The Effect of Social Accounts in Change Communication on
Employee Attitude during Top-down Organizational Change
Master’s Thesis
Marly van Bragt 10618538
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Programme Communication Science: Corporate Communication Supervisor: Dr. James Slevin
M.M.A. van Bragt Abstract
Previous studies have shown that more than half of top-down organizational change initiatives fail. This is a result of ineffective change implementation by management rather than
weaknesses in the change initiatives. Amongst others, effective change communication is key to implement top-down changes. However, change communication often lacks a consistent message and research on change messages is still scarce. This leads to the following research question: What communication messages used by management are most effective during top-down organizational change to improve the employee’s attitude toward the change? In the present study, social accounts theory is examined as a way to communicate top-down organizational change. The effect of three social account types (causal, ideological and referential accounts) on trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change is examined. An experiment among 115 Dutch employees in various organizations shows that ideological accounts improve trust in management and readiness for change while reducing resistance and uncertainty among employees. In contrast, referential accounts aggravate job uncertainty. In this study, causal accounts do not seem to have an effect on employee attitude. The relationship between ideological accounts and resistance is mediated by readiness for change. In sum, if managers want to improve employee attitude during top-down
organizational change using communication, they should emphasize the change vision, superordinate goals and shared values. Referring to changes implemented in other organizations negatively impacts job uncertainty. If managers apply the given
recommendations, they will be more skilled in communicating top-down change programs, which is likely to lead to a greater amount of successful top-down change initiatives.
Key words: top-down organizational change, change communication, social accounts, trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change.
M.M.A. van Bragt
Organizational change in contemporary organizations – an introduction
Contemporary organizations are facing globalization and digitalization. Globalization has lead to the increasing interdependence between individuals and nations which has resulted in accelerated and universal communication and involves political and cultural dimensions (Giddens, 2007). According to Giddens (2000), there is a high level of world trade today and organizations cannot ignore this. Moreover, innovation has lead to new media technologies with great reach, such as internet. In this changing environment, organizations must reinvent themselves (White, 2013). Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) state, “because of increasingly dynamic environments, organizations are continually confronted with the need to implement changes in strategy, structure, process and culture” (p. 681).
Organizational change is defined as a process of organizational reform that takes place over time (Birken, Lee and Weiner, 2012). Change initiatives take many forms such as
installing new technologies, downsizing, reorganizing or trying to change a corporate culture (Beer and Norhia, 2000). Weick and Quinn (1999) make a distinction between episodic and continuous change. An episodic change is intentional, rare and temporary. Management introduces episodic change when there is a misalignment between the organizational structure and the demands of the environment. On the other hand, continuous change is constant and cumulative. Small adaptations on a lower level together create substantial changes. Process innovation teams are a third type of organizational change used in contemporary
organizations. During this type of change, empowered teams develop innovative solutions to existing problems (Pearce and Ensley, 2004). Ideally, a mixture of different types of change is used to create a significant change (Burgelman, 1991). However, it is argued that top-down change is still common practice in organizations (McNulty and Ferlie, 2004). For that reason, in the present study there is a focus on the latter type of change. During top down change, management sets out conditions that are different from what they are at the moment and tries to achieve these through interventions (Ford and Ford, 1995). The aim is to improve
individual and organizational performance by enhancing individual behaviors (Porras and Robertson, 1992).
Over the last years, organizational change has become important in managerial thought (Zorn, Christensen and Cheney, 1999). Despite the fact that organizational change has become a topic of much scientific and management literature, many organizational attempts to change do not succeed (Elving, 2005). Various authors estimate that more than half of all organizational change initiatives fail (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman and
M.M.A. van Bragt
Boonstra, 2003; Beer and Nohria, 2000). The cause of many organizational change failures is often considered as the inability to successfully implement the change rather than flaws in the change initiative itself (Choi, 2011; Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al., 2003). Being able to manage organizational change is viewed as a critical skill for twenty-first century managers (Whelan-Berry and Somerville, 2010). As Armenakis and Harris (2002) put it, “implementing organizational change is one of the most important, yet least understood skills of
contemporary leaders” (p. 169).
This creates a problem for managers within changing organizations. If more than half of top-down change initiatives fail and this is attributed to inability of managers to
successfully implement a change, than how can organizational change be executed in an effective manner? Flaws in top-down change implementation are attributed to several causes such as the inability to create a sense of urgency for the change, the lack of clear change objectives, leaders that are either too powerful or have too little authority, bad timing of the change initiative or ineffective change communication (Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al., 2003).
Implementation of top-down change is communication-related phenomenon (Lewis and Seibold, 1998). The change message shapes the sentiments that determine employee responses towards the change (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). It is argued that negative responses to organizational change are often caused by managers failing to communicate a consistent change message (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). Therefore, the focus of this study is on change communication as a part of change implementation. Although organizational change is an emerging topic of investigation within communication research (Lewis and Seibold, 1998), it is stated that scholarly literature has paid little attention to the content of change communication (Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens and Weir, 2006). For that reason, the aim of this study is provide change managers with information on how to construct an effective change message during a top-down change. This leads to the following research question: What communication messages used by management are most effective during
top-down organizational change to improve the employee’s attitude toward the change?
The results of this study are beneficial for organizations that would like to implement top-down changes. Knowing how to formulate an effective change message will lead to an increasing number of successful change initiatives (Elving, 2005). Moreover, this research has a practical relevance for communication professionals in general as they still face problems in evaluating their interventions (Moreno, Verhoeven, Tench and Zerfass, 2010). The European Communication Monitor 2009 shows that only 34.4% of PR practitioners evaluate outflows
M.M.A. van Bragt
of communication. Communication professionals may use this study’s questionnaire to measure the results of their communication interventions.
The article starts with a literature review on communication during organizational change and challenges in employee attitude during organizational change. Afterwards, the methods and results are described. Finally, conclusions and discussion are presented.
