LITERATURE REVIEWJob Insecurity: As illustrious by several critics (e.g., Campbell Quick, 1998; Howard, 1995; Rifkin, 1995), employed life has been exposed to a lot of transformations over the past era. These fluctuations concern topics such as augmented economic enslavement between countries, fast changing customer markets, and intensified demands for tractability within as well as amid organizations. As a result, establishments have been required to engage in numerous adaptive policies in order to challenge new demands and continue to be vigorous in this changeable environment. Administrations have, as noted by among others Cascio (1998), two choices to become more successful: they can either upsurge their gains or cut their costs, often by plummeting the number of workers. These companies choices are often realized in actions like outsourcings, privatizations, mergers and acquisitions, often in combination with employee redundancy (Burke & Cooper, 2000; Burke & Nelson, 1998; Tetrick & Quick, 2003). Although these restructuring strategies vary in many ways, they typically have at least one thing in common; they lead to the staff being infused with uncertainties concerning the future. Such state of mind may concern the existence of the companies as a whole, as well as the upcoming existence of the workers present job or treasured features of the job. This process of downsizing of employees for the sake of cost saving had made employee feel insecure about their jobs. According to Kets de Vries and Balazs (1997) downsizing is the process of a planned eliminations of workers or jobs in an organization. There are a lot of ways that companies use to downsize and redundant employees. But it has adverse effects on employees and makes them insecure about their job. They do not work with a fuller concentration and motivation because they are not sure and secure about their jobs. Companies in almost every industrialized nation are moving towards better manageability in how they staff their companies (Klein Heelink & van Vuen, 1989; Spawow, 1999). Administrative strivings for practical and arithmetical tractability have caused in requirements for novel types of skills as well as variations in service contracts. Most obviously, managements have shown improved attention in employing labors on the basis of diminutive or everlasting term contracts rather than on the basis of concealed long-term agreements (McLeen Parks, Kider, & Galager, 1998; Sverke, Gagher, & Hellren, 2001). In addition, downscaling fighters have to manage extra with few resources, their work load increases, and indecisiveness regarding task presentation is likely to be biggest (Burke & Nelon, 1998; Hartley, Jacbson, Klandermans, & van Vuuren, 1991).As a consequence of the changes termed above, job insecurity has occurred as one of the most significant issues in modern work life and the phenomenon of job insecurity has thus become more often studied among scholars and academics (Svrke, Hellren & Nswall, 2002).Change Management:Against a contextual of rapid technological progress, an increasing information workforce and the fluctuating of accepted work practices, change is becoming anever-presentfeature of organizational life (Burnes, 2004). However, there are many companies that acknowledge the need for conversion, as many as 80% of the change platforms do not attain their envisioned consequences (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004). In rejoinder to the growing prominence in the administrative change, there is a rising body of literature researching at the idea and procedures of change management and factors that underwrite to its achievement. Depicting from an extensive variety of disciplines and academic viewpoints this literature has been designated as multifarious in difficulties and covering many inconsistent and unclear theories and research answers (Todnem, 2005, Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).Within the literature, one of the most powerful viewpoints within what are recognized as prearranged methods to change as mentioned by Lewin (1952, in Elrod II and Tippett, 2002) who reasoned that change includes a three phase process: firstly, unfreezing present behavior; secondly, paginating to the novel behavior; and, finally, refreezing the new performance. The three-stepmodel was accepted for many years as the leading framework for getting an idea about the procedure of structural change (Todnem, 2005). Since its preparation, the philosophy has been studied and adapted, with phases being separated to make more precise steps. For instance, Bullock and Batten (1985) established a four phase model containing of investigation, preparation, act and amalgamation.Despite its acceptance, Lewins unique theory has been evaluated for being grounded on small scale models and more prominently the fact that it is based on the postulation that companies act under continuous conditions that can be taken into thought and deliberate for. As a result of such criticisms another deliberate method to organizational change was established that is known as the emergent approach. A developing approach to organizational change sees change as so rapid and random that it cannot be achieved from the top down. Instead, it is disputed, change should be seen as a procedure of improving, where the company responds to the inside and outside environmental changes. As it is suggested by Todnem (2005) that this way is more concentrated on change readiness and facilitating for change than for giving specific pre plannedprocedures for each change project and inventiveness.Resistance to change:Many researchers like (Lawreince, 1954; Marrer, 1996; Strebeel, 1994; Waddll and Sohail, 1998, among others) emphasizes that the causes for the disappointment of many alterations in initiatives can be seen in resistance to change. Resistance to change presents costs and postponements into the change procedure (Ansoff, 1990) that are problematic to forestall (Lorenzo, 2000) but must be taken into attention. Resistance has also been considered as a basis of evidence, being valuable in understanding how to improve a more fruitful change procedure (Ber and Eisentat, 1996; Goldsein, 1988; Lawrnce, 1954; Pidrit, 2000; Waddell and Sohail, 1998). Certainly, resistance to change is a key subject in change administration and should be deliberated to help the administration to attain the benefits of the alteration.Information Technology:(Morrison and Bernlt, 1990) investigated that in the every industry, projected minimal benefits of investment in information technology are less than the minimal cost, inferring the problematic issue of over investment. More precisely they get to know that for each penny spent on information technology, the minimal upsurge in output was only 70 cents. Likewise (Loveman, 1994) get to know that trivial contribution of information technology spending to the output of manufacturing firms. (Lichtenberg, 1995) instead, said that there are important welfares from investment in information technology to the firms. It is also found out that one IT employee is alike to sixnon ITworkers in terms of minimal productivity. (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1996) found that automation aids suggestively, to the firms level of output. In fact they get to know that computer related money investment donates 85% to the minimal increase in output, on the other handnon information technologymoney contributes only 8% to the marginal output. It is also found out that information technology worker is more than double as fruitful as non-information technology worker. Most of such researches related to the influence of IT towards the firms level of efficiency have been constrained for the industry.