they belong (Kramer, 1991). These
groups can be a potentially salient source of identity-driven variations in employee affect and
behaviour (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hennessy & West, 1999). Organisational identity plays
a significant role in the cognitive evaluation of workplace events (Kramer, 1991). In
particular, organisational change is an event that tends to make identity highly salient to
employees (Hartley, 1996; Terry & Callan, 1998). A variety of social categories exist within
organisations and employee identity could be based on a range of groups with which they
may identify (e.g., gender, ethnicity, role or occupation, status, work unit or
department/division, union member status).
Employee identities that reflect their hierarchical position and task orientation have
been significantly associated with dimensions of organisational climate and levels of
perceived work stress. Winefield (2000) reported that perceived stress varied according to
rank and professional role. In addition, some occupations have been shown to be inherently
more stressful than others and an abundance of research has examined cross-occupational
differences in stress levels (Sparks & Cooper, 1999). However, generic stress models that
examine the inter-relationships among the antecedents and consequences of stressors but
ignore occupational differences are common (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1992). Importantly,
Hemmingway and Smith (1999) also argued that relationships among specific climate
dimensions and stressors might vary based on occupational and situational differences.
Even though there is some justification for predicting role-based variation in employee
adjustment during organisational change, this is an area that has received limited empirical
attention. Most of the organisational change literature fails to distinguish between the
diversity of participants in change programs, treating them as a single entity (Larkin &
31
Larkin, 1994). Lewis (1999) argued that group differences (in informational needs,
assessment of risk and complexity and the desire to have input) must be accounted for when
examining change implementation. Research which embraces a differentiated perspective is,
therefore, needed. Researchers need to compare levels of staff, occupational groups or
departments to determine where fragmentation is greatest (Payne, 2000). Hence, a limitation
in previous research is the lack of attention to how different groups diverge in relation to
perceptions of climate, attitudes in response to organisational change and levels of
adjustment during the change event.
The present program of research investigates the extent to which such differences
exist. The detection of such differences yields important information for change
management strategies and should be considered an essential part of the diagnostic function
of organisation development processes. Another important factor in such an investigation is
to determine the important group membership divisions or delineating identity variables
within an organisation. The primary grouping variables for each of the organisations in the
present research (organisational level and occupational group) were identified during the
pilot interviews.
Status or job level is an important structural variable in determining role expectations
and role taking (Biddle, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978), which in turn influences a range of
organisational behaviours that include employee responses to change (Miles, Patrick & King,
1996). There is generally limited understanding of how employees of differing status react to
change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). However, there are a few recent studies that have
reported differences among organisational levels in relation to the salience of different
32
change issues (Ahmad, 2000; Armstrong-Stassen, 1998; Miles et al., 1996; Watson, et. al,
2001) and the communication of change (Bordia et al., 2001).
Organisational change can be conceptualised as a political event (Schein, 1985) with
employees of different status having differential amounts of power and playing different
roles. De Luca (1984) grouped change participants as “controllers, targets and
interventionists” and Kanter, Stein and Jick (1992) classified them as “change strategists,
change managers and change recipients”. Change strategists/controllers and change
managers/ interventionists, as the higher status groups, are likely to view change more
positively and experience less negative consequences from the change. Covin and Killman
(1990) found differences among groups (managers, researchers, internal consultants, external
consultants) in their identification of positive and negative change issues.
Researchers have found that management staff reported more control over decisions
concerning the future of their jobs than did non-supervisory employees (Armstrong-Stassen,
1998; Esty, 1984). In contrast, change recipients/targets are likely to experience a greater
sense of threat about the consequences of organisational change than are change strategists
and are most likely to lose status and jobs during major change. Kanter et al. (1992) also
proposed that lower level employees have most to lose during organisational change and
Michela and Burke (2000) noted that resistance to change occurs more at lower levels in an
organisation. The extent to which status or organisational level influences perceptions of the
climate through which employees experience change will be investigated in the present
research.
Occupational subgroups can also be a primary social or organisational identification
category for employees. For example, in hospitals occupational subcultures such as nursing,
33
medicine and administration have a strong influence on employees’ attitudes, values and
behaviours (Degeling, Kennedy, Hill, Carnegie & Holt, 1998). Sparks and Cooper (1999)
argued that sources of pressure in the workplace that impact on worker health and well-being
vary in the degree to which they are linked to stress in a particular job or organisation. Their
study reported that different job characteristics were more or less important in different
occupations. For example, physicians, pharmacists and nursing staff all scored highly on the
organisational role as a source of pressure. To this end, professional or occupational identity
may be an important predictor of change perceptions, particularly where the proposed change
threatens established professional groups (Covin & Kilmann, 1990; Watson et al., 2001).
There has been a recent burgeoning of interest in the relevance of professional identity
in organisational behaviour (Beck, Kaplan, Smith & Moroco, 2000; Carpenter & Platt, 1997;
De Corse & Vogtle, 1997; Netting & Williams, 1996). Individuals tend to identify with
groups that are most similar to themselves and frequently identify themselves as members of
a profession long before they join a particular organisation (Turner et al., 1987). Grice
(2001) found that an employee’s professional group elicited an equally strong level of
identification as the work unit. Moravec (1994) and Kanter (1991) have proposed that
employee loyalty is shifting from organisations toward professional groups to ensure
continued employability in a job market that is rife with downsizing and restructuring.
In addition to perceptions of climate and affective responses to change, it is important
to examine variation in adjustment indicators during organisational change based on group
differences. Nelson, Cooper and Jackson (1995) found significant differences in job
satisfaction between three categories of employees: manual workers, administrative staff, and
management. Systematic variation in scores on these measures occurred over a period of
34
transition within the organisation. Further, Lee and Mowday (1987) believe that most
turnover models make generalised predictions, although the separation decision process may
differ for employees across and within organisations (Dalessio, Silverman & Schuck, 1981;
Lee, Mitchell, Wise & Fireman, 1996; Mobley, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981).
Aims of the Present Program of Research
In summary, apart from the research of Terry et al. (1996), little attention has been paid
to the development and testing of theory-based models of employee adjustment during
organisational change. The previous review identified several limitations in the literature
linking stress to the experience of change. Firstly, the stress literature has focused on
individual characteristics or coping resources at the expense of the investigation of
organisational factors that might enable stressful situations to be appraised more positively.
Secondly, many models of the work-strain relationship fail to account for specific situations,
job dimensions or intra-organisational group factors. The failure to be situation-specific is an
increasing concern in occupational psychology (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Quick &
Quick, 1984; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987). In addition, Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron
(2001) argued that the organisational change literature is underdeveloped in relation to the
linkage of change processes to outcomes and in the partnership between scholars and
practitioners.
The present program of research attempts to address these concerns through two
central research objectives. The first objective is the development of a theoretical model of
employee adjustment during organisational change. The second objective is to increase the
applied value of the theoretical model. The model builds on previous adaptations of the
35
stress and coping perspective to an organisational change perspective (Terry et al., 1996) and
includes three major research questions.
1. Do elements of climate act as organisational coping resources, promoting positive
employee adjustment during organisational change?
2. Do employee appraisals of change have an impact on a range of work adjustment
indicators?
3. Do the variables in models of employee adjustment during organisational change
vary as a function of an employee’s organisational level and occupational group?
The dissertation is presented in seven chapters. This first chapter has provided an
overview of the literature in relation to employee adjustment during organisational change,
drawing on occupational stress research in particular. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)
cognitive-phenomenological model of stress and coping provided a theoretical orientation for
the research. A discussion of the limitations of this approach informed the aims of the
present program of research. Chapter Two provides a discussion of the epistemological and
methodological approaches which underpin the present program of research. This discussion
includes an outline of the design of each of the four studies, and an evaluation of the research
methods and analytical techniques used. Chapter Three presents the results of Study 1 which
tested a model of employee adjustment during organisational change that examined
employee well-being and job satisfaction as outcomes of positive adjustment during change.
Chapter Four presents the results of Study 2 which tested a model of employee adjustment
during organisational change that examined organisational commitment, turnover intentions
and absenteeism as outcomes of positive adjustment during change. Chapter Five presents
the results of Study 3 which investigated group differences in perceptions of climate and
36
levels of adjustment during organisational change as a function of an employee’s
organisational level. Chapter Six presents the results of Study 4 which investigated both
occupational group and organisational level differences in perceptions of climate and levels
of adjustment during organisational change. Finally, Chapter Seven provides an integrative
discussion of the results of all of the four studies, including consideration of the key findings,
practical implications, limitations and directions for future research.
37
CHAPTER TWO
Methodological Issues
This chapter provides a discussion of the methodological approach used to undertake
the present program of research. Firstly, the research is situated within an epistemological
paradigm. Secondly, an overview of the research design is provided. This overview includes
comment on the appropriateness and soundness of the methods utilised to investigate the
research questions of the thesis. Finally, each of the analytical techniques employed in the
present research are described and discussed with reference to any specific issues that need to
be understood for the sound application of these techniques and the interpretation of the
results. The discussion of structural equation modelling as a data analytic technique is
particularly extensive due to the complexity of many of the relevant issues.
The Epistemological Approach of the Present Program of Research
In order to establish the basis on which the contribution to knowledge offered by the
thesis was constructed and tested, a brief discussion of the epistemological approach used in
the thesis is now provided. Cresswell (1994) noted that a research design must be developed
with consideration of epistemological and the methodological issues. Epistemology is the
study of the nature of the relationship between the agent of inquiry and the reality (Kuhn,
1966).
Scientific realism provides a sound epistemological basis for both theory testing and
theory development (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Wollin, 1996). It has elements of the
standard logico-empirical approach which examines patterns in observations and compares
what is logically expected, or theoretically predicted, with what is actually observed (Babbie,
38
2001). However, scientific realism operates within a paradigm that allows the researcher to
draw upon previously developed models and adjust them to new empirical data. It allows for
the incorporation of context-specific variables into pre-existing models, giving the researcher
a higher level of flexibility and sensitivity during the research process than accounted for in
positivism (Tsoukas, 1989). Scientific realism is the appropriate epistemological orientation
for the methodology because the present research aimed to test and further develop the
contextual variables within an existing theoretical framework.
Yin (1994) argued that all research programs should start with a theoretical framework,
regardless of whether the research is explanatory, descriptive or exploratory. To develop a
proposed model, inductive as well as deductive reasoning processes must take place (Webb,
1995). All research involves both induction and deduction, since the researcher must move
from ideas to data and from data to ideas (Hammersley, 1992). The use of both inductive
and deductive approaches provides a useful synthesis for theory development and expansion
(Bourgeois, 1979; Parkhe, 1993). The research process was mostly deductive and
confirmatory in that it tested models containing predictions about relationships between
variables that were derived from theory. However, it also included an element of inductive
process in that a series of exploratory interviews were undertaken in order to expand the
theoretical model of employee adjustment during organisational change. An overview of the
research design is now provided.
Overview of the Research Design
The present program of research aimed to investigate factors related to employee
adjustment during organisational change. In order to undertake this investigation, a process
of theory development was employed. To commence the present program of research, a
39
literature review was conducted to ground the research objectives theoretically. The research
design consisted of four studies conducted in two Australian public sector organisations, one
a large hospital and the second a large state government department. Employees in both
organisations experienced major organisational change. Pilot interviews were used to
understand the context of change in both organisations and inform the development of a
survey instrument. Each of the data sets obtained from the surveys was analysed according
to the research objectives outlined above, resulting in four studies (two that tested models of
adjustment during organisational change and two that examined group differences in
adjustment during change). Figure 2.1 depicts a conceptual map of the research design.
Figure 2.1.
A model of adjustment during
change: Job satisfaction and
psychological well-being.
Study 1
Survey Organisation A
Overview of the Research Design
Literature review
Pilot interviews Organisation A
Org
A model of adjustment during
change: Organisational commitment,
turnover intentions and absenteeism.
Study 2
Occupational and organisational level
differences in employee
adjustment during change.
Study 4
Conclusions
Pilot interviews Organisation B
Survey anisation B
Organisational level differences in
employee adjustment during
change.
Study 2
40
Studies 1 and 4 were conducted using a survey of a sample of employees from a public
hospital. At the time of data collection, the hospital was involved in a large-scale
organisational change program with several objectives, including the implementation of
cross-functional work teams, downsizing the number of beds from 900 to 600 and designing
and moving to a new, more technologically advanced building. The hospital is primarily
responsible for providing health services to the community and is structured into divisions
which provide different types of services to patients (e.g., surgery, medicine, allied health,
mental health).
Employees working in the hospital sector face the challenge of maintaining service
orientation whilst facing increasing pressures such as funding crises, bed shortages, lengthy
waiting lists for surgery and new funding procedures, within an administrative context
increasingly focused on efficiency and profit (Harber et al., 1997; Thompson & Van de Ven,
2001). A hospital is a suitable research setting for studying a number of distinct professional
identities and status groups within a context where organisational change, stress and
competition for scarce resources are highly salient. A variety of occupational groups are
represented in the organisation, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and a
range of operational, administrative and non-clinical support staff. Hierarchically, positions
are grouped into levels/classifications based on the qualifications and experience of the
incumbent.
Studies 2 and 3 were conducted using a sample of employees of a state public sector
department which had undergone significant change and restructuring, including an
amalgamation and de-amalgamation with another department. Employees of the department
are required to adapt to an environment of continual organisational change driven by the
41
political nature of the public sector. The department is structured into nine Service Areas.
The service areas are divisions that co-ordinate the delivery of a range of operational,
administrative and policy functions throughout the state. A variety of occupational groups
are represented in the organisation, including customer service, administrative/secretarial,
research/policy development, technical and managerial staff. Hierarchically, employee’s
positions are grouped into standard public service classifications (e.g., Administrative
Officers levels 1-8, Professional Officers levels 1-5, Technical Officers level 1-5 etc.).
The primary objective of both organisations is to provide quality public services to the
community within the context of resource constraints dictated by government funding. In
addition, both organisations comprised employees facing adjustment to different types of
change in the workplace. These factors made the organisations appropriate sites for the
examination of aspects of organisational climate that might facilitate employee adjustment
during organisational change (see Chapter 1).
Using these two organisations, the present program of research primarily aimed to
develop a theoretical model of employee adjustment during organisational change. It is
important to note that a second research objective was to increase the applied value of the
theoretical model. Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron (2001) promoted the need for research
problems to be framed in the context of social application, urging management scholars to
act as knowledge producers.
Towards these objectives, two methods were employed in the present program of
research; pilot interviews and employee opinion surveys. These methods are now described
and evaluated in terms of their appropriateness for investigating the research questions of the
thesis.
42
Convergent Interviewing
The unstructured, extensive interview is a useful tool in the early stages of a research
process. In particular, qualitative research is especially important for questionnaire
construction and hypothesis formulation and allows the researcher to capture the context for
a theoretical model (Zikmund, 1997). The use of interviews complements a purely
quantitative method by allowing for integration of researchers’ and participants’ perspectives
and cross-validation (Jick, 1979; Reichardt & Cook, 1979; Sayer, 1992).
To commence the research program in both organisations, a qualitative approach was
taken to the collection of exploratory data through interviews. The interviews were mainly
used to define and understand the change context in the organisations sampled. The use of
exploratory data was also considered important to identify the salient aspects of employees’
psycho-social work environment to be measured in the survey. Hence, the interviews
enhanced the validity of the primary data collection method, a self-report survey.
The pilot interviews conducted in the present program of research used a technique
known as convergent interviewing. This process requires an openness to new ideas and it
ensures that the salient issues in an organisation are captured. Convergent interviewing
combines the advantages of unstructured and structured interviews, but requires that a
reasonably representative sample is utilised (Dick, 1986). Qualitative data collection
requires ‘theoretical sampling’ in order to allow the data collected to be useful for generating
theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to achieve this, the sample of interviewees in the present
research were individuals representing diverse groups within the organisations.
In convergent interviewing, the interview style is unstructured. However, the analysis
of the interviews follows a very structured process (Zikmund, 1997). The data gathered is
43
analysed systematically throughout the collection process, and involves specification and re-
specification of the issues relevant to the research project. The emergence of issues during
the process must be confirmed by the subsequent interviews. Convergent interviews allow
the researcher to collect the broad information without losing any significant detail, as in the
case of structured interviews (Dick, 1986).
Determining the soundness or ‘rigour’ of qualitative approaches is often difficult
because, unlike quantitative criteria such as reliability and validity, qualitative standards are
less established. Not unlike quantitative research, there are several issues that are considered
important in establishing the validity and reliability of qualitative data. The extent to which
the research is conducted in such a manner that the subject matter is accurately described and
identified is important to establish its credibility. Transferability refers to the possibility of
transferring the methods used to another setting; hence description of the methods used must
be detailed. Dependability refers to the degree to which the researcher accounts for changes
in the phenomenon under study and the evolution of the design in response to the data.
Finally, conformability should be established by determining the degree to which the fit
between the data and the researcher’s conclusions can be confirmed by another (Dick, 1986;
Wollin, 1996).
In the present research, several strategies were used to ensure that the interviewing
process conformed to the above standards. Interviewers were trained extensively in the
process of convergent interviewing method. The use of a team of researchers enabled some
reliability to be established. Detailed notes were taken during the interview and audio-
recordings and transcripts of each interview were made. Interviewers met daily during the
data collection period to discuss the content of the interview and the convergence and
44
divergence in the issues raised, enabling the constructs of interest to evolve throughout the
process. The procedures were documented and repeated in organisation B.
Interviews with a sample of hospital staff (employees of organisation A) were
conducted on-site from May to July during 1998. Each interviewee signed a consent form
for the interview to be taped and the purpose of the interview was clearly explained to them.
The interviews were unstructured and started by asking participants an open ended question
about his or her opinions regarding positive and negative aspects of the changes. The
interviews varied in length from five minutes to one hour and 20 minutes. Sixty-seven
employees were interviewed. Twelve of these participants were Executive Committee
members (three female and nine male), 36 were supervisory staff of varying levels (23
female and 13 male) and 19 of the interviewees were non-supervisory staff (12 female and
seven male). A team of six researchers (including the author of this dissertation) conducted
the interviews and daily, weekly and final convergence meetings were held to examine the
emerging themes and monitor thematic saturation.
Interviews with a sample of public servants (employees of organisation B) were
conducted on-site from June to July during 1998. There were 27 interview participants who
were senior and middle managers of the each of the business units in the department. The
organisation determined the interview sample based on gaining representation across the
service areas. The same procedure as described in the hospital context was utilised (e.g.,
participants were asked their opinions about various positive and negative aspects of working
in a changing environment). A team of three researchers conducted the interviews and,
again, convergence meetings were conducted to examine the emerging themes and monitor
thematic saturation.
45
The present research is part of a series of studies being conducted through an
Australian Research Council grant. Other projects with different research questions were
included in the interview process. As the interviews were designed to contextualise a
number of research questions outside the present program of research, they did not constitute
a data source for formal analysis in the present research. Rather, any information that
emerged from the interviews relevant to the present research was integrated with the
introduction and discussion sections in each of the studies. The issues raised in the
interviews were converted to a report for the organisations and interview participants that
informed the development of the survey instruments.
Relevant in the present research were participants’ comments about the organisational
climate. As discussed in Chapter 1, the importance of support provided by supervisors and
managers is often a major component of employees’ perceptions of the work environment.
The importance of this support was confirmed in the interviews in both organisations. An
established measure of supervisor support was suitable for inclusion as a climate based
coping resource in both surveys. Another highly salient element of climate common to both
organisations, but not identified in the literature review, was the importance of beliefs in
service quality. In the hospital interviews, providing quality patient care was an important
theme discussed by many participants. In the public sector interviews, the provision of
effective customer service was, again, an important theme. Measures of customer service
were developed in consultation with organisation members in order to ensure their suitability
for the two different contexts.
In addition, a third climate measure unique to each organisation was also included in
the survey based on the comments of interview participants. The hospital survey included a
46
measure of employee relations as some recent discord between management and staff and
between staff had been reported as a result of the change process. The public sector survey
included a measure of leader vision as many interview participants discussed the importance
of having an enthusiastic and visionary leader to guide employees through a change process.
Survey Methodology
Previous research in the theoretical domain on which the present research is based used
survey data to represent the constructs of interest. In particular, Terry et al. (1996) tested a
model of employee adjustment during change using structural equation modelling and
confirmatory factor analysis of survey data. Large sample sizes are important for such
analyses, especially where several variables are to be analysed simultaneously (Babbie,
2000). It was necessary to use a consistent approach in the present research and this required
the use of large-scale surveys.
It is evident that the use of self-report surveys is both legitimate and dominant in the
field of applied organisational psychological research. Survey research represents a general
approach to psychological research sometimes called correlational research which, unlike
experimental research, does not involve the manipulation of independent variables. Instead,
correlational research assesses the predictive relationships among variables. Survey data are
often used for the purposes of describing sub-populations and predicting repetitive patterns
within the general population (Hammersley, 1992).
When constructed and used properly, a questionnaire is a powerful scientific
instrument (Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 1997) used as a tool for collecting data. The use of
a structured, self-report format enables perceptual data to be confidentially and inexpensively
collected from a large proportion of organisational members. Survey research is designed to
47
deal more directly with the nature of people’s thoughts, opinions and feelings (Shaughnessy
& Zechmeister, 1997), making it highly suitable for collecting the type of data required to
test the theoretical models in the present research.
The usefulness of survey methodology for quantitative hypothesis testing has been
extensively considered (Babbie, 2000; Creswell, 1994; Newman, 1994). The most common
form of survey research is a cross-sectional design, involving observations of a sample (a
cross section) in a population at one point in time. Such studies are useful for exploratory
and descriptive purposes, but explanatory studies that are cross-sectional in design have one
inherent problem – aiming to understand causal processes that occur over time (Babbie,
2000). There are some important limitations of cross-sectional designs that must be
acknowledged. There are also reliability and validity issues which must be considered in
relation to the use of surveys. The ensuing discussion examines these issues in relation to the
strengths and weaknesses of using survey methods in the present research.
Theoretical models that can be tested using survey research are restricted to the
cognitive and emotional levels of analysis and do not allow for any explicit prediction of
behaviour resulting from the attitudes (Ajzen, 1985). In a cross-sectional design, the use of
single source data to assess predictive relationships can be considered problematic due to
what is known as common method variance. Measurement of variables using single source
data may mean inflated correlations between study variables explained by variance due to the
common method of data collection. Such problems threaten the internal validity necessary to
establish causal relationships.
Crampton and Wagner (1994) noted that the seriousness of this issue depends on the
research question and the nature of the variables under consideration. If the central variables
48
of interest are by definition perceptual, as they are in the present research, the researcher is
left with few options but to obtain such information via self-report measures. Previous
research on climate has relied almost exclusively on self-report perceptions to infer climate
perceptions (Ashkanasy et al., 2000).
The use of a longitudinal design, where independent and dependent measures are
collected at different times, is often suggested as a means of addressing this problem. In
addition, the literature often contains appeals to researchers to design studies that attempt to
link employee self-report variables with other data sources (e.g., supervisor ratings of
employee performance, physiological indices of stress, measures of an organisation’s fiscal
performance or levels of client satisfaction). However, opportunities to conduct such studies
in applied organisational settings are rare and difficult to implement due to a range of
complex issues. It was not possible to conduct longitudinal studies in the present research
due to logistic and confidentiality concerns in the organisations sampled. Management
declined to use code identifiers as a means of preserving confidentiality. For the same
reasons, access to alternative sources of data, such as personnel records, was not granted.
If the nature of the variables being measured can be assessed most appropriately with
perceptual measures and more sophisticated designs are not possible, single-source data can
still provide a useful resource for the examination of the measurement properties of and
structural relations among self-report variables (Kelloway, 1995). There are procedures
designed to assess the gravity of common method variance which will be discussed
specifically in relation to the analysis of survey data using confirmatory factor analysis and
structural equation modelling.
49
Reliability and validity
One criterion for evaluating the rigour of a research method is reliability, whether a
particular technique applied repeatedly to the same object yields the same result each time.
Another major criteria for assessing research quality is validity, the extent to which an
empirical measure adequately reflects the real meaning of the concept under consideration.
Survey research is generally weak on validity and strong on reliability (Babbie, 2000). There
is a tension between reliability and validity, as increasing one is often at the expense of
decreasing the other.