Communication during organizational change
During complex top-down changes, the individual’s need for information usually grows whereas the quantity and quality of the available information often decline (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). This causes uncertainty; one of the most commonly reported
psychological states in the context of organizational change (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois and Callan, 2004). Managers are regarded as the first source of information in hierarchical organizations (Portoghese et al., 2012). When policies and procedures transform during a change, employees become more dependent on their managers for crucial information (Cobb, Folger and Wooten, 1995). This shows the importance of effective change communication by managers during top-down changes. On top of that, change agents should create a sense of urgency for change through persuasive communication as this will lead to readiness for change among employees (Armenakis et al., 1993). The change effort will be more effective when employees experience readiness for change (Elving, 2005). In the present study, social accounts theory is examined as a means of communicating top-down change used by
managers.
Social accounts are “the explanations that leaders give followers for their actions” (Cobb, Stephen and Watson, 2001, p. 1124). Social accounts have been used before as a tool for impression management, ideal control and for managing perceptions of organizational justice (Cobb et al., 2001). More specifically, social accounts have been used to examine what kind of message is most effective during organizational change (Tucker, Yeow and Viki, 2013; Brockner, DeWitt, Grover and Reed, 1990). In the literature on strategic change implementation, the use of social accounts is recommendedbecause of its positive influence on the likelihood of implementation success (Kotter, 1996). If the right social account is used, this helps the employee to understand the change decisions from the point of view of management (Cobb et al., 1995). Moreover, the purpose of social accounts is to create beliefs among employees that change is justified (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999) and fair (Cobb et al., 1995). The objective of the account giver is to manage the impressions of the receiver in a
M.M.A. van Bragt
way that negative reactions are avoided (Cobb et al., 2001). This is important because resistance is one of the most common problems during top-down change (Bovey and Hede, 2001). The success or failure of change initiatives may thus depend on the successful usage of social accounts (Tucker et al., 2013). In this article it is argued that effective top-down
organizational change demands knowledge on the use of social accounts to effectively communicate the change.
Social accounts theory distinguishes four different communication messages: causal, ideological, referential and penitential accounts (Cobb et al., 1995; Bies, 1987). Causal accounts describe internal and external forces that affect the organization and indicate a need for change. Ideological accounts explain the change by identifying superordinate goals, the change vision, change objectives and shared values of the organization. Especially the underlying reason why managers think a change is necessary and what is expected to gain from it (Cobb et al., 1995). The aim of ideological accounts is that the receiver will believe in the norms and superordinate goals set by management (Bies, 1987). The idea of ideological accounts is in line with studies by Lewis et al. (2006), Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al. (2003) and Barrett (2002) who state that managers are widely encouraged to provide justification for the change and establish a clear and compelling vision for the change. In the third type of social accounts, referential accounts, the change is compared to other similar situations. Referential accounts are used as a benchmark for success that will enhance employees’ confidence that the change will be successful. The use of referential accounts is in line with Zorn, Page and Cheney (2000) who state that change initiatives gain legitimacy by referring to specific examples of competitors or admired organizations that implemented change effectively. The final type of social accounts identified by Cobb et al. (1995), penitential accounts, refers to regret or apology. However, this type has been removed in later works (Tucker et al., 2013). For that reason, this study focuses on the first three types. Most often, a combination of the different social accounts is used in order to construct a message that describes the rationale behind a decision to change (Lines, Selart, Espedal and Johansen, 2005).
Some critique exists with regard to social accounts theory. First of all, employees are not passive recipients of change messages by management. They have personal interpretations and act on their understandings of the change (Lines, 2005; Shapiro, Lewicki and Devine, 1995). Although managers may offer a social account for the change, a variety of other factors may influence employees’ attitude towards the change, like co-workers opinions and past
M.M.A. van Bragt
experiences with management. In other words, the social accounts might not always be understood as meant by the manager. Secondly, during complex organizational change, explanations offered by management may not always be believed or understood (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). Furthermore, the use of social accounts is a form of one-way
communication while other studies have shown the importance of participative strategies during organizational change (Bordia et al., 2004; Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al., 2003; Morgan and Zeffane, 2003; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1977). According to Castells (2011), new communication technologies facilitate interactive horizontal communication networks that give autonomy to individual employees to generate and distribute their own messages and go look for information. That way, employees become less dependent on the agenda-setting of management and are able to participate in organizational change. A final critique is that social accounts may not be enough to change behaviour of employees low on trust in management (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). Trust in management is of major importance for
contemporary organizations because trust is necessary to bridge intergroup differences caused by globalization and may improve employees’ perceptions of management integrity during organizational change (Morgan and Zeffane, 2003). However, trust in management is usually problematic during top-down organizational change as change initiatives often have a
negative impact on trust in management (Lines et al., 2005; Morgan and Zeffane, 2003). To foster trust in management during top-down change, effective communication is of major importance.
Challenges in employee attitude during organizational change
As organizational change can only be enacted through employees and their attitude is vital to successful organizational change, it is necessary for organizations to secure employee support for change initiatives (Choi, 2011). According to Davenport (1993), successful implementation of organizational change depends on “consciously managing behavioral as well as structural change, with both sensitivity to employee attitudes and perceptions and a tough-minded concern for results” (p. 167). Choi (2011) states that employee attitude towards the change is a state rather than personality trait and is influenced by situational variables. Change communication is one of the situational variables that may influence employee attitude towards the change. As mentioned before, trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change are critical aspects of employee attitude towards top-down change. However, research on the effect of social accounts in change communication on
M.M.A. van Bragt
employee attitude is still scarce. For that reason, this paper seeks to provide information on the effect of social accounts during top-down change on these aspects of employee attitude.
Trust in management during top-down change
The first aspect of employee attitude towards the change examined in this study is trust in management. Trust is defined as the “willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Trust has important effects on attitudes, behaviours and performance outcomes within organizations (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). More specifically, trust in management has been proved to be crucial for successful organizational change (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Open communication in which organization members exchange thoughts and ideas enhances perceptions of trust (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner, 1998). According to Lines et al. (2005) the use of social accounts improves trust as it signals openness on behalf of the manager. Several studies have shown that ideological accounts have positive relationship with post change trust. On the other hand, referential accounts seem to have a negative relationship with post change trust in management (Tucker et al., 2013; Lines et al., 2005). These results suggest that highlighting change vision,
superordinate goals and shared values has a positive effect on trust in management. This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: The use of ideological accounts in change communication will improve trust in management during top-down organizational change.
