organization behavior literature review

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review

Khai wah khaw.

1 School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Gelugor Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Alhamzah Alnoor

2 Management Technical College, Southern Technical University, Basrah, Iraq

Hadi AL-Abrrow

3 Department of Business Administration, College of Administration and Economic, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq

Victor Tiberius

4 Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Yuvaraj Ganesan

5 Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11700 Gelugor Penang, Malaysia

Nadia A. Atshan

Associated data.

The data of the paper, which support the analysis and results of this paper, are available with the corresponding author and the data can be obtained from the authors upon request.

Regardless of the prevalence and value of change initiatives in contemporary organizations, these often face resistance by employees. This resistance is the outcome of change recipients’ cognitive and behavioral reactions towards change. To better understand the causes and effects of reactions to change, a holistic view of prior research is needed. Accordingly, we provide a systematic literature review on this topic. We categorize extant research into four major and several subcategories: micro and macro reactions. We analyze the essential characteristics of the emerging field of change reactions along research issues and challenges, benefits of (even negative) reactions, managerial implications, and propose future research opportunities.

Introduction

During the past two decades, many studies have been conducted that have been interested in organizational change and the mechanisms that promote that process smoothly (Benford & Snow, 2000 ; Bouckenooghe, 2010 ; Caldwell et al., 2009 ; Pettigrew et al., 2001 ). Despite that wide interest in the process of organizational change, these studies reported negative results, as most of those efforts ended with an unsuccessful implementation of the process of organizational change and ultimately failure (Beer & Nohria, 2000 ; Meaney and Pung, 2008; Hussain et al., 2018 ). This is because the focus was on many secondary variables and ignored the most important factor of individual and organizational reactions towards organizational change in those studies (Oreg et al., 2011 ; Penava and Sˇehic, 2014). Herold et al., 2008 ; Holten and Brenner, 2015; Oreg & Berson, 2011 ; Alnoor et al., 2021 ).

A reaction towards a change is a cognitive and behavioral response based on an adaptation and a comprehensive understanding of how to react towards a change (AL-Abrrow et al., 2019b ; Peng et al, 2020 ). This largely depends on how managers introduce a change and on the extent to which others respond. Usually, a negative reaction towards change happens when it is expected to result into more workload, uncertainty, and fatigue, especially when change is rapid and spans the whole organization or large parts of it (Beare et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2017 ). Individuals’ reactions towards organizational change are expected to be dependent on the individual’s perception and assessment of the change effects on the individual. This suggests that a reaction towards a change is developed through the interactions between attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of an individual towards a change. A successful implementation of a change depends on how individuals interact with organizational change (Oreg et al, 2011 ; Shura et al., 2017 ). Participation in the change process is closely related with reactions towards a change. Practitioners are likely to be able to effectively diagnose and improve the willingness to change when they understand the need for change (Albrecht et al., 2020 ). Besides, people are more inclined to commit to a change if they perceive the change in alignment with their expectations and the resistance to change would be minimal (Helpap, 2016 ).

A positive reaction allows individuals to be more job focused and hence less resistance to change can be expected (Gardner et al., 1987 ). Similarly, a negative reaction towards change often generates a strong resistance to change. This happens if change is perceived as harming. Moreover, individuals’ resort to negative reactions when work relationships are threatened because of a change in a way that causes them to quit their job (Michela & Vena, 2012 ). However, some individuals are indecisive in their reactions towards a change, especially when future outcomes are unpredictable. This results into disruption and anxiety for both organizations and individuals, and thus reactions serve as the method aimed at dealing and engaging with change (Blom, 2018 ).