Theoretical constructs cannot be observed directly or indirectly, but are represented by
researchers’ observations or participant’s responses to questionnaire items. In the present
research, latent variables comprised of responses to questionnaire items are used to represent
the constructs of interest. Using a questionnaire to ask exactly the same questions of all
participants and having to impute the same intent to their responses has both advantages and
disadvantages. The advantage of this standardisation is enhanced reliability. By presenting
participants with standardised stimulus, surveys can eliminate the unreliability or bias in
observations made by researchers. Careful wording of questions can also reduce the
participant’s own unreliability (Babbie, 2000). The disadvantage of this standardisation is
reduced validity. People’s opinions seldom take the form of strongly agreeing, agreeing or
disagreeing with a specific statement, meaning that the assessment of attitudes may be
somewhat restricted or superficial. A questionnaire seldom deals with the total life situation
in which respondents are thinking and can thus be considered an inflexible and artificial
means of understanding complex phenomena (Babbie, 2000). Hence, survey responses must
be regarded as approximate indicators of a concept.
50
To increase reliability in the present program of research, a number of strategies were
used. Where possible, known measures of the constructs of interest were employed in the
questionnaires. Where measures were developed for use in the questionnaires based on
interviews, the data gathering techniques are thoroughly described. Another method used to
increase the reliability of the results involved pre-testing questionnaires (Babbie, 2000). It is
also important to demonstrate that the operations of a study, such as the data collection
procedures, can be repeated with the same results.
To increase ecological or external validity (Denzin, 1978) in this research, the pilot
interviews were used to gather contextual information relevant in explaining some of the
empirical results and confirm the salient climate elements to be measured in each
organisation. The external validity of survey findings refers to the establishment of the
domain to which a study’s findings can be generalised. Both surveys have sampled
employees in organisational field settings and, thus, have generalisability specifically to
health and public sector employees.
Sampling
Employees of organisations are the population of interest in the present research.
Organisations (groups of employees) are studied in order to generalise to other similar
organisations. When designing a survey, the type of sample drawn from the population of
interest is an important consideration. As noted earlier, the size of the sample is also an
important factor in determining the type of statistical analyses which can be performed on the
data.
A probability sampling technique was used in distribution of the hospital survey. One
of two versions of the survey was randomly mailed to all employees; thus, half of the
51
hospital population was the ‘sampling frame’. This decision was influenced by the size of
the total sample at the hospital (over 5000 employees) and the fact that a number of projects
that were part of the present research grant needed to access the hospital sample. Therefore,
the sample was randomly split into two different sub-samples. In relation to the state public
sector department survey, the whole organisation was the sampling frame as only one version
of the survey was sent to each employee.
The response rate of surveys is an important sampling issue. Response bias occurs
when certain respondents are more likely to provide data than other respondents. An
example of systematic sampling error could be non-response of persons not interested in
filling out the questionnaire or employees with language and literacy difficulties. When
gathering a sample, researchers aim to have a pool of respondents that look essentially like a
random sample of the organisation and, thus, constitute a somewhat smaller random sample
of the total population (all employees in similar organisations). Thus, the representativeness
of the sample should be established. Analyses which compare the sample to the population
on a range of characteristics are standard means of assessing representativeness. Such
analyses confirmed that the samples used in the present research were, in fact, representative
of the organisational populations from which they were obtained on a range of demographic
characteristics.
Both surveys in this research were completed on a voluntary basis. In order to
increase the response rate, the surveys were widely advertised throughout the organisations
with communication strategies including e-mail messages, leaflets, posters and
announcements during staff meetings. Also, assistance with completing the survey was
offered for employees with a non-english speaking background or literacy issues. The
52
response rates obtained in the samples reported in the present research both exceeded 50%
which, according to Babbie (2000), is considered adequate.
Analytic Techniques
Both of the analytic techniques used in the present research rely on null hypothesis
testing in which statistical significance criteria are applied. The p < .05 cut-off ensures that
chances of the findings being due to chance is five percent or less (Azar, 1999). However, as
noted by Locascio (1999) many researchers have argued that excessive weight is given to the
statistical significance of a study’s results in determining whether they are reported/and or
discussed in the literature. In addition, although a controversial practice, results which
border on significance (p < .10) are sometimes discussed as theoretically interesting
(although not statistically significant) as they indicate a trend toward significance which may
be useful to pursue in future research. It is noted here that in two instances such results will
be reported in the present research.
The survey data from both organisations were analysed using two different statistical
techniques. Studies 1 and 2 used confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation
modelling to test the utility of two theoretical models which proposed antecedent, mediating
and outcome variables deemed critical to understanding the process of employee adjustment
during organisational change. Studies 3 and 4 used Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA) to examine group differences in employee adjustment during organisational
change. What follows is a description of each of these methods of data analysis and a
discussion of the specific issues important to understanding their appropriate application and
interpretation.
53
Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling
The analysis of survey data using structural equation modelling (SEM) is an
increasingly popular technique as it allows the researcher to test the utility of a complex
theory on empirical data. The testing of structural (i.e. path) models shares some similarity
with the more familiar use of multiple regression, but has some distinct advantages,
particularly in relation to its capacity to address issues of measurement error (Kelloway,
1995). SEM, also known as covariance structure modelling, allows for global hypothesis
testing by comparing a predicted covariance matrix (an a priori model) to the covariance
matrix observed in a data sample. The extent to which the predicted matrix “matches up”
with the observed matrix represents the “fit” of the model to the data. Various indices of
model fit will be further discussed later in this section.
Models tested using SEM can include both observed or manifest variables (raw data)
and latent variables (factors or theoretical constructs). A structural model represents the
manner in which variables are related to each other using diagrams and arrows implying
statistical prediction. Latent variable models allow for estimation of the parameters of a
model without the measurement error associated with manifest variables. Thus, path
coefficients reflect relationships between factors that are analogous to “true” scores
(Brannick, 1995). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is the appropriate means of assessing
the measurement properties of a model, prior to testing the structural relations among the
constructs. The adequacy of the measurement model is also assessed using “fit” statistics
calculated from comparing the proposed factor structure with sample data. The analysis is
confirmatory because the model specifies the relationships between the measured and latent
54
variables, or the indicators and the constructs. In survey research, the indicators are usually
scores on questionnaire items.
A detailed examination of the mathematical basis and estimation methods of SEM and
CFA is beyond the scope of this discussion, but is widely available in the statistical literature
(see, for example, Bentler, 1989; Bollen, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984). The utility of
statistical tools depends on the manner in which they are applied (Kelloway, 1995).
However, as noted by Brannick (1995), many researchers have violated the basic
assumptions and necessary conditions for using SEM, resulting in the inappropriate
application of the technique. What follows is a discussion of the major concepts important in
the evaluation and application of CFA and SEM techniques.
Model specification. Brannick (1995) argued that, for sound application of the SEM
technique, information about measurement properties of the variables of interest and the
structural relations among them is necessary. Unlike more traditional data analytic
techniques, such as exploratory factor analyses and multiple regression, SEM is not well
suited to the initial development of measures and theoretical models.
Models based on constructs that are operationalised by multi-item scales with known
psychometric properties would seem to offer greater potential for the unambiguous
specification of a measurement structure. Researchers need to develop theoretically every
relationship or model parameter, including those thought to be zero (Kelloway, 1995). In
more established research areas, an extensive review of the literature should provide
information about factor structures and structural relations among the variables of interest,
enabling the researcher to propose an a priori model.
55
The two models proposed and tested in the present research were specified based on
the theoretical structure of Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological stress
and coping framework. The literature review also identified potential alternative antecedent
and outcome variables to be tested. The measurement model was specified according to
existing factor structures for measures used in previous research.
Model fit. Model estimation is conducted using a loss function, usually the Maximum
Likelihood procedure. Computation of an approximate chi-square statistic is then used to test
the fit of the reproduced matrix to the sample matrix. A chi-square difference statistic that is
non-significant is indicative of a model that fits the data well (Bentler & Hu, 1995). As it is
extremely rare to find a non-significant chi-square when working with a large sample, such
as in the present studies, a range of other fit indices should also be examined before a model
is rejected (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
An important indicator to calculate is the χ2/dƒ ratio, where values below three are
considered favourable (Kline, 1988). Incremental fit indices are also used to assess the
validity of the model. The non-normed fit index (NNFI) is designed to provide an adequate
index of fit at all sample sizes and the comparative fit index (CFI) provides a population
estimate of the model fit. These indices, varying between zero and one, should exceed .95 to
indicate a good fit of the model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The distribution of
residuals should also be examined. As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), it is
desirable that the distribution is symmetric (around zero) and absolute indices such as the
average off-diagonal standardized residuals and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) should not exceed .05.
56
Model re-specification. Although a ‘purely’ confirmatory approach to model testing
was advocated by early researchers (James, Mulaik & Brett, 1982), it has become common
practice to examine the modification indices provided by the specification search
computations included in SEM programs such as EQS and LISREL. Very few a priori
models that hypothesised latent factors and were tested in a large sample size were able to
yield an adequate fit. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) developed a two-step approach to deal
with this problem. This procedure is used in the present studies. The first stage involves
fitting and adjusting a measurement model to the data prior to testing the structural
component of the model.
Adjustments to the measurement model are usually made based on a number of
criteria. Indicators may fail to have substantial loadings on the factors to which they were
proposed to belong. They may have significant cross-loadings on other factors or have large
and positive correlated residuals with an indicator of another factor. Options for dealing with
these issues are deleting problem indicators or re-specifying the model to include multi
dimensional factors (indicators loading on more than one factor), the latter option being more
controversial (Kline, 1998).
Researchers are frequently advised to consider the substantive implications of any post
hoc modifications to their models (Kelloway, 1995), as deleting problem indicators may pose
a threat to the content validity of the latent factor. Although the models reported in the
present research did utilise modification indices in order to delete problem indicators, some
of the items were considered important to retain in terms of the content validity of the factors
representing the constructs of interest. In some instances, items were retained for this reason
even where the measurement properties of an indicator may not have been desirable. In
57
addition, as instructed by Bollen (1989), each latent construct retained a minimum of three
indicators.
Kline (1998) has noted some additional considerations in judging the adequacy of a
measurement model. Correlations between the latent factors should be examined as a means
of assessing discriminant validity (i.e., they should not be too high). Conversely, high
correlations between the indicators of each latent factor are desirable for establishing
convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, computed for the items used as indicators
for a latent construct, provided a measure of reliability and convergent validity. Three of the
measures in the models presented in the current research could be considered low, however
as long as the alpha level is greater than 0.6 the data is still adequate (Carmines & Zeller,
1979). The low level of reliability could be a function of the small number of indicators used
to measure a construct (in some cases only three items). However, the present research
attempted to balance the trade-off between increased model fit and reduced reliability and
content validity that occurs when indicators are deleted.
The squared multiple correlation (r2) for each indicator is also an important statistic to
examine. Values of r2 less than .5 are not desirable as more than half of an indicator’s
variance is unexplained by the factor it is proposed to measure. Finally, it is important to
check that none of the measurement error terms associated with measured variables are
significantly correlated.
After the measurement model is evaluated, a structural model is estimated. The fit of
the structural model is assessed and modification indices are again examined. In the EQS
program, the Wald test results list the parameters that are non-significant and could be
omitted without any substantial loss of model fit. Lagrange Multiplier tests indicate how
58
much the model could be improved by adding in significant but unspecified paths.
Modification of the structural model based on the inclusion of paths that were shown to be
significant in the specification searches, but were not theoretically predicted, is considered
suspect by many proponents of SEM as it increases the probability of Type 1 errors (Kline,
1998). Cross validation using different samples is suggested as a way of strengthening
models that have been modified due to specification searches (Kelloway, 1995). To address
these concerns, the present research did not add non-specified paths to the models and
attempted to cross validate the basic theoretical and measurement structure across two
different samples.
Assumptions of estimation methods. West, Finch and Curran (1995) note that a major
source of inappropriate use of SEM has been the failure of investigators to satisfy the scaling
and normality assumptions on which estimation and testing are based. The commonly used
Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation method assumes that the measured variables are
continuous and have a multivariate normal distribution. The results of simulation studies
designed to test the analysis of CFA models with severely non-normal data generally suggest
that, although parameter estimates are fairly accurate in large samples, type I error is more
common (Kline, 1998). Thus, when data are severely non-normal, results of significance
tests tend to be significant too often, mainly due to the underestimation of standard errors.
The distributions of all model variables were suitable for ML estimation with the
exception of the absenteeism measure in Study 2, which was converted to a dichotomous
variable “absent or not”. Categorical data such as ordinal or dichotomous variables are often
estimated in SEM models. However, Kline (1998) notes several issues to be considered in
relation to the analysis of non-continuous variables using SEM. Firstly, correlations between
59
dichotomous or ordinal variables tend to be truncated relative to correlations between the
underlying continuous latent variables. Thus, estimates may not accurately reflect the
corresponding values for latent variables. Second, scores on such variables are not normally
distributed which may violate the assumptions of ML described above. In addition,
participants’ responses to individual items tend not to be as reliable as scale scores composed
of many items.
West et al. (2000) reported that investigations into the effects of coarse categorization
of continuous variables have found that correlations were generally lower than those found
for the continuous version of the same variables. The greatest attenuation occurred when
fewer categories were employed. As with non-normally distributed data, coarse
categorization of variables may lead to biased tests of model fit and other model estimates.
The conclusion drawn in their meta-analysis of simulation studies suggested that the use of
dichotomous outcome variables is admissible but the results should be interpreted with
caution.
Causality. It is important to note that like other statistical techniques, SEM cannot
establish proof of causality. Laboratory studies using experimental designs are the
methodology of choice for examining causal relationships. It is not possible to infer
causality among the variables in a model by fitting a covariance structure model to cross-
sectional survey data (Brannick, 1995). However, properly identified models can support
inferences of causality (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). The majority of empirical research in
organisational behaviour relies on cross sectional data as true experimental designs are not
possible in what is inherently a “field” setting. Even quasi-experimental designs are quite
60
rare due to the limited opportunity for such methodologies to be applied. Hence, the
elimination of alternative explanations for relations among the variables is necessary.
Testing the fit of “nested” models and comparing them with the proposed structural
model is a means of providing support for the theoretical utility of a model and attempting to
rule out rival models. In particular, for a test of mediated relationships of the form A → B →
C (Baron & Kenny, 1986), the model should be compared with a test of the partially
mediated model that also includes a path from A to C. In addition, a non-mediated model
can be derived by eliminating the path from B to C and incorporating the path A to C. Both
the fully mediated and non-mediated models are nested within the partially mediated model.
This sequence of tests was used in the present research to provide evidence of the necessity
and sufficiency of the mediated relationships (Kelloway, 1995).
The use of cross sectional survey methodology means that an important consideration
is whether common method variance poses a significant problem to the validity of the
measurement model. A standard means of addressing concerns about common method
variance in same-source data is Harman’s Single Factor procedure (Harris & Mossholder,
1996; McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). This procedure assumes that if
method variance is largely responsible for the co-variation among the measures, a single
(method) factor model should fit the data well. This step was taken in both models presented
in the present research in order to discount the presence of severe method variance.
Although concerns about the inappropriate use of SEM techniques have been raised
(Brannick, 1995), the researcher must choose the techniques that best suit the development of
the research question (Kelloway, 1995) and provide a considered rationale for defence of the
methodology based on the all of the issues discussed above. Questions and debates about
61
model fit can be extrapolated to almost all statistical analyses. As noted by Kelloway (1995),
the assessment of model fit is exceedingly complex and has been subject to intense empirical
and theoretical scrutiny. He argued that at present there is no simple answer to the question
‘does the model fit the data’. The best researchers can do is consider a range of model fit
indices, be consistent in decision rules within and across any analyses, include a
consideration of the admissibility of the solution and ensure that each of the individual
parameters, residuals and modification indices are considered (Joreskog, 1993). As noted
previously, it is also important that competing models be compared for model fit.
Analysis of survey data using Multivariate Analysis of Variance
One of the research questions of this dissertation requires an investigation of the extent
to which status or role based groups vary in their perceptions of climate, change and
adjustment. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) is a suitable technique for such
an investigation. MANOVA is primarily used to test the statistical significance of
differences between the means of two or more groups on two or more dependent variables,
considered simultaneously (Polit & Hungler, 1993). Researchers often describe subsets of
cases or respondents for comparative purposes. Analysis of variance is based on the
assumption of causality that group membership causes attitudes (Babbie, 2000). As the use
of MANOVA is well established, a very brief overview of the technique and the major
factors involved in interpreting the results of such an analysis is now provided.
There are several advantages to using MANOVA as it allows the researcher to
examine simultaneously several dependent measures that are orthogonally related. Suitable
in field settings or survey research where the independent measures are categorical,
MANOVA can provide insights into not only the nature and predictive power of the
62
independent measures but also the inter-relationships and differences seen in the set of
dependent measures. An intrinsically multivariate research question involves a set of
dependent measures in which the principal concern is how they differ as a whole across the
groups. Differences on individual dependent measures are of less interest than their
collective effect. The null hypothesis that is tested is the equality of vectors of means on
multiple dependent variables across groups (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1995).
Like the other analytical techniques discussed above, the researcher should assess all
aspects of the research question carefully and ensure that MANOVA is applied in the correct
manner. Issues to consider regarding the appropriateness and validity of the technique
include how the dependent measures are determined and ensuring the basic assumptions of
the technique are not violated. Dependent measures should be selected and grouped
according to a sound conceptual or theoretical basis. In the present research, dependent
measures are grouped according to their theoretical function in the model as either
organisational antecedents (coping resources), mediating variables (change appraisals) or
adjustment indicators (individual and organisational outcomes). Also, before presenting
results of a MANOVA analysis, important considerations include the adequacy of the sample
sizes in each cell (group) of the analysis, and the assessment of normality, linearity and
multicollinearity among the dependent variables.
Interpreting the results of a MANOVA involves examining several criteria. In the
group differences studies reported in this dissertation, main effects, or overall model fit was
assessed with Wilks’ lambda, which considers whether groups are different without being
concerned with whether they differ on at least one linear combination of dependent variables.
Secondly, inspection of effect size (η2), a standardised measure of group differences,
63
provided an indication of the amount of variance explained in the dependent measure (Hair et
al., 1995). Finally, post hoc analyses, statistical tests of mean differences were conducted
after the statistical tests for main effects had been performed. It is important to note that
these tests have quite low levels of power due to the number of possible combinations.
These analyses identified which comparisons among groups had significant differences. The
Student Neuman-Keuls test, a common post-hoc test (Hair et al., 1995), was used to
determine these differences.
Conclusions
The present program of research is epistemologically situated in the scientific realism
paradigm, which provides a sound basis for both theory testing and theory development,
allowing the researcher to draw upon previously developed models and adjust them to
empirical data. The data collected in the present research used surveys that were developed
based on measures used in previous research and the results of pilot interviews. A
justification for the methodological approach to the present program of research has been
provided including an examination of the major issues pertaining to reliability and validity in
the design of the studies. The analytic techniques employed have also been discussed,
particularly in relation to important considerations in the interpretation of results from such
analyses.
64
CHAPTER THREE
Study One
The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change:
A Model Predicting Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-being
Organisational change is a significant source of occupational stress which can have a
negative effect on a range of employee outcomes such as job satisfaction and psychological
well-being (Ashford, 1988; Mack et al., 1998; Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry et.al., 1996).
It is well established that the diminished effectiveness of employees who have reduced job
satisfaction and psychological well-being can impair many aspects of organisational
performance (Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Quick et al., 1997). The impact of organisational
change on employee adjustment has emerged as an important area of research due to the high
emotional and financial costs to employees and organisations when change is not managed
well. In the pursuit of developing a theoretical model of employee adjustment during
organisational change, Terry et al. (1996) found that the application of Lazarus and
Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological framework proved a useful approach. As
outlined in Chapter 1, this model focused on how individuals appraise the change event, their
coping responses and the extent to which access to personal and social coping resources
determine their levels of adjustment to corporate change.
The current research builds upon this model by investigating organisational factors that
contribute to higher levels of employee adjustment to corporate change in a hospital
environment. Changes in the health care system are inevitable and a major issue is
employees’ fear that the cost containment policies in health care reform compromise patient
65
care (Johnston, 1998). Sverke, Hellgren and Oehrming (1997) noted that, although the health
sector has undergone large scale changes, relatively little research has examined how hospital
employees are affected by organisational change.
The present research directs attention to the organisational rather than personal
resources that facilitate adjustment during change in order to develop much broader, system
level interventions that avoid attempting to adapt employees to stressful conditions (Murphy,
1988; Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). It is increasingly being argued that the unique aspects of
an organisation’s climate need to be taken into account to ensure organisation-specific stress
management programs are implemented. Many interventions designed to deal with
workplace stress are ineffective because they fail to recognize the wider contextual issues
within which organisational behaviour takes place (Callan, 1993; Dewe & O’Driscoll, 1999;
Hart & Wearing, 1995). Understanding the role of these contextual factors in reducing stress
is an important research objective.
Organisational-level coping resources are elements of the work context that act as a
source of support during stressful situations. An obvious source of organisational coping
resources is the organisational climate. Climate theory dictates that the way employees
perceive the psycho-social aspects of their work environment contributes to their cognitive
evaluation of the events that occur within it (such as a program of organisational change).
In order to identify salient aspects of the organisational climate and contextualize the
present research, pilot interviews were conducted (see Chapter 2). Interview participants
highlighted the importance of the need to deliver and maintain quality care to patients despite
changes to resources, relocation problems and decreasing staffing levels. Whether or not
supervisors were perceived to be a source of support and information during the change also
66
appeared to be an important element of the organisational climate. In addition, the
effectiveness of relations between staff was considered important. Overall, the interviews
confirmed that the climate elements under investigation in the present study were salient in
the organisation, and provided input into the preparation of the patient care and employee
relations measures in the questionnaire. Thus, the model being tested in the present study
included independent variables developed partly through a qualitative, organisation-specific
process.
As outlined in Chapter 1, a major element of climate is organisational communication.
One aspect of communication, social support from supervisors, was identified as a key
organisational coping resource. The relevance of this construct in the hospital’s
organisational climate was confirmed in the interviews. The interviews also revealed that the
manner in which employees relate to each other and to clients was a particularly salient
aspect of the organisational climate. A service-oriented climate is characterised by respect
for employees, a desire among employees to work together to serve the client, and a focus on
client and employee satisfaction (Hatch, 1993; Parasuraman, 1987; Schein, 1985;
Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). Schneider (2000, p. 21) defined a climate for service as “the
sense that people who work for and/or come into contact with an organisation have with
regard to the service quality emphasis of the organisation”.
In service-oriented climates, the nature of the relationships between staff and between
staff and clients can provide a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a
community of service, even during periods of transformational change (Harber, Ashkanasy &
Callan, 1997; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). Customer orientation or quality emphasis in
organisational climates is associated with employee satisfaction and high levels of
67
organisational performance (Wiley & Brooks, 2000). Hence, the current study includes a
focus on the quality of patient care as a potential organisational-level coping resource.
Aims
The present study aimed to test the utility of a model of employee adjustment during
organisational change which proposed links between supports from the organisational
climate and employee appraisals of the change, and, in turn, levels of employee adjustment.
In this study, employee adjustment was indicated by employee levels of job satisfaction and
psychological well-being. Figure 3.1 illustrates the hypothesised relationships.
The hypothesised model proposed that employees with more positive perceptions of
the organisational climate (relations between staff, quality of patient care and levels of social
support from their direct supervisor) would report higher levels of adjustment (lower change
stress and higher change control and self-efficacy, psychological well-being and job
satisfaction). In addition, it was expected that the effects of climate-based coping resources
upon employee well-being and job satisfaction would be mediated by how positively
employees appraised the changes (perceived change stress, self-efficacy and control).
Figure 3.1.
Organisational Climate(Coping Resources)
• Quality of patient care • Employee relations • Supervisor support
Change Appraisals • Change stress • Change self-efficacy • Change control
Employee Adjustment Indicators
• Psychological well-being• Job satisfaction
Proposed Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change
68
Method
Background
The research was conducted in a large public hospital where employees were
experiencing the introduction of large-scale organisational change. Changes included the
redevelopment of the hospital site, downsizing of staff and significant structural and cultural
change including the implementation of multi-disciplinary teams. The research was
conducted whilst the change management unit were in the midst of planning the changes
including the design of the new building, organisational structure and work practices.
Procedure
Firstly, the questionnaire was pilot tested on a group of 20 employees from various
departments and organisational levels to ensure that questions were clear, wording and
terminology were appropriate and that the layout of questions enabled ease of response. All
of the hospital staff were randomly allocated one of two survey versions. The version
containing the questions of interest in the present research was mailed to 1600 employees.