Employee resistance during top-down change
A second aspect of employee attitude towards top-down change is resistance. Resistance is defined as nearly any unfavorable reaction, opposition or force that hinders change (Erwin and Garman, 2010). Resistance seems to be caused by problems in the change process as people do not want to put effort in badly designed or managed change program (Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al., 2003). Change management literature has explored multiple strategies that managers use to reduce employee resistance to organizational change (Furst and Cable, 2008). An important way to overcome resistance is to communicate why the change is needed (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). Effective change communication is of
M.M.A. van Bragt
major importance during top-down change as poorly managed change communication results in resistance to change (Stanley, Meyer and Topolnytsky, 2005; DiFonzo, Bordia and
Rosnow, 1994). Through communication, employees can be educated about the change so they will see the need for change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008). Moreover, it is necessary to communicate a change vision to stakeholders to reduce resistance (Agboola and Salawu, 2011). So far, no research has examined the effects of social accounts on employee resistance to top-down change. However, the fact that explaining why the change is necessary and creating a change vision appears to overcome resistance leads to the second hypothesis:
H2: The use of causal and ideological accounts in change communication reduces employee resistance during top-down organizational change.
Employee uncertainty during top-down change
The third aspect of employee attitude towards top-down change studied is uncertainty. Uncertainty has been defined as “an individual’s perceived inability to predict something accurately” (Milliken, 1987, p. 136). During organizational change, uncertainty is often about change objectives and expected outcomes of the change for the individual (Bordia et al., 2004; Buono and Bowditch, 1993). Uncertainty might lead to the failure of the change, turnover intentions and decreasing job satisfaction, commitment and trust in the organization (Bordia et al., 2004). Uncertainty is often caused by contradictory information or a simple lack of information (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia and Irmer, 2007; Milliken, 1987). Therefore, effective change communication might reduce uncertainty during organizational change (Elving, 2005; DiFonzo and Bordia, 1998). Information about the motives, values and commitments for the change will help to reduce uncertainty (DiFonzo and Bordia, 1998). Moreover, communicating organization’s intentions reduces employee uncertainty and increases the trustworthiness of the organization (Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). Social accounts are said to alleviate uncertainties among employees (Cobb and Wooten, 1998). Motives, values, commitments and intentions related to the change can be communicated using causal and ideological accounts. This leads to the third hypothesis:
H3: The use of causal and ideological accounts in change communication reduces employee uncertainty during top-down organizational change.
M.M.A. van Bragt
Readiness for change during top-down change
Readiness for change is the last aspect of employee attitude examined in this study. Readiness for change is defined as the employee’s beliefs and attitudes with respect to the necessity of the change (Armenakis et al., 1993). To achieve readiness for change, a phase called unfreezing must precede cognitive or behavioral change (Lewin, 1951). By providing social accounts for a change, managers try to trigger an unfreezing process in which current priorities, structures or beliefs are challenged (Lines, 2005). The change message is seen as the principal mechanism to create readiness for change among employees (Armenakis et al., 1993). The change message should emphasize the need for change: employees should be convinced that there is a discrepancy between the current state and the desired point
(Armenakis, Harris and Field, 1999). The need for change can be illustrated by emphasizing changes in contextual factors, causal accounts. Moreover, it is important tot explain why the desired state is appropriate (Armenakis et al., 1993). The best way to communicate
appropriateness is to explain the decisions by which the change initiative has been set, using ideological accounts. This leads to the fourth hypothesis:
H4: The use of causal and ideological accounts in change communication improves readiness for change during top-down changes.
According to Armenakis et al. (1993) readiness for change is the precursor of either resistance or support for a change initiative. In other words, if a communication message succeeds to create readiness for change, resistance will be reduced. This leads to the final hypothesis:
H5: The use of causal and ideological accounts in change communication during top-down change reduces resistance to change by improving readiness for change.
Methods Research design
An online experimental study among people with experience with working in an organization was conducted. The experimental method was chosen as Tucker et al. (2013) encouraged future studies on social accounts in change communication to use an experimental
M.M.A. van Bragt
design because an experimental setting makes it possible for respondents to look back at the social accounts when answering the questions about the message. That way, memory decay will not influence the respondent’s perception of the message. Furthermore, this quantitative research method was chosen because an experiment is a suitable instrument to examine the effects of different communication messages on employee attitude during top-down change. When these effects are identified, managers will be better equipped to communicate top-down organizational change.
The experiment consisted of a fictitious change case and a questionnaire about the effectiveness of the communication message. A fictitious change chase was used because this made it possible to manipulate the communication message to make sure all three types of social accounts were present. Moreover, organizational change is a sensitive topic in most organizations, which makes it difficult to find an organization willing to participate in a change study.
Respondents
The respondents were selected on the basis of their experience with working in an organization. This experience enabled them to judge effective communication in
organizations. On top of that, they represent a large part of society as they work in different sectors and vary in age. There were no age limits or sector restrictions for the sample. This gives a broad picture of the opinion of working professionals on the effectiveness of social accounts in communication during top-down change. The chosen approach made sure that the results are applicable in different situations rather than just one organization. The
respondents were personally approached via social media such as LinkedIn and Facebook. In total, 115 surveys were completed. 46 Respondents were male and 69 were female. The age of the participants varied from 16 to 63 years with an average age of 31.07 years. Three respondents did not fill out their age. The highest completed education level varied from high school to doctoral studies. Three respondents completed high school, 58 completed undergraduate studies, 51 completed graduate studies and three completed doctoral studies (PhD). Moreover, the respondents worked in different sectors: 52 in a private organization, 21 in a non-profit organization and 39 in a public organization. Three respondents did not fill out their sector. Finally, 30 of the respondents reported to have a management function. One respondent did not answer this question.
M.M.A. van Bragt
Materials: the change case
The change case was based on the case described in the book ‘Changing
Organizational Culture – Cultural change work in progress’ by Alvesson and Sveningsson (2008). This case was chosen because the book provides detailed information on the
background, objectives, design, implementation and results of the particular cultural change project. Based on the detailed case description in the book, it was possible to create a case in which the three types of social accounts are mentioned. Moreover, the change program described by Alvesson and Sveningsson (2008) was strongly top management driven and contained the characteristics of an episodic change (Weick and Quinn, 1999). This suited the present study as there is a focus on top-down change initiatives.