These considerations suggest that individuals react differently towards organizational change, depending on their respective perceptions. This invites a comprehensive study to understand the differences in reactions and to explain the main role that reactions play towards organizational change. Based on a systematic literature review, we provide a comprehensive framework that can help get an in-depth understanding of the reactions on organizational change. Earlier studies on precedents and consequences of change have been more concerned about reactions to organizational change (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Despite the need of organizational change, many change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000 ), mainly because of differences in individuals’ interactions in the change process (Oreg et al., 2011 ). Rafferty et al. ( 2013 ), developed a model to study individual level willingness to change. It was found that change based on interactions, homogeneous attitudes, and feelings are successful, and vice versa. Still, there is need to present a broader and more comprehensive theoretical framework based on earlier studies to better understand reactions towards change at different levels, i.e., micro and macro level. Although many researchers have contributed to conducting many studies to try to analyze the nature of cognitive and behavioral responses, for example, job satisfaction, individual performance, emotional intelligence, readiness for organizational creativity, and leadership abilities of all kinds (Malik and Masood, 2015; Malik and Masood, 2015). There are rare studies that dealt with reactions to organizational change at all levels, micro and macro (Khan et al., 2018 ). Thus, the number of studies that investigated reactions to change has increased, but the different types of study cases are still unknown to allocate the most critical determinants that contribute to positive and negative reactions to change. Hence, further investigation is needed. This systematic analysis seeks to provide useful insights into contexts of change reactions and to assist the authors in identifying current options and gaps in this type of study. Accordingly, our research meets the stated literary need. Our focus is to find how the subject of reactions towards change has been studied so far. The main goal is to provide a detailed methodological framework based on earlier studies, which explains the differences and trends in prior research. Additionally, we critically assess methodological issues and challenges found in previous research on reactions to organizational change, which can be overcome in future research. We plead for a changed perspective, which disentangles negative employee reactions to change from negative change outcomes. Rather, we argue that negative reactions can be interpreted as constructive criticism, which can improve the outcome process.

Methodology

To archive our research goal, we conducted a systematic literature review. We used ‘reactions to change’ as the main key word to search relevant articles in four databases. We considered only those articles written in English, which is considered to be the predominant scientific language. Only peer-reviewed articles and conference papers were included. The current study was accomplished according to the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses’ (PRISMA) criterions (Moher et al., 2015 ). For systematic reviews, PRISMA suggests that counting on a single database search for literature should be avoided; no single database is likely to contain all relevant references. Therefore, extensive searching is recommended (Berrang-Ford et al., 2015 ; Monroe et al., 2019 ).

In particular, we used four major databases to assemble the literature sample: IEE Xplore, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. These databases were selected based on their academic reliability and wider availability of relevant articles to discover the research gap and provide critical practical and theoretical implications (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ; Knobloch et al., 2011 ).

The selection process consisted of two phases of screening and filtration. First, duplicate articles found through matching of titles and abstracts were excluded. Second, articles were filtered after reading the entire article. This resulted in 79 articles (Fig.  1 ). Then, the main findings of the remaining articles were extracted and categorized.

Systematic review protocol

Results and discussion

A critical overview of the change reactions literature.

Previous studies of organizational change attempted to reach an increase in organizational effectiveness by focusing on organizational change and how change is implemented (Oreg & Berson, 2011 ; Oreg et al., 2011 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005 ; Vakola et al., 2013 ; Van Dick et al., 2018 ; Walk & Handy, 2018 ; Whelan-Barry et al., 2003 ). The basic logic of such studies is based on the main assumption the positive or negative organizational consequences depend primarily on the extent to which individuals accept organizational change and their reactions to that change. Such a hypothesis is supported by many recent studies (Alfes et al., 2019 ; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Beare et al., 2020 ). Through the growing interest in researching the reactions of individuals towards organizational change. For example, the role of individuals’ reactions and how they interact with organizational change was examined within a time frame that spanned six decades from the end of the forties to 2022. A model was built on the basis of this research showing the relationship between the three main axes in the change process represented by the precedents of individuals’ reactions to change and responses to Their public actions and the consequences of that change (Oreg et al., 2011 ).

The vast majority of the total 79 studies relied on the longitudinal design in the research, and the other studies varied, including in adopting the type of design from transverse design to experimental studies, and 90% of those studies relied on data collection on self-reports of the study variables. Three main axes were discussed in terms of their relationship to the process of organizational change and the potential resistance that individuals come up with towards that change. Such three axes were represented by the cognitive axis, which is analyzed based on how individuals think about organizational change. The emotional axis by understanding and measuring the positive or negative feelings of individuals toward organizational change. The behavioral axis through which the extent to which the individual accepts or rejects organizational change appears (Bhatti et al., 2020 ; Constantino et al., 2021 ; Kashefi et al., 2012 ).