The survey was a self-administered questionnaire with a postage-paid, return envelope and
took place approximately three months after the completion of the exploratory interviews
(see Chapter 2). A cover letter from the hospital’s District Manager was attached. The letter
told employees that the aim of the survey was to gather their opinions about working at the
hospital and assess the effects of the change program. Confidentiality of responses was
assured and the survey was to be completed anonymously. Participation in the survey was
promoted through the use of posters and messages on payslips.
69
Sample
A total of 779 surveys were returned for analysis, providing a 49% response rate. The
sample consisted of 70% women and 30% men. Sixty two percent of participants were aged
20 to 40 years and 38% were aged 41 and over. Most of the participants (37%) had been
working at the hospital for a period of two to five years and a large number (23%) had
worked there from 6 to 10 years. The occupational categories represented in the sample were
medical managers (1%), medical clinicians (7%), nurse managers (5%), nurse clinicians
(41%), junior medical officers (1%), other health professionals – managers (3%), other health
professionals – clinicians (10%), non-clinical managers (2%), non-clinical supervisors (3%),
operational, administrative, technical and trade officers (20%), executives (1%) and others
(6%). Analysis of hospital statistics showed that the sample was representative of the
composition of the organisation’s entire workforce.
Measures
Participants provided background information on gender, age, length of service, length
of time in current position, and employment status (e.g., casual, full time, part-time, contract,
temporary). They also selected one of 12 staff classifications to describe their position (e.g.,
Nurse-Manager, Nurse-Clinician, Medical-Manager).
Three types of organisational coping resources were measured as a result of the pilot
interviews: employee relations, quality of patient care and the availability of social support
from direct supervisors. The nature of employee relations was measured with three items
that asked staff to rate their level of agreement with statements about different aspects of
working at the hospital (e.g., “In my experience at the hospital, managers/supervisors respect
staff”; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). The focus on the quality of patient care
70
was measured using four items. Using a six point scale, staff rated the extent of agreement
with statements such as: “In my view, the hospital provides good quality patient care”, (1 =
strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Social support from supervisors was measured
using six items. Participants rated how much they relied on their direct supervisor for
various types of support on a four point scale (e.g., 1 = not at all to 4 = very much). These
questions were selected from items used by Terry et al. (1996).
There were five outcome variables measured in the study to profile various types of
employee adjustment during organisational change. These indices of adjustment included the
mediating variables - change-specific attitudes about situational control, self-efficacy and
perceived stress, and the dependent variables - psychological well-being and job satisfaction.
Perceived change-related stress was measured using four items. These questions asked
participants to rate the change process on six point bipolar scales regarding the level of stress,
disruption, difficulty and extent of upset (e.g., 1 = not at all stressful and 6 = extremely
stressful). These questions were adapted from previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Change
control was measured with three items (e.g., “I will be able to influence the extent to which
the changes will affect my job”, 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). One item was
reverse-scored: “I have no control over the extent to which the changes will affect my job”.
Items were adapted from previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Self-efficacy or the extent to
which participants felt they could perform the behaviours required to deal with the changes
was assessed with four items (e.g., “I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned
structural changes”, 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). One item was reverse
scored “I have reason to believe I will not perform well in my job following the introduction
of planned changes”. These items are similar to those used by Ashford (1988). Job
71
satisfaction was assessed with five items adapted from those used by Caplan, Cobb, French,
Van Harrison and Pinneau (1975). The scale assesses generalized levels of job satisfaction
(e.g., “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?; 1 = very dissatisfied to 5
= very satisfied). Psychological well-being was measured with six items from Goldberg’s
(1972) psychological symptoms scale of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The 6
items were a subscale of negative psychological health symptoms. Only one of the two GHQ
subscales was used as SEM models do not allow for the specification of many items for a
particular construct. Including both subscales would increase the number of model
parameters and reduce the likelihood of finding acceptable model fit. Participants were
asked to estimate how often they experienced 6 different symptoms, using a 4 point scale
(e.g., “Felt constantly under strain”, 1 = not at all to 4 = much more than usual). The scores
on these items were reversed to provide an assessment of psychological well-being. A
complete copy of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.
Results
Data screening for respondent errors and omissions was conducted prior to analysis.
Missing values analyses revealed that the missing data ranged from 0.6% to 3.1%. Structural
equation analyses are unable to deal with any missing data and are considered more robust
with larger sample sizes. To retain as many cases as possible, missing values were replaced
with the linear trend for that point (the existing series is regressed on an index variable scaled
1 to n and missing values are replaced with their predicted values). Diagnostic procedures
conducted on the data revealed that multivariate kurtosis was not marked. Hence, the data
were analysed using the maximum likelihood procedure (Bentler & Hu, 1995).
72
The measurement model
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (see Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) was used to test the
adequacy of the measurement model. The items used to measure each of the eight theoretical
constructs were used as indicators of latent variables. Factor variances were set to one in
order to identify the model and a range of model fit and modification indices were computed.
The pattern of results from the test of the a priori measurement model indicated that
the model was a reasonably good fit to the data (χ2 (532) = 1605, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 3.02, CFI
= .92, RMSEA = .05), but as the CFI did not reach the recommended cut-off of .95, the
model was improved with some minor re-specification. As it is often difficult to obtain
adequate fit for models with large numbers of indicators (Kline, 1998), a procedure for
reducing the number of indicators was employed. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) proposed
that deleting problem indicators is the preferred solution for improving the fit of
measurement models. There are several criteria upon which to base the decision to delete an
indicator (see Chapter 2).
Inspection of the standardized correlations among residuals and the Lagrange
Multiplier modification indices revealed that the model could be improved by dropping some
of the items which showed evidence of multiple factor loadings. Kline (1998) has noted that
some researchers allow indicators to load on more than one factor. The present analysis
applied the more conservative principle of unidimensional measurement and did not make
any re-specifications that allowed items to load on multiple factors. In addition, factors with
only three items were not re-specified, as a minimum of three indicators per latent variable
was required for model identification. Substantive considerations regarding an indicator’s
73
contribution to the content validity of each of the latent constructs were also taken into
account.
Indicators with large correlated residuals and/or highly significant cross-loadings on
other factors were deleted. Nine of the original 35 items were dropped from the model.
However, each construct still retained three to four indicators, which is standard for a CFA
model with multiple factors (Bollen, 1989). The modified measurement model yielded an
improved pattern of results in terms of the goodness of fit indices (χ2 (279) = 499, p < .001,
χ2/dƒ = 1.84, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .03). Table 3.1 presents the standardised path
coefficients and r2 values for all of the items in the measurement model.
The correlations between the latent variables in the present model were all within a low
to moderate range, indicating good discriminant validity (Kline, 1988). Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients were computed for items used in the final measurement model and all inter-item
correlations demonstrated satisfactory to high levels of reliability and good convergent
validity (Kline, 1988). Table 3.2 presents the means, standard deviations, inter-correlations
and internal consistency alphas for the latent variables. Finally, it is also important to note
that none of the measurement error terms were significantly correlated.
A one-factor, or baseline model did not fit the data well (χ2 (275) = 4548, p < .001,
χ2/dƒ = 16.5, CFI = .46, RMSEA = .14) and had a large and significant chi-square difference
when compared with the eight-factor measurement model tested in the CFA described above
(χ2 diff (4) = 4050, p < .001). It has been suggested that such results provide an indication
that common method variance did not pose a substantial threat to the validity of the
measurement model (Harris & Mossholder, 1996; McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992; Podsakoff &
Organ, 1986).
74
Table 3.1.
Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of
Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change
Summary of item content β r2
Patient care
Patients at the hospital are treated with sensitivity
The hospital provides good quality care to patients
The hospital maintains a safe environment for patients
.77
.83
.71
.59
.69
.51
Employee relations
Staff at my level treat each other with respect
Open and free communication is encouraged at the hospital
Supervisors and managers respect staff
.81
.60
.81
.65
.40
.66
Supervisor support
Gives sound advice about what you could do when you experience work-
related problems
Provides information which helps to clarify your work-related problems
Listen to you when you need to talk about work-related problems
Express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you
.87
.87
.86
.67
.76
.75
.75
.45
Change stress
The changes are extremely stressful
The changes are extremely disrupting
The changes are extremely difficult
.87
.86
.87
.76
.74
.76
75
Summary of item content β r2
Change self-efficacy
However the changes affect me, I am sure I can handle it
I may not perform well in my job given the introduction of planned
changes(R)
I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes
Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no
doubt I can perform well in the new hospital
.63
.46
.60
.60
.40
.21
.36
.37
Change control
I have no control over the extent to which the changes will affect my job (R)
I will be able to influence the extent to which the changes will affect my job
It is up to individual employees how much they want the changes to influence
their job
.60
.75
.46
.35
.56
.21
Job satisfaction
Satisfied with the quality of the resources available to you to do your job well
Satisfied with the quality of the working conditions available to you to do your
job well
Would you want to work in your present job if you did not have to
.78
.85
.48
.61
.72
.23
Psychological well-being
Felt constantly under strain
Felt you could not overcome your difficulties
Been losing confidence in yourself
.72
.85
.70
.52
.72
.48
76
Table 3.2.
Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Patient care 4.59 .88 (.81)
2. Employee relations
4.06 1.23 .61 (.78)
3. Supervisor social support
2.62 .88 .26 .60 (.89)
4. Change stress 3.36 1.34 -.13 -.24 -.14 (.90)
5. Change self-efficacy
4.05 .70 .31 .37 .29 -.16 (.64)
6. Change control
2.68 .92 .26 .43 .38 -.12 .32 (.60)
7. Job satisfaction
3.25 .93 .41 .57 .44 -.12 .37 .36 (.71)
8. Psychological Well-being
3.13 .67 .19 .34 .32 -.23 .42 .23 .49 (.79)
Note. All correlations are significant at p < .05; Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are in parentheses.
It is important to note the measurement properties of some of the variables are not
satisfactory. The amount of explained variance (r2) in 9 of the 26 indicators of the latent
constructs was less than .5, suggesting that more than half of an item’s variance is
unexplained by the factor it is supposed to measure (Kline, 1998). In addition, two of the
scale scores computed based on the final indicators used in the measurement model showed
low but acceptable levels of reliability (Carmines & Zeller, 1979) as assessed by Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients of .60 (control) and .64 (self-efficacy). However, these low levels of inter-
item correlation are also a function of the small number of items in the scales (three to four).
Despite these limitations, the overall measurement model showed good fit to the data and the
majority of assessments made supported the model’s sound measurement properties.
77
Test of the structural model
Structural equation modelling (using version 5.7b of the EQS program, Bentler, 1989)
was used to test the utility of the theoretical model proposed in the present study (see Figure
3.1). The model predicted that the quality of patient care, the effectiveness of employee
relations and the availability of supervisor support would act as organisational coping
resources. These climate-based coping resources were expected to promote more positive
appraisals of change (lower stress, higher self-efficacy and control), which, in turn, would
result in higher levels of the employee adjustment indicators (job satisfaction and
psychological well-being). In addition to the mediated effects through appraisal variables,
direct effects of the organisational coping resources on adjustment criteria were also
proposed.
The pattern of results from the test of the a priori model suggested that the model was
indeed a good fit to the data (χ2 (275) = 537, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 1.95, CFI = .97, RMSEA =
.04). However, one of the modification indices, the Wald test, indicated that 7 of the 21
specified paths between the latent variables were non-significant and could be omitted
without any substantial loss of model fit. Hence, the final structural model (shown in Figure
3.2) omitted all of the non-significant paths. These paths were between patient care and
change stress (χ2 =.08; p = .78), patient care and change control (χ2 = .40 ; p = .53), patient
care and well-being (χ2 = .76; p = .38), social support and change stress (χ2 = .04 ; p = .84),
change stress and job satisfaction (χ2 = .33 ; p = .57), change control and job satisfaction (χ2
= .49; p = .47) and change control and well-being (χ2 = .16; p = .69). All of the paths shown
in the final model were significant at p < .001 level except one, which indicated a possible
trend (employee relations and well-being; χ2 = 3.04; p = .08). In terms of the endogenous, or
78
criterion, variables the final model explained 40% of the variance in job satisfaction and 26%
of the variance in psychological well-being.
Two alternative (or nested) models that could be proposed to account for the relations
among the variables were also tested. There was evidence that the final model presented
above (a hybrid model which contained both direct and mediated paths) compared favourably
with a fully mediated model (χ2(284) = 1135, p < .001, χ2/ Dƒ = 4.0, CFI = .89, RMSEA =
.06). The final model provided superior fit to a model predicting direct effects only (each of
the climate and appraisal variables impacting on the outcome measures directly) (χ2(287) =
1219, p < .001, χ2/ Dƒ = 4.25, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .07). Chi-square difference tests
revealed that the differences between each of the alternative models and the final model were
significant (χ2diff.(2) = 596, p < .001; χ2diff.(5) = 680, p < .001). These results suggest that
the final structural model presented in Figure 3.2 best represents the relationships found in
the data.
79
Patient Care
.61
.61
.26 .15
-.24 .42
.15
-.13 Job
Employee Relations
Supervisor Support
S
.10
.18
.21 .15
.31
.17
.11
χ2(282) = 539, p < .001, χ
Figure 3.2.
Final Structural Model
The general aim of the presen
about patient care, effective employ
support from supervisors as resourc
As predicted, the results of the struc
indeed have significant links to the
All climate factors had main effects
appraisal variables. As predicted, a
Change Stress
Satisfaction
.10
Change elf-Efficacy
Change Control
Psychological Well-being
.33
2/dƒ = 1.91, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04,
Discussion
t research was to examine the role of positive attitudes
ee relations and the perceived availability of social
es that help employees adjust to organisational change.
tural equation modelling revealed that these factors did
various measures of employee adjustment during change.
on the adjustment indicators and most of the change
number of indirect effects of organisational coping
80
resources on the measures of adjustment, mediated by change appraisals, were observed.
These results confirm the basic theoretical structure of the proposed model, and support the
argument of Schaubroeck and Merritt (1997, p. 740) who stated that “the subjective
perceptions of demand, control and self-efficacy are the primary mediators of stress
reactions.”
Employees’ beliefs in the organisation’s ability to provide services of high quality had
a direct impact on job satisfaction and employees’ self-efficacy in relation to the changes.
Many participants in the pilot interviews reported fears that quality standards may be
compromised due to too much focus on cost cutting in the change agenda, explaining why
employees who believe patient care remains at a high level will be better adjusted. These
findings are consistent with those of Baglioni, Cooper and Hingley (1990) who reported
considerable role conflict amongst hospital employees stemming from discrepancies between
the goals of clinical care and the goals of economic rationalism.
Positive employee relations had a strong main effect on job satisfaction and a non-
significant but theoretically interpretable effect on psychological well-being. It also had a
consistently strong impact on employees’ appraisals of change, resulting in lower stress and
higher change self-efficacy and change control. Again, the interviews highlighted the fact
that during a change program, effective communication with others was a major factor in
promoting positive adjustment during change. Comments about some of the challenges
during change included references to general interpersonal tensions such as co-worker
attitudes, a lack of co-operation between professional groups and unprofessional or
aggressive behaviour from management. Harris and Mossholder (1996) found that
81
organisational climates characterised as people-oriented and supportive are often associated
with positive affective outcomes including job satisfaction.
As expected, employee perceptions of the availability of social support from their
supervisor had main effects on both job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Like the
pattern of results for effective employee relations, high levels of supervisor support could be
considered synonymous with a supportive organisational climate or work environment,
possibly explaining the direct effect on job satisfaction. The availability of this resource also
had positive effects on employees’ appraisals of self-efficacy and situational control during
organisational change. Social support assists employees with situational control by providing
instrumental aid or advice about how to modify a situation and with self-efficacy by fostering
an their sense of self-worth during a stressful situation (Thoits, 1986). Effective social
support from a supervisor can also supply information relevant to employee’s positive self-
evaluation and social comparison (House, 1981).
An unexpected finding was the non-significant path between supervisor social support
and change stress. The literature on the buffering role of social support on employee stress
levels suggests that it can divert the employee’s attention away from a stressor, or help
reinterpret it so that it seems less threatening. Thus, support that provides caring,
understanding or affirmation should help to decrease the level of distress suffered by the
employee (Terry et al., 1996). Even though social support did not prevent assessments of the
change process on survey ratings as being perceived as “stressful, disruptive and difficult”, it
did increase overall psychological well-being, a reliable indicator of overall stress levels.
In the present study, self-efficacy played a key role in mediating the effects of all of
the proposed coping resources on both adjustment variables. Positive perceptions of
82
employee relations and patient care promoted higher change self-efficacy, which, in turn, led
to higher job satisfaction and well-being. A similar pattern of results was observed for the
level of supervisor social support. Self efficacy was a key variable in predicting employee
adjustment during organisational change. Individuals vary in their confidence about learning
new roles. A person’s efficacy expectancy or their level of confidence in their ability to
perform the behaviours necessary to deal with a stressor is an important determinant of
adjustment (Bandura, 1982; Judge et al., 1999; Terry, 1991).
Change-related stress mediated the relationship between employee relations and
psychological well-being. More positive assessments of the quality of employee relations
resulted in lower levels of stress in relation to the changes. However, those who rated the
change process as stressful were more likely to report reduced levels of psychological well-
being. This result adds to the growing body of evidence that organisational change is a
source of stress which impacts significantly on employee well-being (Ashford, 1988;
Johnson & Sarason, 1979; Mack et al., 1998; Schabracq & Cooper 1998; Terry et al., 1996.
Positive perceptions of employee relations and supervisor social support resulted in
feelings of greater control over the changes. However, change control failed to function as a
mediating variable, showing no significant relationship with job satisfaction or well-being.
In the present model, this variable was included with the intention to measure how much
control the individual has over the actual stressor (organisational change). Situational control
influences whether individuals are able to develop the problem-focused coping strategies that
are linked with better adjustment (Terry, Rawle, et al., 1995; Terry et al., 1996). However, it
is unlikely that employees are able to control the occurrence of organisational change.
Rather, they may be able to control some elements of the change process. The extent to
83
which they have generalised control in their jobs may influence whether they feel in control
of the changes. The items used to measure change control did not assess control over change
process elements or general job-control. In addition, the measure was only marginally
acceptable in terms of measurement properties. Future research should give some
consideration to how this variable might be best operationalised and how the measure might
be improved.
Overall, the final model provided evidence to support the majority of the hypothesised
relationships, suggesting that the cognitive-phenomenological framework provided a useful
theoretical approach for investigating employee adjustment during change. Results
suggested that a service-oriented climate not only results in higher job satisfaction and well-
being, but also helps to promote more positive appraisals of organisational change. In this
sense, climate acted as a coping resource by enhancing employees’ ability to deal with any
psychological demands associated with the changes. Employee relations and change self-
efficacy were particularly influential factors in the final model.
Implications for change management
Stress management training, which covers cognitive re-appraisal processes,
counselling and relaxation techniques, is often the sole form of intervention offered to
employees experiencing stress during organisational change. It has been noted that this may
not be the most effective strategy (Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Results of this research
suggest that a much broader, organisation-wide approach to intervention would have a
powerful impact in facilitating employee adjustment during organisational change. Such an
approach should focus on developing a strong service climate with positive employee
relations as a central feature. A training program which highlights the quality agenda and
84
improves employee relations and social support by focussing on the key role of
communication during change could be a useful intervention. Heaney, Price and Rafferty
(1995) found encouraging results, such as improved work-team functioning and employee
mental health, with an intervention in which employees were taught how to mobilise
available support from, and provide support to others at work.
Conclusion
The present study provided support for the application of a stress and coping
perspective to the development of theory in the area of employee adjustment during
organisational change. The study expanded the concept of coping resources by investigating
organisational factors rather than individual differences. Pilot interviews provided evidence
that a service-oriented climate, effective employee relations and social support were
important factors in promoting employee adjustment during organisational change. The
model of employee adjustment during change tested in the present study confirmed these
predictions, providing a good fit to the data in relation to the adequacy of the measurement
properties and the overall accuracy of the theoretical predictions. The model provided a clear
indication that both organisational and individual factors influence employee adjustment
during organisational change. At an applied level, the results confirmed that organisational-
level interventions may assist employees to adjust, particularly by enhancing their self-
efficacy in relation to the changes.
85
CHAPTER FOUR
Study Two
The Role of Organisational Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Change:
A Model Predicting Commitment, Turnover Intentions and Absenteeism
The utility of a model of employee adjustment during organisational change was
established in Study 1. In particular, Study 1 identified antecedent organisational factors
which acted as coping resources in facilitating positive employee adjustment during change.
The current research aimed to provide a further assessment of the basic model structure by
testing a similar model in a second change context, a state public service department.
Widespread reform in the Australian public sector has meant large-scale changes have been
implemented including downsizing, increased performance orientation, and
commercialisation. As a result, stress claims in the public sector are increasing (Sargent,
1995).
The present research involves testing the role of additional climate factors and
expanding the range of employee adjustment indicators to include organisational
commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism. The experience of work stress has been
associated with lowered organisational commitment (Gillespie et al., 2001). Hence,
commitment is an important criterion variable for assessing the impact of organisational
change on employee-organisation relations (Becker, 1992; Becker, Billings, Eveleth &
Gilbert, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997). The actions required to implement a desired change
may result in employees experiencing reduced organisational commitment (Armenakis &
Bedeian, 1999). The role of employee commitment in the management of change is central,
86
especially considering the likely future success of ongoing change programs (Bennett &
Durkin, 2000).
Organisational commitment relates to the degree that the individual is concerned with,
and identifies with, the organisation within which he or she works (James & Hendry, 1991).
Bennett and Durkin (2000) argued that organisational commitment can serve as a summary
index of work-related experiences and as a predictor of work behaviours and behavioural
intentions. Commitment influences the psychological attachment employees feel toward an
organisation. This attachment affects the extent to which employees perform their jobs,
experience swings in stress, cynicism and forms of workplace withdrawal (e.g., absenteeism
and lateness), and ultimately, their turnover intentions and eventual turnover behaviour
(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Mowday et al., 1977, 1984).
Consistent relationships between organisational commitment and turnover have been
reported in the literature and it is thought that commitment is a key predictor of both turnover
intentions and absenteeism (Bennett & Durkin, 2000; James & Hendry, 1991; Lum, Kervin,
Clark, Reid & Sirola, 1998; Mowday, Koberg & McArthur, 1984; Sager, 1994). It has been
suggested that employee attitudes toward a pending change may also have an impact on
turnover intentions (Iacovini, 1993; McDonald & Siegal, 1993; McManus et al., 1995).
Following the procedure outlined in Study 1, pilot interviews in Organisation B
confirmed the salient elements of organisational climate. Interview participants highlighted
the importance of managing change with a focus on customer satisfaction. The role that
leadership played in the organisational climate, especially the way leaders communicated
their vision for the organisation, was also considered important. It was generally felt that
change needed to be managed by leaders who were seen as positive and who cared about
87
people and recognised the efforts of staff. Whether or not supervisors were perceived to be a
source of support and information during the change also appeared to be an important
element of the organisational climate. Overall, the interviews confirmed that the climate
elements under investigation in the present study were salient in the organisation and
provided input into the preparation of the customer service measure in the questionnaire.
Service orientation provides a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a
community of service during periods of transformational change (Harber, Ashkanasy &
Callan, 1997; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). The perceived level of support gained through
the interpersonal relationship an employee has with their supervisor can assist them to
appraise stressful events less negatively and develop situationally appropriate coping
strategies (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Terry et. al, 1996).
Leadership is an important element of organisational climate that was not tested in the
first model, but was highly salient in Organisation B. Leaders of change must envision,
enable and enculturate a new organisational paradigm to the members of the organisation
(Kotter, 1987). This type of leadership is termed visionary leadership and is comprised of
two key components: leader attributes and behaviour. Visionary leadership has also been
discussed as ‘charismatic’ or ‘transformational’ leadership (Conger, Kanugo & Menon,
2000). Charismatic leaders differ from other leaders in their “ability to formulate and
articulate an inspirational vision and by behaviours and actions that foster an impression that
they and their mission are extraordinary” (Conger et al., 2000, p. 748). Almaraz (2000)
found that visionary leadership was significantly predictive of perceived change success,
although she noted that the construct has been little studied in the specific context of
transformational change.
88
Aims
The present study aimed to test the utility of a model of employee adjustment during
organisational change which proposed links between supports from the organisational
climate and employee appraisals of the change, and, in turn, levels of employee adjustment
during change. In this study, employee adjustment was measured as levels of organisational
commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism. Figure 4.1 depicts the hypothesised
relationships between the study variables.