The fictitious case provided a short introduction followed by a communication message by the organization’s management, which included the three social accounts: causal accounts (“We think our ‘engineering culture’ is something that threatens the success and perhaps even the survival of the company and should be corrected”), ideological accounts (“We believe the cultural change program will help us to become a profitable customer oriented organization”) and referential accounts (“One of our main competitors TechCorp recently implemented a similar cultural change program to improve profitability and customer orientation”).
All company names were changed to fictitious names. All participants read the same case. That way, they read all three social accounts. After reading the change case, the
participants were asked to rate the three social accounts in the change case. Afterwards, they were asked to fill out questions about their trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change based on the change message they had read. Finally, the participants were asked to fill out general questions about their age, gender, highest completed education, sector and function. The questionnaire was pre-tested by two individuals working in an organization. Small adjustments were made based on their comments.
Independent variables: social accounts
The independent variables in the present study were the three different social accounts used in the change message. A questionnaire to measure the different social accounts was developed by Tucker et al. (2013). Participants were asked ‘To what extent was the following
information included in the communications you received from your organization when announcing the cultural change project at TechDep?’ The measure existed of 11 items on a
7-M.M.A. van Bragt
point Likert scale (1 = not at all and 7 = very much). High scores indicated high recognition of the social account.
Two items measured causal accounts, for example, “That the organization could not continue to function in its current situation”. A principal components factor analysis was conducted for the variable ‘causal accounts’. The results showed that the two items formed one component with an eigenvalue of 1.48 that explained 73.79% of the variance. The scale was reasonably reliable (α = .64).
Six items measured ideological accounts, for example, “Details of what the benefits of the change will be were outlined”. A principal components factor analysis was conducted for the variable ‘ideological accounts’. The results showed that four items formed one component with an eigenvalue of 2.42 that explained 40.37% of the variance. Two components had to be deleted because they loaded on another component. The scale was reasonably reliable (α = .72).
Finally, three items measured referential accounts, for example, “Implementations of this system, which had recently occurred in other organizations, were compared”. A principal components factor analysis was conducted for the variable ‘referential accounts’. The results showed that two items formed one component with an eigenvalue of 1.76 that explained 58.61% of the variance. One item had to be deleted. The reliability of the scale was good (α = .82).
Dependent variables: employee attitude
The dependent variables in the present study were trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change. The design of the questionnaire was based on measures developed by previous studies.
Trust in management was measured using the scales by Tucker et al. (2013). The measure existed of six items on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). For example, “I have full confidence in the skills of management”. A principal components factor analysis was conducted for the variable ‘trust in management’. Five items formed one component with an eigenvalue of 3.81 that explained 63.57% of the variance. One item was deleted. The scale was very reliable (α = .90). High scores on the scale indicated high trust in management.
To measure resistance to change, a scale developed by Giangreco and Peccei’s (2005) was used. Five items examined the engagement in pro-change behaviours, for example, “I
M.M.A. van Bragt
will co-operate actively to realize the change”. In addition, three items were used to measure the engagement in anti-change behaviours, for example, “I will be critical about the change in public discussions”. This was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). A principal components factor analysis for the variable ‘resistance to change’ showed that five items formed one component with an eigenvalue of 4.09 that explained 51.13% of the variance. The three anti-change items had to be deleted. The reliability of the scale was very good (α = .92).
To measure uncertainty, a scale developed by Bordia et al. (2004), based on Schweiger and DeNisi (1991), was used. Participants were asked: “I am very uncertain or
very certain about…”. The uncertainty items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 =
very uncertain and 7 = very certain). Uncertainty was divided into two types: strategic and job related uncertainty. Strategic uncertainty refers to uncertainty regarding organizational-level issues. For example, reasons for the change and future direction of the organization. Job related uncertainty is about uncertainty regarding job security, promotion opportunities and changes to the job role (Bordia et al., 2004). Four items were used to measure strategic uncertainty, for example, “The ability of the organization to meet the future needs of its customers”. The principal components factor analysis for ‘strategic uncertainty’ showed that one component could be formed with an eigenvalue of 2.85 that explained 71.32% of the variance. The reliability of the scale was good (α = .87). On top of that, four items were used to measure job-related uncertainty, for example, “The extent to which my job role/tasks will change”. The principal components factor analysis for ‘job related uncertainty’ showed that one component could be formed with an eigenvalue of 2.79 that explained 69.71% of the variance. The scale was reliable (α = .85). High scores indicated a low uncertainty.
The final dependent variable, readiness for change, was measured using the scales for discrepancy and valence developed by Holt, Armenakis, Field and Harris (2007). Readiness for change was measured using 12 items, for example, “There are legitimate reasons for us to make this change”. The items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = I strongly disagree and 7 = I strongly agree). The principal components factor analysis for ‘readiness for change’ showed that nine items formed one component with an eigenvalue of 5.68 that
explained 47.30% of the variance. Three items had to be deleted. The scale was very reliable (α = .90). High scores indicated a high readiness for change.
M.M.A. van Bragt
Results
In the present research, it is examined what the most effective communication messages, social accounts, are to improve the employee’s attitude during top-down change. The results of this study are presented on the basis of the five hypotheses, which were
introduced in the literature review. The first four hypotheses presume a direct effect of social accounts on one of the dependent variables. These hypotheses were tested using regression analyses. The fifth hypothesis presumes that readiness for change mediates the relationship between causal and ideological accounts and resistance. This hypothesis was tested using a mediation analysis. Table 1 and 2 illustrate the results obtained from the regression and mediation analyses. All reported relationships are statistical relationships observed in this study.
