Development of a new model of cognitive, affective and

individuals, within their perceptions of change leaders, managers and agents, and within the organisational context. These factors are explored in the next section and incorporated into a model of change.

2.5 Development of a new model of cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to organisational change

Introduction

I have referred to many models of individual change. Because they looked at the relationships between cognition, emotion and behaviour I found the most influential were those by Gibson (1995), Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), Piderit (1999; 2000), Paterson and Härtel (2002), Paterson and Cary (2002), Brotheridge (2003), Kiefer (2005) and Szabla (2007).

According to Lau and Woodman (1995, p. 550), “Any model is an abstraction from reality, and researchers must make difficult choices as to what should be included and what should be left out.” My model (see Figure 4) is designed to include as many factors affecting individual responses to organisational change as possible.

Figure 4: Model of cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to organisational change

The model proposes that an organisational change event triggers individual cognitive evaluations, which evoke possible emotional reactions and the cognitive and affective processes result in behavioural outcomes. Before acting, most people consider the outcomes of their actions (Piderit, 2000) and possibly moderate their behaviour. On the other hand, people may respond spontaneously and ‘from the heart’, without carefully analysing the possible consequences. Bargh and Chartrand (1999) conducted a series of experiments that revealed that many thoughts operate below the level of consciousness and that these induce behaviour that is also not consciously thought through. Emotion regulation, according to Gross (1998, p. 288), provides “a middle course between silencing the emotions and listening to them and them alone.” Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses can be positive, negative, neutral or mixed.

The focus in this thesis is on emotional responses to change. According to the cognitive approach to the study of emotions (Lazarus, 1991, 2006; Ortony et al., 1988; Scherer, 1999) affective reactions to events arise after a process of thought. Employees’ positive or negative evaluations of a change event are mediated by their perceptions of the nature of the change, notably the favourability of outcomes, the scale, the frequency,

Affective responses Positive Negative Neutral Mixed Cognitive responses Positive Negative Neutral Mixed Behavioural responses Positive Negative Neutral Mixed Cognitive appraisal of

change event(s)’ perceived: 1. Favourability of outcomes 2. Scale

3. Frequency, timing and speed

4. Justice

Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses differ with regard to the change leader(s)/manager(s)/

agent(s)’ perceived: 9. Leadership ability 10. Emotional intelligence 11. Trustworthiness

Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses differ with regard to the employee’s:

5. Emotional intelligence 6. Disposition

7. Previous experience of change 8. Change and stress outside the

workplace Cognitive evalua- tion of potential behavioural responses Change event(s)

Cognitive, affective and behavioural responses differ with regard to the organisation’s perceived:

12. Culture 13. Change context

timing and speed, and the fairness of it. Mediation occurs when “an active organism intervenes between stimulus and response” and “(m)ediators explain how external physical events take on internal psychological significance” (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1176). All of the mediating variables in the model can individually, or in combination, evoke emotions in those involved in change. The complexity of the cognitive and affective processes becomes particularly evident when some aspects of the change are considered positive and others negative.

In contrast, “a moderator is a qualitative…or quantitative…variable that affects the strength and/or direction of the relation between an independent predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable” (Baron & Kenny 1986, p. 1174). Three sets of factors moderate the cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to change, some of which relate to the individual (emotional intelligence, disposition, previous experience of change, and change and stress outside the workplace); some relate to the individual’s perception of factors relating to change leaders, managers and agents (emotional intelligence, leadership ability and trustworthiness); and some relate to the individual’s perception of the organisation (its culture and the change context). There are many potential overlaps between the various constructs. For example, there are several personality characteristics, such as empathy, which are considered to be embedded in the constructs of leadership, emotional intelligence, trust, justice and disposition. The model can be seen as linear, circular or multi-directional. While a change event triggers cognitions and emotions that lead to individual behaviour, the behaviour itself can have outcomes that impact on further cognitions and emotions, and possibly on the change itself (Bacharach et al., 1996).