The hypothesised model proposed that employees with more positive perceptions of
the organisational climate (leader vision, customer service and levels of social support from
their direct supervisor) would have higher levels of commitment. In addition, two sets of
mediated relationships were proposed. It was expected that the effects of climate-based
coping resources upon organisational commitment would be mediated by how positively
employees appraised the change event. It was also expected that the effects of the climate
and appraisal variables on turnover intentions and absenteeism would be mediated by
organisational commitment.
Figure 4.1.
Proposed Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change
Organisational Climate(Coping Resources)
• Customer service • Leader vision • Supervisor support
Change Appraisals • Change stress • Change self-efficacy • Change control
Absenteeism
Turnover intentions
Employee Adjustment
Organisational commitment
89
Method
Background
The research was conducted in a large, state public sector organisation. The
department had undergone significant change and restructuring, including an amalgamation
and de-amalgamation with another department.
Procedure
Firstly, the questionnaire was pilot tested on a group of 20 employees from various
departments and organisational levels to ensure that questions were clear, wording and
terminology were appropriate and that the layout of questions enabled ease of response.
Next, a survey of all employees in the organisation took place in October, 2000. A self-
administered employee opinion questionnaire was mailed to staff with a reply paid envelope
in which to return it. The questionnaire included a cover letter which explained that the
survey aimed to examine the individual and organisational outcomes of adaptation to on-
going change in the workplace (due, in part, to the nature of working within a political
environment). The survey questionnaire was completed anonymously and confidentiality of
responses was assured.
Sample
Of the 1,283 questionnaires distributed, 877 completed questionnaires were received,
representing a 68.4% response rate. This rate was considerably greater than in Organisation
A (study 1) as management support for the survey was higher and employees were strongly
encouraged by their supervisors to participate. The sample was 47% male and 53% female.
Ages ranged from under 20 years to over 50 years, and 26-30 years was the most frequently
selected category. Over half the participants had worked in the department for at least four
90
years and the majority were permanent full time workers (72%). Occupational categories
represented were: Direct Client Contact (21%), Administrative (20%), Management (15%),
Technical/Professional (11%), Trade Staff (6%), Policy/Planning (6%), Secretarial (5%),
Project Work (11%) and Other (5%). Overall, comparisons on key demographic variables
using departmental statistics revealed that the sample was representative of the organisation’s
workforce.
Measures
Participants provided background information on gender, age, length of service, length
of time in current position, and employment status (e.g., casual, full time, part-time, contract,
temporary). They also selected 1 of 6 job types to describe their position (e.g., direct client
contact, administrative, management etc).
Three types of organisational coping resources were measured as a result of the pilot
interviews: customer service, leader vision and the availability of social support from direct
supervisors. Customer service was measured with seven items that assessed the perceived
level of client satisfaction in the department (e.g., “we achieve high levels of client
satisfaction”; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). These items were developed for
use in the present research based on the pilot interview data. Leader vision was measured
with 6 items taken from Kouzes and Posner’s (1993) Leadership Practices Inventory (e.g.,
“senior staff show excitement about future possibilities”; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 =
strongly agree). Perceived availability of social support was measured using six items.
Employees rated how much they relied on their direct supervisor for various types of
emotional and informational support using a four point scale (e.g., 1 = very much to 4 = not
at all). These questions were selected from items used by Terry et al. (1996).
91
There were five outcome variables measured in the study to profile various types of
employee adjustment during organisational change. These indices of adjustment included the
mediating variables - change-specific attitudes about situational control, self-efficacy and
perceived stress, and the dependent variables - organisational commitment, turnover
intentions and absenteeism. Perceived change-related stress was measured using four items.
These questions asked participants to rate the nature of on-going changes in the department
on six point bi-polar scales (e.g., 1 = not at all stressful to 6 = extremely stressful), including
the level of disruption, difficulty and extent of upset. These questions were adapted from
previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Change control was measured with 6 items (e.g., “I
can influence the nature of change in my work unit”, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). Two of the items were adapted from previous research (Terry et al., 1996). Four
additional items were taken from Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish and Di Fonzo (2000) to
measure global perceptions of employees’ perceived control over their future in the
organisation. Change self-efficacy or the extent to which participants felt they could perform
the behaviours required to deal with the changes was assessed with four items (e.g., “I am
confident in my ability to deal with the on-going changes in the department”, 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree). One item was reverse scored: “I have reason to believe I will
not perform well in my job following the introduction of changes”. These items are similar
to those used by Ashford (1988).
Organisational commitment was assessed with five items adapted from Mowday,
Steers and Porter (1979). The scale assesses generalized levels of commitment (e.g., “What
happens in the department is really important to me; 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree). One item was reverse scored: “I don’t care what happens to the department as long as
92
I get my pay”. Turnover intentions were measured with six items adapted from those used
by Fried and Teigs (1995) and Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) (e.g., “I am planning to search
for a new job within the next 12 months”; 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).
A measure of self-reported absenteeism was obtained using the procedure outlined by
Parker and Kulik (1995). Organisations often resist providing records-based data and make
participant anonymity a condition for access. Hence, many studies have used self-report
measures to assess absenteeism (Johns, 1994). Participants were asked to estimate the
number of days they had been absent due to reasons other than physical ill health or leave
entitlements. Participants were asked “How many days in the past 6 months have you been
absent from work due to work-related reasons” (e.g., feeling depressed or stressed,
emotionally run down, taking a ‘sickie’, unfair workload, difficult work relationships). A
complete copy of the questionnaire is contained in Appendix B.
Results
Data screening for respondent errors and omissions was conducted prior to analysis.
Structural equation analyses are unable to deal with any missing data and are considered
more robust with larger sample sizes. Missing values analyses revealed that the percentage
of missing data for scaled items ranged from 0.6% to 5.5%. To retain as many cases as
possible, missing values were replaced with the linear trend for that point (the existing series
is regressed on an index variable scaled 1 to n and missing values are replaced with their
predicted values). Diagnostic procedures conducted on the scaled data revealed that
multivariate kurtosis was not marked. Hence, the data were analysed using the maximum
likelihood procedure (Bentler & Hu, 1995). However, it is important to note that the
distribution for the number of days absent due to work-related reasons was markedly skewed
93
(skew = 14.70, SE = .085). This common problem is due to the number of staff who have
zero days absent (Hemmingway & Smith, 1999). Even with various types of transformation,
the distribution did not approach normality, meaning that the assumptions for maximum
likelihood procedure would be violated. These data were re-coded into a dichotomous
variable (0 = not absent, 1 = absent) so that the relationship between the model variables and
whether or not employees reported any absence due to work related reasons could be
estimated.
The measurement model
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (see Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) was used to test the
adequacy of the measurement model. The items used to measure each of the eight theoretical
constructs were used as indicators of latent variables. A ninth variable, the dichotomous
measure of absenteeism, was not estimated in the measurement model as no underlying
factor structure or hypothetical construct was assumed. Absenteeism was not a suitable
variable for confirmatory factor analysis. However, this variable was included in the
structural model (specified as a categorical variable) so that the proposed relationship
between commitment and absenteeism could be tested. The results of the test of this path
should be interpreted with some caution (see Chapter 2).
Factor variances were set to one in order to identify the model and a range of model fit and
modification indices were computed. As in Study 1, a procedure for reducing the number of
indicators was employed to maximise model fit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Indicators
with large residuals and/or highly significant cross-loadings on other factors were deleted.
Eighteen of the original forty-five items were dropped from the model. However, each
construct still retained at least three indicators (Bollen, 1989). The modified measurement
94
model was a good fit to the data (χ2 (296) = 688, p<.001, χ2/dƒ = 2.32, CFI = .97, RMSEA =
.04). Table 4.1 presents the standardised path coefficients and r2 values for the confirmatory
factor model. As can be seen, correlations between the eight latent variables in the
measurement model were all within a low to moderate range, providing evidence of good
discriminant validity (Kline, 1998). Correlations between the indicators of each latent factor
were computed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and all inter-item correlations
demonstrated satisfactory to high levels of reliability, indicating reasonable convergent
validity (see Table 4.2). Finally, it is also important to note that none of the measurement
error terms were significantly correlated.
A one-factor, or baseline model, did not fit the data well (χ2 (324) = 8337, p <.001,
χ2/dƒ = 25.73, CFI = .45, RMSEA = .17) and had a large and significant chi-square
difference when compared with the eight-factor measurement model tested in the CFA
described above (χ2 diff (28) = 7649, p<.001). These results suggest that common method
variance did not pose a substantial threat to the validity of the measurement model (Harris &
Mossholder, 1996; McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
95
Table 4.1.
Standardised Path Coefficients and r2 Values for the Confirmatory Factor Model of
Employee Adjustment During Change
Summary of item content β r2
Customer service
We achieve high levels of customer service
We provide the client with “value for money”
We “go the extra mile” to provide service to clients
We are responsive to client problems
.76
.73
.84
.80
.57
.53
.70
.63
Leader vision
Describe the kind of future they would like for us to create together
Appeal to others to share their dreams of the future as their own
Clearly communicate a positive and hopeful outlook for the future
Look ahead and forecast what they expect the future to be like
Show contagious excitement and enthusiasm about future possibilities
.90
.89
.91
.90
.88
.81
.79
.83
.82
.77
Supervisor social support
Help you feel better when you experience work related problems
Gives sound advice about what you could do when you experience problems
Express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you
.86
.89
.89
.74
.79
.79
Change stress
On-going changes are extremely stressful
On-going changes are extremely upsetting
On-going changes are extremely difficult
.75
.83
.78
.56
.68
.60
96
Summary of item content β r2
Change self-efficacy
However changes to my job affect me, I am sure I can handle it
I am confident in my ability to deal with on-going changes in the department
Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no doubt I
can perform well if my job were to change
.74
.90
.80
.55
.81
.63
Change control
I feel I can influence the nature of change in my work unit
What I do in the department is largely under my control
I can influence the extent to which changes at work affect my job
.76
.74
.84
.58
.54
.70
Organisational commitment
I don’t care what happens the department as long as I get my pay(R)
I feel very committed to the department
It would take very little change in my job to cause me to leave the department(R)
.60
.69
.55
.36
.48
.30
Turnover intentions
I am planning to search for a new job during the next 12 months
If I have my own way I will leave the department to work in another organisation
one year from now
I often seriously think about making a real effort to enter a new and different job
.84
.93
.82
.70
.87
.67
97
It is important to note the measurement properties of some of the variables were not
satisfactory. The amount of explained variance (r2) in 3 of the 27 indicators of the latent
constructs was less than .5, suggesting that more than half of an items variance is
unexplained by the factor it is supposed to measure (Kline, 1998). These three items were
the measures of organisational commitment. In addition, the scale score computed based on
the final indicators for the organisational commitment variable demonstrated a low but
acceptable level of reliability (Carmines & Zeller, 1979) as assessed by a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .63. The low level of reliability could be a function of having only three items
in the scale. This finding is unexpected given the established nature of the measure
(Mowday et al., 1979). Despite these limitations, the overall measurement model showed
good fit to the data and the majority of assessments made supported the model’s sound
measurement properties.
Table 4.2.
Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations and Reliability of Latent Variables
M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Customer service 4.85 .82 (.86)
2. Leader vision 3.67 1.23 .34 (.95)
3. Supervisor social support 2.99 .90 .31 .46 (.91)
4. Change stress 3.66 .97 -.10 -.17 -.15 (.83)
5. Change self-efficacy 4.14 .70 .22 .21 .16 -.36 (.85)
6. Change control 3.94 1.30 .30 .50 .39 -.26 .33 (.82)
7. Commitment 4.00 .84 .35 .47 .33 -.15 .34 .45 (.63)
8. Turnover intentions 3.23 1.94 -.23 -.38 -.36 .14 -.16 -.33 -.62 (.90)Note. All correlations are significant at p < .05, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are in parentheses.
98
Test of the structural model
Structural equation modelling (using version 5.7b of the EQS program, Bentler, 1989)
was used to test the utility of the theoretical model proposed in the present study (see Figure
4.1). The model predicted that customer service, leader vision and supervisor social support
would act as organisational coping resources, promoting more positive appraisals of
organisational change (lower stress, higher self-efficacy and control) and, in turn, result in
higher levels of commitment to the organisation. In addition to the mediated effects through
appraisal variables, direct effects of the organisational coping resources on organisational
commitment were also proposed. Finally, it was also hypothesised that higher levels of
commitment would be associated with lower incidence of absenteeism and turnover
intentions. The effects of organisational coping resources and change appraisals on
absenteeism and turnover intentions were proposed to be mediated by organisational
commitment.
The pattern of results from the test of the a priori model suggested that the model was
indeed a good fit to the data (χ2 (334) = 869, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 2.61, CFI = .96, RMSEA =
.04). However, one of the modification indices, the Wald test, indicated that 3 of the 17
specified paths between the latent variables were non-significant and could be omitted
without any substantial loss of model fit. Hence, the final structural model (presented in
Figure 4.2) omitted the non-significant paths. These paths were between change stress and
commitment (χ2 = .01; p = .928), customer service and change stress (χ2 = 1.03; p = .30),
and supervisor social support and change self-efficacy (χ2 = 1.32 ; p = .25). All of the paths
shown in the final model were significant at the p <.001 level. In terms of the organisational
99
outcome variables measured with latent constructs, the final model explained 38% of the
variance in organisational commitment and 46% of the variance in turnover intentions.
Two alternative or nested models that could be proposed to account for the relations
among the variables were tested. There was evidence that the final model presented above (a
hybrid model which contained both direct and mediated paths) compared favorably with a
fully mediated model (χ2 (334) = 956, p<.001, χ2/dƒ = 2.86, CF I= .95, RMSEA = .05, χ2 diff
(0) = 87, p<.001). The final model had superior fit to a model predicting direct effects only
(each of the climate and appraisal variables impacting on the outcome measures directly) (χ2
(330) = 1308, p < .001, χ2/dƒ = 3.96, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .06, χ2 diff (4) = 439, p <. 001).
These results suggest that the final structural model presented above (as hypothesised based
on theory) best represents the relationships found in the data.
100
-.68
-.37 Absenteeism
Turnover Intentions
Customer Service
Leader Vision
Change Stress
Change Self-Efficacy
Change Control
Organisational Commitment
.
.
.
.
.34
.46
.31
Supervisor Support
.19
.13
.15
.18
.15
-.09
.38 .15
.27
-.13
.18 .12
χ² (334) = 869, p < .001, χ²/dƒ = 2.60, NNFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04
Figure 4.2.
Final Structural Model
101
Discussion
The general aim of the present research was to examine the role of leader vision,
supervisor support and beliefs about customer service as resources that help employees adjust
to organisational change. As predicted, the results of the structural equation modelling
revealed that these factors did indeed have significant links to the measures of employee
adjustment during change. All climate factors had main effects on organisational
commitment and most of the change appraisal variables. As predicted, a number of indirect
effects of organisational coping resources on the measures of adjustment, mediated by
change appraisals, and by organisational commitment were observed.
Leader vision had a strong main effect on organisational commitment and consistently
predicted all of the measures of employee appraisal of change, resulting in lower stress and
higher self-efficacy and control. Leader vision had a particularly strong impact on employee
perceptions of change control. Leader behaviour is particularly crucial during organisational
change, as leaders provide a vision of the change, support to employees and model
appropriate behaviour in the changing organisation (Nadler, 1988). Effective leaders provide
energy and inspiration through the communication of a powerful vision about why the
change is occurring and what it is trying to achieve (Pfeffer, 1992). Leader vision
contributes to individual judgements about change by creating excitement and enthusiasm
about future possibilities (Kotter, 1995). Employees need strategic direction to feel they are
being led rather than managed into change. Studies of effective transformational leaders
show how important it is for them to have a clear vision of the destiny of the organisation and
use this vision to gain the support and confidence of key employees (Reichers, Wanous &
Austin, 1997; Terry et al., 1996). These actions help to build stability during the change and
102
enhance employee commitment to the change (Covin & Kilman, 1990; Schweiger et al.,
1987).
Another coping resource, employees’ beliefs in the organisation’s ability to provide
good customer service, had a direct impact on organisational commitment and employees’
self-efficacy and control in relation to the changes. Customer service orientation or quality
emphasis in organisational climates is generally associated with employee satisfaction and
high levels of organisational performance (Wiley & Brooks, 2000). Service-oriented
climates provide a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a community of
service, even during periods of transformational change (Harber et al., 1997; Schmalensee &
Gust, 1985; Schneider, 2000).
As expected, employees’ perceptions of the availability of social support from their
supervisor had a main effect on organisational commitment. The availability of this resource
was also linked to reduced stress and increased control during organisational change. The
literature suggests that social support diverts employees’ attention away from a stressor or
helps them reinterpret it so that it seems less threatening. Social support assists employees
with situational control by providing instrumental aid or advice about how to modify a
situation (Terry et al., 1996).
An unexpected finding was the non-significant path between supervisor social support
and change self-efficacy. Social support has been shown to increase self-efficacy by
fostering an their sense of self-worth during a stressful situation (Thoits, 1986). Effective
social support from a supervisor can also supply information relevant to employees’ positive
self-evaluation and social comparison (House, 1981). However, in the present study, it was a
103
belief in customer service and perceptions of visionary leaders that were significantly
predictive of increased self-efficacy.
As predicted, a number of indirect effects were observed where organisational coping
resources effects on the measures of adjustment were mediated by change appraisals.
Change control played a key role in mediating the effects of all of the proposed coping
resources on organisational commitment. Having control over changing situations tends to
be associated with less negative reactions to specific changes (Lau & Woodman, 1995).
Positive perceptions of climate promoted higher change control which, in turn, led to higher
organisational commitment. Situational control is also thought to influence whether
individuals are able to develop the problem-focused coping strategies that are linked with
better adjustment (Terry et al., 1996).
A similar pattern of mediation via change self-efficacy was observed, with the
exception of supervisor social support. Merritt (1996) reported that self-efficacy has a major
influence on an indivdual’s assessment of a situation as either challenging or threatening.
Although positive perceptions of leader vision and supervisor support resulted in lower levels
of stress, change stress failed to act as a mediating variable and was not significantly linked
to organisational commitment.
A number of indirect effects of organisational coping resources and change appraisals
on the other measures of adjustment (absenteeism and turnover intentions), mediated by
organisational commitment, were observed. Each of the coping resources and two of the
appraisal variables (self-efficacy and control) had an indirect effect on absenteeism and
turnover intentions. This finding suggests that the development of organisational climate
104
may not only improve employee appraisals of change, but that this process could also have
an impact on important cost-related organisational outcomes.
Overall, the final model provided evidence to support the majority of the hypothesised
relationships, again suggesting that the cognitive-phenomenological framework provided a
useful theoretical approach for investigating employee adjustment during change. Results
suggested that a positive climate not only resulted in higher levels of commitment, but also
acted as a coping resource by enhancing employees’ ability to deal with any psychological
demands associated with organisational change. The model provided a clear indication that
both organisational and individual factors influenced employee adjustment during
organisational change. Leader vision and change control were particularly influential factors
in the final model.
In both Study1 and Study 2 climate factors generally had both direct and indirect
effects on the adjustment indicators. In terms of direct effects, there were specific paths that
were consistently significant in both samples. High levels of the indicators of a service
climate (quality of patient care and customer service) predicted increased change self-
efficacy. Supervisor support predicted increased change control. Change self-efficacy was a
significant mediating variable in both models, predicting job satisfaction and well-being in
Study 1 and commitment in Study 2. Across both studies there was a consistently non-
significant path: no relationship was found between change stress and work attitudes (job
satisfaction or organisational commitment) in either study. The similarities and differences
between the two studies will be further discussed in the final chapter.
105
Implications for change management
It has been noted that stress management training may not be the most effective
intervention for employees experiencing stress during organisational change (Reynolds &
Shapiro, 1991). Results of this research suggest that a much broader, organisation-wide
approach to intervention which aims to improve the climate, particularly in terms of
leadership development, may have a powerful impact in facilitating employee adjustment
during organisational change.
Conclusion
The present study provided support for the application of a stress and coping
perspective to the development of theory in the area of employee adjustment during
organisational change. The study expanded the concept of coping resources by investigating
organisational factors rather than individual differences. Pilot interviews confirmed that
aspects of the organisational climate such as customer service, leader vision and supervisor
support were important facets of the organisational climate. The model of employee
adjustment during change tested in the present study found that these climate factors played
an important role in the model of employee adjustment during organisational change. The
results of the model demonstrated a good fit to the data in relation to the adequacy of the
measurement properties and the overall accuracy of the theoretical predictions. The model
provided a clear indication that employee perceptions of both organisational and individual
factors influenced employee adjustment during organisational change. At an applied level,
the results confirmed that organisational-level interventions would assist employees to adjust,
particularly by enhancing their perceptions of control and self-efficacy in relation to the
changes.
106
CHAPTER FIVE
Study Three
Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of
Organisational Level
Social and organisational identity play a significant role in the cognitive evaluation of
workplace events as employees interact with each other not only as individuals but also as
members of the organisational groups to which they belong (Kramer, 1991). During
organisational change, identity may be more salient, particularly when the change is
appraised as threatening (Hartley, 1996, Terry & Callan, 1998). However, much of the
empirical literature on organisational change (including the models presented in Studies 1
and 2) fails to distinguish between the diversity of participants in change programs, treating
them as a homogenous group of employees (Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Lewis, 1999).
Several recent studies have demonstrated that an employee’s position in the
hierarchical structure of an organisation, or organisational level (Miller, 1978), has been
associated with differences in perceptions of change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998; Miles et al.,
1996; Watson et al, 2001), the communication of change (Bordia et al., 2001) and acceptance
of organisational change (Ahmad, 2000). Hence, the identification of variation in perceptions
of climate, appraisals of change and levels of adjustment during change, according to an
employee’s organisational level, is identified as an important research objective.
In addition, the applied value of explanatory models, such as those presented in this
dissertation, can be improved by linking the model to diagnostic analyses that investigate the
extent to which meaningful group differences are found among the variables. Different
107
aspects of climate may be more salient to different groups. Thus, the implementation of
strategies to improve climate could target different elements for different groups, increasing
the possibility of intervention effectiveness. Overall, this approach would ensure
organisation-specific stress management programs are implemented rather than the
application of generic models of stress management (Dewe & O’Driscoll, 1999; Hart &
Wearing, 1995).
The pilot interviews in Organisation B confirmed organisational level-based identity
was the most salient group variable in the public service environment. Participants
commented on the public sector “ladder” analogy, indicating that the various staff
classification levels (e.g., A01-A08) were often used as labels for employees. The interviews
confirmed that staff of different levels varied in their reactions to organisational change
including their informational needs, assessment of risk and complexity (Lewis, 1999) and the
desire to participate in change implementation and decision making.
Aims
The present study re-analyses the data from Organisation B (see Study 2) and is
designed to investigate the following research question:
To what extent are there differences between organisational levels in their perceptions
of climate, psychological appraisal of change and levels of adjustment during
organisational change?
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were the same public servants described in Study 2 (Organisation B, see
Figure 2.1) hence the sample and data collection methods were outlined in Chapter 4. Cases
108
that were not in the administrative officer (AO) staff classification were excluded from the
analysis so that a single occupational group with a large sample size could be examined.
Once these cases were removed, the original sample of 877 participants was reduced to 669
participants. The analysis of data from Organisation B is presented first as the study has a
simpler design, allowing for the examination of employee’s organisational level within a
single occupational stream. A more complex design allowing the examination of both level
and occupational groups was permitted by the structure of the data collected in Organisation
A, and is presented in Study 4 (Chapter 6).
Measures
Participants provided background information on gender, age, length of service,
length of time in current position, and employment status (e.g., casual, full time, part-time,
contract, temporary). On the basis of the staff classifications provided by survey participants,
three groups of employees were created, reflecting their organisational level. The three
categories were lower level employees (A01-A03 e.g., base-grade administrative, clerical and
customer service roles); middle level employees (A04-A06 e.g., policy, research and
supervisory roles); and upper level employees (A07-A08 e.g., unit managers, senior policy
officers and senior executives).
The latent variables from the model in Study 2 were converted to scale scores for each
participant. The scores were computed using a mean of the indicators/items representing
each variable in the measurement model. The climate variables were leader vision,
supervisor support and service orientation. Psychological appraisal measures were change
stress, change self-efficacy and change control. Indicators of adjustment were organisational
109
commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism. For a list of the variables and item
content, see Table 4.1.