Hypothesis 1: Trust in management
In the first hypothesis it is presumed that ideological accounts in change
communication have a positive effect on trust in management during top-down organizational change. A multiple regression analysis with the three social accounts as independent variables and trust in management as dependent variable, showed that trust in management is for 18% explained by social accounts, F (3, 111) = 9.08, p < .001 (R2 = .18). Ideological accounts have a significant positive relationship with trust in management, b* = .47, t = 4.83, p < .001, 95% CI [.27, .65]. While causal accounts, b* = -.12, t = -1.38, p = .169, 95% CI [-.26, .05], and referential accounts, b* = .03, t = .30, p = .763, 95% CI [-.13, .17], do not have a significant relationship with trust in management. This result supports hypothesis 1 that ideological accounts have a positive effect on trust in management. The control analysis showed that the effect is only significant for non-management employees (p < .001) and for employees working in a private (p < .001) and public (p = .034) organization. The use of causal accounts seems to have a negative effect on trust in management, although this relationship is not significant.
Hypothesis 2: Resistance
In the second hypothesis it is suggested that the use of causal and ideological accounts in change communication reduces resistance during top-down organizational change. A multiple regression analysis with the three social accounts as independent variables and
M.M.A. van Bragt
resistance as dependent variable, showed that resistance is for 13% explained by social accounts, F (3, 111) = 6.48, p < .001 (R2 = .13). Ideological accounts have a significant
negative relationship with resistance to change, b* = .37, t = 3.93, p < 0.001, 95% CI [.58, -.19], which means that ideological accounts reduce resistance to change. However, causal accounts, b* = .06, t = .67, p = .505, 95% CI [-.10, .21], and referential accounts, b* = -.05, t = -.56, p = .580, 95% CI [-.20, .11], do not have a significant relationship with resistance to change. Hypothesis 2 is partly confirmed, as only ideological accounts seem to reduce resistance. The control analysis shows that this relationship only exists for non-management employees (p = .001) and for employees working in a private organization (p < .001).
Hypothesis 3: Strategic and job uncertainty
In the third hypothesis it is stated that causal and ideological accounts in change communication reduce employee uncertainty during top-down organizational change. In the questionnaire, employee uncertainty was divided into strategic uncertainty and job
uncertainty.
A multiple regression analysis with the three social accounts as independent variables and strategic uncertainty as dependent variable, showed that strategic uncertainty during organizational change is for 15% explained by social accounts, F (3, 111) = 7.86, p < .001, (R2 = .15). Ideological accounts have a significant positive relationship with strategic certainty,
b* = .43, t = 4.57, p < .001, 95% CI [.26, .65]. This means that an ideological change message
reduces strategic uncertainty. Causal accounts, b* = .02, t = .18, p = .858, 95% CI [-.15, -.17], and referential accounts, b* = -.04, t = -.46, p = .643, 95% CI [-.19, .12], do not have a
significant relationship with strategic certainty. The relationship between ideological accounts and strategic certainty only exists for non-management employees (p > .001) and for
employees working in a private organization (p < .001).
A second multiple regression analysis with the three social accounts as independent variables and job uncertainty as dependent variable, showed that job uncertainty is for 7% explained by social accounts, F (3, 111) = 3.96, p = .01 (R2 = .07). Ideological accounts have a positive significant relationship with job certainty, b* = .27, t = 2.72, p = .008, 95% CI [.08, .49], which means that an ideological message reduces job uncertainty. On the contrary, referential accounts have a negative significant relationship with job certainty, b* = .26, t = -2.63, p = -.01, 95% CI [-.26, .08]. This means that referential accounts aggravate job
M.M.A. van Bragt
uncertainty. Causal accounts seem to have a negative relationship with job uncertainty as well, but this relationship is not significant, b* = -.10, t = -1.07, p = .287, 95% CI [-.38, -.05]. When controlling for management function and sector, the relationships are no longer
significant. Hypothesis 3 is partly confirmed as the results show that only ideological accounts reduce strategic and job uncertainty while referential accounts augment job related uncertainty.
Hypothesis 4: Readiness for change
In the fourth hypothesis it is presumed that causal and ideological accounts in change communication improve readiness for change during top-down change. A multiple regression analysis with the three social accounts as independent variables and readiness for change as dependent variable showed that readiness for change is for 21% is explained by social accounts, F (3, 111) = 10.86, p < .001 (R2 = .21). Ideological accounts have a positive relationship with readiness for change, b* = .40, t = 4.41, p < .001, 95% CI [.19, .51]. However, causal accounts, b* = .03, t = .40, p = .692, 95% CI [-.10, .15] do not have a significant relationship with readiness for change. Referential accounts seem to have a positive effect on readiness for change as well but this effect is not significant, b* = .14, t = 1.52, p = .130, 95% CI [-.03, .22], Hypothesis 4 is partly confirmed as only ideological accounts seem to have a positive effect on readiness for change. The control analysis shows that this effect exists for management (p = .037) and non-management employees (p < .001). Moreover, the effects exist for employees working in private (p < .001) and public (p = .011) organizations.
Table 1
Regression models hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4 (N = 114)
Trust in management
Resistance Strategic certainty
Job certainty Readiness for change b* b* b* b* b* Constant - - - - - Causal -.12 .06 .02 -.10 .03 Ideological .47*** -.37*** .43*** .27** .40*** Referential .03 -.05 -.04 -.26* .14 R2 .18 .13 .15 .07 .21 F 9.08*** 6.48*** 7.86*** 3.96** 10.86*** Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
M.M.A. van Bragt
Hypothesis 5: Readiness for change as a mediator
In the fifth hypothesis it is stated the relationship between causal and ideological accounts and resistance to change is mediated by readiness for change. This was tested using a mediation analysis. First of all, regression analyses showed that there was significant positive relationship between ideological accounts and readiness for change, (A) F (1, 113) = 29.69, p < .001 (R2 = .20), b = .40, t = 4.45, p < .001, 95% CI [.25, .55], a significant negative relationship between ideological accounts and resistance to change, (B) F (1, 113) = 18.90, p < .001 (R2 = .13), b = -.39, t = -4.35, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-.57, -.21], and a significant negative relationship between readiness for change and resistance to change, (C) F (1, 113) = 66.64, p < .001 (R2 = .37), b = -.72, t = -8.16, p < .001, 95% CI [-.89, -.54] (see figure 1). Therefore, all criteria for a mediation analysis were met. A multiple regression analysis with ideological accounts and readiness for change as independent variables and resistance as dependent variable, (D) F (2, 112) = 34.88, p < .001 (R2 = .37), showed that that readiness for change is a full mediator of the relationship between ideological accounts and resistance (see table 2), b = -.39, p < .001; b’ = -.12, p < .130, ns; Sobel’s Z = -4.22, p < .001 (see figure 1). Further analysis showed that the mediation analysis could not be carried out for causal accounts as the regression analyses proved that the relationships between causal accounts and resistance and readiness for change were not significant, see hypothesis 1 and 4. For that reason, hypothesis 5 is partly confirmed. Using an ideological change message reduces resistance as a result of the relationship between readiness for change and resistance.