In recent years, factors such as the extent to which individuals accept organizational change and reactions to organizational change were the basic logic of previous studies that grew interested in researching the reactions of individuals towards organizational change (i.e., Roczniewska, & Higgins, 2019 ; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Du et al., 2020 ; Peng et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2021 ). Prior studies have been focused on topics such as the psychodynamic explication of emotion, perception, behavior, and learning (Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ; Reiss et al., 2019 ; Tang & Gao, 2012 ; Al-Abrrow et al., 2019a ; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ), the behavior of leadership (Fugate, 2012 ; Matthew, 2009 ; Alnoor et al., 2020 ), the focus of attention (Gardner et al., 1987 ), internal communication (Men & Stacks, 2014 ; Li et al., 2021 ), individual attitudes (Akhtar et al., 2016 ; Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Liu & Zhang, 2019 ; McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ; Sanchez de Miguel et al., 2015 ), openness to change (Straatmann et al., 2016 ), and information systems (Bala & Venkatesh, 2017 ; Beare et al., 2020 ; Thirumaran et al., 2013 ). Figure  2 simplifies the determinants of reactions to change explored and investigated by the previous literature.

Determinants of reactions to change

Taxonomy of reactions to organizational change

The remaining 79 articles were divided into four categories (Fig.  3 ) regarding the level of reactions towards change i.e., micro and macro level. There were 39 articles relating to micro reactions to change and 40 articles on macro reactions. Hence, these major categories were linked to their corresponding subcategories as shown in Fig.  3 , depending on the frequency of relevance to ‘reactions to change’.

Taxonomy of reactions to change

Micro-level reactions

Antecedents of micro-level reactions.

In this category, the research articles discuss aspects the antecedents of individuals’ reactions to organizational change. The subcategory contains major topics where reactions to organizational change was adopted with regards to (1) Emotional, cognitive, and behavioral therapy, (2) Communication between employees, (3) Leadership style, (4) Individual attitude, (5) Openness to change, and (6) Information systems.

Cognitive behavioral therapy

At the individual level, aims to help human resource to relieve emotional stress and reduce the need for associated dysfunctional coping behaviors. Hence, this set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change with psychodynamic perspective and include 19 studies. Four studies (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ; Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ; Reiss et al., 2019 ; Tang & Gao, 2012 ) discuss emotional and motivational responses to organizational change and strategies to overcome these emotional and motivational challenges. The other nine studies discuss perceptions about organizational change. Beside this, to present a systematic analysis of positive psychology, one of the studies emphasized the relationship between perceptions about organizational support and resistance to change (Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu, 2015 ; Al-Abrrow et al., 2019a ; Abbas et al., 2021b ). According to Albrecht et al. ( 2020 ) and Hatjidis and Parker ( 2017 ) change engagement influences employees’ perceptions of organizational change. Thus, employees’ cognitive and behavioral reactions influence their perceptions of organizational change (Borges & Quintas, 2020 ). Endrejat et al. ( 2020 ) and Helpap ( 2016 ) argue that organizational communication reinforces employees’ positive perceptions of organizational change and affects their psychological mechanisms. Contrary to this, a negative awareness about organizational change causes psychological withdrawal or distancing from organization (Michela & Vena, 2012 ). Belschak et al. ( 2020 ) found that the Machiavellianism leads to negative perceptions and negative reactions to change. Organizational efforts to induce change are much consistent when employees are more concerned with change target (Gardner et al., 1987 ; Hadi et al., 2018 ). Six studies discuss two aspects of personality and health regarding employees’ reactions towards change. We found two articles, which describe that organizational justice and culture significantly influence employees’ personality. Additionally, job satisfaction, once change occurs, is critical to personality development (Bailey & Raelin, 2015 ; Caldwell & Liu, 2011 ). The remaining four articles encompass employees’ health related concern in relation to organizational change in health sector (Abbas et al., 2020 ; Fournier et al., 2021 ). It was found that organizational change is perceived as causing fear of job insecurity and health and safety issues among doctors, which resulted into less job satisfaction and reduced level of motivation (Størseth, 2006 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ; Al-Abrrow et al., 2021 ).

Communication between employees

Communication between employees originated from the concept of organizational transparency. Communication provides positive and negative information to employees in a timely manner. Furthermore, communication between employees enhances the organizational capacity of employees and holds organizations accountable for practices and policies (Li et al., 2021 ). Communication between employees includes transparency, accountability, participation, and informatics (Men & Stacks, 2014 ). The change can be planned or unplanned. Planned change is the discovery of problems that need improvement in a proactive manner. Unplanned change is imposed by external forces. Therefore, organizations must react flexibly and quickly to survive (Seeger et al., 2005 ; Alnoor et al., 2020 ). However, the lack of communication between employees creates barriers and threats to organizations towards increasing negative reactions to change. Planned and unplanned changes increase people's confusion and uncertainty. Therefore, employees' understanding of changes through communication between them is critical to the success of change (Gillet et al., 2013 ).