Results
Data screening
All of the computed scales were of a satisfactory to high level of reliability assessed by
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.63 to 0.95. There was no evidence of
multicollinearity among the variables. None of the variables was significantly skewed with
the exception of the absenteeism data, which was converted to a dichotomous variable (see
Chapter 4). Missing values analyses revealed that the amount of missing data ranged from
0.6 to 5.5%. As described in Study 2, missing values were replaced with the linear trend.
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was utilised to examine group
differences in ratings of climate, change appraisal and adjustment indicators. Three one-way
MANOVAS were run to assess separately the effects of organisational level on the
antecedent (leader vision, supervisor support and customer service), mediating (change
stress, change self-efficacy and change control) and adjustment indicators (organisational
commitment, turnover intentions). Main effects or overall model fit was assessed with
Wilks’ lambda. Differences between groups for significant univariate effects were assessed
with Student-Newman Keuls tests. Table 5.1 shows the significant multivariate and
univariate effects. Table 5.2 shows the group means for each of the significant and trend
effects and the results of the post-hoc analyses. Tables presenting the means and standard
deviations for all variables by each of the levels are provided in Appendix C.
The first MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between organisational levels
on three climate variables: leader vision, service orientation and supervisor support. A
110
significant overall multivariate effect was obtained. Inspection of univariate effects found a
significant difference between groups on the measures of leader vision and supervisor
support. Post-hoc tests indicated that upper level employees reported significantly higher
levels of leader vision than middle and lower level employees and significantly higher levels
of supervisor support than lower level employees.
A second MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between organisational
levels on change appraisals: change stress, self-efficacy and control. A significant overall
multivariate effect was obtained. Inspection of univariate effects found a significant
difference between groups for change self-efficacy and change control. Post-hoc tests
indicated that upper level employees reported significantly higher levels of change self-
efficacy than middle or lower level employees. Upper level employees also reported
significantly higher levels of change control than middle and lower level employees. In
addition, middle level employees reported significantly higher levels of change control than
lower level employees.
A third MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between organisational levels
on two of the adjustment criteria: organisational commitment and turnover intentions. A
significant overall multivariate effect was obtained. Inspection of univariate effects found a
significant difference between groups on the measure of organisational commitment. A trend
(p = 0.08) was found for turnover intentions. Post-hoc tests indicated that upper level
employees reported significantly higher levels of organisational commitment than middle and
lower level employees. The trend for turnover intentions suggested that lower level staff
were more likely to report intending to leave their job than middle or upper level staff
111
although this finding should be interpreted with caution as it was not statistically significant
at p< .05.
To assess the differences between groups for the dichotomous adjustment indicator
(absenteeism), cross tabulations were computed and chi-square analyses were utilised to
determine if the differences were statistically significant. Table 5.3 shows the frequencies
for participants reporting of absence by organisational level. Chi square tests revealed that
the differences observed between groups on whether or not employees were absent due to
work-related reasons were not significant.
Table 5.1.
Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects
Significant Multivariate
F dƒ η2 Significant Univariate
F dƒ η2
Climate 5.98*
6, 1328 .026 Leader vision Supervisor support
13.68*** 3.94*
2, 666
2, 666
.039 .012
Appraisal 12.03*** 6, 1336 .051 Change self-efficacy Change control
3.30* 34.68***
2, 670
2, 670
.010 .094
Adjustment 3.59*** 4, 1362 .015 Organisational commitment Turnover intentions
7.71*** 2.56†
2, 685
2, 685
.022 .007
Note. * p < .05 ** p < .01 ***p < .001 † p<.10
112
Table 5.2.
Mean Scores of Significant Results and Post Hoc Tests for Organisational Level
Lower Level Middle Level Upper Level
Climate
Leader vision 3.49 3.60 4.24 a
Supervisor support 2.88 3.04 3.15 b
Change Appraisal
Change self-efficacy 4.10 4.11 4.30 a
Change control 3.61 3.96 b 4.81 a
Adjustment
Organisational commitment 3.91 4.01 4.30 a
Turnover intentions 3.45 3.09 3.20
a This mean is significantly different from all other means in this row b This mean is significantly different from the first group in this row
Table 5.3
Absenteeism by Organisational Level
Level Lower
n=284
Middle
n=292
Upper
n=100
Absent 225 (79.2%) 229 (78.4%) 70 (70.0%)
Not Absent 59 (20.8%) 63 (21.6%) 30 (30.0%)
113
Discussion
The aim of this study was to determine whether there were statistically significant
differences between employees at different organisational levels in their perceptions of
climate, change appraisals and levels of employee adjustment during change. Although there
were some similarities between the groups, a number of significant group differences were
found. In relation to the climate variables, differences between groups for both supervisor
social support and leader vision were found. Also, groups differed in their appraisals of
change for change self-efficacy and control. For the employee adjustment indicators,
differences between groups were observed for organisational commitment.
An overall pattern of group differences emerged. Upper level staff were consistently
more likely than middle or lower level staff members to report a range of positive attitudes
during change. In comparison to both the other groups, they reported significantly higher
levels of leader vision, change self-efficacy and organisational commitment. Upper level
employees also reported higher levels of supervisor support than the lower level staff.
Perceptions of change control were higher for upper level staff in comparison to middle level
staff, and middle level staff were more likely to report higher levels of control than lower
level employees.
The results indicate that higher status staff respond more positively to the work
environment, to organisational change and generally adjust better than lower status staff.
This pattern of results is not surprising. Similar findings have been reported elsewhere (see
Ahmad, 2000; Armstrong-Stassen 1997, 1998; King et al., 1991; Olson &Tetrick, 1988;
Watson et. al, 2001). Luthan and Sommer (1999) argued that the cause of these different
114
attitudes between managers and staff is that managers are more involved in the change
process.
Lower level staff may feel less support from their supervisors as their supervisors are
occupied with implementing change. In addition, lower level employees generally perceive
that there is comparatively less information and more equivocality during change than upper
level employees (Miles et al., 1996). This uncertainty about the changes may also be
associated with decreased satisfaction with their supervisor. In contrast, managers and
supervisors have been shown to report higher levels of organisational support, including
supervisory support and informational support (Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan &
Sommer, 1999; Watson et al., 2001).
Upper level staff had more positive perceptions about the extent to which leaders
exhibited a vision for the organisation. Senior staff are often more aware of the vision for the
organisation. In this organisation, the upper level group was comprised of senior policy
officers and unit managers for whom an understanding of the vision for the organisation was
an integral part of their role. It is also important to note that upper level staff have much
more contact with the CEO and leadership of an organisation (Young & Post, 1993) and,
thus, have more opportunity to appraise their leadership behaviours.
Upper level staff appraised change more positively, with significantly higher levels of
perceived control over the changes and confidence in relation to their ability to continue to
perform well. There is some evidence that managers report more control over decisions
concerning the future of their jobs than non-supervisory employees (Armstrong-Stassen,
1997, 1998; Esty, 1984; Watson et al., 2001). Senior managers have more expedient access
to information and are more involved as they “drive” the changes (St Amour, 2001).
115
Managers have more control over change than middle managers or staff and are much more
understanding of the rationale for change (Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan & Sommer,
1999; Watson et al., 2001).
In addition, higher status, more senior staff may experience less threat of negative
consequences from the change than low status staff (Kanter et al., 1992). Lower level
employees tend to distance themselves psychologically from the restructuring, avoiding
thought about the potential threat and denying its implications (Olson & Tetrick, 1988). In
contrast to senior staff, lower level employees often feel disempowered and less confident
during organisational change (Haugh & Lauschinger, 1996), hence their lower levels of
change self-efficacy. Nelson, Cooper and Jackson (1995) also argued that those in positions
of less control and higher uncertainty suffer the greatest negative effects of major
organisational change.
The increased control that managers perceive is also likely to promote better coping
responses. Olson and Tetrick (1988) argued that because top level managers believe they
have more control over the event they respond to change by seeking more information and
responding to feedback about the event. Armstrong-Stassen (1998) found that supervisors
were more likely to engage in control-oriented coping, compared to the coping strategy of
avoidance typically employed by non-supervisors. Positive coping strategies such as these
have also been linked to better adjustment during stressful situations (Terry et al., 1996).
In the present study, upper level staff demonstrated better adjustment by reporting
significantly higher levels of organisational commitment. Lower level staff also reported
greater turnover intentions. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as the
effect was not significant using the conventional criteria (p < .05). Ahmad (2000) and
116
Luthan and Sommer (1999) found that supervisors and managers had higher levels of
organisational commitment than non-supervisors. O’Driscoll and Randall (1999) also found
commitment to be significantly higher amongst managerial staff. Commitment would
generally be expected to be higher on the part of more senior members of staff because the
pro-social, extra-role behaviours and higher level of performance associated with higher
commitment would have been instrumental in securing promotion for such individuals
(Bennett & Durkin, 2000).
Study 2 demonstrated that employee’s perceptions of climate had an important effect
on the indicators of adjustment during change. The results of this study revealed that upper
level staff were consistently more positive in their reports of climate and change appraisals,
possibly explaining their higher levels of the adjustment indicators. Together, these results
suggest that the significance and magnitude of the relationship between climate and the
indicators of adjustment during change may vary for employees at different levels within the
organisation. However, this proposition could only be tested using a complex, multilevel
modelling approach and will be further discussed as a direction for future research in the
final chapter.
Implications for change management
The results of the present study suggest that change agents should consider the needs
of different organisational groups in order to achieve effective and successful change
(Watson et al., 2001). In this particular organisation, an employee’s organisational level was
an important grouping variable and the differences between groups indicate that strategies
which differentially target lower, middle and upper level staff would be a useful approach.
For example, lower level staff may benefit from having their supervisors and senior staff
117
participate in training. In order to improve lower level staff’s perceptions of climate,
supervisors could be trained in providing greater social support during change and senior
staff could be involved in a leadership development program which focuses on their need to
create and communicate a vision for the organisation.
Conclusion
Overall, the results showed there were more differences in perceptions of climate,
appraisal of change and levels of adjustment than there were similarities. These differences
reflected the differential amounts of status and control of the three groups within the
organisation. In particular, it appears that lower and middle level employees are less well
adjusted than upper level employees. The results highlight the importance of organisations
undergoing change developing targeted interventions which differentiate between managerial
and non-managerial staff.
118
CHAPTER SIX
Study Four
Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change as a Function of
Occupational Group Membership and Organisational Level
An important research objective identified in Chapter 1 was the examination of role-
based variation in adjustment during change. It was also suggested that the important group
membership divisions or delineating identity variables may vary across organisations. A
limited number of studies have distinguished between the participants in change programs
(Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Lewis, 1999). The results of Study 3 indicated that there were
significant differences between organisational levels in the variables tested in the model
presented in Study 2. The applied value of these findings is important (Dewe & O’Driscoll,
1999; Hart & Wearing, 1995). Diagnostic processes should examine the sub-cultural or
group differences in perceptions of climate, change appraisals and adjustment indicators to
inform more effective change management interventions.
As noted by Degeling et al. (1998) hospital subcultures such as nursing, medicine and
administration have a strong influence on employees’ attitudes, values and behaviours. The
pilot interviews in Organisation A confirmed that occupational identity was the most salient
sub-group variable in a hospital environment. Divisions between groups were often made
based on whether the participant was, for example, a doctor or a nurse rather than what
division or work unit participants worked for. Interview participants commented that
different occupational groups within the hospital had varying levels of status, access to
resources and were differentially informed about the changes. The interviews revealed that
119
groups varied in their reactions to organisational change including their informational needs,
assessment of risk and complexity (Lewis, 1999) and the desire to participate in change
implementation and decision making.
Although occupational group differences are proposed to be salient in this sample, the
influence of organisational level will be controlled for by simultaneously examining the
managerial or non-managerial status of participants. Thus, to avoid confounding
occupational group and organisational level, a two-way design was employed which
examined the separate effects of the two group variables and any interaction between the
two.
Aims
The present study re-analyses the data from Organisation A (see Study 1) and is
designed to investigate the following research questions:
To what extent are there differences between occupational groups in their perceptions
of climate, psychological appraisal of change and levels of adjustment during
organisational change?
Is there an interaction between occupational group and organisational level which
affects employee perceptions of climate, psychological appraisal of change, and levels
of adjustment during organisational change?
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were the same public hospital employees described in Study 1
(Organisation A – see Figure 2.1) hence the sample and data collection methods were
outlined in Chapter 3. Due to the need to examine the occupational group variable, cases
120
with missing data in relation to staff classification were excluded from the analysis. Once
these cases were removed, the original sample of 779 participants was reduced to 732
participants.
Measures
The first section of the questionnaire gathered demographic and descriptive data such
as sex, age bracket, length of service at the hospital, length of time in current position,
employment status and staff classification. Staff classifications were reduced from 12
categories to four major occupational backgrounds (non-clinical, allied health, medical and
nursing). These groupings were based on discussions with hospital personnel. Re-
classifying the staff was a simple task and did not require any reliability checking.
Computerised recoding of the datafile created the new occupational variable. The group
labelled non-clinical staff contains a wide variety of staff including administrative officers,
receptionists, ward assistants, cleaning/catering staff and operational/trade staff. The groups
labelled medical, nurses and allied health professionals were made up of clinical practitioners
of medicine, nursing and allied health specialities (e.g., psychology, occupational therapy,
dietetics, physiotherapy, audiology) respectively.
Each of the occupational groups described above included participants from all
hierarchical levels in the organisation and the staff classification data enabled participants to
be divided into two groups: managers and staff. Non-clinical managers and supervisors
generally co-ordinate the services of these non-clinical support staff. The clinical managers
are senior doctors, nurses and allied health professionals who manage the provision of
clinical services (e.g., Heads of Departments, Directors of Nursing).
121
The latent variables from the model in Study 1 were converted to scale scores for each
participant. The scores were computed using a mean of the indicators/items representing
each variable in the measurement model. The climate variables were employee relations,
supervisor support and patient care. Psychological appraisal measures were change stress,
change self-efficacy and change control. Indicators of adjustment were job satisfaction and
psychological well-being. For a list of the variables and item content, see Table 3.1.
Results
Data screening
All of the computed scales were of a satisfactory to high level of reliability assessed by
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.60 to 0.90 and there was no evidence of
multicollinearity among the variables (see Table 3.2). None of the variables was
significantly skewed. Missing values analyses revealed that the missing data ranged from
0.6% to 3.1%. As described in Study 1, missing values for scaled items were replaced with
the linear trend.
Analyses
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine group
differences in ratings of climate, change appraisal and adjustment indicators. Three two-way
MANOVAs were run to assess separately the effects of the between subjects variables
(occupation and organisational level) on the antecedent (supervisor support, employee
relations, patient care), mediating (change stress, change self-efficacy, change control) and
outcome variables (job satisfaction and psychological well-being). Main effects, or overall
model fit was assessed with Wilks’ lambda and Student-Newman Keuls tests were used for
the occupational group post hoc analyses. The significant and trend results are presented in
122
Table 6.1 and the means and results of the post-hoc analyses for these variables are shown in
Table 6.2. Tables presenting the means and standard deviations for all variables by
occupation, organisational level and occupation by organisational level are provided in
Appendix D.
Table 6.1.
Significant Multivariate and Univariate Effects
Significant Multivariate
F dƒ η2 Significant Univariate
F dƒ η2
Climate
Occupation
1.96* 9, 1757 .008
Employee relations
4.10**
3, 724
.017
Change appraisal
Level
3.39* 3, 723 .014
Change stress
3.07†
1, 725
.004
Change control 5.55* 1, 725 .008
Level x Occupation 2.03* 9, 1759 .008 Change stress 3.43* 3, 725 .014
Note. * p < .05 ** p < .01 ***p < .001 † p<.10
The first MANOVA was conducted using the climate indicators (employee relations,
patient care and supervisor social support) as dependent variables. A significant overall
multivariate effect was obtained for occupational group. Inspection of the univariate effects
found a significant difference between occupational groups on the measure of employee
relations. Post-hoc tests indicated that non-clinical staff rated employee relations as less
effective than nursing, medical and allied health staff. In addition, allied health professionals
rated employee relations as more effective than nursing and medical staff.
123
A second MANOVA was conducted using change appraisals (change stress, self-
efficacy and control) as dependent variables. A significant overall multivariate effect was
obtained for organisational level and for the interaction between occupation and
organisational level. Inspection of the univariate effects found a significant difference
between organisational levels for change control and a trend for change stress, p = .08 (the
interpretation of which is subsumed by the interaction presented below). Analyses of simple
effects showed that managers rated their level of change control higher than non-managers.
In addition, there was a significant multivariate interaction between occupation and
organisational level. The only significant univariate difference was found on the measure of
change stress. Analyses of simple effects revealed that nurses who were managers reported
significantly higher levels of change stress than nurses who were not managers (p <.01). In
addition, within the non-managerial staff, the non-clinical group rated the change as more
stressful than the allied health, medical or nursing groups (p <.001).
A third MANOVA was conducted to assess differences between the groups on the 2
adjustment criteria: job satisfaction and psychological well-being. No significant overall
multivariate effect was obtained.
124
Table 6.2.
Mean Scores for Significant Main effects and Results of Post-hoc Tests
Medical Nursing Allied
Health Non-
Clinical Overall
Employee relations
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
4.55
4.01
4.09
4.29
4.06
4.09
4.35
4.65
4.59 b
4.11
3.64
3.72 a
4.33
4.09
Change stress
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
3.47
2.94
3.02
3.84 c
3.15
3.22
3.22
2.95
3.00
3.35
3.68 a
3.61
3.47 c
3.18
Change control
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
3.00
2.28
2.39
2.91
2.72
2.74
2.94
2.67
2.72
2.55
2.64
2.62
2.85 c
2.58
a This mean is significantly different from all other means in this rowb This mean is significantly different from the medical and nursing groups c This mean for managers is different from the mean for non-managers
Discussion
The aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences between
occupational groups and organisational levels in perceptions of climate, psychological
appraisal of change and levels of adjustment during organisational change. Differences were
found for occupation and organisational level and for the level x occupation interaction.
125
Although there were many similarities between the occupational groups, two
significant group differences were observed. In relation to the climate variables, differences
between occupational groups on the measure of employee relations were found. Also, when
the interaction between occupation and organisational level was examined for non-
managerial staff, occupational groups differed in their appraisal of the level of change stress.
In relation to occupational groups, a clear pattern of results emerged. Non-clinical
staff were more likely than other groups to report more negative perceptions of climate and
change. They reported the highest levels of change stress and the poorest perceptions about
the effectiveness of employee relations within the hospital. These results are not surprising
as non-clinical (support) staff often fare worse than professional groups during organisational
change, particularly in relation to downsizing and the amount of political influence they are
able to exert.
In contrast, allied health professionals reported the most positive perceptions of
employee relations. In the context of the current study, the pilot interviews revealed that
allied health staff had good levels of morale in comparison to other groups of staff. Over the
past decade, major efforts have been made to develop a strong source of group identification,
“allied health professionals”, for the various clinical (but not medical or nursing) staff
working in hospitals. This strong inter-group identity may act as a buffer against the stress of
organisational change (Terry et al., 1996). Also, in this particular change context, issues
such as competition for resources and downsizing were not as relevant to allied health
professionals as they were for other groups.
Interestingly, there were fewer differences between organisational levels than in Study
3. There were many similarities between managerial and non-managerial staff. The major
126
difference between organisational levels was in their appraisals of change. As in Study 3,
managers reported significantly higher levels of change control than non-managers. There
was also a trend for them to report higher levels of change stress. In addition, when the
interaction between occupation and organisational level was examined, it was evident that
nursing managers reported more stress than nursing staff. Although managers are more
empowered and have more control over the change process, it could also be argued that the
managerial responsibility for this process places increased pressure on this group, which
explains the high levels of stress. In addition, these managers often have to deal with
increased hostility and or uncertainty from employees in response to the changes. Watson et
al. (2001) found that managers were more likely to report dealing with conflict as a negative
aspect of change than lower level employees. Callan and Dickson (1992) found that
managers experience high levels of stress during change due to a range of pressures.
Study 1 demonstrated that employee perceptions of the effectiveness of employee
relations had a substantial influence on the indicators of adjustment during change. The
results of this study revealed that perceptions of employee relations differed depending on
the occupational group to which they belonged. Together, these results suggest that the
significance and magnitude of the relationship between employee relations and the indicators
of adjustment during change may vary for different occupational groups. However, this
proposition could only be tested using a complex, multilevel modelling approach and will be
further discussed as a direction for future research in the final chapter.
Implications for change management
Like Study 3, the results of the present study suggest that change agents should
consider the needs of different organisational groups in order to achieve effective and
127
successful change (Watson et al., 2001). In this particular organisation, both occupational
group and organisational level were important grouping variables. The differences between
groups indicated that strategies that differentially target managerial and non-managerial staff
and different occupational groups would be a useful approach. For example, managers may
benefit from stress management training, whilst non-managerial staff’s change appraisals
might be improved by increasing their involvement, and, thus, their perceptions of control.
Also, improving employee relations would benefit non-clinical staff in particular.
Conclusion
Overall, the results showed that, while there were many similarities between the
groups, some significant differences in perceptions of climate and appraisal of change were
detected. These differences reflected the differing positions and roles of the groups in the
organisation. The results highlight the importance of organisations undergoing change
developing and targeting interventions for specific occupational groups and differentiating
between managerial and non-managerial staff. In particular, this study reported a pattern of
negative perceptions for one group in particular (non-clinical staff). These results suggest
that this group could benefit from a number of specifically targeted intervention strategies
focusing on improving their perceptions of organisational climate and their appraisals of
change in order to ensure employee adjustment indicators are not adversely affected by
change.
128
CHAPTER SEVEN
Discussion of Key Findings and Conclusions
This chapter summarises the major findings of the present program of research,
integrates the results of all four studies and discusses the theoretical and practical
implications of the findings. The limitations of the research design and directions for future
research are also presented. Finally, overall conclusions are provided.
The present program of research had two central objectives. Firstly, the research
examined the role of organisational climate factors in facilitating employee adjustment
during organisational change. This investigation was achieved by testing two models based
on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive-phenomenological account of stress and coping
processes. In particular, the concept of coping resources was expanded by focussing on
organisational factors rather than individual attributes. Also, the models examined a range of
outcome variables as indicators of employee adjustment during change. Secondly, the
research investigated the extent to which organisational sub-groups differed in their
perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment during change.
A Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change
Several general conclusions can be drawn when the results of the structural equation
modelling studies are examined together (see Chapters 3 and 4). Overall, both studies
empirically confirmed the majority of the hypothesised relationships. It was also
encouraging that both models demonstrated good fit between the proposed theoretical model
and the two different data sets, essentially replicating the theoretical structure of the
cognitive-phenomenological model. The present research has addressed several of the
129
limitations of the application of the cognitive-phenomenological approach to the study of
employee adjustment during change identified in the literature review. There were three
major limitations. Firstly, the literature has given limited attention to organisational factors
in attempting to understand employee adjustment to stress experienced during organisational
change. The models tested in the present research confirmed that the organisational climate
contains important resources for coping with organisational change. Secondly, a need to
expand the range of indicators of adjustment during organisational change was identified. In
the present research, employee responses to organisational change were linked to job
satisfaction, employee well-being, organisational commitment, turnover intentions and
absenteeism. Thirdly, there has been a lack of attention to group differences in this process.
Two studies presented in this dissertation found differences in among some of the model
variables according to employees’ occupational role and organisational level.
Figure 7.1 depicts the overall theoretical model of employee adjustment during
organisational change which was empirically confirmed in the present research. The model
indicates that climate variables are directly linked to employee outcomes during change and
that these effects are also mediated by employee appraisals of change. The major findings
relating to each of the components in the model will now be discussed.
In Chapter 1, stress was defined as a transactional process involving interaction
between environmental features and an individuals’ internal processes (Reynolds & Shapiro,
1991). More specifically, the cognitive-phenomenological model proposed that an
individuals’ cognitive/affective responses to a stressful situation are determined by their
coping resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In the present research, change appraisals
130
(individuals’ cognitive/affective responses to a stressful situation) were consistently
predicted by organisational climate factors (environmental coping resources).
Organisational
Climate (Coping Resources)
Change
Appraisals
• Quality of patient care
• Employee relations
• Supervisor support
• Leader vision • Customer service
Employee Adjustment Indicators
• Psychological
well-being • Job satisfaction • Organisational
Commitment • Turnover
Intentions • Absenteeism
• Change stress • Change self-efficacy• Change control
Figure 7.1.