To illustrate, a theoretical example is provided of the responses from an individual point of view. A change of structure is announced by senior management. One individual, a middle manager, considers the new structure to be weak, is anxious about it, and complains to senior management. After discussion, his/her views are taken into account and a variation of the structure is implemented. This may elicit different cognitions and emotions in the middle manager, who now accepts the change. Or perhaps the outcome is messier still, and the manager rallies support from others, and after considerable interaction some changes are made and others are not, and thus the nature of the thoughts, feelings and actions of the manager may again alter. The entire change experience depicted above is characterised by complexity, fluidity and politics (Dawson, 2003; Buchan & Badham, 1999), as cognitive, affective and behavioural

reactions are influenced by new information, procedures and outcomes (Kiefer, 2005; Paterson & Cary, 2002; Mills, 2000). Kiefer (2005) notes that while one specific change event, small or large, has certain consequences for individuals, ongoing change involves a more complex set of dynamics. One change therefore needs to be seen in the context of others.

The model therefore has similarities to other models in that the emotions of change have cognitive antecedents and behavioural outcomes, and since organisational change occurs over varying periods of time affective states will alter. My model differs from previous models in various ways. First, Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) model is not specifically directed at (but may include) organisational change. Second, my model aims to embrace all types of change, unlike Paterson and Härtel’s (2002) and Paterson and Cary’s (2002) focus on downsizing, and Kiefer’s (2005) concentration on ongoing and multiple changes. Third, it involves a wider range of variables than most of the models, which do not directly explore the role of leadership ability, change and stress outside the workplace, or organisational culture. Fourth, it embraces positive and negative emotions while Kiefer’s model focuses only on negative emotions. Fifth, the concept of justice permeates the contributions of Paterson and Cary and Kiefer, but while both identify trust as an outcome of change, my model identifies trust as a variable that moderates cognitive, affective and behavioural responses. Sixth, Brotheridge’s (2003) model was primarily focused on the mediating effects of perceptions of organisational justice and was therefore not concerned with as wide a range of variables, and it also concentrated on the stressful aspects of change. Seventh, Gibson’s (1995) model emerged from a study of cognitive and affective responses to change but did not categorise the critical variables that lead to them. Eighth, while Paterson and Härtel’s model discusses the impact of employees’ emotional intelligence on their abilities to cope with change, mine also addresses employees’ perceptions of the emotional intelligence of change leaders, managers and agents. Finally, the models of Piderit (1999) and Szabla (2007) are fundamentally about resistance to change and less about positive reactions.

My model thus makes a contribution to the literature by focussing on a wider range of factors that influence any form of organisational change than presented in other models. What now follows is an explanation of why each of the 13 factors have been included in the model. At the end of each subsection the research questions are posed.

Variables Mediating Cognitive Responses to Change

Before a cognitive judgement of an organisational change takes place, people use a number of lenses through which they view the change. These lenses act as mediators (Baron & Kenny, 1986) because the cognitive evaluation of the change as positive, negative, neutral or mixed depends on the individual’s perception of the nature of the change. In this section four mediators are discussed: perceived favourability of outcomes of change, perceived scale of the change, perceived frequency, timing and speed of the change, and perceived justice of the change. The purposes of the research questions in this section are twofold. The first is to investigate how the variable mediates cognitive evaluations of the change. The second is to identify the emotions that arise from the cognitive evaluations and the behavioural outcomes.

Perceived Favourability of Outcomes of Change

Change has often been portrayed as a negative (Kiefer, 2005) and stressful (Brotheridge, 2003) event where some stakeholders will lose out and face difficult processes in doing so (Kruglanski, Pierro, Higgins & Capozza, 2007). It also has many positive aspects:

Change also poses challenge and affords opportunity. It does away with boring routines, enabling advancement and exploration. It shakes away stagnation and that ‘business-as- usual’ feeling. It generates dynamism and the potential for progress. It breeds excitement and a sense of going places. In short, it has a significant bright side, alongside its darker, duress-inducing aspects (Kruglanski et al., 2007, p. 1306).