Leadership style

Leadership contributes 71% of the success of change amongst employees. Therefore, leadership and leadership traits were critical factors for change reactions for employees (Fugate, 2012 ). The openness of the leader increases the positive reactions to change. However, the resistance of the leader stimulates negative reactions to change from the employees (Matthew, 2009 ). Relationships with employees by leaders are critical determinants of successful change leadership (Alnoor et al., 2020 ). Leadership style affects employees in different ways, such as credibility and trust are important drivers of change for leaders to certify employee interests are considered. The literature confirms the leader-member exchange theory increases the negative reactions of employees to the change linked with corporate merger (Fugate, 2012 ). On the other hand, creative leadership and transformational leadership inspire employees and increase positive employee reactions. Change leaders are creative and transformative leaders (Matthew, 2009 ). In addition, practical leadership reduces employee resistance to change and increases individual interest in implementing change (Herold et al., 2008 ; Khaw et al., 2021 ).

Individual attitude

This set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change in relation to different individual attitude and included eight studies. Two studies discuss gender attitude, especially the reactions of female employees towards organizational change (Sanchez de Miguel et al., 2015 ). Similarly, employees differ in their attitude of reactions to organizational change depending on their age. Additionally, cultural and attitude differences cause numerous employee reactions towards organizational change (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ). Three studies discussed the influence of employees’ respective experiences on their attitude of reactions towards organizational change. These studies assert that employees’ previous experiences are important to influence employees’ reactions to organizational change (Alas, 2007 ). A frequent exposure to organizational change causes change fatigue and cynicism and accordingly produce employees’ reactions to organizational change (Stensaker & Meyer, 2012 ). Thus, there is a relationship between the frequency of change and the reactions to change represented by exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, the attitude of employees’ reactions towards organizational change in the public sector differs from the private sector in many ways, because the various processes of logistics and implementation. Therefore, the reactions of employees in the public sector are different compared to those in private sector. For this, the attitude of employees’ reactions in South African prisons to transformative changes in leadership were studied (Mdletye et al., 2013 ). In a policing context, 23 interviews were conducted, and it was concluded that the employees’ feedback began with three foci (me, colleagues, and organization) to assess change (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). Moreover, a relationship between employees’ attitude in public service and their commitment to change was found (Liu & Zhang, 2019 ).

Openness to change

Four studies discussed employees’ openness to change in change and suggested that employability is related to positive emotions and higher level of employees’ openness to change in organizational changes (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008 ). Employees’ (dis) openness to change influences their emotional responses to organizational change (Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). It was found that the size and age of a company as well as employees’ expectations boost employees’ openness to change for the successful implementation of change (Lines et al., 2015 ). It is common that employees react whenever a new system is introduced. Yan and Jacobs ( 2008 ) studied employees’ trust and openness to change in relation to organizational change under the lean enterprise system. Two studies discuss diagnostic assessments, which are important during change implementation to deal with employees’ reactions to organizational change (Straatmann et al., 2016 ). Hence, creating interpersonal consensus promotes positive perceptions of change (Dickson & Simmons, 1970 ).

Information systems

This set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change in form of Information systems adoption and included six studies. For example, employees’ cognitive evaluation in reaction to Information systems implementation initiatives was discussed, which provided a deeper understanding of employees' feelings and perceptions of change (Kashefi et al., 2012 ). The authors claimed that a system can be designed to measure the feelings of individuals and customers towards the change implementation (Thirumaran et al., 2013 ). In another study, individuals' reactions to changes within supply chains were measured through the implementation of interorganizational business process standards (Bala & Venkatesh, 2017 ). Moreover, another study presented reactions of employees to digitally enabled work events and how digital technology affects employees ‘emotions (Beare et al., 2020 ). Lilly and Durr ( 2012 ), discussed the effect of implementing new technology on increasing the anxiety and stress among employees. Similarly, employees’ reactions towards technological change implemented in a bank were analyzed (Vakola, 2016 ).