Theoretical Model of Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change
The results provided evidence that organisational climate is linked to better adjustment
during change both directly and indirectly. Climate factors that acted as coping resources
were high levels of client service/quality, effective employee relations, supervisor support
and leader vision. Results showed both main effects (direct paths) on adjustment and
mediated effects (indirect paths) via change appraisals. The direct effects supported the
research evidence concerning links between climate and affective outcome measures like job
satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intentions (Schneider et al., 2000). The
indirect effects demonstrated that employee perceptions of change are positively shaped by
their perceptions of the work environment (Eby et al., 2000). In particular, the results
showed that communication aspects of climate are important in predicting change
131
perceptions (Ford & Ford, 1995), especially employee relations, supervisor behaviour
(Larkin & Larkin, 1994) and leadership style (Schweiger et al., 1987).
Positive employee perceptions of the organisation-specific elements of climate
predicted higher levels of employee adjustment during organisational change. The measure
of employee relations was included as a climate factor in the hospital context as a result of
the exploratory interviews. Likewise, the measure of leader vision was only included in the
public sector context because it was identified as a salient climate factor. Interestingly, these
measures were the strongest predictors in each of the models, supporting the trend towards
research that is more organisation and situation specific (Callan, 1993; Dewe & O’Driscoll,
1999; Hart & Wearing, 1995; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987).
Employee relations
The pilot interviews in Organisation A indicated that a major aspect of the
organisational climate was the manner in which management and employees related to each
other, particularly characterised by perceptions of respect for employees. A social climate
that is supportive and non-conflictual can directly enhance worker health by meeting basic
human needs for affiliation, approval and a sense of belonging (Repetti, 1983). Harris and
Mossholder (1996) found that organisational climates characterised as people-oriented and
supportive are often associated with a range of positive employee affective outcomes.
Employee relations was a powerful explanatory variable in the model presented in
Study 1 as it was significantly predictive of all of the indicators of employee adjustment
during organisational change. Perceptions of effective employee relations was associated
with more positive change appraisals (lower change stress, higher change self-efficacy and
control) and with better adjustment (higher job satisfaction and psychological well-being).
132
Leader vision
The pilot interviews in Organisation B revealed that leadership was an important
aspect of organisational climate. Leaders can enhance employee commitment to the change
by modelling behaviour appropriate in the changing organisation (Covin & Kilman, 1990;
Nadler, 1988; Schweiger et al., 1987). Leader vision contributes to individual judgements
about change by creating, for example, excitement and enthusiasm about future possibilities
(Kotter, 1995).
Remarkable accomplishments can result from people sharing a common vision and
sense of purpose (Covey, 1992; St Amour, 2001). Leader vision was also a powerful
explanatory variable in the model presented in Study 2. Employees who perceived that their
leaders exhibited an enthusiastic vision for the organisation were more likely to report higher
levels of adjustment across all of the indicators. Leader vision was linked to more positive
change appraisals (lower change stress, higher change self-efficacy and control) and better
adjustment (higher commitment, and in turn, lower absenteeism and turnover intentions).
Supervisor social support
In relation to the effects of social support, evidence that support-adjustment links are
direct (Cohen & Wills, 1985) was seen in the main effects of supervisor support on all of the
adjustment indicators (job satisfaction, well-being and commitment) and change appraisals
(stress, control and self-efficacy). However, evidence that support-adjustment links are
mediated by situational appraisals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1990; Terry et al.,
1996) was also seen in the indirect effects found in both models (support→control→
commitment; support→self-efficacy→job satisfaction; support→self-efficacy→well-being).
133
‘It can be argued that supervisor support assisted employees process of adjustment
during change in two ways. Firstly, the perception of availability of social support in the
work environment is directly associated with a range of general work attitudes such as
satisfaction. Secondly, as suggested by Terry et al. (1996), support from supervisors can
assist employees to appraise change positively by providing information relevant to self-
affirmation (self-efficacy) or modification of the stressful aspects of change (control) and by
reducing the perceived level of threat or emotional distress (stress).
Service climate (customer service and patient care)
Interviews in both organisations revealed that an important facet of the organisational
climate related to the way employees perceive the level or quality of service they provide to
clients. A service climate is characterised by a desire among employees to work together to
serve the client, and a focus on client and employee satisfaction (Hatch, 1993; Parasuraman,
1987; Schein, 1985; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985). This desire to satisfy clients is thought to
provide a level of continuity, direction, control and a sense of a community of service, even
during periods of transformational change (Harber et al., 1997; Schmalensee & Gust, 1985).
Service climate predicted increased change self-efficacy and was directly linked to job
satisfaction in Study 1. In Study 2 it predicted increased change self-efficacy and change
control and was directly linked to organisational commitment (and, in turn, to absenteeism
and turnover intentions). However it is important to note that the only non-significant path in
both models was that between the service climate factor (customer service/quality of patient
care) and change stress.
134
The mediating role of change appraisals
In terms of the effects of change appraisals on adjustment, the present research
confirmed the assertion that organisational change is a major work stressor which impacts on
employee well-being (Ashford, 1988; Johnson & Sarason, 1979; Mack et al., 1998; Roney &
Cooper, 1997; Schabracq & Cooper, 1998; Terry et al., 1996). High levels of change stress
have been linked to increased reporting of psychological symptoms and decreased job
satisfaction (Terry et al., 1996). Study 1 demonstrated that higher levels of change stress
predicted lower levels of psychological well-being. However, no significant links were
found between change stress and work attitudes (job satisfaction and organisational
commitment) in either of the models.
Change stress constitutes a primary level of situational appraisal, whereas secondary
appraisal was assessed with measures of change self-efficacy and control (Terry et al., 1996).
Control (Karasek, 1979) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) have been important constructs in
organisational psychology and are consistently linked with a range of work attitudes.
Absence of control is associated with both physiological and emotional detriment (Murphy,
1988) and the presence of self-efficacy enhances individual responses to stressful situations
(Bandura, 1986).
In Study 1, change self-efficacy acted as a mediating variable between all of the
climate factors and both of the adjustment measures. Control, although predicted by two of
the climate factors, did not link to any of the adjustment indicators, failing to demonstrate a
mediating role. In Study 2, both self-efficacy and control acted as mediating variables
between climate factors and commitment. These results meant that both self-efficacy and
control were also linked indirectly to absenteeism and turnover intentions (mediated by
135
commitment). Consistent in both studies was the role of change self-efficacy as an important
mediator between climate and adjustment.
Some of the predicted mediation effects were not confirmed. In Study 1, change
control failed to mediate and in Study 2 change stress did not mediate. In addition, the
mediation effects that were significant, were not particularly strong. However, the beta
weights of the change appraisal – adjustment paths generally compare with those reported by
Terry et al. (1996).
There are some possible reasons that these relationships failed to be observed or were
not stronger. Firstly, the impact of other mediating variables cannot be overlooked. Coping
behaviours were not assessed in this study as the focus of the research was on organisational
factors which may prevent change being appraised negatively rather than individual
responses to negative appraisals. Coping behaviours have been shown to mediate between
appraisal and adjustment (Terry et al., 1994, 1996). The omission of coping variables could
be a possible reason why the appraisal-adjustment relationships were not stronger. A
possible reason that these relationships were not stronger relates to the measurement of
change control in Study 1. The measure of control exhibited a low but acceptable level of
reliability α = .60 (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). The control measure was improved in Study 2
and showed evidence that it was a more reliable measure (α = .82).
As discussed above, change appraisals generally mediated the relationship between
climate factors and adjustment indicators. These effects support Hemmingway and Smith’s
(1999) argument that climate-outcome links are mediated by specific stressors (e.g.,
organisational change) and that the particular aspects of climate that predict (or reduce)
stressors must be identified for intervention to be effective.
136
Although the effects of climate on adjustment did tend to be mediated by appraisals of
organisational change, it was the direct effects that were very strong. These results suggest
that although organisational change does affect a range of employee/organisational
outcomes, the more stable elements of the work environment continue to explain a large
proportion of the variance in these variables. The strongest predictors of adjustment were
effective employee relations and leader vision. The link between organisational commitment
and both absenteeism and turnover intentions was also quite strong.
It needs to be acknowledged that the strong direct effects of climate on adjustment may
be influenced by the level that the constructs were measured. Climate and work attitudes are
global measures whereas change appraisals are more micro-level in that they measure
individuals’ self-assessments of their reactions to a specific work event (organisational
change).
Overall, climate variables were generally associated with positive employee appraisals
of change and increased levels of adjustment during change. The climate-appraisal links
confirmed the propositions of Eby et al. (2000) and Tetenbaum (1998) who claimed that
characteristics of the work environment shape employee perceptions of the change process.
The appraisal-adjustment links supported the argument of Terry et al. (1996) that employee
cognitive and affective responses to change are important predictors of adjustment. These
findings also add to the growing body of evidence that the experience of organisational
change can impact on a range of employee adjustment indicators (Roney & Cooper, 1997;
Wanberg & Banas, 1997).
Gillespie et al. (2001) argued that a comprehensive understanding of the cognitive-
phenomenological model of stress and coping processes (Lazarus & Fokman, 1984) must
137
include a consideration of the key environmental antecedents and consequences of subjective
perceptions of stress. The present research has important implications for theory in that it
demonstrated the need for studies to consider the organisational context within which the
appraisal of stressful events occurs. Although there are common elements of climate across
organisations, there are also elements that are unique to a particular organisation or more
salient in one organisation than another.
Group Differences in Employee Adjustment During Organisational Change
Another important research objective was to examine how the measures from the
theoretical models differed across the groups within each organisation. Bacharach and
Bamberger (1992) reported differential reactions to stressful events at work as a function of
the type of position employees held with the organisation. Studies 3 and 4 found that, while
there were some similarities, significant group differences in perceptions of climate,
appraisal of change and levels of adjustment were detected. These differences demonstrated
that an employee’s organisational level and occupational group can affect their perceptions of
the variables involved in the process of employee adjustment during change outlined in the
models presented in Studies 1 and 2.
In relation to employee level, a pattern of results was evident in that upper level staff
were more likely than middle or lower level staff to report more positive perceptions of
climate and responses to change and higher levels of the adjustment indicators. Five of the 9
dependent variables showed significant variation as a function of organisational level. The
differences found in the present research confirmed some of the initial findings about status-
based group differences in perceptions of change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998; Miles et al.,
138
1996; Watson et al., 2001). These differences were not suprising as the literature review
identified several reasons why senior staff might adjust to change more positively.
Managers and supervisors generally report higher levels of organisational support
(Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan & Sommer, 1999; Watson et al., 2001) and appraise
leadership more positively (Young & Post, 1993). They also respond to change by seeking
more information from these sources of support, leading to a greater understanding of the
rationale for change (Haugh & Laschinger, 1996; Luthan & Sommer, 1999; Watson et al.,
2001). They are more involved in implementing changes (Luthan & Sommer, 1999) and thus
have more perceived control over the event (Olson & Tetrick, 1988). In contrast, lower level
employees have less control over the process and feel disempowered and less confident
during organisational change (Haugh & Lauschinger, 1996; Nelson et al., 1995). The result
is that commitment is often higher for upper level staff (Ahmad, 2000; Bennett & Durkin,
2000; Luthan & Sommer, 1999; O’Driscoll & Randall, 1999).
These differing perceptions and outcomes can create problems for the effective
implementation of organisational change. Resistance to change and cynicism about change
among lower level employees has been documented (Burke, 2000). The attitudes and
behaviours associated with such resistance and cynicism are directly associated with whether
change efforts are successful (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
In Study 4, a two-way design was employed to avoid confounding occupational group
and organisational level. This study examined the separate effects of the two group variables
and whether there was an interaction between them. Overall, occupational groups differed in
relation to climate. An interaction effect (occupation x level) also showed a difference for
change appraisal. Among the eight dependent variables, only two showed evidence of
139
differing among the occupational groups (employee relations and change stress). Non-
clinical staff were more likely than any of the other groups to report poorer perceptions of
employee relations and more change stress than the other occupational groups.
Despite the suprisingly small number of differences between occupational groups, the
results confirmed that hospital occupational subcultures do have some influence on employee
attitudes (Degeling et al., 1998). These results also add some support to the claims of
Hemmingway and Smith (1999) who argued that occupational differences would impact on
perceptions of climate and stress.
In relation to organisational level, fewer differences were found in this study than in
Study 3. Overall differences between managerial and non-managerial staff were found only
for change appraisal. An interaction effect (occupation x level) also showed a difference for
change appraisal. Among the eight dependent variables, only two showed evidence of
differing as a function of organisational level (change control and change stress). Managers
felt more in control of change than non-managers but were more stressed by it. Nurse
managers felt more stressed by change than non-managerial nurses. Although managers
have more control over the change process, the managerial responsibility for its
implementation places a range of additional pressures on this group, which explains the high
levels of stress (Callan & Dickson, 1992; Watson et al., 2001).
Across both studies of group differences, some general patterns in the results were
observed. Employees’ psychological appraisals were the group of variables that most
consistently differed according to an employee’s sub-group membership. In particular,
change control was higher for upper level or managerial staff in both studies. Change related
self-efficacy and control varied in relation to organisational level in Study 3. Change related
140
stress varied in relation to occupational group and organisational level and change related
control varied as a function of organisational level in Study 4. Differences in adjustment
indicators were found only in Study 3.
In terms of climate differences, variation in the factors that were specific to each
organisation (measured as a result of the pilot interviews) was significant. These factors
were also the strongest predictors of employee adjustment during change in each of the
respective models. In studies 2 and 3, leader vision was a powerful variable, both as a
predictor of adjustment and as a significant dependent variable in the identification of
organisational level differences. In studies 1 and 4, employee relations was a powerful
variable, both as a predictor of adjustment and as a significant dependent variable in the
identification of occupational group differences. These results highlight the importance of
including particularly salient, unique or organisation-specific aspects of the work
environment in studies of organisational climate.
Implications for Change Management and Stress Management During Change
Implementation
The results of the present research have some important implications for promoting
positive employee adjustment during organisational change. The models provided evidence
that organisational climate factors were important antecedents to positive change appraisal
and employee adjustment indicators. Understanding the antecedents of job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, and turnover intentions is vital to increasing productivity,
reducing costly turnover in the workforce, and maintaining a psychologically healthy
workforce. Managers can affect these outcomes by learning to manipulate their antecedents
(Lease, 1998).
141
The results inform the management of employee stress during organisational change.
In Chapter 1, it was argued that the most effective and ethical form of stress intervention is
primary prevention (Ganster et al., 1982; Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Such an approach
utilises strategies in which intervention is directed towards identifying, modifying and
eliminating organisational stressors and promoting a healthy and supportive work
environment (Cooper & Cartwright, 1996). The results of Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence
that organisational climate factors provide an effective target for intervention in terms of
primary prevention strategies. The results of the research demonstrated the utility of
undertaking diagnostic processes that determine the elements of organisational climate in an
organisation that facilitate employee adjustment during organisational change. Efforts to
strengthen and develop these factors should result in both improved employee adjustment
and enhanced employee perceptions of change programs.
According to McManus et al. (1995) and Schneider and Bowen (1993), if an
organisation is attempting to create a climate that values change, the importance of change
must be evident in employee attitudes, relationships, job characteristics, availability and
quality of resources, and the context in which the organisation operates. Hence, to improve
employee adjustment during change, priority should be placed on improving the
organisational climate and developing aspects of it which act as resources that assist
employee’s to engage in positive appraisals of change (reduced change stress, increased
change self-efficacy and control). Whilst this is a worthwhile endeavour, the slow and
difficult path to changing negative climates in organisations should not be underestimated
(Gunnarson & Niles-Jolly, 1994).
142
These resources are, to some extent, organisation specific and identifying and
improving these elements of climate should result in improved employee change appraisals
and, in turn, enhanced employee adjustment. Organisational climates may contain unique or
differentially salient elements. Hence, managers and change agents should not underestimate
the importance of conducting diagnostic processes. In particular, qualitative forms of inquiry
such as interviews or focus groups, can determine the aspects of climate that have a
relationship with employee perceptions of stress, or in this case, employee perceptions about
organisational change.
The most influential of the climate variables in the two models were leader vision and
effective employee relations. The development of leader vision is extremely important
during change. In fact, Wiley and Brooks (2000, p. 185) have argued that “the foundation to
organisational success is the ability of a senior management team to create a credible and
potent sense of confidence that the organisation is well led”. Leaders can play an important
role by explaining organisational change decisions and giving realistic previews of the
change (Sargent, 1995; Schweiger & Denisi, 1991). Effective employee relations ensures co-
operation and support during the challenge of implementing change. Organisational climates
characterised as people-oriented and supportive are often associated with a range of positive
employee affective outcomes (Harris & Mossholder, 1996). Valuing, respecting and
communicating with people are basic behaviours necessary for effective change management
(St Amour, 2001). To some extent, these behaviours can be taught or enhanced through
training. Peterson, Cooper and Scherer (2000) demonstrated that a team building program
involving the establishment of departmental and cross-functional process groups and
143
participation supervisors training in team facilitation was linked with an improvement in
employee perceptions of climate during change.
Although the results of Studies 1 and 2 suggested that primary prevention would be
most effective, secondary/tertiary level interventions that focus on improving the appraisal
process could also have some utility. Dollard (1996) recommended a multifaceted approach
to stress management that includes individual and organisational level interventions. For
example, organisations could consider offering workshops, and counselling sessions that aim
to reduce change stress. An increasingly popular approach to managing stress is through the
psychotherapy services provided by an organisation’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
In the hospital described in the present research, a series of workshops aimed at reducing
change stress were offered to staff. The workshops covered topics such as “dealing with the
grief and loss of change”, “effective communication during change”, and “managing stress
during change”. Investments made in training managers and employees how to manage
change will reap benefits in relation to a variety of organisational outcomes including the
success of change initiatives (St Amour, 2001).
Increasing situational control could also have some impact on adjustment.
Organisations implementing change are often urged to involve employees and use a
participative approach to change management in order to increase employee acceptance and
enthusiasm for change. In particular, enhancing employees’ perceived control through
meaningful participative decision-making processes can be an effective strategy in reducing
work-related stress (Heaney et al., 1995). If employees are able to influence decisions at the
workplace, their perceptions of their ability to exercise control over worksite stressors may
be enhanced (Ganster, 1985). In addition, by way of participating in organisational decision
144
making, employees often have access to information which can help in understanding
stressors and others experiences of them. Understanding, prediction and control act as a
powerful antidotes to work-related stress (Sutton & Kahn, 1987). However, it should be
noted that for participative decision making to be implemented effectively, employees must
want to be involved, have the requisite skills and knowledge, and enough time for discussion
of issues and concerns (Kanter, 1983).
The key role of self-efficacy in predicting all of the adjustment indicators suggests that
increase change self-efficacy would be a useful secondary-level intervention strategy.
Resistance to change can stem from fear of being unable to perform under new work
arrangements. Training can address these fears directly by providing skills and indirectly by
providing opportunities for peer support (Michela & Burke, 2000). Alternatively, Orlikowski
(1996) advocated a major paradigm shift toward the implementation of situated change
(Schabracq & Cooper, 1998), which is described as ongoing incremental adjustment and
adaptation, as opposed to planned or transformational change. An incremental approach to
change is consistent with Bandura’s (1986) concept of enactive mastery; the gradual
accumulation of successively more complex skills. Such an approach would maximise
feelings of self-efficacy and minimises stress that results from the realization that established
(automatic) responses are no longer effective in a new setting.
In addition, the findings of Studies 3 and 4 provided further evidence that change
agents should consider the needs of different organisational groups in order to achieve
effective and successful change (Bordia et al., 2001; Watson et al., 2001). As noted by Mack
et al. (1998), broad interventions must be supplemented by interventions targeted towards
specific individuals and groups, making preventative stress management a multi-level
145
endeavour. Diagnostic processes should incorporate an investigation into the most salient
group differences and test whether these differences predict any variation in perceptions of
climate and adjustment during change. This strategy will ensure that intervention programs
can be tailor-made to ensure that the needs of all employees are addressed in the change
process (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998).
Overall, the practical implications of the present research concur with the ideas of
Sargent (1995) who argued that decision-makers should embed stress intervention strategies
in their change process. She urged public sector organisations to take a more proactive
approach in choosing the targets and mechanisms for managing change by actively planning
primary interventions in a strategic manner and embedding these in the change agenda. They
must also identify “at risk” groups within the department and target interventions
accordingly.
The present research suggested that the best way to manage stress during change
implementation is to use informed diagnostic data. Change should be implemented in
conjunction with ongoing organisational development processes involving diagnostic
research that identifies the elements of climate that employees draw upon for support in the
process of adjustment. Interventions should be based on improving and strengthening these
resources. Diagnostic processes should also pay attention to the salient groupings of staff
within an organisation so that interventions can be specifically targeted. Michela and Burke
(2000, p. 240) asserted that “diagnosing and monitoring employees’ beliefs, perceptions, and
motivations, especially those related to culture and climate are critical to any change effort”.
Properly designed organisation-based measures of climate are a key tool for the diagnosis of
146
many aspects of organisational success. The results of these diagnoses can provide a “road
map” for organisational development (Wiley & Brooks, 2000).
Strengths and Limitations Identified in the Present Research
There are several major strengths of the research reported in this dissertation. The
research was conducted in an applied setting with participants who were employees in two
diverse organisations undergoing change and the findings were linked to practice by
discussing the implications of the results. The studies achieved theoretical extension by
testing models that enabled the role of organisational climate factors in promoting adjustment
during change to be investigated. The soundness of the constructs measured was enhanced
by the utilisation of a confirmatory approach. The analyses were performed on reasonably
large data samples and both models explained a reasonable proportion of the variance in the
outcome measures (26 to 46%). The research also made an empirical contribution to the
literature by documenting the existence of group differences in a range of the model
variables.
Kalliath, O’Driscoll, Gillespie and Bluedorn (2000) recently identified a number of
methodological limitations in relation to SEM studies in the organisational psychology
literature. The fact that none of these criticisms can be levelled at the SEM studies reported
here is a major strength in the present research. Each of the concerns identified by Kalliath et
al. will now be linked to the models tested. Allowing error terms to correlate or items to load
on multiple factors in models has been a common, but unacceptable, practice. The models
presented in the present research did not contain any correlated error and all factors were
unidimensional.
147
Further, unlike the approach taken in the present research, many studies have failed to
specify a full measurement model. Rather, they have used summative measures (or scale
scores/means) of constructs instead of latent factors comprised of item-level indicators. This
means that the information about the contribution of individual scale items to a construct is
lost. Many studies have also been criticised for reporting less than acceptable results for
goodness of fit tests. The models presented in Studies 1 and 2 achieved good fit to the data
across all of the indicators, assessed using the cut-off criteria determined in the review of the
SEM literature (see Chapter 2).
Many studies have also failed to cross-validate their model by testing it in more than
one sample. The results of the models tested in the present research are strengthened by the
demonstration of a pattern of predictive relationships of similar magnitude for two different
data sets. Repeatedly testing structural models with successive data sets also introduces an
element of reliability that is otherwise missing in cross-sectional studies (Fogarty et al.,
1999).
The major limitation of the research is that all the analyses presented are based on a
cross-sectional design. Hence, it is not possible to draw any inferences regarding causal
relations among the variables. The possible presence of common method variance (CMV) is
a concern with such designs (see Chapter 2). However, two procedures were used to address
this concern and allow more confidence in the results. Firstly, Harman’s Single Factor test
(see Harris & Mossholder, 1996) was used. This procedure assumes that if method variance
is largely responsible for the co-variation among the measures, a single (method) factor
model should fit the data well. Both of the measurement models used to test the structural
relations between the variables failed to demonstrate support for a one factor solution.
148
Secondly, the use of replication provided some evidence of consistent relationships among
similar or identical variables that were of similar magnitude and direction across two
independent samples.
Another factor to consider in evaluating the present research is the measurement of
organisational climate. As discussed in Chapter One, climate can be viewed as either an
organisational or individual level phenomena. Methodologies which allow levels of
agreement between organisational members in their perceptions of climate to be determined
are an important new direction in organisational climate research. However, the lack of such
an approach in the present research means that organisational climate remains a
psychological construct in the models presented.
A further potential limitation of the present studies is the omission of an often studied
variable in stress research. Negative affect, a higher order personality construct that
encompasses neuroticism, trait anxiety and low self-esteem (Watson & Clark, 1984) has been
conceptualised by some researchers as a confounding variable (Fogarty et al., 1999). The
present studies did not specify any relationship between negative affect and the model
variables due to the focus on organisational factors. However, it is encouraging to note that
several researchers have found that there is still a reliable relationship between stress and
strain, once negative affect is partialed out (Chen & Spector, 1991; Decker & Borgen, 1993;
Korotkov & Hannah, 1994; Spector & O’Connell, 1994). In addition, Spector, Zapf, Chen &
Frese (2000) argued that affective disposition may be important to a study theoretically but
addressing it at a methodological level is not appropriate. They claim that measuring a
negative affect construct purely to control for measurement bias should not be advocated.
149
It could also be argued that an examination of the moderating effects of social support
was neglected in the present research. Both of the models presented examined the effects of
supervisor support on appraisal (a mediating process). The potential for moderating effects is
not denied. However, in keeping with the previous research that this dissertation is based
upon (Terry et al., 1996) only the mediated paths were of interest.
Finally, it should be noted that the effect sizes (η2) in the MANOVA analyses
indicated that a very small amount of variance in the dependent variables was due to the
influence of employee groupings. Although these differences were interpreted due to their
statistical significance, the results will need to be confirmed in future research.
Directions for Future Research
One means of addressing the common method variance problem is to conduct
longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies in future research. The results of all of the
studies reported here could guide the design of such a research program. Time separation
between measures of stress and strain would improve the methodology (Fogarty et al., 1999).
Research which includes multiple waves of data collection would be able to detect any
effects of an intervention designed to improve the aspects of organisational climate that were
predictive of positive appraisals of change and higher levels of adjustment. These
interventions should be differentially applied at the sub-group level based upon the results of
diagnostic studies. Model variables should also be linked to additional sources of data that
do not rely on self-report measures. The present model could be extended beyond single
source data by examining organisational outcomes such as supervisor assessments of
performance or customer satisfaction. Such studies would make an important further
contribution to the literature and constitute an important direction for future research.
150
The application of alternative methodologies to the current research agenda should
also be considered as a direction for future research. The approach taken in the present
research was primarily quantitative. Qualitative methods would be useful for gathering data
that may illuminate some of the mechanisms underlying the significant paths in the SEM
models and the differences between groups in the MANOVA studies. For example, methods
such as Critical Incident Analysis could be applied to the study of employee adjustment
during organisational change. O’Driscoll and Cooper (1994) recommended the use of this
method for understanding stress and coping processes in work settings. They proposed that
employee interviews should focus on describing stressful transactions (i.e., the
implementation of organisational change) in terms of their antecedents, responses, and
consequences.
The differences found between occupational groups and organisational levels
represent another direction for future research. Studies should aim to replicate/confirm the
role of occupational differences in other hospitals and wider organisational settings. The
results of the current research also provide some indication that the development of a multi-
level model of employee adjustment to change would be a useful endeavour. A recent
critique of the use of single-level models in psychosocial research urged researchers to apply
some of the recently advanced techniques now available for multilevel analyses (Rowe,
2000). Such techniques allow data that is hierarchical in structure (e.g., employees within
departments within organisations) to be fitted to models with several levels that attempt to
explain variation in the studied constructs. A recent example used a two-level model to
simultaneously account for separate amounts of teacher-level and school-level variance in
teacher’s morale scores. The final model provided estimates of the direct effects of the
151
exogenous variables on the endogenous variable at each level, concluding that more of the
variance in teacher morale was explained at the school level (Rowe, 2000).
The use of such a technique is beyond the scope of this dissertation and would require
much larger samples than those obtained for the present research. However, the application
of multi-level modeling would enable future research to test a more sophisticated model of
employee adjustment during organisational change which takes into account the group
differences reported in the present research. Such a model would include estimates of the
variance explained in each of the variables for each level of data. For example, the effects of
the different climate variables on appraisal and adjustment could be partitioned for
employees within hierarchical/occupational groups within organisations. The ability to
examine organisational climate variables at different levels of aggregation would be
particularly useful given the debates about the level at which climate can be measured
(Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Glick, 1985; Rousseau, 1985).
Overall Conclusions
The identification of a parsimonious set of theoretically meaningful dimensions that
account for significant variance in adjustment and pinpoint sites for intervention are
important research outcomes (Dollard et al., 2000). The present research demonstrated that
the cognitive-phenomenological model is a useful framework for examining employee
adjustment during change, and the utility of the model was improved with the addition of
environmental coping resources drawn from the organisational climate. These resources are,
to some extent, organisation-specific, and identifying and improving these elements of
climate should result in improved employee change appraisal. It is important that managers
recognise the utility of using key climate factors in shaping employee adjustment during
152
change, such as leading with a clear and appealing vision, enhancing employee relations,
developing a client or service orientation, and promoting effective communication for
supervisors. Climate and change appraisal were linked with a range of important
individual/organisational outcome variables such as employee well-being, job satisfaction
and organisational commitment, turnover intentions and absenteeism.
The research found that differences in perceptions of climate and levels of adjustment
during change can be seen at the sub-group level within organisations. These findings
contributed to the recent interest in the relevance of professional identity in organisational
behaviour (Beck et al., 2000; Carpenter & Platt, 1997; De Corse & Vogtle, 1997; Kanter,
1991; Moravec, 1994; Netting & Williams, 1996) and confirmed the initial findings of
research into the effects of status on how change is perceived (Ahmad, 2000; Armstrong-
Stassen, 1998; Bordia et al., 2001; Miles et al., 1996; Watson et al, 2001). The results also
demonstrated a need for change management interventions to be targeted at a more micro
level than usually occurs in practice.
153
REFERENCES
Ahmad, A. (2000). Organisational commitment versus organisational change: A
comparative study of blue-collar and white-collar employees of service manufacturing
companies. Social Science International, 16, 20-32.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl
& J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behaviour. Heidelberg: Springer.
Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A re-examination of the
relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
337-348.
Almaraz, J. (2000). Has the profile of effective organisational culture changed over
time? A look at successful transformational change implementation. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 4-9 August, 2000, Toronto, Canada.
Anderson, J. G., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Antonovosky, A. (1984). The sense of coherence as a determinant of health. In J. D.
Matarazzo, S. M. Weiss, J. A., Herd, N. E. Miller, & S. M. Weiss. Behavioural health: A
handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention. New York: Wiley.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organisational change: A review of
theory and research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organisational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.
154
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998). The effect of gender and organisational level on how
survivors appraise and cope with organisational downsizing. Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science, 34, 125-142.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organisational
transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 24, 19-36.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Widerom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of
organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to
stress. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 286-303.
Azar, B. (1999) APA statistics task force prepares to release recommendations for
public comment. APA Monitor Online, 30, accessed 14 June, 2002 from
www.apa.org/monitor/may99/task.html.
Babbie, E. (2000). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement
and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction.
Journal of Retailing, 72, 287-307.
Bacharach, S., & Bamberger, P. (1992). Causal models of role stressor antecedents and
consequences: The importance of occupational differences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour,
41, 13-34.
Baglioni, A. J., Cooper, C. L., & Hingley, P. (1990). Job stress, mental health and job
satisfaction among UK senior nurses. Stress Medicine, 6, 9-20.
155
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Beck, S. E., Kaplan, D., Smith, H., & Moroco, J. (2000). The behavioural health
professional: A mental health professional identity model for the 22nd Century. Counseling
and Human Development, 33, 1-17.
Becker, T. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth
making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.
Becker, T., Billings, R., Eveleth, D., & Gilbert, N. (1996). Foci and bases of employee
commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-
482.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal.
Boston: Havard Business School Press.
Bennett, H., & Durkin, M. (2000). The effects of organisational change on employee
psychological attachment: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 126-
147.
Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. BMDP Statistical
Software: Los Angeles.
156
Bentler, P. M., & Hu, L. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Los
Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities and behaviours. New York:
Academic Press.
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 525-537.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bordia, P, Martin, A. J., Jones, E. S., Irmer, B. E., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J. (2001).
Disseminating information during organisational change: Communication channel
preferences as a function of organisational level. Unpublished Manuscript.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2000). Communication
and uncertainty during organisational change: Its’ all about control. Unpublished Manuscript.
Brannen, J. (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot:
Avebury.
Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling.
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 16, 201-213.
Burke, R. J. (1993). Organisational level interventions to reduce occupational stressors.
Work & Stress, 7, 77-87.
Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1980). The Type A experience: Occupational and life
demands, satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Human Stress, 6, 28-38.
Callan, V. J. (1993). Individual and organisational strategies for coping with
organisational change. Work and Stress, 7, 63-75.
157
Callan, V. J., & Dickson, C. (1992). Managerial coping strategies during organisational
change. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 30, 47-59.
Callan, V. J., Terry, D. J., & Schweitzer, R. J. (1995). Coping resources, coping
strategies and adjustment during organisational change: Direct or buffering effects? Work
Stress, 8, 372-383.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr.
(1975). Job demands and worker health. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare:
Washington.
Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Carpenter, M. C., & Platt, S. (1997). Professional identity for clinical social workers:
Impact of changes in health care delivery systems. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25, 337-
351.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. (1996). Managing mergers, acquisitions and strategic
alliances: Integrating people and cultures. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of
correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398-407.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
158
Collins, N., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Lobel, C. and Scrimshaw, S. (1993). Social support in
pregnancy: Psychosocial correlates of birth outcomes and postpartum depression. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 65, 1243-1258.
Conger, J. A., Kanugo, B. N. and Menon, S. J. (2000). Charismatic leadership and
follower effects. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21, 747-767.
Cotton, P. (Ed.). (1995). Psychological health in the workplace: Understanding and
managing occupational stress. Carlton, VIC: The Australian Psychological Association.
Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle-centred leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Covin, T. J., & Kilmann, R. H. (1990). Participant perceptions of positive and negative
influences on large–scale change. Group and Organisation Studies, 15, 233-248.
Coyne, J. C., & Raccioppo, M. W. (2000). Never the twain shall meet? Closing the gap
between coping research and clinical intervention research. American Psychologist, June,
655-646.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro-
organisational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 67-76.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organization development and change (6th
ed.). Cincinatti, Ohio: South Western College Publishing.
Dawis, R. V., & Loftquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
159
De Corse, C. J. B., & Vogtle, S. P. (1997). In a complex voice: The contradictions of
male elementary teachers' career choice and professional identity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 48, 37-47.
De Frank, R. S., & Cooper, C. L. (1987). Worksite stress management interventions:
Their effectiveness and conceptualisations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2, 4-9.
De Luca, J. R. (1984). Managing the socio-political context in planned change efforts.
In A. Kakabadse & C. Parker (Eds.), Power, politics, and organisations: A behavioural
science view. New York: John Wiley.
Decker, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (1993). Dimensions of work appraisal: Stress, strain,
coping, job satisfaction, and negative affectivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 470-
478.
Degeling, P. Kennedy, J., Hill, M., Carnegie, M., & Holt, J. (1998). Professional sub-
cultures and hospital reform. Sydney: The Centre for Hospital Management and Information
Systems Research.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Dewe, P., & O’Driscoll, M. (1999). Stress management interventions: What do
managers actually do? Unpublished conference paper: Annual conference of Industrial and
Organisational Psychology, Brisbane, Australia.
Di Fonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty
during organisational change. Human Resource Management, 37, 295-304.
Dick, R. (1986). Convergent interviewing. Chapel Hill, Qld: Interchange.
160
Dollard, M. F. (1996). Work stress: Conceptualisations and implications for research
methodology and workplace intervention. Doctoral thesis submitted at the University of
South Australia.
Dollard, M. F., Winefield, H. R., Winefield, A. H., & de Jonge, J. (2000). Psychosocial
job strain and productivity in human service workers: A test of the demand-control-support
model. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 73, 501-510.
Dunkel-Schetter, C., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1987). Correlates of social support
receipt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 71-80.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of
organisational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the
implementation of team based selling. Human Relations, 53, 419-442.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Elloy, D. F., Everett, J. E., & Flynn, R. W. (1995). Multidimensional mapping of the
correlates of job involvement. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 79-91.
Esty, K. C. (1984). Job distress in contracting organizations: When smaller is not
beautiful. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3976.
Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). A meta-analysis of the correlates of employee
absence. Human Relations, 41, 211-227.
Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Standfeld, S., Smith, G. D. (1998). The
health effects of major organisational change and job insecurity. Social Science and
Medicine, 46, 243-254.
161
Fogarty, G. J., Machin, M. A., Albion, M. J., Sutherland, L. F., Lalor, G. I., & Revitt,
S. (1999). Predicting Occupational Strain and Job satisfaction: The role of stress, coping,
personality and affectivity variables. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54, 429-452.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional
change in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541-570.
Fried, Y., & Tiegs, R. B. (1995). Supervisors' role conflict and role ambiguity
differential relations with performance ratings of subordinates and the moderating effect of
screening ability. Journal-of-Applied-Psychology, 80, 282-291.
Ganster, D. C., Fusilier M. R. and Mayes, B. T. (1986). The role of social support in
the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102-110.
Ganster, D. C., Mayes, B. T., Sime, W. E., & Tharp, G. D. (1982). Managing
organisational stress: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 533-542.
Ganster, D. J. (1985). Exploring the role of control in occupational stress. Paper
presented at NIOSH Workshop on Occupational Stress Management, New Orleans, USA.
Gardner, J., Paulsen, N., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Monaghan, P. (2001).
Communication in organisations: An intergroup perspective. In W.P. Robinson & H. Giles
(Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001).
Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and
moderators of stress. Work and Stress, 15, 53-72.
162
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualising and measuring organisational and psychological
climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illnesses by questionnaire.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, T. (2001). Examining the theoretical and practical importance of the multiple
targets view of organisational identification. Unpublished honours thesis, submitted in the
School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University.
Gunnarson, B. K., & Niles-Jolly, K. (1996). Creating the climate and culture of
success. Organisational Dynamics, 23, 17-30.
Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data
analysis with readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Hammersley, M. (1992). Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide. In J.
Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot: Avebury.
Harber, D. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Callan, V. J. (1997). Implementing quality service
in a public hospital setting: A path-analytical study of organisational antecedents of
employee perceptions and outcomes. Public Productivity and Management Review, 21, 13-
29.
Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived
congruence with culture dimensions during organisational transformation. Journal of
Management, 22, 527-547.
Hart, P. M., & Wearing, A. J. (1995). Occupational stress and well-being: A systematic
approach to research, policy, and practice. In P. Cotton (Ed.), Psychological health in the
163
workplace: Understanding and managing occupational stress. Melbourne: The Australian
Psychological Society.
Hartley, J. F. (1996). Inter-group relations in organisations. In M. A. West (Ed.),
Handbook of work group psychology. London: John Wiley & Sons
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organisational culture. Academy of Management
Review, 18, 657-693.
Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1982). Perceptual congruence about communication
as related to satisfaction: Moderating effects of individual characteristics. Academy of
Management Journal, 25, 349-358.
Haugh, E. B., & Laschinger, H. S. (1996). Power and opportunity in public health
nursing work environments. Public Health Nursing, 13, 42-49.
Heaney, C. A., Price, R. H., & Rafferty, J. (1995). Increasing coping resources at
work: A field experiment to increase social support, improve work-team functioning and
enhance employee mental health. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 16, 335-352.
Hemingway, M. A., & Smith, C. S. (1999). Organisational climate and occupational
stressors as predictors of withdrawal behaviours and injuries in nurses. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 72, 1-10.
Hennessy, J., & West, M. A. (1999). Intergroup behaviour in organisations: A field test
of social identity theory. Small Group Research, 30, 361-382.
Hirsch, G. (1996). Health care reform and physician stress. Physician Executive, 22,
31-32.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of
intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
164
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. The Philippines: Addison Wesley.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-
55.
Iacovini, J. (1993). The human side of organisation change. Training and
Development, 47, 65-69.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Nurses and stress: Time to examine the
potential problem. Journal of Nursing, 11, 17-22.
Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. (1990). Worksite
stress management interventions. American Psychologist, 45, 252-261.
Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201-1222.
Jablin, G., & Putnam, L. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of organisational communication:
An interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park: Sage.
Jacobson, B. H., Aldana, S. G., Goetzel, R. Z, Vardell, K. D. (1996). The relationship
between perceived stress and self-reported illness-related absenteeism. American Journal of
Health Promotion, 11, 54-61.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions,
models and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
James, S., & Hendry, B. (1991). The money or the job: The decision to leave policing.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 24, 169-189.
165
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in
action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611
Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported
absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 574-591.
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. (1979). Recent developments in research on life stress.
In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition: An information
processing approach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Jones, E., Martin, A., Bordia, P., Callan, V. and Gallois, C. (2001). Organizational
climate, employee appraisals of organizational change and job satisfaction. Unpublished
manuscript.
Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural
relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software
Ltd.
Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life
satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 929-948.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 107-122.
Kalliath, T. J., O’Driscoll, M. P., Gillespie, D. F., & Bluedorn, A. C. (2000). A test of
the Maslach Burnout Inventory in three samples of healthcare professionals. Work and
Stress, 14, 35-50.
166
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Transformations in the American corporate
environment 1860-1980’s. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational
change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. NewYork: Free Press.
Karasek R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-307
Kasl, S. (1986). Stress and disease in the workplace: A methodological commentary on
the accumulated evidence. In M. F. Cataldo & T. J. Coates (Eds.), Health and industry: A
behavioural medicine perspective. New York: Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Kaufmann, G. M. and Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and
social support: Some counter-intuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522-526.
Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modelling in perspective. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 16, 215-224.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. London:
Guilford Press.
Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (1994). Extraversion and emotionality as proposed
superordinate stress moderators: A prospective analysis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 16, 787-792.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformational efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, March-April, 59-67.
167
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why
people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kramer, R. B. (1991). Inter-group relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of
categorisation processes. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 13, 191-228.
Kuhn, A. (1966). The study of society: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Social
Science Paperbacks.
Kumari, K., & Sharma, S. (1990). Social support, organisational role stress and well
being: A study of medicos. Psychological Studies, 35, 163-169.
Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: How to win employee
support for new business directions. New York: McGraw Hill.
Latack, J. C. (1986). Coping with job stress: Measures of future directions for scale
development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 377-385.
Lau, C., & Woodman, R. W. Understanding organisational change: A schematic
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537-54.
Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-
13.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American
Psychologist, June, 665-673.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Lease, S. H. (1998). Annual review, 1993-1997: Work attitudes and outcomes. Journal
of Vocational Behaviour, 53, 154-183.
168
Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organisation: An
Empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday’s model of turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 30, 721-743.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An Unfolding Model of
Employee Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5-35.
Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned
organisational change: Implementers’ targets, sources and channels for communicating.
Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 43-75.
Locascio, J. J. (1999) Shared perspective: Significance tests and ‘results blindness’.
APA Monitor Online, 30, accessed 14 June, 2002 at www.apa.org/monitor/may99/task.html.
Lokk, J., & Arnetz, B. (1997). Psychophysiological concomitants of organisational
change in health care personnel: Effects of a controlled intervention study. Psychotherapy
and Psychosomatics, 66, 74-77.
Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., Sirola, W. (1998). Explaining nursing turnover
intent: Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organisational commitment? Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 19, 305-320.
Mack, D. A., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1998). The stress of organisational change:
A dynamic process model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 219-232.
McCann, B. S., Russo, J., & Benjamin, G. A. H. (1997). Hostility, social support, and
perceptions of work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 175-185.
McDonald, T., & Siegal, M. (1993). Enhancing self-efficacy. Training and
Development Journal, July, 66-7.
169
McManus, S. E., Russell, J. E. A., Freeman, D. M., & Rohricht, M. T. (1995). Factors
related to employees’ perceptions of organisational readiness for change. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August, 1995.
Merritt, D. E. (1996). The effects of self-efficacy and cognitive appraisal on stress
outcomes: An extension of the job demands-job decision latitude model of stress.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2766.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualisation of
organisational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Michela, J. L., & Burke, W. W. (2000). Organisational culture and climate in
transformations for quality and innovation. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Widerom, & M. Peterson
(Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.
Michela, J. L., Lukaszwski, M. P., & Allengrante, J. P. (1995). Organisational climate
and work stress: A general framework applied to inner-city schoolteachers. In S. L. Sauter, &
L. R. Murphy (Eds.), (1995). Organisational risk factors for job stress. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association, pp. 61-80.
Miles, E., W., Patrick, S. L., & King Jr., W. C. (1996). Job level as a systematic
variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job
satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 69, 277-292.
170
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw Hill.
Miller, K. L., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about
organisational change. Human Communication Research, 11, 365-386.
Miller, S. M. (1979). Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence, and theory.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 287-304.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to
participate in a planned organisational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
22, 59-80.
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job
satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.
Moravec, M. (1994). The 21st century employer-employee partnership. HR Magazine,
January, 126-128.
Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & McArthur, A. W. (1984). The psychology of the
withdrawal process: A cross-validational test of Mobley’s intermediate linkages model of
turnover in two samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 79-94.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The Measurement of
Organisational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14, 224-247.
Murphy, L. R. (1988). Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention. In
C. L. Cooper, & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
171
Nadler, D. (1988). Organisational frame bending: types of change in the complex
organisation. In R. Killman and T. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalising
organisations for competitive world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, P. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The
impact of privatisation on employee satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, 68, 57-71.
Netting, F. E., & Williams, F. G. (1996). Case manager-physician collaboration:
Implications for professional identity, roles, and relationships. Health and Social Work, 21,
216-219.
Newman, W. L. (1994). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress. Human
Relations, 2, 107-126.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). Coping with work stress: A critique of
existing measures and proposal for an alternative methodology. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Stress, 67, 343-355.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Randall, D. M. (1999). Perceived organisational support,
satisfaction with rewards, and employee job involvement and organisational commitment.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 197-209.
Olson, D. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1988). Organisational Restructuring: The impact on
role perceptions, work relationships, and satisfaction. Group and Organisation Studies, 13,
374-388.
172
Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improving organisational transformations over time: A situated
change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63-92.
Parasuraman, A. (1987). Customer-oriented corporate cultures are crucial to services
marketing success. Journal of Services Marketing, 1, 39-46.
Parker, P. A., & Kulik, J. A. (1995). Burnout, self and supervisor-related job
performance and absenteeism among nurses. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 18, 581-599.
Parkes, K. R., & Von Rabenau, C. (1993). Work characteristics and well-being among
psychiatric health-care staff. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 3, 243-
259.
Parkhe, A. (1993). “Messy” research, methodological predispositions, and theory
development in international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 18, 227-268.
Parks, K. A. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity and the work environment: Additive
and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 399-409.
Payne, R. L. (2000). Climate and culture: How close can they get? In N. Ashkanasy, C.
Widerom, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California:
Sage.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1979). Some extensions of "The structure of coping":
Reply to comments by Marshall and Gore. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 20, 202-
205.
Petersen, M. F., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Sources of meaning, organisations, and culture:
Making sense of organisational events. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, & M. F.
Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.
173
Peterson, F. L., Cooper, R. F., & Scherer, R. F. (2000). Organisational change: Initial
results in a health care setting. Psychological Reports, 86, 608-610.
Pettigrew, A. (2000). Foreword in Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P.M., & Peterson,
M. F. (Eds.). Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organisational
change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Review,
44, 697-713.
Pisarski, A., Bohle, P., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Effects of coping strategies, social
support and work-nonwork conflict on shift worker’s health. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment and Health, 24, 141-145.
Polit, D. E., & Hungler, B. P. (1993). Essentials of nursing research: methods,
appraisal and utilization. Philedelphia: J.B Lipincott.
Porras, J. L., & Robertson, P. (1992). Organisation development: Theory, practice, and
research. In M. D. Dunette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organisational
psychology (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.
Przygodda, M., Arentz, K. P., Quast, H. H., & Kleinbeck, W. (1997). Leadership style
and absenteeism in organisations: A study of medical emergency personnel in a community
medical emergency service. Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 35, 179-
186.
Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (1984). Organisational stress and preventative
management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J. (1997). Preventative stress
management in organisations. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
174
Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (Eds.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in
evaluation research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Repetti, R. L. (1983). The effects of workload and the social environment at work on
health. In L. Goldberger & S. Brezntiz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical
aspects (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Reynolds, S., & Briner, R. B. (1994). Stress management at work: With whom, for
whom and to what ends? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 75-89.
Reynolds, S., & Shapiro, D. A. (1991). Stress reduction in transition: Conceptual
problems in the design, implementation and evaluation of worksite stress management
interventions. Human Relations, 44, 717-733.
Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger, & S. H. Chaffee
(Eds.), Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roney, A & Cooper, C. (1997). Professionals on workplace stress: The essential facts,
John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organisational research: Multi-level and
cross-level perspectives. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 7, 1-37.
Rowe, K. J. (2000). Simultaneous estimation of interdependent effects among
multilevel composite variables in psychosocial research: An annotated example of the
application of multilevel structural equation modelling. In N. Duan & S. Reise (Eds.),
Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues and applications. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
175
Sargent, L. (1995). Public sector change: Organisational stressors and strategic
interventions. In P. Cotton (Ed.), Psychological health in the workplace: Understanding and
managing occupational stress. Carlton, Victoria: The Australian Psychological Association.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science. A realist approach. London: Biddles Ltd.
Schabracq, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Toward a phenomenological framework for
the study of work and organisational stress. Human Relations, 51, 625-648.
Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, E. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping
with work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 38-
754.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. Ashkanasy,
C. P. M. Widerom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate.
California: Sage.
Schmalensee, D. H., & Gust, N. (1995). Keys to successful services marketing:
Customer orientation, creed, consistency. In T. M. Block, G. D. Upah, & V. A. Zeitham,
(Eds.), Services marketing in a changing environment. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organisations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C.
P. M. Widerom, & M. F. Peterson, (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate.
California: Sage.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1993). The service organisation: Human resources
management is crucial. Organisational Dynamics, 21, 39-52.
176
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel
Psychology, 36, 19-39.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D. E., Ehrhart, M. G., & Holcombe, K. M. (2000). The climate
for service: Evolution of a construct. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, & M. F.
Peterson, (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.
Schweiger, D. L., Ivancevich, J. M., & Power, F. R. (1987). Executive action for
managing human resources before and after acquisition. Academy of Management
Executive, 2, 127-138.
Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a
merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110-135.
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Smeltzer, L. R. (1991). An analysis of strategies for announcing organisation-wide
change. Group and Organisation Studies, 16, 5-24.
Somers, M. J. (1995). Organisational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An
examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 16, 49-58.
Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Occupational differences in the work-strain
relationship: Towards the use of situation-specific models. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 219-229.
Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits,
negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent report of job stressors and
job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 67, 1-11.
177
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y. and Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity
should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21, 79-95.
Spelton, E., Barton, J., & Folkard, S. (1993). Have we underestimated shift workers’
problems? Evidence from a “reminiscence” study. Ergonomics, 36, 307-312.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
St Amour, D. (2001). Successful organisational change: Effective management of
people and cultural issues. Canadian Manager, Summer, 20-22.
Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision
accommodation processes. In L. L Cummings & B. M. Straw (Eds.), Research in
Organisational Behaviour (3rd ed.), Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.
Sutton, R. I., & Kahn, R. L. (1986). Prediction, understanding and control as antidotes
to organisational stress. In Lorsch, J. W. (Ed.). Handbook of Organisational Behaviour,
Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Oehrming, J. (1997). Hospital corporatization: How are
nurses’ job perceptions and work-related attitudes affected? Reports from the Department of
Psychology, University of Stockholm, Oct, 839.
Terry, D. J. (1991). Coping resources and situational appraisals as predictors of coping
behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1031-1047.
Terry, D. J. (1994). The determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational
factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 895-91.
178
Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1997). Employee adjustment to large-scale organisational
change. Australian Psychologist, 32, 203-220.
Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Intergroup differentiation in response to an
organisational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 67-81.
Terry, D. J., & Jimmieson, N. L. (1999). Work control and employee well-being: A
decade in review. In E. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of
Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 14, 95-148.
Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & Sartori, G. (1996). Employee adjustment to an
organisational merger: Stress, coping and intergroup differences. Stress Medicine, 12, 105-
122.
Terry, D. J., Neilsen, M., & Perchard, L. (1993). The effects of job stress on well-
being: A test of the buffering effects of social support. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45,
168-175.
Terry, D. J., Rawle, R., & Callan, V. J. (1995). The effects of social support on
adjustment to stress: The mediating role of coping. Personal Relationships, 2, 97-124.
Terry, D. J., Tonge, L., & Callan, V. J. (1995). Employee adjustment to stress: The role
of coping resources, situational factors and coping responses. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 8,
1-24.
Tetenbaum, T. J. (1998). Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos. Organisational
Dynamics, 26, 21-32.
Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding prediction and control as
moderators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psychological
well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538-543.
179
Thoits, P. A. (1983). Dimensions of life events as influences upon the genesis of
psychological distress and associated conditions: An evaluation and synthesis of the
literature. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychological stress: Trends in theory and research,
Academic Press: New York.
Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 54, 416-423.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables
on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 6-15.
Thompson, J. A., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2001). Commitment shift during
organisational upheaval: Physicians’ transitions from private practitioner to employee.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, available on-line at http://www.idealibrary.com
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for
change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of Organisational Change
Management, 12, 120-134.
Tsoukas, H. (1989). The Validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 551-561.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to change
in a reorganising workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.
Watson, B., Jones, E., Hobman, E., Bordia, P., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J. (2001).
Employees’ perceptions of organisational change: Impact of organisational level and gender.
Unpublished Manuscript.
180
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience
aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress and distress:
Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.
Webb, K. (1995). An introduction to problems in the philosophy of social sciences.
London: Wellington House.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organising (2nd ed). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-
normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.). (1995), Structural equation
modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wiley, J. W., & Brooks, S. M. (2000). The high-performance organisational climate:
How workers describe top-performing units. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, & M.
F. Peterson, (Eds.), Handbook of organisational culture and climate. California: Sage.
Winefield, A. H. (2000). Stress in academe: Some recent research findings. In D. T.
Kenny, J. G. Carlson, F. J. McGuigan, & J. L. Sheppard (Eds.), Stress and health: Research
and clinical appllications. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Wollin, D. (1996). Rigour in theory building from cases. Unpublished conference
paper, ANZAM 1996 Conference, Wollongong.
Wyatt, T. A. (1996). Stress management programmes in Singapore: An exploratory
study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 13, 77-99.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and method. London: Sage.
Publications.
181
Young, M., & Post, J. E. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to
manage: How leading companies communicate with employees. Organisational Dynamics,
22, 31-43.
Zikmund, W. G. (1997). Business Research Methods. Orlando: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
182
APPENDIX A
Survey Questions – Organisation A
183
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear staff member, This is your copy of The Hospital Survey which is being completed by all staff. The aim of the survey is to gather your opinions about the hospital. We are interested in the effect of the re-building programme, changes to staffing, structures, technology and methods, and generally how the hospital goes about its business. Your personal opinions about such issues are very important to the hospital. Our research team will prepare a report for the Executive after analysis of the information you give us. Your careful completion of this questionnaire is critical for the report to be useful to your hospital. The questionnaire has been developed throughout the last 4 months in consultation with your District Manager, the Executive, key staff and individual staff members from across the hospital. The survey is being conducted by the Graduate School of Management at The University of Queensland and the School of Psychology at Griffith University. This in order to ensure a high level of confidentiality, and to provide independent professional resources to conduct the research. Please do not attach a name to the questionnaire - all responses are strictly confidential and anonymous. Once the questionnaire is completed, place it in the post-paid envelope provided and return to the University of Queensland by 30 October, 1998. No one from the hospital will see any completed questionnaires. In addition to the summary report of findings provided to your District Manager and the Executive, all staff will receive a 2-3 page summary of the major findings. Thank you for your involvement in this important task. If you have any questions about the survey, please telephone Professor Victor Callan on (07) 3365 6225 (work). (L. Pyne) District Manager
184
Part A: Background Information
Firstly, we need some information about you and about your job. This information will only be used to describe, in general terms, the group of people who complete the survey.
Q1. What is your sex? (please circle): 1. Male 2. Female Q2. What is your age? (please circle): 1. Under 20 yrs 4. 31-35 yrs 7. 46-50 yrs
2. 20-25 yrs 5. 36-40 yrs 8. Over 50 yrs 3. 26-30 yrs 6. 41-45 yrs
Q3. How long have you been working at the hospital? _______ yrs Q4. How long have you worked in your current position? ________yrs _______months Q5. What are your terms of employment ? (please circle one or more numbers): 1. Permanent full-time 4. Temporary part-time 7. University joint appt. 2. Permanent part-time 5. Casual 8. Visiting medical officer 3. Temporary full-time 6. Contract Q6. What is your staff classification? This is a new way of describing appointments at the hospital so please take your time and circle the one which best describes your current duties (please circle):
Medical - manager A medical officer who has significant operational management responsibilities. (e.g., Unit Director)
Medical – clinician A medical officer whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care. (e.g., Registrar, VMO, Staff Specialist)
Nurse – manager A nurse who has significant operational management responsibilities (e.g., NPC, ADON, CNC)
Nurse – clinician A nurse whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care. (e.g., EN, RN, L2)
Junior medical A medical officer whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care at Resident/ Junior House Officer level. (e.g., Resident)
Other Health professional – manager
A health officer (non-medical or non-nursing) who has significant operational management responsibilities (e.g., Senior physiotherapist, Senior scientist, Senior technicians)
Other Health professional – clinician
A health officer (non-medical or non-nursing) whose primary responsibility is direct clinical care or clinical support or diagnostic services. (e.g., pharmacist, physiotherapist)
Non-clinical Manager A non-clinical officer who has significant operational management responsibilities usually at Departmental/Cost Centre level. (e.g., Director of Food Services, Director of IMSU)
Non-clinical Supervisor A non-clinical officer who has operational supervisory responsibilities usually below departmental head level. (eg. Senior Personnel Officer, Manager- Environmental services)
. Operational, Administrative, Technical & Trade Officer
Operational, Administrative, Technical & Trade officer with no supervisory responsibilities
. Executive Divisional service management
. Other (specify)
185
Please circle the number that best indicates how much you agree or disagree with the
statements made throughout the questionnaire.
Part B: What’s it like to work in the hospital at present?
Now we’d like to know a little about how you feel the hospital is progressing through this period of change. Please use the following scale to choose your answers:
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Mildly Disagree
Mildly Agree Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 The following questions relate to the quality of patient care at the hospital. In my view patients in the hospital are treated with sensitivity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 In my view the hospital provides good quality care to patients 1 2 3 4 5 6 In my opinion the hospital maintains a safe e\nvironment for patients.
1 2 3 4 5 6
There is an innovative approach to providing quality service to patients at the hospital.
1 2 3 4 5 6
The following questions relate to what it is like to work at the hospital at the moment. In my experience, managers/supervisors respect staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Staff at my level treat each other with respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Open and free communication is encouraged. 1 2 3 4 5 6
We would now like to ask you how easy you find it to talk to others about problems at work (in relation to the hospital changes) and how you feel about these problems.
Very
Much Some-what
A little
Not at all
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to help you feel better when you experience work related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to give you sound advice about what you could do when you experience work-related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to provide information which helps to clarify your work related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to listen to you when you need to talk about work related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much does your direct supervisor express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you?
1 2 3 4
How much can you trust your direct supervisor to treat confidentially the discussions you have about work related problems?
1 2 3 4
186
Part C: Dealing with change at work
The following questions relate to how you feel about the changes going on at the hospital. (Please circle the number nearest to how you feel for each of the above lines). In general, the change process is: not at all stressful 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely stressfulnot at all disruptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely disruptivenot at all upsetting 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely upsettingnot at all difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely difficult
Please use the following scale to choose your answers:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 These questions relate to how you think the changes might affect you personally. However the changes affect me, I am sure I can handle it. 1 2 3 4 5 I have no control over the extent to which the changes will affect my job. 1 2 3 4 5 I have reason to believe that I may not perform well in my job following the introduction of planned changes.
1 2 3 4 5
I will be able to influence the extent to which the changes will affect my job. 1 2 3 4 5 I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes. 1 2 3 4 5 It is up to individual employees how much they want the changes to influence their job.
1 2 3 4 5
Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no doubt I can perform well in the new hosptial
1 2 3 4 5
Part D: Satisfaction with working at the hospital These questions focus on how you feel about working in your work unit. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement by circling a number from 1 to 5. Don’t think too long about each statement - go on your first reaction. Very
DissatisfiedDissatisf
ied In
Between Satisfied Very
SatisfiedAll things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?
1 2 3 4 5
How satisfied are you with the quality of the resources available to you to do your job well?
1 2 3 4 5
How satisfied are you with the quality of the working conditions available to you to do your job well?
1 2 3 4 5
187
If a good friend of yours told you he or she was interested in working in your work unit, what would you tell him/her?
1 2 3 4 5 Advise against
Have doubts
about it Unsure Partially
recommend Strongly
recommend
Would you want to work in your present job if you did not have to?
1 2 3 4 5 Definitely
not Probably not Don’t know Yes
probably Yes
definitely
Part E: How do you feel?
We are interested in how you have been feeling of late. Have you recently:
Not at all No more than usual
Rather more than
usual
Much more than
usualLost much sleep over worry? 1 2 3 4 Felt constantly under strain? 1 2 3 4 Felt you could not overcome your difficulties? 1 2 3 4 Been feeling unhappy and depressed? 1 2 3 4 Been losing confidence in yourself? 1 2 3 4
Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person? 1 2 3 4
188
APPENDIX B
Survey Questions – Organisation B
189
CONFIDENTIAL Dear staff member The aim of this survey is to ask your opinion on how you feel about working within the Department. The results of the survey will provide valuable information in determining the future direction of all service areas. Your opinion will help to identify ways of improving your workplace. Thank you for participating in this survey.
Confidentiality: v Please do not attach your name to the completed questionnaire. v Responses to this questionnaire will be strictly confidential. v Professor Victor Callan and his team at the University of Queensland are the only people who will see the completed questionnaires, which will remain the property of the University. No individual response will be identifiable because all reports arising from the survey data will use large groupings of staff. v The Department will not have access to any completed questionnaires.
Completion: v Time will be made available for you to complete the survey at work. However, you may complete it in your own time if you wish. v Please work through the questions quickly, as first impressions are often best.
Please return the completed survey in the attached postage-paid envelope by
Friday 17 November 2000
For more information or assistance with the questionnaire, please contact Liz Hobman, at the University of Queensland on (07) 33656417.
190
PART A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION First, we need some information about you and your job. This information will be used only by the University team to describe, in general terms, the group of people who complete the survey. Q1. What is your sex? (please circle): 1. Male 2. Female Q2. What is your age? (please circle): 1. Under 20 years 2. 20-25 years 3. 26-30 years 4. 31-35 years 5. 36-40 years 6. 41-45 years 7. 46-50 years 8. 0ver 50 years Q3. How long have you been working in the Department? _____ years ______ months Q4. How long have you worked in your current position? _____ years ______ months Q5. What are your terms of employment? (please circle): 1. Permanent full-time 4. Temporary part-time 7. Contractor/Consultant 2. Permanent part-time 5. Casual 8. Job share 3. Temporary full-time 6. Agency staff Q6. What is your permanent appointed staff classification? (please circle): 1. AO1-AO3 2. AO4-AO6 3. AO7-AO8 4. PO1-PO3 5. PO4-PO6 6. TO1-TO3 7. TO4-TO5 8. OO1-OO7 9. SES/Senior Officer 10. Wages 11. Other 12. N/A
191
PART B: ATTITUDES ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT For the remainder of the questions, we would like you to go with your first reaction. When a list of statements or questions appears, please circle a number for each statement. Don't think too long about your answer. These questions focus on how you feel about working in the Department. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement - go on your first reaction.
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied In between Satisfied Very Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job? 1 2 3 4 5 How satisfied are you with the quality of the resources available to you to do your job well?
1 2 3 4 5
How satisfied are you with the quality of the working conditions available to you to do your job well?
1 2 3 4 5
If a good friend asked you whether you liked working in the Department, what would you tell him/her?
Really terrible Terrible Unsure Good Really good 1 2 3 4 5
Would you want to work in your present job if you did not have to?
Definitely not Probably not Don't know Yes probably Yes definitely 1 2 3 4 5
How do you feel about working in the Department?
Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree
What happens to the Department is really important to me 1 2 3 4 5 I don't care what happens to the Department as long as I get my pay 1 2 3 4 5 I feel very committed to the Department 1 2 3 4 5 It would take very little change in my job to cause me to leave the Department 1 2 3 4 5 There’s not too much to be gained by sticking with the Department indefinitely 1 2 3 4 5 W e are interested in whether you feel in control of things at work.
Strongly Strongly Disagree AgreeI feel I am in control of my future with the department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel I can influence the nature of change in my work unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel in control of the direction in which my career is headed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel in control of issues related to my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 What I do in the department is largely under my control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can influence the extent to which changes at work affect my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
192
H ow do you feel about the quality of the service you provide to clients? Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree We achieve high levels of client satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 We provide the client with "value for money" 1 2 3 4 5 6 We "go the extra mile" to provide service to clients 1 2 3 4 5 6 We are easily accessible to the client 1 2 3 4 5 6 We are seen by the client as a leader in our field 1 2 3 4 5 6 We are responsive to client problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 We develop products and services in line with client needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 N ow we'd like to know whether you intend or are contemplating leaving the Department. Strongly Strongly Disagree AgreeI often seriously think about asking for a transfer to another job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am planning to search for a new job during the next 12 months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I often seriously think about resigning from my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If I have my own way I will leave the department to work in another organisation one year from now
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I often seriously think about making a real effort to enter a new and different occupation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I frequently think of quitting my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART C: ATTITUDES ABOUT ON-GOING CHANGES IN THE DEPARTMENT
This part of the survey deals with your feelings about on-going changes occurring in the Department. Please rate your views about the nature of on-going changes:
not at all stressful 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely stressful not at all disruptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely disruptive not at all upsetting 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely upsetting not at all difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely difficult
These questions relate to how you think on-going changes might affect your confidence in doing your job Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree However changes to my job affect me, I am sure I can handle it 1 2 3 4 5 I may not perform well in my job following the introduction of changes 1 2 3 4 5 I am confident in my ability to deal with on-going changes in the Department 1 2 3 4 5 Even though I may need some training to learn new procedures, I have no doubt I could perform well if my job were to change
1 2 3 4 5
193
PART D: PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT
This section of the survey deals with your feelings about how people communicate in the Department. We would now like to ask you how easy you find it to talk to others about problems associated with your work.
Very Much
Somewhat
A little
Not at all
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to help you feel better when you experience work related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to give you sound advice about what you could do when you experience work-related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to provide information which helps to clarify your work related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much can you rely on your direct supervisor to listen to you when you need to talk about work related problems?
1 2 3 4
How much does your direct supervisor express concern about your work-related problems or their impact on you?
1 2 3 4
How much can you trust your direct supervisor to treat confidentially the discussions you have about work related problems?
1 2 3 4
Now we are interested in your opinions about leadership abilities of staff more senior to you in your Service Area. S taff more senior to me in my Service Area: Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Describe the kind of future they would like for us to create together 1 2 3 4 5 6 Appeal to others to share their dream of the future as their own 1 2 3 4 5 6 Clearly communicate a positive and hopeful outlook for the future 1 2 3 4 5 6 Show others how their long-term future interests can be realized by enlisting in a common vision
1 2 3 4 5 6
Look ahead and forecast what they expect the future to be like 1 2 3 4 5 6 Show excitement and enthusiasm about future possibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6
194
PART E: ABSENTEEISM The Department is also interested in why absenteeism occurs. Please estimate the number of days absent from work for physical health, work-related and other reasons. How many days in the past 6 months have you been absent from work due to physical health reasons (e.g., illness, colds, flu, injury, medical condition etc.) How many days in the past 6 months have you been absent from work due to work-related reasons (e.g., feeling depressed, emotionally run down, stressed, taking a "sickie", unfair workload, or difficult work relationship) How many days in the past 6 months have you been absent from work due to other reasons (e.g., leave entitlements, personal commitments/appointments, but excluding flexi-time/ rostered/ planned ATL)
195
APPENDIX C
Variable Means for Study 3
196
Means (SD) of Climate, Appraisal and Adjustment Variables by Organisational Level
Lower Level
N = 291
Middle Level
N = 295
Upper Level
N = 99
Climate
Customer service 4.89 (0.79) 4.79 (0.81) 4.95 (0.66)
Leader vision 3.49 (1.20) 3.60 (1.25) 4.24 (1.18)
Supervisor support 2.88 (0.95) 3.04 (0.88) 3.15 (0.86)
Change Appraisal
Change stress 3.71 (1.01) 3.78 (0.92) 3.62 (0.82)
Change self-efficacy 4.11 (0.71) 4.10 (0.70) 4.30 (0.57)
Change control 3.61 (1.25) 3.96 (1.26) 4.81 (1.08)
Adjustment
Organisational commitment 3.91 (0.83) 4.02 (0.85) 4.30 (0.81)
Turnover intentions 3.45 (2.01) 3.09 (1.90) 3.20 (1.97)
197
APPENDIX D
Variable Means for Study 4
198
199
Descriptive statistics for Climate, Appraisal and Adjustment Variables by Occupation and Organisational Level
Climate variables Medical
Nursing
Allied Health Non-Clinical Overall
Supervisor support
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
M
2.61
2.61
2.61
SD
0.65
0.89
0.86
N 9
51
60
M
2.73
2.66
2.66
SD
0.92
0.83
0.84
N
35
310
345
M
2.85
2.90
2.89
SD
0.70
0.91
0.87
N
17
85
102
M
2.62
2.48
2.51
SD
0.88
0.98
0.96
N
40
185
225
M
2.70
2.63
2.64
SD
0.84
0.90
0.89
N
101
631
732
Employee relations
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
4.56
4.01
4.09
0.94
1.04
1.04
9
51
60
4.29
4.06
4.09
1.24
1.11
1.12
35
310
345
4.35
4.65
4.59
1.00
1.04
1.03
17
85
102
4.11
3.64
3.72
1.20
1.42
1.40
40
185
225
4.25
4.01
4.05
1.15
1.23
1.22
101
631
732
Patient care
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
5.08
4.79
4.83
0.57
0.88
0.84
9
51
60
4.69
4.71
4.70
0.92
0.82
0.83
35
310
345
4.54
4.85
4.80
0.97
0.77
0.81
17
85
102
4.58
4.62
4.62
0.73
0.93
0.89
40
185
225
4.66
4.71
4.70
0.83
0.85
0.85
101
631
732
200
Appraisal variables Medical
Nursing
Allied Health Non-Clinical Overall
Change stress
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
M
3.48
2.94
3.02
SD
1.28
1.28
1.28
N
10
53
63
M
3.84
3.15
3.22
SD
1.28
1.28
1.29
N
36
308
344
M
3.22
2.96
3.00
SD
1.30
1.31
1.31
N
17
84
101
M
3.35
3.68
3.62
SD
1.31
1.42
1.40
N
42
183
225
M
3.51
3.26
3.30
SD
1.30
1.35
1.35
N
105
628
733
Change self-efficacy
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
4.32
4.19
4.21
0.54
0.69
0.67
10
53
63
4.17
4.12
4.13
0.53
0.62
0.61
36
308
344
4.24
4.25
4.25
0.58
0.55
0.56
17
84
101
4.25
4.10
4.13
0.71
0.74
0.73
42
183
225
4.23
4.14
4.16
0.61
0.65
0.65
105
628
733
Change control
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
3.00
2.28
2.39
0.80
0.80
0.83
10
53
63
2.91
2.72
2.74
1.07
0.83
0.88
36
308
344
2.94
2.67
2.72
0.89
0.95
0.94
17
84
101
2.56
2.64
2.63
1.02
1.05
1.04
42
183
225
2.78
2.66
2.67
1.00
0.92
0.93
105
628
733
201
Adjustment variables Medical
Nursing
Allied Health Non-Clinical Overall
Job satisfaction
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
M
3.69
3.45
3.49
SD
0.79
0.97
0.95
N 9
52
61
M
3.52
3.49
3.49
SD
0.93
0.84
0.85
N
34
311
345
M
3.53
3.70
3.67
SD
0.57
0.72
0.70
N
17
85
102
M
3.43
3.25
3.28
SD
0.88
1.01
0.99
N
41
187
228
M
3.50
3.44
3.45
SD
0.84
0.90
0.89
N
101
635
736
Well-being
Managers
Non-managers
Overall
3.30
3.14
3.16
0.59
0.69
0.68
9
52
61
3.08
3.25
3.24
0.66
0.60
0.61
34
311
345
3.16
3.28
3.26
0.46
0.57
0.55
17
85
102
3.18
3.15
3.15
0.66
0.73
0.72
41
187
228
3.15
3.22
3.21
0.62
0.65
0.64
101
635
736