Table 2
Regression model with readiness for change and ideological accounts as independent variables and resistance as dependent variable (N = 114)
b SE b* t p
Constant 7.02 .45 - 16.00 .000
Readiness -.65 .10 -.55 -6.61 .000 Ideological -.12 .09 -.13 -1.53 .130
M.M.A. van Bragt
Figure 1. Mediation analysis for ideological accounts, readiness for change and resistance.
Conclusion and Discussion
More than half of the top-down change initiatives fail as a result of ineffective change implementation. This is attributed to several flaws in change implementation and ineffective change communication is one of them. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine what the most effective message is to communicate top-down organizational change by addressing the following research question: What communication messages used by management are
most effective during top-down organizational change to improve the employee’s attitude toward the change? To this end, the effects of three communication messages (causal,
ideological and referential accounts) on trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change was examined. Overall, the results indicate that a communication message consisting of ideological accounts improves trust in management and readiness for change while reducing resistance and uncertainty during organizational change. This in line with studies by Lewis et al. (2006), Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al. (2003) and Barrett (2002) who state that managers are encouraged to provide justification for the change and establish a clear vision for the change. In this study, causal accounts do not seem affect the attitude of the employee towards the change. Interestingly, referential accounts seem to aggravate job related uncertainty. This finding is in contrast with Zorn et al. (2000) who state that change initiatives gain legitimacy by referring to examples of competitors or other admired organizations that implemented change successfully. According to Lines et al. (2005), a combination of the different social accounts should be used in order to construct an effective message that
M.M.A. van Bragt
touches on the rationale behind change initiative. In contrast, this study shows that managers should only use ideological accounts in their communication to improve employee attitude during top-down change.
First of all, ideological accounts seem to have a positive effect on trust in
management. This result is consistent with the study by Tucker et al. (2013) who found that ideological accounts have a positive relationship with post change trust in management. According to Lines et al. (2005) social accounts have a positive effect on trust because they indicate openness on behalf of the leader. This statement was partly affirmed in this study as only ideological accounts improve trust in management, while causal and referential accounts do not. Lines et al. (2005) provide an explanation for this result. According to them, the use of ideological accounts in which managers try to spell out the justification of the change signals the ability of managers to manage the change. Moreover, it seems like causal accounts have a negative effect on trust in management, although this result is not significant. The fact that his relationship was not significant could be caused by the relatively weak measure for causal accounts which existed of two scales with a reliability of α = .64. However, a possible explanation for this negative effect could be that the reference to internal and external forces that drive change decisions has a negative impact on trust in management as this shows that management decisions are being influenced by external forces. On top of that, it must be noted that trust in management is often problematic during top-down change. Morgan and Zeffane (2003) state that any organizational change negatively affects trust in management, especially reorganization of the structure. According to these authors, direct consultation between employees and the immediate supervisor or higher management improves the level of trust in management. One-way communication by management, as described in this study, might not be the best way to improve trust among employees and it would be better to use participative strategies. However, the present study and previous studies (Tucker et al., 2013; Lines et al., 2005) prove that communication by management indeed might be helpful to create trust in management during top-down change initiatives.
Secondly, this study has shown that ideological accounts reduce resistance to change. This finding supports Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999) and Agboola and Salawu (2011) who state that it is important to explain why the change is needed and to communicate a change vision to overcome employee resistance. Causal accounts and referential accounts do not have a significant relationship with resistance to change. The fact that no significant relationship
M.M.A. van Bragt
was found between causal accounts and resistance might again be caused by the relatively weak measure for causal accounts.
Thirdly, the findings suggest that ideological accounts reduce strategic and job uncertainty. Strategic uncertainty refers to uncertainty regarding organizational-level issues such as the reasons for the change and future direction of the organization. Job related uncertainty is about uncertainty regarding job security, promotion opportunities and changes to the job role (Bordia et al., 2004). This third result is in line with Bordia et al. (2004) who suggested that management communication reduces uncertainty about strategic aspects of the change. The fact that ideological accounts reduce the two types of uncertainty confirms earlier research, which showed that information about the motives, values, commitments and
intentions of the change reduces uncertainties (DiFonzo and Bordia, 1998; Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). According to Cobb and Wooten (1998) social accounts alleviate uncertainties among employees. This statement is partly confirmed, as only ideological accounts seem to reduce uncertainty. No significant relationships between causal accounts and the two types of uncertainty were found. Again, this might be due to the relatively weak measurement for causal accounts. When looking at referential accounts, this type of change message seems to worse job uncertainty. Comparing the organization to another company that went through a change, might not give employees reassurance about their position within the organization. On top of that, it is said that participative strategies are required to reduce feelings of job uncertainty (Allen et al., 2007). This might suggest that social accounts in change
communication are more effective to reduce strategic uncertainties than to minimize job uncertainty during top-down change.
Furthermore, it was shown that ideological accounts have a positive effect on
readiness for change, while no significant relationships with readiness for change were found for causal and referential accounts. This finding confirms Armenakis et al. (1999) who stated that it is important to explain why the end-state is appropriate by clarifying the decisions by which the change direction has been set. However, these authors also believe it is important to illustrate the need for change by emphasizing contextual factors influencing the organization. This statement was not supported in the present study as no relationship was found between causal accounts and readiness for change. Perhaps this was a result of the weak measure for causal accounts.
Finally, a major finding of this study was that readiness for change is a full mediator of the relationship between ideological accounts and resistance. This means that when an
M.M.A. van Bragt
ideological account is used in change communication, resistance to change will be reduced as a result of the relationship between readiness for change and resistance. This finding confirms Armenakis et al. (1993) who stated that readiness for change is the precursor of either
resistance or support for a change effort. However, readiness for change was not found to be a mediator for the relationship between causal accounts and resistance to change as causal accounts do not seem to affect resistance.