Outcomes of micro-level reactions to organizational change

The change reaction leads to many outcomes and at different organizational levels. The range of literature examining employees' reaction to change is wide. Furthermore, the results of the literature review identified four vital categories: Voice behavior, exit behavior, neglect behavior, and loyalty behavior.

Individual voice behavior

Voice behavior is a type of organizational citizenship behavior differs from altruism, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship because such behavior is costly (Chou & Barron, 2016 ). Voice behavior is discussing problems with the administrator or staff, suggesting solutions, solve problems, and whistleblowing (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). There is a high perceived risk of employee voice behavior. Nevertheless, organizations invest in voice behavior to make efficient management decisions and solve problems (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). The change literature has shown one of the consequences of change reactions is the voice behavior (Abdullah et al., 2021 ; Barner, 2008 ; Svendsen & Joensson, 2016 ). According to Ng and Feldman ( 2012 ) the higher employee voice behavior increases creativity, performance, exploration, and exploitation of ideas. Therefore, the voice behavior reduces anxiety and fatigue of individual toward organizational change. Previous literature has demonstrated voice behavior due to change increases employee turnover (Bala & Venkatesh, 2017 ). Individual voice behavior leads to undesirable results. In this context, change affects the social exchange and social relations between employees. Hence, organizational change reduces the quality of social exchange. Employees feel unappreciated and involved, which increases resistance to change (Zellars & Tepper, 2003 ). From a psychological perspective, the reaction to change is crucial for employees to express their opinions (Bhatti et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the voice behavior should be considered as a positive behavior that solves problems rather than identifying them (Whiting et al., 2012 ).

Individual exit behavior

Exit behavior is transferring, thinking about quitting, searching for a different job, and sabotage (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). Most of the literature on reactions to change confirmed the main reason for employees to exit work is change (Akhtar et al., 2016 ; Bryant, 2006 ; Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2018 ). However, there are two types of exit behavior, vertical and horizontal. Vertical mobility is moving upwards in the same organization. Horizontal mobility is the employee’s turnover of the organization (Davis & Luthans, 1988 ). Many firms view employee turnover negatively. The literature confirmed the employee turnover can be positive because it renews blood and increases the recruitment of skilled human resources (Elfenbein & Knott, 2015 ). Negative change reactions cause an increase in employee turnover. In this context, many human resources are transferred to other organizations. Such human resources bringing with them competitive advantages that increase innovation and creativity (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). Therefore, the literature confirms organizational inertia reduces organizational development. Hence, turnover allows work to correct organizational errors and provides further improvement for tasks (Piderit, 2000 ). Horizontal mobility due to change reduces organizational loyalty of employees caused by increased desire to search for new work (Carnall, 1986 ). In conclusion the reactions to organizational change contribute to the withdrawal of employees from the organization. However, employee turnover may promote to superior performance.

Individual neglect behavior

The literature indicates that one of the outcomes of micro-level reactions to organizational change is neglectful behavior (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Employees who experience negative reactions to change contribute less organizational effort (Vantilborgh, 2015 ). Hence, individual neglect behavior is chronic lateness, reduced interest, increased error rate, and using firm time for personal business (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). The change increases uncertainty due to several employees loses their jobs and positions. In this context, many employees underestimate the seriousness of their work (Svendsen & Joensson, 2016 ). Previous studies on organizational change have argued employees' reactions to change are a decisive factor in reducing efforts, decreasing work quality, and increasing absenteeism (Chou & Barron, 2016 ; Withey & Cooper, 1989 ). Therefore, negative reactions to change are negatively related to the time spent by the employee and the efforts made at work (Alnoor et al., 2022 ; McLarty et al., 2021 ).

Individual loyalty behavior

Loyalty behavior is waiting and hoping for improvement, giving support to the organization, being a good soldier, and trusting the organization to do the right thing (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). Organizational change that maintains working relationships and psychological contracts with employees is likely to increase the strength of individuals’ loyalty due to the rule of reciprocity (Davis & Luthans, 1988 ). Individual realization that organizational change fulfills organizational commitment to individuals, strengthens the relationship amongst the organization and the individual (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ). Negative employee reactions to change reduce individual loyalty (Constantino et al., 2021 ). Individual loyalty is the employee's readiness to maintain affiliation in the organization by giving attention to the goals and values of the organization (Aljayi et al., 2016 ). Individual loyalty receives outstanding consideration in the change literature because individual reactions to change can be a fundamental determinant of individual loyalty to the organization (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Hence, job satisfaction and a positive reaction to change increase the emotional and mental connection of individuals to the organization (Milton et al., 2020 ).

