Question

Write a reflective paragraph summarizing your thoughts.

Organizational change research has been criticized for neglecting the role of history in the study of change (Pettigrew et al., 2001). Much of the existing research tends to treat organizational change as “episodic” and comprising of independent events (Pettigrew, 1987, p. 655). More generally, research in organizational behavior has tended to ignore the theoretical and methodological significance of context in the examination of work attitudes and outcomes (Johns, 2006). In the studies reported here, we explicitly theorized the role of context—in the form of change history—in shaping employee orientation toward the organization in general and toward current change programs in particular. Our theoretical and empirical approach addresses several gaps in the literature. Although research on interrelationships between attitudinal variables.abounds, there is a lack of research on how organizational events shape these attitudes and actual behavior. For example, Lau and Woodman (1995) found that the development of a general change schema was influenced by dispositional (locus of control and dogmatism) and attitudinal (organizational commitment) variables. However, they did not relate the origin of the schema to actual events in the organizational context and called for more research on situational and contextual antecedents of change-related schemas. Similarly, there is a dearth of research on how previous organizational change experience relates to trust, cynicism, and turnover. Adopting the sociocognitive approach in understanding employee reactions to change, we proposed a belief-based mechanism by which past experiences in the organization shape employee attitudes and behavior. Our theoretical model thus connects the past, the present, and the future in terms of employee experiences in the organization, the effects of these experiences on beliefs and attitudes, and the resulting impact on exit behavior from the organization. We have thus provided a cognition-based operationalization of what Pettigrew et al. (2001, p. 700) referred to as “carr[ying] forward in human consciousness” of past experiences of organizational change. Moreover, we developed a measure of PCMH beliefs, which we hope will facilitate empirical research in this area. Our research was presented in two phases. The results of the two phases provided strong support for the hypothesized model. As predicted by H1, actual PCMH was strongly related to PCMH beliefs. In turn, PCMH beliefs was negatively related to trust in the organization (H2). This lack of trust was related to lower job satisfaction (H3) and higher turnover intentions (H4). The results imply that when subjected to poorly managed change, employees lose faith in the organization’s ability to look after employee interests. This, in turn, undermines their job satisfaction. Moreover, refusing to be vulnerable to the actions of the organization and unhappy with their jobs (H5), employees may consider exiting from the organization. On another front, PCMH beliefs was related to cynicism about organizational change, supporting H6. Thus, previous history of poor change management led to pessimism about successful implementation of future changes in the organization and undermined confidence in the ability of managers to implement change. PCMH (via PCMH beliefs) is therefore an important situational predictor of CAOC. As predicted by H7, cynicism contributed to lack of openness about specific change efforts in the organization. Much of the research on CAOC has focused on its antecedents; the relationship between CAOC and openness to change demonstrates the negative consequences of CAOC for the acceptance and successful implementation of specific change programs. Finally, consistent with previous research (Wanberg & Banas, 2000) and as predicted by H8, openness to change was related to turnover intentions. These findings draw attention to a possible downward spiral created by poor management of change. PCMH would lead to cynicism, which in turn creates lack of openness toward change. The lack of openness would hold employees back from participating in change efforts and jeopardize the successful implementation of change. This would re-create a poor experience of change and reinforce PCMH beliefs and the employees may choose to exit from the organization. In both studies, there was a strong correlation between trust and cynicism. Although we acknowledge the overlap between the constructs (both contain elements of a loss of faith), there is a clear conceptual distinction between these variables: Trust involves a willingness to be vulnerable; this is not a defining feature of cynicism (Dean et al., 1998). Moreover, these variables have very different roles in our model. First, they differ on the referent to which they are attached. Trust is in relation to the organization, whereas cynicism is in relation to organizational change. Second, and consistent with the idea of corresponding referent levels (Blau, 2007), trust is related to the organization-level outcome of turnover, whereas CAOC is related to the change-level outcome of openness to change. Finally, the confirmatory factor analyses in both studies supported trust and CAOC as distinct constructs. There is a dearth of research linking change-related variables and actual turnover. Turnover intentions and PCMH beliefs both predicted actual turnover after 2 years, supporting H9 and H10, respectively. Our findings can be interpreted in light of the unfolding model of turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994) which proposes several pathways to turnover. These pathways include organizational and nonorganizational triggers of exit (i.e., shocks) that may or may not involve job dissatisfaction. Our findings support two types of exit pathways. The first is the more deliberate pathway, where various organization- and change-related attitudes induce turnover intentions and subsequent exit from the organization. The second involves the direct effect of PCMH beliefs. PCMH and the associated PCMH beliefs appear to play the role of a shock, making the employees reevaluate their role in the organization and causing an exit from the organization. PCMH beliefs predicted turnover a fair distance in the future (as much as 2 years). This finding is consistent with recent evidence of the strong and lasting effects of shocks (Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Glomb, & Ahlburg, 2005). For example, Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2005) analyzed the predictive ability of critical events (that make employees more or less likely to stay) measured at the time of entry into an organization, as well as experiences over time. Although changing attitudes provided extra predictive ability, and measures more proximal to turnover date were better predictors, employee experiences at the start of the employment were predictive of turnover over a period of 2 years. Interestingly, PCMH beliefs was a marginally stronger predictor of turnover, compared to turnover intentions. Certain study design characteristics may have attenuated the effects of turnover intentions (Hom et al., 1992; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2005). Intentions and behavior are strongly related when measured in temporal proximity. Our measure of turnover intentions was separated by up to 2 years from actual turnover and therefore, the effects of intentions may have weakened. Also, a high turnover base rate (percentage of total sample that quits), such as one approaching 50%, enhances the relationship between turnover intentions and actual turnover (Hom et al., 1992). In our sample, turnover was 19%. Although this is similar to other published studies, a higher percentage of exits could have strengthened the intentionturnover relationship.Although the studies included data collected from multiple sources (i.e., HR managers, employees, and organizational records) and longitudinal analysis of actual turnover, the attitudinal variables were analyzed in a cross-sectional design. Future research would benefit from a temporal separation of the selfreport measures to strengthen causal implications. From a theoretical perspective, we utilized the sociocognitive approach to examine the effects of the history of change management. Although we have provided a useful contribution to the empirical examination of the lasting effects of PCMH, this work needs further extension. We have focused on a discrete set of beliefs about poor change management history. This belief structure is likely to be more complex, with interrelationships and connections with other beliefs (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Lau & Woodman, 1995). Future research can further develop the composition of the change history beliefs and examine their role in a broader change schema. The further elaboration of the change history-related beliefs will have implications for the measurement of PCMH beliefs. With the identification of additional elements of the belief structures, the measure can be expanded to capture the range of cognitions. Also, our focus has been on the individual level. Over time, the individual beliefs get shared and collective beliefs can emerge via a process of schema collectivization (McKinley et al., 2000). Future work in this area will benefit from a multilevel perspective that takes into account shared beliefs at the group or department levels. Our measure of actual PCMH only captured the presence (i.e., a score of 1) or absence (a score of 0) of poor change management history. There are likely to be gradations of PCMH, and future research should use a continuous scale. Although we were able to relate PCMH beliefs with actual turnover, future research should attempt a more fine-grained analysis of the PCMH-turnover relationship. The precise steps from the experience of PCMH-related shock to eventual exit (i.e., the unfolding process) should be analyzed. Insights from such an analysis may assist retention efforts and thus may be of considerable practical value to managers. Moreover, we did not assess the impact of jobmarket predictors of turnover (such as job opportunities) or individual aspirations (such as career goals; Sturges, Conway, & Liefooghe, 2010). Inclusion of these variables would provide a more complete understanding of the employee turnover process during organizational change. A key message from this research is that change leaders need to be acutely aware of the organization’s history of change management. Often the focus of change leadership is in charting a new direction; with the arrival of every new CEO comes a new vision for the future. Indeed, recommendations for effective change leadership emphasize a future orientation (Kotter, 1995). However, as when driving a car, changing the direction of an organization should involve a “rear view” inspection of the change management history. We recommend that leaders pay attention to employee change beliefs arising from the history of change in the organization. If PCMH beliefs exist, leaders should strive to modify these beliefs (Bartunek et al., 1992). Although not easy, employee beliefs and perceptions can be changed (Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000); for example, dramatic developments or new information can force a reassessment of existing beliefs and attitudes. Moreover, leaders would be required to consistently model effective change management practices (Labianca et al., 2000). Organizational trust, cynicism, and change management literatures provide several guidelines. Cynicism-reducing and trust-enhancing strategies have to do with effective communication practices, such as timely and twoway communication that adequately informs employees about the changes in the organization (Bordia et al., 2004 a, 2004b; Jimmieson et al., 2004; Reichers et al., 1997) and acknowledgment, apology, and rectification of past mistakes (Kim et al., 2004). Indeed, Bommer, Rich, and Rubin (2005) found that transformational leadership style (marked by relationship-oriented and inspirational leadership) was effective in reducing cynicism about organizational change. 216 Group & Organization Management 36(2) Managing change and change-related cynicism of employees remains a critical leadership challenge (Kotter, 1995). We hope the insights obtained from this study on the lasting negative effects of poor change management will further reinforce the importance of effective change management.

Answer 1

Hierarchical change research has been scrutinized for ignoring the job of history in the investigation of progress. All the more by and large, look into in authoritative conduct has would, in general, overlook the hypothetical and methodological noteworthiness of setting in the examination of work mentalities and results. Embracing the sociocognitive methodology in understanding worker responses to transform, this research proposed a conviction based system by which past encounters in the association shape representative mentalities and conduct. This hypothetical model hence interfaces the past, the present, and the future as far as representative encounters in the association, the impacts of these encounters on convictions and mentalities, and the subsequent effect on leave conduct from the association

The outcomes suggest that when exposed to ineffectively oversee change, workers lose confidence in the association's capacity to care for representative interests. This, thus, undermines their activity fulfillment. In addition, declining to be powerless against the activities of the association and discontent with their occupations (H5), representatives may consider leaving from the association. On another front, PCMH convictions were identified with criticism about authoritative change, supporting H6. Consequently, past history of poor change the board prompted cynicism about the effective usage of future changes in the association and undermined trust in the capacity of directors to actualize change. PCMH (by means of PCMH convictions) is in this way a significant situational indicator of CAOC

Future research would profit by a fleeting division of the self-report measures to reinforce causal ramifications. A key message from this examination is that change heads should be intensely mindful of the association's history of progress the board. Regularly the focal point of progress authority is in graphing another course; with the entry of each new CEO comes to another vision for what's to come. For sure, proposals for powerful change initiative stress a future direction