Outcomes of change that are perceived as favourable tend to produce positive affective reactions (Matheny & Smollan, 2005), such as happiness from obtaining a better office, relief at escaping redundancy and pride from a promotion. Negative outcomes generate negative emotions such as fear of losing one’s management role, anger at an increased workload, or disgust at the way junior staff are treated. Where employees find it difficult to predict outcomes their responses will remain either neutral or ambivalent, until more information becomes available and outcomes are realised or become clearer. If people anticipate that change will bring only modest benefits (Fugate et al., 2008), or do not see it as particularly relevant, they will have a tepid response at best. If the change is seen as useful, but requires effort to deal with it, it may be seen as a lower priority than other tasks, and in this case responses are also likely to be ambivalent.

favourable responses since they are often considered to increase participation in decision-making and feelings of empowerment and autonomy (see Rasmussen and Jeppersen, 2006, for an overview of research). However, Shapiro and Kirkman (1999) surveyed employees who were moving to self-managing work teams and found considerable resistance, increased turnover intentions and lower organisational commitment, consequences also detailed in the meta-analysis of Rasmussen and Jeppersen (2006). The main reason was that employees feared unfair and unfavourable outcomes such as increased workload and responsibility.

Disposition (which will be considered in more depth in Research Question 6) can play a significant role. For example, optimists and pessimists will anticipate different outcomes (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Mixed outcomes, for example a bigger salary but a more stressful workload, will lead to mixed cognitive, affective and behavioural reactions (Kiefer, 2002b). Fedor et al. (2006) concluded from their empirical study that employees were more committed to change where outcomes were favourable and when they did not have to do much. They suggest that change can result in uncertainty and fear of failure to adapt, and the effort required to make change work may be a source of negative attitudes to change.

An outcome of change can be perceived by a person involved in terms of its nature, timeframe and focus on different stakeholders.

Firstly, a number of useful concepts from the literatures on the psychological contract and organisational justice explore the nature of individual outcomes of organisational practices and decisions. While justice concepts are analysed in more depth in Research Question 4 in this literature review, the distinctions between types of outcome could be helpful in analysing how organisational personnel view change.

Lester and Kickul (2001) distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes in their discussion of the psychological contract, which is the employee’s perception of mutual obligations between him or her and the organisation. Intrinsic outcomes relate to the work environment (for example, communication and managerial support) and the job itself (such as responsibility, authority and meaningful work), while extrinsic outcomes relate to the consequences of performing the job (such as salary and benefits). They found that participants in their study rated eight of the most important ten outcomes as intrinsic. Changes to the psychological contract can impact on both types of outcomes (Kickul et al., 2002) and when they are seen as unfair, job satisfaction, performance and intentions to remain decline.

The procedural justice literature provides a number of similar terms about the nature of outcomes. Tyler and Lind (1992) criticised the instrumental view of Thibaut and Walker (1975) that people are only concerned that procedures should deliver favourable tangible outcomes for themselves. They proposed a parallel group-relational model that states that people also see outcomes in terms of social status, dignity, belongingness and validations of self-identity. Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) refer to outcomes as being economic, concrete and material, or as psychological, whereas Cropanzano and Ambrose (2001) distinguish between economic and socioemotional outcomes. Apart from the relevance of perceptions of fairness in responding to change, the main point of these various concepts is that people can conceptualise outcomes of organisational change in different ways and that all of them can produce emotional reactions. Research into identity has revealed that people’s sense of self is often wrapped in their jobs and careers, and when organisational change disrupts identity it produces negative emotional responses (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Carr, 2001).

Secondly, outcomes of change can also be framed in terms of how long they last. An organisational change could have negative consequences, such as extra work or extra travel in the short term (during the change process), but have longer-term consequences, such as a new role or higher salary (after the change has been implemented). It is conceivable that longer-term outcomes will produce stronger emotional reactions. Coping with negative outcomes is easier in the short-term while the prospect of enjoying positive outcomes is particularly welcome with a longer-term perspective. The uncertainty of some outcomes is itself a temporary outcome of a change process and can tax people’s coping resources (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Fugate et al., 2008). The longer one has to wait the greater is the potential anxiety or frustration (Fedor et al., 2006; Schein, 2004). The frequency of change also becomes a factor, as the outcomes of some types of change seem to be short-lived (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). People will be reluctant to put effort into an outcome they perceive will be of limited duration, as they wait for the latest management ‘hot idea’ to materialise.

Thirdly, people’s perceptions of change are focused on outcomes for different stakeholders. Change events can produce wins and losses for an individual (Bartunek et al., 2006; Wolfram Cox, 1997) and there may be differing outcomes for various stakeholders (Paterson & Cary, 2002; Fedor et al., 2006). For example, the results of downsizing for victims and survivors will obviously be vastly different. Most victims will think that the loss of their jobs is unfortunate and experience emotions such as

“social isolation, helplessness and anxiety”, resulting in “reduced self-esteem, depression and minor psychiatric morbidity” (Ryan & Macky, 1998, p. 33). Survivors too may experience negative perceptions when colleagues lose jobs, social relationships are fractured, and increased workloads are predicted or experienced. Redundancies are accompanied by “highly emotional responses synonymous with grieving such as shock, anger, denial, guilt and fear” with survivors becoming “less-aversive to risk, indecisive and demotivated” (Worrall, Campbell & Cooper, 2000, p. 463). Survivors may also experience positive emotions (particularly relief) and the model of Mishra and Spreitzer (1998), referred to earlier, lays out a number of constructive affective and behavioural responses. Survivors of downsizing have also been noted to experience grief at the loss of colleagues, guilt that they themselves had escaped the axe, and anxiety that they may not do so the next time (Brockner, 1992; Paterson & Cary, 2002). There is also a difference between those who are declared ‘at risk’ (Armstrong-Stassen, 2002) or perceive themselves at risk, and those who are not. Those at risk are likely to experience more negative emotional reactions. The leaders and managers of downsizing also have to deal with a gamut of negative emotions, such as guilt, anxiety and concern (Clair & Dufresne, 2004; Gandolfi, 2008).

Employees will therefore analyse the favourability of outcomes for themselves, other staff, for the organisation itself, and possibly for external stakeholders. This was confirmed by Matheny and Smollan (2005) in an empirical study which found that people experienced a range of positive and negative emotions relating to outcomes for each of these stakeholders. Outcomes for self produced a higher degree of emotional intensity than did outcomes for other people or the organisation. It is natural that most people view a change event with the prime focus on personal outcomes. Events that facilitate the attainment of goals will result in positive emotions and those which prevent them produce negative emotions (Frijda, 1988; Gibson, 1995; Lazarus, 2006). Outcomes for other stakeholders (including the organisation itself) are seen as being of lesser importance. As one of the respondents in another study of change observed, “I recognized some time ago that my priorities were really myself, secondly those who work for me and around me, and thirdly the organization” (Vince, 2006, p. 353).

Evaluation of outcomes often involves comparison with others and perceived unfairness produces anger (Homans 1961). Adams (1965) Equity theory states that when people see an imbalance they take psychological and practical steps to restore the balance. These issues will be explored more fully in Research Question 4 on the role of

organisational justice perceptions.

Evaluation of the favourability of outcomes of change, both the more tangible and less tangible, can trigger emotions that depend on a range of factors that lie within the individual and the organisation.

Research Question 1a: How does perceived favourability of the outcomes of change mediate cognitive evaluations of the change?

Research Question 1b: What affective responses occur as a result of these evaluations?

Perceived Scale of the Change

The typologies of change referred to earlier in the literature review (see Table 3) distinguished between major and minor changes and for the former used terms such as gamma (Golembiewski et al., 1976; Porras & Silvers, 1991), second order (Watzlawick, et al., 1974; Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Porras & Robertson, 1992), third order (Bartunek & Moch, 1987), transformational (French et al., 2005; Dunphy & Stace 1988, 1990), recreations and reorientations (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985), and evolutionary and radical (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).

These conceptualisations of organisational change are usually seen from the perspective of the organisation but individual employees tend to focus more on the impact of the change on their own jobs and conditions of service (Lau & Woodman, 1995). Therefore what is considered a major change at organisational level may have little impact on an individual and conversely a minor organisational change may be perceived by an individual to have major personal implications and thus trigger stronger cognitive and emotional responses (Bovey & Hede, 2001b; Fedor et al., 2006; Mossholder et al., 2000). For example, a major strategic change may have little impact on the catering or cleaning staff of an organisation but a change in personal work schedules may have more serious implications for some of them. Moreover, even within