Limitations and future research
When interpreting the results of the present study, it is important to bear in mind that the study was conducted among 115 Dutch employees working in various organizations in different sectors. This research design makes it possible to generalize the results among Dutch employees. However, as all respondents are Dutch, it is difficult to draw conclusions for other countries. Moreover, 115 respondents might be not enough to reflect the whole Dutch
working population. Future research with a larger sample consisting of different nationalities is recommended.
Another limitation is the fact that the measurement for causal accounts consisted of only of two scales. Tucker et al. (2013) also mentioned this as a weakness of their
measurement. This limitation might explain why the relationships between causal accounts and trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change were not
significant. Future research is required to develop an extended measurement for causal accounts to reexamine these relationships.
A third limitation might be the fact that respondents were not actually confronted with an organizational change but read fictitious change case as this fictitious situation might have influenced their responses. On top of that, job related uncertainty might be hard to judge based on a case as the case did not represent the individual’s personal situation. However, the change case was based on a real life example described in the book by Alvesson and
Sveningsson (2008). This made it possible to write a realistic and detailed change case. Moreover, this experimental research method was chosen because this made it possible to make sure all social accounts were present and to reassure an accurate recall of the change message. An accurate recall of the change message was pointed out to be important by Weick (1995) as memory decline might influence the employee’s perception of the social accounts. Yet, to overcome the limitations of a fictitious change case, it is suggested to conduct future research among employees confronted with a change in their organization.
M.M.A. van Bragt
A further limitation with regard to the change case is the fact that the case and
questionnaire were written in English. As the majority of respondents were native speakers of Dutch this might have influenced the understanding of the case. Yet, nearly all respondents reported to have completed higher education, which makes it likely that they have a good understanding of the English language. However, in future studies it might be better to use a change case and questionnaire in the first language of the respondents.
Moreover, in the result section, the regression analyses were controlled for management and non-management employees. The results showed that most of the
relationships were not significant for employees with a management function. This may be explained by the fact that only 30 of the respondents reported to have a management function, which is a small number of respondents to carry out regression analyses. Future research on social accounts could approach more respondents with a management function to make sure that the relationships are more reliable. The same holds for organization type as the majority of the respondents reported to work for a private organization in comparison to non-profit and public organizations.
As the results of this study show the importance of ideological accounts, it should be noted that the concept of ideology is somewhat problematic. Ideology is defined as the thought of the other (Thompson, 1990). Previously, the concept has been linked to negative concepts such as power, domination and social control. Thompson (1990) describes two interpretations of ideology. First, a neutral view on ideology. In this view, ideology is regarded as a ‘system of thought’ which is disseminated within an organization, without making a judgment. A second perspective on ideology is to reject the concept as it has become too ambiguous, controversial and contested over the years. The use of ideological accounts in social accounts theory falls into the first interpretation of ideology as ideological accounts refer to organizational norms, values and beliefs with regard to the change initiative that are communicated to employees. However, Thompson (1990) rejects both views.
According to him, when applying the concept of ideology, its negative and critical parts cannot be ignored. As a result, one should be careful to use ideology. Nevertheless, this study’s results show that communicating the change ideology has a positive effect on employee attitude towards top-down change. Yet, the use of ideology in change communication remains an important issue for future research.
Finally, the focus of this study was top-down change introduced by management. Drawing conclusions for other types of organizational change is not possible based on this
M.M.A. van Bragt
study’s results. However, it should be noted that top-down change is not the holy grail for organizational change. According to Castells (2011) network organizations are replacing vertically integrated hierarchies as the dominant form of social organization. As a result, top-down change initiatives might be outdated. It is even stated that organizational change is an on-going process today (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). For that reason, the focus of the present study may be conservative. It would be interesting to extend the research on social accounts by focusing on other types of organizational change in future studies, such as continuous change (Weick and Quinn, 1999) or process innovation teams (Pearce and Ensley, 2004). Moreover, the case in this study described a cultural change program. It might be interesting to use a different organizational change situation in future research, for example a
reorganization that involves layoffs, to see the effects of social accounts on employee attitude in a different change setting.
Implications and recommendations
Together, the results of this study show that change communication is fundamental in the implementation of top-down change efforts. Moreover, this study provides insights into the effects of social accounts on employee attitude during top-down change. As a result, this study extends the scientific research on social accounts theory by Cobb and Wooten (1998) and Bies (1987). This is important because before hardly any studies had focused on the effect of social accounts during top-down change on trust in management, resistance, uncertainty and readiness for change.
This study shows it is important to carefully consider the content of change communication to secure the success of top-down organizational change. Various
recommendations to communicate top-down change may be formulated based on this study’s results. First, change communication seems to be more effective when ideological accounts are addressed. Ideological accounts explain the change by referring to superordinate goals, objectives and shared values of the organization. On the other hand, referential accounts should be avoided as they have negative impact on job uncertainty. In other words, managers should not refer to changes implemented in other organizations. However, addressing internal and external factors that drive management’s change decisions, causal accounts, does not seem to have an impact on the employee’s attitude towards the change.
M.M.A. van Bragt
In sum, if managers want to improve trust in management and readiness for change and reduce resistance and uncertainty during top-down changes, they should communicate long-term objectives, superordinate goals and shared values. If managers apply the given recommendations in practice it is likely that top-down change initiatives will become more effective.
M.M.A. van Bragt
References
Agboola, A.A. & Salawu, R.O. (2011). Managing Deviant Behavior and Resistance to Change. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 235-242. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v6n1p235
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological bulletin, 84(5), 888. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N.L, Bordia, P. & Irmer, B.E. (2007). Uncertainty during Organizational Change: Managing Perceptions through Communication. Journal of Change
Management, 7(2). 187-210. doi: 10.1080/14697010701563379
Alvesson, M. & Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing organizational culture: cultural
change work in progress. New York, NW: Routledge.
Armenakis, A.A. & Harris, S.G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169–183. doi: 10.1108/09534810210423080
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & Field, H.S. (1999). Making change permanent: a model for institutionalizing change, in W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in
Organization Change and Development, 7, 97-126, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. doi:
10.1177/001872679304600601
Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: using strategic employee communication to facilitate major change. Corporate Communications, 7(4), 219–231. doi:
10.1108/13563280210449804
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review,
78(3), 133–141.
Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K.M., Werkman, R.M. and Boonstra, J.J. (2003). The Change Capacity of Organisations: General Assessment and Five Configurations. Applied
Psychology: an international review, 52(1), 83-105. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00125
Bies, R.J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 9, 444-446, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
M.M.A. van Bragt
healthcare innovation implementation. Implementation Science, 7, 28. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-28
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C. & Callan, V. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507–532. doi:
10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028449.99127.f7
Bovey, W. & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382. doi: 10.1108/01437730110410099
Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanations of a layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 26(5), 389-407. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(90)90065-T
Buono, A.F. & Bowditch, J.L. (1993). The Human Side of Mergers and Acquisitions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930280217
Burgelman, R.A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239-262. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.3.239
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society,
and culture (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
Choi, M. (2011). Employees’ attitude toward organizational change: A literature review.
Human Resource Management, 50(4), 479-500. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20434
Cobb, A. T., Folger, R. & Wooten, K. (1995). The role justice plays in organizational change.
Public Administration Quarterly, 19(2), 135-151. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/40862302
Cobb, A. T., Stephens, C. & Watson, C. (2001). Beyond structure: The role of social accounts in implementing ideal control. Human Relations, 54(9), 1123-1153. doi:
10.1177/0018726701549001
Cobb, A.T. & Wooten, K.C. (1998), The role social accounts can play in a ‘justice
intervention’, in R.W. Woodman, W.A. Pasmore, (Eds), Research in Organizational
Change and Development, 11, 73-115, Emerald Group Publishing.
Davenport, T.H. (1993). Process innovation: reengineering work through information
M.M.A. van Bragt
DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: managing uncertainty during organizational change, Human Resource Management, 37(3/4), 295–303. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X
DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P. & Rosnow, R.L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organisational
Dynamics, 23(1), 47-62. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(94)90087-6
Dirks, K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings. Organization
Sciences, 12(4), 450-467. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
Elving, W.J.L. (2005). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 129-138. doi:
10.1108/13563280510596943
Erwin, D. G. & Garman, A. N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change: linking research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 39-56. doi: 10.1108/01437731011010371
Ford, J.D. & Ford, L.W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction and attraction in change.
The Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756-785. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/258744
Furst, S.A. & Cable, M. (2008). Employee Resistance to Organizational Change: Managerial Influence Tactics and Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(2), 453-462. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453
Giangreco, A. & Peccei, R. (2005). The nature and antecedents of middle manager
resistance to change: evidence from an Italian context. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16(10), 1812-1829. doi: 10.1080/09585190500298404
Giddens, A. (2007). Europe in the global age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives. New York: Routledge.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S. & Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43(2), 232-255. doi: 10.1177/0021886306295295
Kotter, J. P. & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business
Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row. Lewis, L.K., Schmisseur, A.M., Stephens, K.K. & Weir, K.E. (2006). Advice on
M.M.A. van Bragt
Communicating During Organizational Change: The Content of Popular Press Books.
Journal of Business Communication, 43, 113. doi: 10.1177/0021943605285355
Lewis, L.K. & Seibold, D.R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change
implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. J. Roloff (Eds.), Communication yearbook, 21, 93-151. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lines, R. (2005). How social accounts and participation during change affect organizational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(3), 157-177. doi:
10.1108/13665620510588680
Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B. & Johansen, S. (2005). The production of trust during organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 221-245. doi: 10.1080/14697010500143555
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/258792
McNulty, T. & Ferlie, E. (2004). Process transformation: Limitations to radical organizational change within public service organizations. Organization Studies, 25(8), 1389-1412. doi: 10.1177/0170840604046349
Milliken, F.J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: state, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133–143. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/257999
Moreno, A., Verhoeven, P., Tench, R. & Zerfass, A. (2010). European Communication Monitor 2009. An institutionalized view of how public relations and communication management professionals face the economic and media crises in Europe. Public
Relations Review, 36(2), 97‐104. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.02.004
Morgan, D. & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, change and trust in management.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55-75. doi:
10.1080/09585190210158510
Pearce, C.L. & Ensley, M.D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the
innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 259-278. doi:
M.M.A. van Bragt
Porras, J. I. & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, and
research. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., Battistelli, A., Saiani, L., Penna, M.P., Allegrini, E. (2012). Change‐related expectations and commitment to change of nurses: the role of
leadership and communication. Journal of Nursing Management, 20(5), 582-591. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01322.x
Rousseau, D.M. & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999). What’s a Good Reason to Change? Motivationed Reasoning and Social Accounts in Promoting Organizational Change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(4), 514-528. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.514
Schweiger, D.M. & DeNisi, A.S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/256304 Shapiro, D.L., Lewicki, R. & Devine, P. (1995). When do employees choose deceptive tactics
to stop unwanted organizational change? A relational perspective. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki & B. Sheppard (Eds). Research on negotiations in organizations, 5, 155-183. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P., Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(4), 429-459. doi: 10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2
Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2002). On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567-582. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of
mass communication. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.
Tucker, D.A., Yeow, P. & Viki, G.T. (2013). Communication During Organizational Change Using Social Accounts: The importance of Ideological Accounts. Management
Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 184-209. doi: 10.1177/0893318912469771
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K.E. & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organiztional change and development. Annual Review
Psychology, 50, 361-386. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361
Whelan-Berry, K.S. & Somerville, K.A. (2010). Linking Change Drivers and the Organizational Change Process: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Change
M.M.A. van Bragt
White, M. D. (2013). The Reinvention Imperative. Harvard Business Review, 91(11), 42. Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M. A. & Werner, J. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust:
an exchange relationship for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour,
Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 513–530. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/259292
Zorn, T.E., Page, D.J. & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change. Multiple Perspectives on Change-Oriented Communication in a Public Sector Organization. Management
Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 515-566. doi: 10.1177/0893318900134001
Zorn, T. E., Christensen, L. T. & Cheney, G. (1999). Constant change and flexibility: Do we
really want constant change? (Beyond the Bottom Line series, Vol. 2). San Francisco:
