Participation and Organizational (Dommitment during Change:. From TJtopist • to Realjsr Perspectives Rune Lines and Marcus Selart 14.1 Introduction Employee commitmeut aud participation in organizational decision-maitiiig aud problem solving are two of the more heavily-resear~ed areas in organizatiou-al psychology aud organizatioual behavior. Heuce, a considerable research-based stock of knowledge has been accurnulated over ±e past 70-80 years. This research has examined antecedeuts to commitment aud participation, aud explored different deffuitions of the two coustructs. Based upon ±se data, a comprehensiye array ofpurported outcomes of±e two constructs has been proposed, some of which h~ also been supported empirically. Theoretical aud empirical contributions to the imderstauding of these two phenomeua are sumrnarized in several qualitative as well as quantitative review articies, meta-analyses, aud books (Cotton et aL, 1988; G1ew et al., 1995; Mad,ieu & Zajac, 1990; Wagner & Gooding, 1987). Less, however, is known about commitment and participation as they relate to ~.organizatioua1 change. Although some ofthe research on commitment and participation has been doue usiug data from organizations planniug, undergoing, or digestiug chauge, this body of knowledge is much narrower aud thinner in terms of theories used for informing the research and empirical findings. Agaiust this background, the purpose of ±e preseut chapter is to take stoclç of the research-based knowledge on participadon and commitmeut prior to, duriug, aud after orgauizational chauge. Based on this review, we ideutifr gaps between the general literature on participation and committuent on the one hand, and ±e more applied orgaizational-cltange research on ±e other, and suggest areas for new research. "Organizatiouaj change" is a somewhat ambiguous term (see Chapter 1), aud it is often clifficult to decide wheu an organizatjon is in a change raeher thau an equilibrium stage. Vie Wlley-Blackwe// Handboo/z ofthe Psychology ofLeadership, Change, and Organizetionaj De~e1oprncnt, First Edition. Edited by IL Skipton Leonard, Rachel Le;~s, Arthur M. Freedman, and Jonatban Passmore. © 2013 7ohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd. l'ublished 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 290 Cliange The ambiguous nature of much organizational change challenges the need for a specific literature on organizational change, especially when ±e focus is On human behavior during change. Partly for this reason, in Section 14.3 aud 14.5 we review key themes and findings from the general literature on participation. These sections provide a foundation for assessing ±e more applied research on commitruent aud participation in change settings aud for discussing relationships between participation and commitment during change. In Secdons 14.4 aud 14.6, r~esearch on participation aud commitment in explicit-change settings is reviewed aud discussed. In Section 14.7; we present our views on importaut areas for fliture research in ±e intersection between commitment, participation, and change. This section is partly based on a selective highlighting of gaps between the general liferatures on commitment and participation aud ehe more applied literature on organizational change. However, we also tryto point out the implications of some macrd-level changes in the context surrounding these phenomena. 14.2 Participation and Organizational Con,niitrnent Participation has been related to organizational cornmitrnent in several ways. Probably the most investigated issue is how different forms ofparticipation influences levels oforganiza tional commitment under varying contexts (see Section 14.1). Generaily, the main-effect relationship has been hypothesized to be a positive one, a rel3tionsbip that has.been supported by the findings from a number of empirical studies. Similarly, studies have erpiored an4 found evidence of a positive relationsitip between organizationai comniltment aud anteced ents reflecting relatively higher levels of participation, including high-involvement work processes aud organizational cornmitment (e.g. Butts et al., 2009); team empowerment (Kirlcman & Rosen, 1999), employee participation in decision-making (Han et al., 2009), aud profit-sharing plans (Bayo-Moriones & Larränza-Icintana, 2009). The strength of the relationship between participation and-organizational commirment is dependent on many contexeual variabies, such as the presence or absence of other participation-related feamres (Bayo-Moriones & Larranza-IKintaua, 2009). From a longitudinal study ofwork practices in Spain, Bayo-Moriones & Larranza-Icintana (2009) found that the positive reiationship between profit-sharing plaus aud affective conimit ment to the organization is negatively inoderated by the use of participation in decision making at ±e jpb levd; that is, the effect of profit-sharing plaus on commitment was weaker in cases where participation was used. This finding indicates that different types of participarion can be seen as substitutes for influencing organizational commitment. In the same study, it was hypo±esized aud found that Lam size negatively moderated the positive relationsliip between proflt-sharing aud affective comntitment. Th~ presumed reason for this is that as firm size increases, the contribution of each individual empioyee is reduced, leading to iower effects ofsociai-exchange mechanisms. O±er moderators of ±e partidpation-commjtment link ±at have been explored are depffi aud breadth of the participation (e.g. Cox et al., 2009), degree of confiict with supervisors (Janssen, 2004), organizational tenure, perceived organizational support (Butts et aL, 2009) aud organizationaj culture. For exampie, Smeenk et al. (2006) reported that academic employees in two facuities with different cuirnres (hegemonist versus separatist) responded differently to a given set of HR practices, including ±e levei of autonomy. Huang et al. (2006) reported that ±e positive link between participative Panicipation and Organizational Commitment during Ghange 291 leadership and organizational commitment was only present for short-tenure employees. Butts et al. (2009) found that the participation-organjzatjonal commitment link was strongest for employees who held higher levels ofperceived organizational support. In addition to the issues addressed above, some research has also explored the possibility chat organizationai commitment acts as a determinant ofwiffingness to partic ipate, as reflected in suggestions made for irnprovement, the likelihood of speaking up or remaining silent, silence during issues resulting in a decision, aud active participation in decision processes, including organizational-change processes. For example, Malewicki (2005) found that employees' levels ofnormative comn-litment were positively related to participation. 14.3 Exnployee Participation in Organizational Proeesses "Participation" is a technical term chat is used in organizational research to capture arrangements whereby organizations ty to involve a broader array of members in their decision-maitg aud problem-solving processes. Hence, the need for and interest in participation is a byproduct of the traditional division of labor chat is found in vertically aud horizontally-differentiated organizations. Most conceptuaiizations ofparticipation are concerned with simations in which members higher in a hierarchy-typically managers- grant decision influence to those lower in the hierarehy. In chis vein, participation has been defined as "a conscious and intended effort byindividuais at a higher level in an organization to provide extra-role or role-expanding opportuuities for individuals or groups at a lower levd in ±e organization to have a greater voice in one or more areas of organizational performance" (Glew et al., 1995, p. 402). While this definition capmres the ~op-down perspective used in much of the research on participation in organizations to date, it is important to stress that participation sometimes entails the involvement of members higher in ±e organizational hierarchy, ini4ated by members located at lower levels, in ordet to fur±er the latter's agenda. One example of such behavior is issue-selling, where individuals at iower levels involve managers in order to build support for their agendas (e.g. Dutton et al., 2001). Increasingly, organizations are composed ofsemi-autonomous units at the same hierarchical levd, whose decisions aud activities are not easily controlled by managers at higher levels, due to knowledge asymmetries. Thi~ creates the need for a coordination aud combination of specialized knowledge in decision-making aud problem solving among ±ese units (e.g. Anand et al., 2007). One way to ãhieve this coordination and combination is through lateral collaboration, where initiative-takers in one unit actively involve persons from other units in order to optimize problem-solving aud minimize unforeseen systemic effects chat might create implementation problems. The academic literature on participation is composed of two broad streams ofwriting: the industrial-relations literamre, which focuses on collective bargaining aud the macro organization, ftinctioning, aud outcomes of unionized activity on the one hand (e.g. Ackers, 2010; ICaufinan, 2008), and the more micro-oriented mauagement, HR, aud organizational behavior literatures on the o±er (e.g. Argyris, 1998; Glew et at, 1995). One key difference between the two is chat the micro-literature is primarily concerned with employee pat-ticipation in individual organizations or organizational subunits, such as work teams, while the macro-literamre is more concerned with participation in populations of organizations or the economy as a whole. The core topics chat are addressed in the two streams are interrelated in many important ways, but here we limit 292 Gh~nge our focus to the micro-literature, because it covers issues that are more relevant for under standing change at the levels ofindividuai organizations and parts thereof. The micro-oriented literature on participation in individual organizations can be divided into three substreams: (1) a utopist stream, stressing the often mutual benefits of partici pation to employees and organizations; (2) a critical-or dystopian-stream, concerned with the costs ofparticipation to the two parties, and sometimes beyond; and (3) a more balanced, realist stream, attempting to establish under what circumstances and in what form partieipation is effective for employees aud organi~ations (see Ackers, 2010, for a similar organization of the industrial-relatjons literature on employee participation). In reality, most contributors probably belong to the realist position, but fl-om time to time take more-radicai positions in order to explore certain facets oftbis complex phenomenon. This micro-stream of research on participation in organizations is theoreticaliy highly eclectic and it is stil hard to identi~,r a small number of theoretical perspectives around which research converges. This is probably partly due to the complexity of the subject matter. The complerity is a reflection of the large and heterogeneous set of dependent variables ±at is. explored in participation research, the dual focus on antecedents aud consequences wi± limited concepmal aud ±eoretical overlap (different theories are required to explain the presence versus the outcomes of participation), and the fact that participation is often part of larger organizational initiatives, simultaueously involving other elements such as new incentive systems, technologies, aud changes iii strategy or operating phiosophy. On average, participation is positively related to employee and organizadonal ontcomes of interest, but the strength of tIds relationship-.as~txpected_depends on many known modera±ig variables. fl is likely that more moderators will be identified in the ffiture, some ofwhich wil reflect broad local aud global changes in organizations aud their environments. Higher-order interactions are probably also present for many relevant phenomena, but these have not been explored eitensively. It is also remarkable that very few contributions report negative consequences from the many forms of participation ±at have been implemented aud evaluated in a wide variety of organizationai and cultural settings. 14.3.1 Determinants ofparticipation Anorher important stream of participation research has examined deterrninants ofpartici pation. This research has focused on two main issues: ±e inelinations ofleaders to adopt a participative style over more centralized, authoritariau leadership styles, aud the willing ness of employees to engage in partieipative processes aud actually choose involvement when invited to by others in the organization (usually, but not exclusively, by higher ranldng mauagers). One oft-cited finding from this research, reported in Neuniau (1989), indicates that roughly 67% of the workforce chooses not to participate when receiving such invitations, indicating ±at willingness to participate may best be regarded as a scarce and potentially valuable resource aud that a considerable leadership challenge is to moti vate employees to participate in order to achieve organizational or mutual gains. Earlier writings on the willingness-to-particjpate issue tended to focus on cognitive or knowl edge-related explanadons (e.g. Cotton et al., 1988). The general idea was that organiza dom need to prepare their employees to become more involved in a wider spectrum of organizational activities. Thinking has now shifted towards a focus on participadon- including ±e rght to voice opinions on issues-as a specific form of extra-role behavior, possibly associated wi± some degree ofpersonal rsk (e.g. Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Participation «mi Organizational Commitment during Change 293 Recent research on voice in organizations adds important but only incomplete insights concerning ±e factors ±at may influence employees' willh gness to provide thoughts and ideas about critical work processes aud other issues pertinent to organizational functioning (e.g. Detert & ]3urris, 2007; Grant et at, 2011; LePine &Van Dyne, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanumjam, 2008). 14.4 Research on Participation in Bxplicit-Change Settings It turns out ±at there is no clear way of delineating exacdy which specific research articles belong to a "participation in organizational change" category versus those that should be ciassified into a more general "participation in organizations" category. The two categories are overlapping because most research on participation is to an impor tant degree related to organizational change. Research on participation is concerned with the involvement of people in something and with the effeets of involvement. That "sotnetbing" is usually a decision process, broadly defined 80 as to include the imple mentation aud control phases of the overall decision-related activities. For example, employees participate in suggesting new ways of working, with the intention that their suggestions will lead to change in the organization's work processes. Hence intended change is part ofthe phenomehon that is subsumed under the "participation" heading. This raises again the important question of to what degree and in what respects contexts of change are different from contexts ofrelative stability, in tei~ms that are important to om understanding ofparticipation-related phenomena. Fundainentally, this is a question about generalizability; that is, to what extent can we expect theory aud empirical findings from the general research on participation to carry over to organizations that are planning, executing, or evaluating and learning from change? As we showed in Section 14.2, organizational change is in itself a highly heterogeneous category, con taining contexts that differ in terms of their comprehensiveness, compatibility with organizational culrnre, the location ofinitiation of the initiative, and 80 on. We'll come back to this issue in Section 14.6, where we discuss important avenues for newresearch on participation during organizational change. For the present, our talte is to review research on participation during organizational change, although we acknowledge the arbitrariness of this approach. The research on parricipation during organizational change partly nalrrors the more general research on organizational change in terms of conceptualization of participation aud its antecedents, consequences, and underlying ±eoretical perspectives. However, it is a narrower research stream as far as the number of publications and the breadth of issues under investigation are concerned. Never±eless, some new topics have been investigated that art specffic to the change context and that are derived from organizational-change theory. In this sense, it both draws on aud contributes back to the more general literature on participation. These new topics 5~nostly derived from the research agenda found in the organizational-change field and tyj4aliy relate to recurring problems experienced in organizations undergoing change. Amo,i4g the most important issues that have been liniced to participation in this research are resistance and cynicism towards change (e.g. Abraham, 2000; Piderit, 2001), commitment to change, and employee sense-rnaking and its implications for change-related attimdes and behaviors. Consistent with the general literature on participation, research in change settings has examined how different degrees and forms ofparticipation impact atdtudes and behaviors 294 Changc towards the produets of the change process to which influence opportunities for stakeholders were granted ar withheld. In addition, same research has explored moderators ofthe participatioñctutcolne links (Holman et al., 2009; Jimmieson et at; 2008; Lines, 2004; Sagie & ICos1o'ws1~ 1994; Sverke et at, 2008; Van Icnippeuberg et al., 2006). R.esearch on change-specific outcomes has generally fonnd that participation is associated with lower levels ofresistance to change (e.g. Hideg et at, 2011; van Dam et aL, 2008; Wanberg & Banas, 2000), cynicism towards change (e.g. Brown & Gregan, 2008), and higher levels of comndtment to change (Neubert & Cady, 2001). Participation has also been shown to affect sense-malting during change, for example by producing beliefchange and generally fostering a better understauding of dhange (Basinger & Peterson, 2008; Stensaker et at, 2008). Our review of the literature on participation during change indicates that much more is known abont dit forms and consequences ofparticipation ±an about its antecedents. One ificely reason for this imbalance is ±at participation has traditionally been seen as a benefit that managers may ar may not grant ±eir employees. Hence, the possibility that employees may be indifferent to, reluctant abont, or opposed to increased involvement in work processes-including change-has not received much attention. However, the research evidence shows that individual employees react differendy to participation. For example, they seem to react more positively when involved in tactica1 decision processes than in strategic decision processes, aud persons withan internal locus of control perform better under participation ±an persons witb an external locus of control (Kren, 1992). Also ehere is direct evidence ±at employees react differendy to various efforts to increase par ticipadon, such as empowerment programs. In fart, Manyard et al. (2007) provide evidence that employees may actnally resist organizations' efforts to implement more involvement-based processes. Participadon ran pardy be seen as voluntary behavior in organization& Often, employees can decide whether ar not to participate when invited to do so. If forced to participate, the levd of effort put into a process can, to a certain degree, be regulated by ehe employees to match ±eir levde of commjtment and motivation (Neuman, 1989). Because participation requires effort fram employees, researchers have wondered whether ehose more committed to the organization are more likely to volunteer in par ticipadve processes than ehose who are less committed. Same research has also exam med tids hypoffiesized relationship empirically. For example, Cohen & Lilach (2011) recendy reported that more organizationaliy-committed Israel teachers were more likely to participate in an optional change in their educadonal system than those who were less coinmitted. While theor es ofparticipation during change aften posit ±at positive attitudes towards change and change-required behaviors result fram employee participation in the change process, others have proposed that attitudes towards organizadonal change may form early in the change process based on rumors, observatjons ofnonroutine behaviors among managers, visits fram external consultants, and prior experiences of change initiatives. It has also been argued ±at social construction of a change aud its consequences is mediated by peer discussions and social information-processing. Through these processes, assump dans aud attitudes that are transferred arnong employees play important roles in the formatjon of attitudes towards change (Lines, 2005). Consistent wi± tbis view, Antoni (2004) faund that employees' willingness to participate aud their actual participation in a reengineering project were positively associated with their attitude towards change aud their perception of supervisory support. Part4cipat*n and Qrganizational Commitment during Change 295 14.5 Employee Commitment in Organizational Processes In an organizational context, commitment can be seen as an employee's attachment to the endre organization, an organizationai subunit, a supervisor, or even a change program (Ford et al., 2003; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). There are many reasons why cmployee comndtment to ±e endre orgariization in particular has been the scope ofmuch ongoing research (Reichers, 1985; Wright & Bonnett, 2002). This idnd of commitment has strong relationships with such important dimensions as job performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), wiuingness to sinte knowledge, absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover (e.g. Becker et at, 1996; Fedor et al., 2006; Maertz et at, 2002; Randall et at, 1990) More specffically, organizational commitment has been found to be negatively related to turnover (Cohen, 1993) and posidvely related to prosocial behavior (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), job satisfacdon (Bateman & Stasser, 1984), motivadon (Mowday et al., 1979), and attendance (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In general, employee commitment has therefore been regarded as a positive factor for organizations. For tids reason, there have been many attempts to gain a fuller understanding of the antecedents of conxmit ment, as weil as the consequences (Meyer et ai., 2002). Comrnitment is to a iarge extent connected to a high levd of focus and energy. If employees commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or a goal, they are more likely to achieve that idea or goal (Cialdini, 2001). The rationale for tids relationship is that employees have established ±e idea or goal as being congruent ~dffi ±eir seJf-image and, ±erefore, view the two as being cognidvely consistent (Festinger, 1957). Even ifthe original incentive or modvation is removed after they have agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement. From this point ofview, a focus on improving commitment by management can be regarded as a very powerful me±od for improving empioyee participadon (Cialdini, 2001). 14.6 Research on Comminnent in Explicit-Change Settings A considerable nutnber of smdies have now hypothesized and found links between organizational commitment and employee responses to change. In their survey of full-time employees from four US companies undergoing change, Madsen et al. (2005) found that organizational cornmitment was positively related to employee readiness for change. In tids seudy, ±e involvement dimension of commitment exhibited ehe strongest relation ship with readiness for change. In her study of determinants of civic virme and turnover intentions in a recently-acquired Greek restaurant change, Beilou (2008) found a positive relationship between employees' ievels oforganizational commitment and civic virtue and a negative relationship between organizationai cominitment and mrnover intentions. She further reported that ±e strength of the reiationship between organizational commit ment and civic virme was positively moderated by the employees' levels of coping with change. In a longitudinai study using data from 267 organizations undergoing downsiz ing processes, Trevor & Nyberg (2008) found a negative relationship between organiza tional commitment and turnover intentions. In tids study, variations in leveis of organizationai comrnitment were explained by ehe perceived ieveis of procedural justice observed during the downsizing. Based on these and other studies (e.g. Eby et at, 2000; Iverson, 1996), it can be concluded that organizadonal commitment in general has a positive impact on how empioyees react to change. A reiatively recent meta-analysis of±e 296 Change relationship between organizational commitn-ient and behaviors supporting one's job role also supports this conclusion (Harrison et aL, 2006). The research evidenee for this conclusion is, however, ratter new, as indicated by a comment made by Herscovitch & Mayer (2002) less than 10 years ago: "Despiteits presumed importance, however, littie attention has been paid to the definition and measurement of commitment wi±in a change context, and there is virtually no evidence to substantiate the claims made about its effects" (p. 474). There are rnany definitions of commitment to change but perhaps ±e most weli-known and well~established one was that presented by Herscovitch & Meyer (2002): "a mindset that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation ofa change initiative" (p. 475). Cornmitrnent to change is ±us one of the most important factors involved in employee support for change initiadves, since it connects employees with organizational goals and change (Jaros, 2010). In order for organizations to not just survive but prosper, they must be knowledgeable about how to implement organizational changes that will be appreciated by their employees (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Research suggests that organizational cornrnirment is the outcome of general ätritudes towards change, change acceptance, and positive views about change (Judge et a1., 1999; Wanberg & J3anas, 2000). li has been suggested by Coatsee (1999) that the ability of commitment to promote and support change is related to: (1) employee abiities regarding change; (2) what is communicated about change; (3) employee dcci sion-maldng authority; (4) rewards and recognition for participating in the change effort; and (5) employee understanding of±e further fiature. In addition, motivational processes that underlie employee reactions to change initiatives seem to be important for ±e functioning of commitrnent to change (Arrnena1ci~ & Harris, 2009). Accorcffitg to Herscovitch & Meyer (2002), there are three areas of entployee commit ment that have been neglected in previous research: (1) affective commitment, which is a desire to provide support for the change based on its inherent benefits (identiflcation); (2) normative commitment, which constitutes a sense ofobligation to provide support for the change (reciprocity); and (3) continuance comrnitment, which manifests a recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide support for ±e change (investment). Herscovitch & Meyer (2002) state that affective and normative commitment is associated wi± higher levels of support among employees ±an is continuance commitrnent. They also argue ±at comn-iinnent to a change is a better predictor for behavioral support arnong employees than organizational commitment. In a recent review, Jaros (2010) argues that current and future research must take into account and ciarify this important dimensionality of change commitment. In order to be able to understand Ute role of employee commitment to change, it would be wise to bok at dit behavior of managers in the change process. There are many reasons for this. Managers might be regarded as the primary change agents inmost organizations. The decisions managers make and their role-modeing behaviors shape ±e organization's change culture. For instance, management decisions related to strucmral change, cultural factors, and human-resource policies have an impact on the innovation climate in organizations. Management decisions related to other policies and practices are imperative for organizational learning and for adaptation to changing environmental ~ctors (Beer & Noria, 2000; Beer et al., 1990; Schein, 1992). Thus, Ute degree of management commitment to change is important to employees, in terms of how ±ey experience ±eir working lives, and to ±e organization, in terms ofhow it achieves desirable organizational outcomes and overcomes resistance to change (Jaros, 2010; Oreg, 2003). Participation and Orgsznizationat Commitment during Change 297 For ±ese reasons, those managers who are identified as ±e prirnary proponents aud sponsors of a change initiative must provide the attention and endorsemeut that signal commitment in order to achieve a successful change outcome. However, organizational change initiatives often prove to be less than fully successfiul (Jaros, 2010). A fact oflife is ±at ehe initial enthusiasm and suppore for a major change among employees deteriorate as problems aud costs begin to become apparent. When this happens, employees bok to their managers for signs ofcontinued commitment to the change objectives. Demonstrat ing commitment involves more ±an just taJiting about the irnportance of the change. Managers must also participate in activities related to the change, such as attending special meetings or ceremonies relevant to the change effort. This has a clear symbolic meaning for the employees, indicating ±at the change must be important (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Fodsakoff et al., 2000; Yukl, 2006). Major organizatidnal changes cause stress among employees due to increased work tar gets, threats ofjob losses, changes in job holders' responsibilities/authorities, aud shifts in the balance of power (McHugh & Brennan, 1994). These role stressors may affect employee commitment to change. Negative attirndes towards change have been observed to be related to lower job satisfaction aud cornmitment (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). How can an organization aud its managers expect commitment to a change initiative from employees when they are experiencing job insecurity aud job stress? In order to overcome these obstacles, managers must provide change-related communication demonstrating their own commitment (Johnson et al., 1996). Such communication can be used to: (1) reduce rçsistance; (2) minimize uncertainty; and (3) gain involvement aud commitment as the change progresses. le must be noted that role confficts aud role ambiguity also can be reduced by providing timely feedback to employees regarding changes. In addition to providing a positive role model for employees, managers can demonserate cornmitment by using an empowering leadership style. An empowering style includes behaviors that share power with employees aud has been demonstrated to positively influence performance (Vecchio et at, 2010). This kind of leadership provides guidance on how to enhance effectiveness through praceices such as providing increased autonomy aud responsibility to employees (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). However, there is evidence ±at an empowering leadership style has limitations both in change settings characterized by nrgency.and crisis aud for inexperienced employees (Sims et at, 2009). Thus, this kind of leadership depends on certain situational conditions. Furthermore, Vecchio et ab. (2010) report that the mediatiug mechanisms are not well specffied. Other research has reported partial rather thau full medllation (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Srivastava et at, 2006). 14.7 Discussion aud Directions for Further Researeft 14.7.1 From utopistto realist frameworks Research on organizational change has been criticized for not adequately representing ±e context in which change takes place (e.g. Feldxnan, 1986; Howards-Grenville, 2005; Pettigrew, 1987). This critique seems relevant to the issue ofpareicipation during change. As we have shown, general theories of participation have identified a barge number of contingencies that mighe moderate. ±e strength of any positive relationship between par ticipation aud outcomes, including organizational coinmitment. In a similar vein, second generation research on the outcomes of organizadonal commitment ofeen focuses in on 298 Change contextual variables ±at might affect ±e d.irect relationship between comntim~ent and outcomes ofinterest. At times these contingeucies may create strong interactions; ±at is, situations where relationships actually shift from positive to negative. From our revie~ it seeins likely that ±e scale and scope ofchange-the extent to which change is affecting ±ese core aspects of the organization-are likely to interact with both conanjitment and participation. Prom the research on cominitment, it seems plausible to conclude that ±e effects of commimaent are dependent on the size of change. This is because ±e requirements for cognidve aud behavioral adjustinent and the emotionai stram experienced by employees are ificely to co-vary with change size. Evolutionary change, also calied fine-tuning, often takes place within a fixed set of organizadonal features aud does not challenge organizationaj norms, values, or ±e prevailing power structure to any large degree. Hence the stram on employees aud ±e need for high levels of comrnjm-Ient to rnatch this stram are less than in times of more profound aud comprehensive change. Also, it seems chat ±e impact of change on organizational commitment might be affected by the magnimde of change. As we have shown, organiza tionai commitment is aften the result of a social-exchange process by which employees monitor how they are treated by the organizadon aud its leaders, particnlarly regarding issues chat are relevant to ±eir personal values. There are some indications chat the organizationaj commiunent oflow'tenm-e employees is particularly volatile aud is affected by single episodes such as an organizational change. Consistent with this, research by Fedor et al. (2006) seems to indicate chat organizationaj commitment is particularly lileely to be affected when a change has impact in terms offhvorableness when the extent ofthe change is large, aud when the change implies changes in recipients' work conditions. The au±ors also found evidence ofinteractjons among these flicets ofchange. However, organizatjons undergoing radical change may find chat their most-conm,itted employees are those who react inostnegatively to the change. Organizational comrnitment pardy explains the psychological attachment of an individual to an organization. One important driver of this attachment is the levet of congruence between the organization's values aud the personal values of±e focal employee (Meyer et at., 1998). Personal values are much less malleable tinn is often assumed in the normative literatnre on organizational aud cultural change. They seem to be established sometime in early adulthood, aud often undergb only minor adjustments in ehe snbsequent periods of an individnai's life (e.g. Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). Hence, when organizations attempt to cliauge values aud norms as part ofa radical change, an incongruence with employee values occnrs. This process can lead to identity problems aud a corresponcJing reduction in commitment arnong those who felt a high levet of identification prior to ±e change. Radical change may also interact with employees' responses to participation during change. Participafion is one important antecedent ofperceptions ofprocedural justice in organizations. Issues related to justice, including the degree offairness associated with processes used during chauge, have been consistently found to be a focus for sense making during chauge and an important criter on for ±e formation of attitudes towards change. One reason why employees prefer "fair processes". is that such processes are associated with increased levels of decisjon control (IConovslçy, 2000). According to this mechanism, employees respond positively to elements of fair processes (involvement, voice opportunities) because such elements are associaied wi± higher levels of ontcome control. When individuals have the right to voice their opinions concerning chauge or are involved in the change process, their perceptions of being able to control important outcomes of the process are higher tinn they are in top-down change processes flowing Participation and Organizationul Commitment during Change 299 from centralized decision-making. As change becomes more radical, ehe stakes involved for employees increase rapidly aud ±eir need to control the ontcomes will liieely be more strongly felt. Based on this, it is likely that employees' willingness to participate in change-related activities increases as change becomes more radical. Further, we believe that ±e positive emotions, cognitions, attitudes, aud behaviors that are often associated with participative processes will be more pronounced during radical compared to evolutionary change. We also conclude ±at the interrelationships between participation aud commitrnent have not been sufficiendy explored up to this point. This seems to be particuiarly true for ±e specialized research on organizational change. A positive main effect of participation on commitment is rather well established as an average outcome across studies aud orga nizational changes. In addition, ehere is strong theoretical support aud indirect, but not direct, empirical evidence for a positive main effect of commitment on wiffingness to par ticipate (see Section 14.8). But more-complei relationships between organizational com mitment aud participarion during change are also likely to be present. First, it seems likely that levels of commitment interace positively with any relationship between participation aud outcomes of change at ±e individual as well as the change level of analysis. More committed individuals are by definition more emotionally attached to their organizations aud more willing to exert a high levd ofeffort in perforniing tasks (Mowday et al., 1979). Hence, it stands to reason that ±e contribution in terms ofinformation-sharing, problem solving, constructive tallc, aud orher forms of support by a committed individual wffl be higher ±an for low-commitment individuals even in cases where bot spend equal amounts of time participating in change-related worlc. In a similar vein, we expect participation to interact positively with the often-assnmed relationship between organiza tional commitment aud outcomes such as attimdes towards change, change-supportive behaviors, aud change success. 14.7.2 Implications ofa better-educated workforce and the continued transition towards knowledge industries Among the broad global trends with implications for research aud practice in participation aud organizational commitment is the increased level offormal education tat is observed throughont the world. Bdncation transforms people in terms of bot the knowledge they aud their value systems, which in turn determine what they regard as important in their lives (Locke et al., 2001; Shapira & Griffith, 1990). Higher education seems to increase te importance of values such as the need for growth, autonomy, aud democracy. These affect how people respond to organizational arrangements that allowi for more or less involvement in aud influence on decision-making aud problem-solving. Based on these relationships, it seems likely tar the demand for higher levels ofparticipation will continne to rise in the ffiture. This development is only partly matched by trends in organization structure aud ieadership. It is often observed that when organizations move towards centralization (aud away from decentralization)-marked by increased control, staudardization, aud command-aud-control leadership-employees experience a loss of a feeling of empower ment aud therefore become less interested in parricipation (Jacobides & Groson, 2001). In the same vein, when organizational leaders are faced wi± the trade-offs between satisf~' ing stockholders aud satis~'ing (knowledge) workers, they tend to listen more ciosely to members ofte former group. 300 Chzr~nge Based on these rwo concerns, we predict chat issues related to participation will become more, rather than less, important in conting years. There is already research to indicate chat employees feel that levels of participation are too 'ow (Bruhn et at., 2001). Byer more specialized, well-educated, and knowledgeable employees shift the balance of the power-dependence relationship from owners/managers to employees as the former become more dependent on che latter to achieve their goals. One consequence of this is chat employee involvement is increasingly becoming a scarce Performancedriving resource chat should be allocated to uses in which its marginal productivity is maximized. This implies that organizations must economize on the use ofthe time aud energy of their highly-skilled persorniel and chat involvement has a high. alternative cost. High performers, who are often also important informal leaders, partake in many performance~driving processes in an organization. By involving such employees in change, important resources are drawn away from areas such as product development, sales, aud other forms ofinnovation. This calis for seiective involvement based on a set ofcrfteria chat define when the economic effect ofinvolvernent is at its highest. From both an employee aud a managerial perspective, this is likely to be when organizational changes have the largest potential consequences for the attainment of professional values by knowledge workers. Dnc to seif-allocation into educational and socialization programs, the members of a given profession hold strong professional values (Akerlof & Kranton, 2002). Snch values tend to differ considerably between professions (e.g. Shapira & Griffith, 1990). When such professional values are furthered by a change, responses to the change are positive; when they art threatened, responses will be neg ative. It is possible that responses to participation wil be at their most positive when involvement concerns decisions with a high impact on professional values, both because the issues are personally relevant aud because participation is associated with outcome control. When changes do not have such an impact, it is likely chat responses will be neutral or even negative. However, these interactions need to be explored empirically in flicure research. The link between change and professional values is likely)to be an important issue in organizational sense-maldng during change, but has u'ip-~ä' dli now been subjected to litde research. Across professions, there is some evidence chat highly-educated employees differ from che less-educated in their focus on internal versus external work facets. Speciflcally, they seem to be less concerned with pay aud job security, but put relatively more emphasis on intrinsie job facets such as interesting tasks, a sense of achievement, and chances for proñotion (Warr, 2008). Hence, it seems chat changes chat have effects on job content are of particular importance to highly-educated personnel and chat participation in such changes is likely to produce positive reactions in chis demographic group. To some extent, percepdons of such links can be influenced by managerial activities during change, including communication activities. In particular, highly-trusted change agents can probably influence how employees perceive such links as part of their acdvities, allowing them to develop justificadons for change aud to create perceived readiness for change early in che change process. The efficacy of managerial activities in ereating or downplaying such links warrants further research, especially in organizations with highly educated, seif-confident employees. It also seems relevant to erarnine how the success of such attempts feeds back to post-chatige levels of trust aud cynicism towards change, organizations, aud individual managers. Participation and Organizational Commitment during Change 301 14.7.3 Research on ability arid motivation to participate This review has shown that we presently know more about the forms and effects of participation than about its antecedents. This conclusion seems to hold for the general literature on participation in organizations, as well as for the more specialized literature on participation during change. We think that a better understanding of the determinants of participation is required from bo± an employee and a managerial/organizational perspec tive. From an employee perspective, it is crucial to know more about who is willing to be more involved, when, and in what processes, in order to improve the quality of work life through increased or decreased levels of participation. Increasing participation in situa tions where the present levd is perceived as adequate might easily lead to a reduction in quality of (work) life because it will require levels of effort, competence, and job involve ment that may not present in members of the organization. From an organizational perspective, the positive outcomes for knowledge-sharing, charge-taldng, levels of effort, and financial performance are mostly mediated by positive employee responses to increased participation. Hence, from this perspective too, an intelligent use of participation must build on a thorough understanding of employees' abiity an9.-ine.t4vation to participate in organizational processes. Ç Research on issue-selling in organizations is relevant to ui~4erstanding how individual competencies for effective participation develop over time through practice and reflection. Issue-selling is ±e process by which individuals or groups attempt to get their particular concerns included in che organizational agenda. It is related to the decision control path linicing participation to positive outcomes. For example, Howard-Grenville (2007) shows how issue-sellers gradually develop knowledge about ±e key schemas of issue recipients and learn how to tie their own issues into them. This finding mirrors an issue that is often raised in comments on implementing participation: that participation has to be learned in some way, and ±at employees with work experence cxclusively from organizations characterized by centralized decision-making are ull prepared for suddenly taking part in new areas of decision-making (e.g. Cotton et al., 1991). Organizational voice-±at is, employees' tendency to actually communicate their opinions when given the opportunity-is often included as a form of participation in organizations. Research on organizational voice has identified conditions under wbich employeeschoose to participate by raising their concerns over decision issues versus when they remain silent on such issues even when their views are solicited by change agents. Studying employees' responses to leadership behaviors in a restaurant chain, Detert & Burris (2007) provide evidence that managers who succeed at providing psychological safety to subordinates are rewarded with employees who exhibit a stronger tendency to contribute to the organization by voicing their opinions. Observed levels ofpsychological safet~ in turn, are positively associated with a manager's degree of openness vis-à-vis ±eir subordinates (see also Dutton et al., 1997; Edmondson, 2003). The willingness of mcm bers to provide thoughts and ideas about critical worlc processes is important to a firm's dynamic competitive position and characterizes successful learning (Edmondson, 1999). We have argued that employee participation can frttitfully be seen as a form ofvoluntary behavior in organizations. Even in cases where employees art forced to participate, the effort put into this work is hard to observe. This may be because the requirement to participate is usually not included in formal work descriptions and is therefore largely a matter of the inclividual employee's discretion. Hence, a better understanding of employees' willingness to participate is crucial for efficient use of this approach to change. 302 Change Perhaps the most developed body of theoretical aud empirical knowledge addressing volurnary behaviors in organizations comes from research on 0CR. This research has identified a comprehensive set of antecedeuts, forms, aud outcomes of different types of voluntary behavior, some of which overiap wi± behaviors normally subsumed under dxc concepts of participaffon, empioyee involvement, aud empowerment. For exampie, organizationai participation, defined as attending nonrequired meetings aud sharing informed opinions aud new ideas with others, is.expiicitly considered to be a reflection of organizationa{ civic virtue (Graham, 1991). However, 80 far this body of knowledge is only integrated to a small degree with participation research aud practice. Consistent with our view of evolutionary change, many of the findings from ±is research can probabiy be directly generalized to evoiutionary-change settings; that is, predictors of 0CR are also likely to predict wiuingness to participate duriug evolutionary change when empioyee stakes are relatively iow. Several comprehensive reviews of tids literature have been published (Chang et al., 2007; Podsalcoff et al., 2000; Shweta & Jha, 2009). In this section we oniy iliustrate how these findiugs can be used to inform researchers and practitiouers concerned with employee wiilingness to participate during change. One strilting fmding from tids research is that different forms of 0CR are strongly related to several important employee work attitudes, inciuding organizational commitment, job satisfaction, aud perception of fàiruess (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2000, p. 527). These findings seem to predict that empioyees' wiliiugness to participate in change is a reflection of their broader relatiouship wi± ±eir organization. Bmployees who are satisfied with how they have experienced their work aud the organization in the past are more likely to participate coustructively duriug change than iess-satisfied empioyees. Hence, it sceins ehat willingness to participate aud the resuiting capacity to change are largely built up in dxc periods prior to any change episode aud that organizatious are more or less prepared for dxc successfuj invoivement of their empioyees depending on their exchauge idstory prior to chauge. As ehese attitudes vary withiu any organization, ano±er implicarion seems to be ±at the wilhinguess to participate is likely to vary. As job saasfhc don aud commitment may be more easily observable than willinguess to participate, these reiationships can be used to form work teams during change. Another consistent finding is that leadership behaviors aud trust in leadership seem to be important determinants of 0CR (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In particular, positive relatiouships have been found between trausformational leadership behaviors, the formu lation of a visiou, the provisiou of clear guidelines for what shouid be done aud achieved, high performance expectatious, aud 0CR. Tids implies that ieadership aud participation are much more interconnected than is reflected in dxc hterature on participadon during chauge, aud chat differeuces in ieader-.member histories are likely to affect wiflinguess to participate aud the outcomes ofparticipation. 14.7.4 Leadership, trust in Ieadership, aud participation during change The degree aud form of participation are often preseuted to leaders as choices that are disconnected from other aspects ofleadersbip style aud leader-member relationships. Tids is not hkely to be true, as niany facets of leadership potentiaily interact with participatiou in dxc producdon of outcomes, including organizational comndtment Many commeuta tors on participation have pointed to dxc ciose couuection between leadership aud participation. In the ieadership literature, participation is often portrayed as an important element of leadership style. For example, transformational leaders combine top-down Panic~pation and Organizutional Commitment during Change 303 inspirational appeals with behaviors that involve their subordinateg (Bass, 1985). Newer leadership concepts, such as authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) and servant leadership (Graham, 1991), increasingly refiect leadership styles in which decision au±ority is divided more equally between leaders and subardinates. Participation is sometimes presented as an influence tactic used by leaders ehat is tied to individual configurations of power bases. In the general literature on participation aud organizational comn±ment, the interaction between leadership aud participation has been explored to a certain degree, but litele research fram the field of organizational change has examined this. Specifically, we conclude that employee trust in leadership (ICramer, 1999) may operate as a substitute for participation aud that ±is link may become more important as organizations are increasingly carefiil about how ±ey deploy their highly-skilled workforce. Further, it is possible ±at highly-educated employees wffl react positively ta reductions in participation in same processes, provided that ehey hold high levels of trust in,those ±at make such centralized decisions. It has previously been found that arganizational change constimtes an important evene in which trust in leadership is built ar destroyed. Specifically, Lines et al. (2007) empirically showed that post-change trust in leadership is related ta how the change process is designed aud to the consequences of change far change-recipiene jobs. In ehis study, participation during change was positively related to post-change trust in leadership. However, participation may not always lead to increased levels of trust. One important side effece of participative processes is the creation of organizational arenas in which trust relevant behaviors can be observed aud other truse-relevant information, such as cues for judging levels of competence and benevolence, can be transmitted to participants. When a leader collaborates with subordinates in a participative process, le is more difficult to hide ehe true motives behind change, aud the leader's knowledge about the change becomes more visible ehan it would be in a centralized process. Hence, we beieve ehat ±e link between participation aud trust in leadership is contingent on a leader's level ofcompetence aud that only authentic leaders (Avollo & Gardner, 2005) wil observe a positive effect from participation. 14.7.5 Commitment to change and organizational creativity In mauy ways, ehe essence ofsuccessfiul creative efforts nilght be regarded as synonymous with change (West et al., 2004). By defutition, creativity requires that people deviate from' conventional wisdom aud adopt new ways of thinking aud doing. fl also implies that they enact new patterns aud move away fram ±e status quo so that they can develop novel and useftil ideas (Shalley et al., 2009; Zhou & George, 2601). Moreover, creativity is conneceed with ehe wihingness to generate wildly different ideas, which entails the possibility of real mistakes aud failure (Miner et at, 2001; George & Zhou, 2001). However, for different reasons, it is dlifficule for employees to engage in change-related creative behavior (Shalley & Gilgon, 2004; Shalley et al., 2009). Typically, they are found to resise it by dinging to roudne aud habitual behaviors (Ford et al., 2008; Oreg, 2003). The uncertainty, apparent risldness, aud potential for failure ehat accompany creative efforts are aften feared by employees (Jermier et at, 1994; Jone.s, 2001). fl is therefore argued ±at resistance to change is likely to be detrimental to their creative performance. This is because the resis tance is assumed to prevent employees fram taking appropriate risks, adopting new ways of thinldng, aud initiating change. All these behaviors are fundamental requirements of creative performance (Amabile et al., 1996; Ford et al., 2008). However, recent research 304 Change indleates that the worlç environrnent rnight heip mitigate the detrimental effects of employees~ resistance to change (George, 2007). For instance, coutextual faetors at the group levd might moderate individuaj.level relationships between resistance to change and creadve performance (Bliese, 2000; Hint et aL, 2009; Hofmann et al., 2000). Although most employees tend to resist change to some extent, there are individual differences. Taking ehis fact into account, Oreg (2003) has developed a scale that measures dispositional resistance to change, aud has found that higher levels are associated with resistance to innovation and voluntary change. In order to improve the work environmeut so that it facffitates employee acceptance of change, leaders must focus on their communjcatjon. A knowledge-based vision requires a strong commitment and is commurijcated most effectively through social interaction. Such a visjon generally includes new thoughts, ideas, phrasings, and actions. These provide a foundatjon for new forms of imagination in the organization. In addition, the vision often commm-iicates to the employees what kinds of value and skili the organization requires (Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Selart & Schei, 2011). Another way of improving ±e work envirohment is to apply ernpowermei-jt.orjented leadership. flere, bo± rhetoric aud econon-ilc resources are used to develop intellectual resources. In organizations where ehis kind of leadership is practiced, employees art characterjzed by qualities such as selfconfidence, inner motivation, aud skilL Such properties are synonymous wiffi individual creativity in organizations. Whereas a shared visjon requires an integrated understauding of the organization's goals, empowerment allows a lot offragmentation with respect to how these goals will be achieved. In this form ofleadership, it is the management's task to set goais, secure resources, aud ehen leave ±e arena (Bemijs & Townsend, 1997; Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Selart & Schei, 2011). 14.8 Conclusjon Our reading of dit literature on participation aud commitment during organizational change has revealed that a substantiaj body of ±eoredcal aud empirical kuowledge has been accumulated so far. Large parts of the research evideuce closely rnirror findings from the more general literature on participation aud comniitment in organisations. Howevei-, research in chauge settings has expanded dit field in terms of contextualizing general theory aud showing how change affects aud is affected by processes of participation aud comniltment. Moreover, a set of new, partly change-specific variables has been introduced to the broader field by researchers focusing on change. Some of the themes captured by ±ese variables (e.g. cynicism towards change, resistance towards change) are ofsubstaudal importauce to a better understanding of organizational functioning in settings with relative stability. Hence, this research indicates a potential for cross~fertilizatjon aud better integradon of dit two streams ofresearch. This reading has also indicated that our understanding of the roles played by pardcipation aud commitment during change may be promoted If a more realistic perspective is taken by reseaschers aud practitioners alike. For example, increased levels of participation are associated with some costs, aud ehese have to be compared to the benefits ±at vary from one change to the next. Also, employee responses to increased participation are more variable ±an is reflected in sorne of the most optimistic literature. We think that the greatest challenge in this field is to improve our understanding of when participation provides net benefits to organizations aud employees. Participation and Organizraional Commitment during Change 305 Acknowledgements The anthors gratefully acknowledge ±e thoughtful comments of Bjarne Espedal, Kjell Grönhaug, Olav A. Kvitastein, H. Skipton Leonard, aud Inger Stensaker. References Abraham, 3.. (2000). Organizational cynicisin: bases and consequences. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 269-292. Ackers, P. (2010), An industrial relations perspective on employee participation. In A. Wilkinson, P.J. Gollan, M. Marchington, & D. Lewin, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford Universiw Press. Akerlof, GA. & ICranton, 1(3. (2002). Identity and schooling: some lessons for dit economics off education. Journal of Econornic Literature, 40, 1167-1201. Amabile, T.M., Conti, 3.., Coon, EL, Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acaderny off Manageinent Journal, 39, 1154-1184. Anand, N., Gardner, HIC, & Morris, T. (2007). ICnowledge-based innovation: ernergence and ernbedding of new practice areas in management consulting teains. Academy off Management Journal, 50, 406-428. Antoni, CM. (2004). Research note: a modvational perspective on change processes and outcomes. Buropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 197-216. Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: the emperor's new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 98-105. Armenalds, A. & Harris, S. (2009). Reflecdons: our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal off Change Management, 9, 127-142. Ashmos, DR, Duchon, 0., McDaniel, 3.3.., & Huonker, 1W. (2002). What a mess! Participation as a simple managerial rule to "cornplexity" organizations. Journal of Management Studies, March, 189-206. Avolio, B.J. & Gardner, W.L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: getting to the roots of positive forins of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338. Basinger, N.W. & Peterson, J.R. (2008). Where you stand depends on where you sit: participation and reactions to change. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(2), 243-257. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Bxpectations. New York: Free Press. Bateman, T.S. & Stasser, 5. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents off organizational commitment. Acadetny off Management Review, 27, 95-112. Bayo'Moriones, A. & Larraza-ICintana, M. (2009). Profit'sharing plans and affective commitment: does the context snatter? Human Resource Managernent, 48(2), 207-226. Becker, T.B., Billings, R.S., Bveleth, D.M., & Gilbert, N.L. (1996). Foci and bases of ernployee com mitment: intplications for job perforniance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-482. Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 133-141. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Speceor, B. (1990). Why change programs ~on't produce change. Harvard Business Revie'% November-December, 158-166. Bellou, V. (2008). Exploring civic virtue and turnover intention during organizational changes. Journal of Business Research, 61, 778-789. Bennis, W.G. & Townsend, 3.. (1997). Reinventing Leadership: Strategies to Bmpower the Organization. New York: Morrow/Avon. Benson, G.S. & Lawler, BE. (2003). Esnployee involvemene: utiiization, impacts aud future pros pects. In 0. Holman, T. Wall, 0. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard, editors. The Essentials of the New Workplace. London, UIC John Wiley & Sons. 306 Change Ehiese, ED. (2000). Within-group agreement, uon-independence, aud reliability: iruplications for data aggregation aud analysis. In Kj. ICiein & 5W. Kozlowski, editors. Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods iii Orgaoizations: Poundations, Extensions, aud New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Erown, M. & Creegau, C. (2008). Organizationai change cynicism: the role ofemployee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(8), 667-686. Bruhn, J.G., Zajac, G., & .AI-lCazemi, A.A. (2001). Ethical perspectives on employee participation in planued orgauizationat change: a suxvey of two state public welfai-e agencies. Public Performance aud Managemeut Review, 25, 208-228. Butts, MM., Vandenberg, Rj., Dejoy, D.M., Schaffer, E.S., & Wllsou, M.G. (2009). ludividual reactions to high involvement work processes: investigating the rom of empowermeut aud per ceived organizational support. Journal of Occupatiouah Health Psychology, 14(2), 122-136. Chang, C-H., Johnson, LE., &Yang, L.-Q. (2007). Emotional stram aud organizaflonal citizensbip behaviors: a meta-aualysis aud review. Work&Stress, 21(4), 312-332. Cialdini, RE. (2001). Influence: Science aud Practice. Boston, MA: Ahlyn & Bacon. Coatsee, L. (1999). From resistauce to commjtruent. l'ublic Administrative Quarterly, 23, 204-222. Cohen, A. (1993). Qrgauizationai commitment aud turnover: a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1140-1157. Coheu, A. & Lilach, C. (2011). Individual vatues, organizational commitment, aud participatiou in change: Israehi teachers' approadi to an optionai educatioual reform. Jourual of Business aud Psychology, 26, 385-396. Cotton, IL., Vohlrath, D.A., Forggatt, KL., Lengnick-Hall, ML., & Jenniugs, 1CR. (1988). Employee participatiou: diverse forms aud different outcomes. Academy of Mauagement Review, 13(1), 8-22. Co; A., Marchingtou, M., & Sutter, J. (2009). Employee involvement and pa.rticipatiou: developiug the coucept of embeddeduess using WBRS2004. International Jourual of Human Resource Mauagemeut, 20(10), 2150-2168. Craut, I.M., 1Cm, T.-Y., & Waug, J. (2011). Dispositioud antecedeuts ofdemoustratiou aud useful ness ofvoice behavioL Jonrual of Business Psychology, 26, 285-297. Detert, JR. & Burris, E.R. (2007). Leadership behavior aud employee voice: is the door really opeu? Academy of Mauagemeut Jourual, 50(4), 869-884. DiMaggio, P.J. (1988). Interest aud agency iu iustitutional theory. lu L.G. Zuclcer, editor. Institudoual Patterus aud Organizations: Culture aud Buviroumeut. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., Wierba, L., O'Neill, R.M., & Hayes, E. (1997). Reading the wind: how middie managers read ahe context of issue selling. Strategic Managemeut Jourual, 18, 407-423. Duttou, JR., Ashford, S.J., O'Neill, R,M., & Lawrence, ICA. (2001). Moves that matter: issue selliug aud orgaoizatjouah change. Academy ofManagement Jouruah, 44(4), 716-736. Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell., J.E.A., & Gaby, S.H. (2000). Percepflous of organizatioual read iness for chauge: factors related to employees' reactious to the irnplementatiou of team-based selling. Human Relatious, 53, 419-442. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety ahd learuing behavior iu work teams. Administrative Scieuce Quarterly, 44, 350-383. Edmoudsou, A. (2003). Spealdugup iu the operatiug room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary actiou teams. Jourual ofManagement Studies, 40, 1419-1452. Fedor, DE., CaldwelI, 5., & Herold, D.M. (2006). The effects of organizationah changes on employee commitmeut: a muhtilevel investigation. Personnel Psychoiogy, 59(1), 1-29. Feidman, D.C. (2000). The Dilbertsyndrome: howemployee cynicism aboutineffectivemauagemeut is changing the uature of careers in organizatious. American Behaviorai Sciëutist, 43, 1286-1300. Feidman, SP. (1986). Management in context: an essay on the rehevance of culture for under standing organizationah change. Journal ofManagemeut Studies, 23(6), 587-607. Participatios cmii Organizationul Commitment during Change 307 Fenton-O'Creevy, M. (2001). Employee involvernent and the middle manager: saboteur or scape goat? Human Resource Management Journal, 11(1), 24-40. Festingei-, L. (1957). A Tlieory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ford, J.IC,Weissbein, DA., & Plarnondon, 1CR. (2003). Distingulshing organizational from strategy commitment: linking officers' commitment to community policing to job behaviors and satisfacdon. Justice Quarterly, 20, 159-185. Ford, J., Ford, L.W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Acaderny ofManagement Revie~ 33, 362-37?. George, J.M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439-477. George, J.M. & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and consciousness are related to creative behaviot: an international approach. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 513-524. Gersick, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: a muitilevel exploration of the punctuated equiibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-3 6. Giangreco, A. & Peccei, R. (2005). The nature and antecedents of middie manager resistance to change: evidence from an Italian context. International Journal off Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1812-1829. Glew, D.J., O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & Van Fleet, D.D. (1995). Participation in organizations: a preview off the issues and proposed framework for ffiture analysis. Journal off Management, 21(3), 395-422. Godard, J. (2004). Å critical assessment off the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42, 349-378. Graham, J.W (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119. Han, T.-S., Chiang, H.-H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation iñ decision-rnaking, psychological ownership and knowledge-sharing: mediating role oforganizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(12), 2218-2233. Hanison, DA., Newman, DA., & Roth, P.L, (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy off Management Journal, 49(1), 305-325. Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension ofa three component modeL Journal off Applied Psychology, 87, 474-487. Hideg, I., Michela, J.L., & Ferrs, DL. (2011). Overcoming negative reactions off nonbeneficiaries to employment equity: the effecr of participation in policy formulation. Journal off Applied Psychology, 96(2), 363-376. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-le-vel perspective on employee creativity: god orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativiq'. Academy off Management Journal, 52, 280-293. Hitlin, 5. & Piiavin, JA. (2004). Current research, methods, and theory off vatues. Annual Review ofSociology, 30, 359-393. Hofinann, DA., Griffin, M.A., & Gavin, M.B. (2000). The application off hierarchical linear modeling to management research. In ICJ. 1(1cm & S.W. J. Kozlowski, editors. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in O;ganizations: Foundations, Ertentions, and New Directions, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Holman, D.J., AxteU, C.M., Sprigg, CA., Totterdell, P., & Wall, T.D. (2010). The mediating role ofjob characterisrics in job redesign interventions: a serendipitous quasi-experiment. Journal off Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 84-105. Homan, D., Frenket, 5., Sørensen, 0., & Wood, 5. (2009). Work design variation and outcomes in cdl centers: strategic choice and institutionat explanations. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 62(4), 510-532. Howard-Grenville, JA. (2005). The persistence off fiexible organizational routines: the role off agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618-635. 308 Change Howard-Grenvjlle, JA. (2007). Developing issue selling effectiveness over time: issue selling as resourcing. Organization Science, 18, 560-57?. Huang, I, Sin, IC, Zhang, Z., & LeeChung, T. (2006). The impact of participative leadership behavior On psychologicaj empowerment and organizational conlmitment in Chinese state owned enterprises: the modei-ating rom of organizational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(3), 345-36?. Hurtz, G.M. & Williams, J.J. (2009). Attitudinal and motivadonal antecedents ofparticipation in voluntary employee development activides. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94(3), 635-653. Iverson, R.D. (1996). Bmployee acceptance of organizadonal change: the role of organizationaj cornmitrnent. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 7, 122-149. Jacobides, M.J. & Croson, DC. (2001). Informadonpolicy: shapingthevalue ofagencyrelaflonships. Academy of Managernent Revie% 26(2), 202-223. Janssen, 0. (2004). The barnet effect on conllict wiffi supeniors in the relationship between empowerrnent and organizational commitment. Work and Stress, 18(1), 56-65. Jaros, 5. (2010). Commitmcnt to organizational change: a cnitical review. Journal of Change Management, 10: 79-10 8. Jermier, J. M., I(nights, D., & Nord, W. iL (1994). Resistance and Power in Organizadons. London, UK: Routledge. Jimmieson, N.L., Peach, M., & White, 1CM. (2008). Utilizing the theory ofplanned behavior to inform change management. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 44(2), 237-262. Johnsen, JR, Bernhagen, Mj, Miller, V., & Men, M. (1996). The role of communicadon in managing reducdons in workforce. Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 24, 139-164. Jones, G.R. (2001). Organizational Theory: Text and Cases. New York: Addison-Wesley. Judge, T.A., Thorcsen, CI,, Pucik, V., & Wellbourne, T.M. (1999). Managenial coping with organi national change: a dispositional perspective. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84, 107-122. Kalleberg, kL., Nesheim, T., and Olsen, 1CM. (2009). Is pardcipadon good or bad for workers? Acta Sociologica, 52(2), 99-116. Knufman, 13. (2008). Paradigms in industrial reladons: original, modern and versions in-between. British Journal oflndustriad Relations, 46(2), 319-339. Kirkman, EL. & Rosen, 13. (1999). lleyond seif-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerrnent. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74. Konovsky, M.A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489-511. I(ramer, KM. (1999). Trust aud distrust in organinations: emerging perspecdves, enduring ques dons. Annual Review ofPsycholõr, 50, 569-598. I(ren, L. (1992). The rnoderadng effects of locus of control on performance incentives aud partici pation. Human Reladons, 45(9), 991-1012. Lam, S.IC, Chen, X.1'., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participadve decision måking aud employee performance in different cultures: the snoderadng effects of allocentnism/idiocentrism and effi cacy. Academy bf Management Journal, 45(5), 905-914. LePine, J.A. & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms ofcontex mai performance: evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics aud cognidve ability. Journaj ofApplied Psychology,~86(2), 326-336. Lines, R. (2004). Infiuence ofparticipadon in strategic change: resistance, organizational commit ment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193-215. Lines, R. (2005). The stmcture and ffinction of atdtudes toward organizational change. Human Resource Development Review, 4(1), 8-32. Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S.T. (2005). The production of trust during organi zadonal change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 221-245. Loclte Davidson, A., Schofield, W., & Stocks, J. (2001). Professional cultures aud collaborate efforts: a case of technologists and educators working for change. The Information Society, 17, 2 1-32. Panicipation and Organizational Commitment during Change 309 Madsen, S.R., Miller, D., & Cameron, JR. (2005). Readiness for organizational change: do commit ment and social relationships in the workplace malte a difference? Hurnan Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 213-233. Maertz, GP., Mosley, DC., & Mford, EL. (2002). Does organizationai commitment fhlly mediate constituent commitment effects? A reassessment aud clarification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1300-1313. Malewicki, DS. (2005). Meruber involvemene in entrepreneur network organirations: tlie rote of commitment aud trust. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 141-166. Mauyard, M.T., Mathieu, J.E., Marsh, W,M., & Ruddy, T.M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the influences of ernployees' resistauce to empowerment. Human Perfonnance, 20(2), 147-171. Marchington, M., Wiikinson, A., Ackers, P., & Goodman, J. (1993). The infiuence of managerial relations on waves of employee involvement. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31(4), 55 3-576. Mathieu,• J.E. & Zajac, OM. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulietin, 108, 171-194. McCaffrey, D.P., Paerman, S.R., & Hatt, D.W. (1995). The appeal aud difficulw ofparticipative systems. Organization Science, 6(6), 603-627. McHugh, M. & Brennan, 5. (1994). Managing ttae seress ofchange in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 7, 29-41. Meyer, JR, Irving, P.G., & Men, N.J. (1998). Examination of ahe combined effects ofwork values and early worlt experiences on organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 29-5 2. Meyer, Jr., Stanley, D.J,, Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis ofantecedents, correlates, and con sequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52. Meyer, 7W. & Bowan, B. (1983). The structure of educational organizations. In 7W. Meyer & W.R. Scott, editors. Organizational Environments: Ritual aud Radonality. Beverly Hilis, CA: Sage. Meyerson, DE. & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: an integration of three different views. Journal ofManagement Studies, 24, 623-647. Michel, A., Stegrnaier, R, & Sonntag, IC (2010). I scratch your back-you scratch mine. Do proce dural justice and organizational identification matter for employees' cooperation during change? Journal of Change Managemene, 10, 41-59. Miner, AS., Bassoff P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation aud learning: a field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 304-337. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, 5. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal ofVocational )3ehavior, 14, 224-247. Neubert, M.J. & Cady, S.H. (2001). Program commitment: a multi-study longimdinaf field investi gation of its impact aud aneecedents. Personnel Psychology, 52, 421-448. Neumann, J.E. (1989). Why people don't participate in organizational change, In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore, edieors. Research in Orgauizational Change and Development, 3: 181-212. Greenwich, CT: JAl Press. O'ReiIly, CA. & Chatman, JA. (1986). Drganizational commitment aud psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. Oreg, 5. (2003). Resistance to change: developiug all individual difference measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680-693. Pache, A.-C. & Santtos, P. (2010). When worlds collide: the internal dynarnics of organizational responses to conffictiug institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455-476. Pettigrew, A.M. (1987). Contextaud actionin the transformation ofthe firm. Journal ofManagement Studies, 24(6), 649-670. 310 Change Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, Kl. (2006). Hard Pacts, Dangerous Half'Truths and Absolute Nonsense: Profiting from Bvidence Based Manageinent, Boston, Mik: Harvard Business School Press. Piderit, 5K. (2000). Rethinlring resistance and recogoizing ambivalence: a multidimensjonal view of attitudes toward organizarional change. Academy of Managemerit Revie~ 25(4), 783-794. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzje, S.B., Paiue, 7.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizatjonal citizenship behaviors: a critjcai review of the theoretical aud empirical literature aud suggestions for fhture research, Journai ofManagement, 26(3), 523-563. Randall, D.M., Pedor, D.B., & Longnecker, C.O. (1990). The behaviora) expression oforganizational commitment. Journal ofVocadonal Behavior, 36, 210-224. Reichers, AB. (1985). Areview and reconcepwalizatjon of organizationaj comniitment. Academy of Managernent Review, 10, 465-476. Sagie, A. & ICoslowsky, M. (1994). Organizatjonal attitudes and behaviors as a function of participafion iii strategic aud tactjcai change decisions: an application of path-goal theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 37-47. Schein, B.H. (1992). Õganizational Cukure and Leadership. San Prancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schweiger, D. & DeNisi, A. (1991). Coinmwfications with employees following a merger: a longitudinal field experinaeat. Academy of Mauagement Journal, 34, 110-135. Selart, M. & Schei, V. (2011). Organizational culrn-e. In M.A. Runco & S.R. Pritzker, editors. Bncyclopecija of Creativity, 2x~ edition, volurue 2. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Shalley, C.B. & Gilson, L.L. (2004). What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual fhctors that can foster or hinder creativi~ Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33-53. Shaliey, C.B., Gilson, L.L., & Blum, T.C. (2009). Intencrjye effects ofgrowth need strengths, work context, and job complexity on self.reported creative performance. Acaderny ofManagement Journal, 52, 489-5 05. Shapira, Z. & Griffith, T.L. (1990). Comparing worlç values of engineers wiffi managers, production and clerical worlcers: a multivariate anatysis. Jourual of Organizatjonaj Behavior, 11, 281-292. Shweta & Jha, 5. (2009). Determjnants of organizadonal citizenship behavior: a review ofliterature. Journal ofManagement aud Public Policy, 1(1), 33~-42. Sims, Hr., Paraj, & Yun, 5. (2009). When should a leader be directive or empoweriug? How to develop your own situationaf theory ofleadership. )3usiness Horizons, 52, 149-158. Snaeenlç, S.G.A., Eisinga, R.N., Teelken, J.C., & Doorewaards, J.A.C.M. (2006). The effeces of HRM practices on organizationaj commjtment among university employees. International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 17(12), 2035-2054. Srivastava, A., Bartol, KM., & Locke, BA. (2006). Empowering leadership in manageinent teams: effecas on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance, Academy ofManagement Journal, 49, 1239-125 1. Stensalcer, I, Palkenberg, J., & Grønhaug, IC. (2008). Implementadon activities and organizational sensemnlcirig. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 44(2), 162-185. Sverke, M., Haligren, J., Nllswall, IC, Göransson, 5., & Öhrrning, J. (2008). Employee participation in organizatjonal change: investigatiug the effects of proactive vs. reacdve implementation of downsizing in Swedisli hospitals. Zeitschrjft Ihr personaJforsclmu,j~g 22(2), 111-129. Taugirula, 5. & Ramanujam, fl. (2008). Baploring nonlinearity in employee voice: the effects of personal control aud organizatjonaj identificarion. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1189-1203. Trevor~ CO. & Nyberg, A.J. (2008). Keeping your héadcouut when all about you are losing theirs: downsiziug, voluntary turnover rates, and the moderatitig roles of HR practices. Academy of Managernent Journal, 51, 259-276. Tushmau, M. & Romaneui, E. (1985). Organjzationaj evolution: a rnetarnorphosis model of convergence aud reorientation, In L.L. Cumrnings & B.M. Staw, editors. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171-222. Ulrich, D. & Barney, J.B, (1984). Perspectives in organizations: resource dependency, efllciency, aud population, Acaderny of Management Revie~ 9(3), 471-481. Panicipation and Organizational Commitment during Change 311 Van Dan; K., Oreg, 3., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to organizational change: the role off Ieader-mernber exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 313-334. Van Dyne, L. & LePine, JA. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: evidence off construca and predictive vaiidity. Academy off Management Journal, 41, 108-119. Van ICnippenberg, 13., Martin, L., & Tyler, T. (2006). Process-orientation versus outcome-orientation during organizational change: the role off organizational identification. Journal off Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 685-704. Vazquez, X.H. (2004). Allocating decision rights on the shop floor: a perspective ffrom transaction cost econotnics and organization aheory. Organization Science, 15(4), 463-480. Vecchio, R.P., Justin, 1.13., & Pearce, C.L. (2010). Empowering leadership: an examination off mcdi ating mechanisms within a hicrarchical struceure. The Lcadership Quarterly, 21, 530-542. Wagner, JA. III & Gooding, RZ. (1987). Shared influence aud organizational behavior: a meta analysis off situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy off Management Jonrnal, 30(3), 524-541. Wanberg, Cii. & Banas, J.T. (2000). Predictors aud outcomes off openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal offApplied Psychology, 85, 132-142. Warr, P. (2008). Work values: some demographic and cultural correlates. Joumal off Occupational and Organirational Psychology, 81, 751-775. West, M.A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Sbipton, 13. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: successffilly managing change through developing innovative teams. European Journal off Work and Organizational Fsychology, 13, 269-299. Wright, TA. & Bonnett, D.G. (2002). The moderating effffects off employee tenure on dit relationship between organizational commitment and job perfformance: a meta-analysis. Journai off Applied Psychology, 87, 1183-1190. Yuld, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zhang, X. & Bartol, 1CM. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence off psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Kcaderny off Management Journal, 53, 107-128. Zhou, J. & George, J.M. (2001). When job dissatis&ction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression off voice. Academy off Management Journal, 44, 682-696.