Macro-level reactions

Antecedents of macro-level reactions.

This category included 40 research articles, which discuss macro-level related aspects of reactions towards organizational change. In this category, the research articles consider aspects the antecedents of macro-level reactions. Major topics are (1) Organizational emotional, cognitive, and behavioral, (2) Organizational communication, (3) Leadership style, (4) Organizational attitude, (5) Organizational openness to change, and (6) Organizational information systems.

Organizational emotional, cognitive, and behavioral

Organizational reactions towards organizational change are informed by emotional, cognitive, and behavioral therapy of strategic changes such as mergers and strategic alliance. Strategic mergers can influence stakeholders’ decisions, which may result into negative reactions towards such merger (Basinger & Peterson, 2008 ; Bowes, 1981 ). This negative reaction is expressed through heightened anxiety levels and reduced emotional attachment (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2010 ). Such a strategic change can lead to organizational exit (Schilling et al., 2012 ). Moreover, the effect of changes introduced by cross-border processes on organizational reactions was studied and it was found that there is an effect of dynamic cultures on organizational reactions towards change (Chung et al., 2014 ; Khaw et al., 2022 ).

Organizational communication

The second set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change regarding organizational communication. The lack of organizational communication caused organizational imbalances that negatively affected reactions towards organizational change in a way that tends to follow negative reactions such as an exit (Kruglanski et al., 2007 ). Weakness in organizational communication caused tension among employees and resulted into negative reactions towards change (Li et al., 2021 ). In this context, numerous environmental changes and crises have led to weak organizational communication during the change. For example, the recent Covid-19 pandemic that caused many barriers in organizational communication (Milton et al., 2020 ). Hence, when there is an abrupt change due to unexpected circumstances the organizational negative reactions would be increased towards change due to the lack of organizational communication (Fadhil et al., 2021 ).

Transformational leaders’ reactions are affected by organizational change in a way that enhances their readiness for change and motivates them for increased participation and performance to support change (Faupel, & Süß, 2019 ). It was also found transformational leaders and their reactions are significantly related to change. Transformational leaders are committed and willing to bring change and react in a way to defuse resistance to change (Peng, et al., 2020 ). Transformational leadership facilitates a successful implementation of a change (Islam et al., 2021 ; Thomson et al., 2016 ). There is an influence of transformational leaders in supporting the change processes which commensurate with their positive reactions towards change (Bayraktar & Jiménez, 2020 ). Transformational leaders play an important role in shaping positive reactions towards organizational change and supporting the changes process (Busari et al., 2019 ). On the other hand, the success of a change process depends on leaders’ competency in inducing change, and transactional leadership can provide such competency. Transactional leadership encourages critical thinking and participation to ensure success of a change process (Khan, et al., 2018 ). As transactional leadership is supportive to change, it is helpful to reduce resistance to change (Oreg & Berson, 2011 ). Therefore, managers use their authority to support organizational change (Tyler & De Cremer, 2005 ). Organizational confidence in managers is a critical factor that generates positive managerial reactions towards organizational change (Du et al., 2020 ; Harley et al., 2006 ). However, change may generate negative managerial reactions of non-acceptance of change (Huy et al., 2014 ). The magnitude of managers response and their reactions depends on the degree and intensity of a change (Bryant, 2006 ).

Organizational attitude

There is an agreement between leadership and organizational change such that organizational attitude is employed in a way that reflects positive reactions towards organizational change (Fugate, 2012 ). It was found that, acceptance or rejection of change depends on the existing organizational attitude and measures taken to implement change (Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ). Hence, organizational wellness is positively related to the ability to deal with change. Moreover, leaders provide insight about how change affects the organization’s procedures, and this may help to overcome resistance to change (Alfes et al., 2019 ). Although change is inevitable, individuals struggle with change when their vision is unclear, which causes turmoil and increased anxiety. Additionally, individuals find it difficult to engage in organizational change when the organizational policies develop feelings of fear among individuals, and this causes resistance to change (Blom, 2018 ). Firms’ responses to organizational change requires confidence and adaptation necessary to engage with change, and this depends on the self-evaluation and the extent of accept the changes. Therefore, leaders highlight the change and call for a commitment to it (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011 ; Rizzuto et al., 2014 ). Reactions towards change are dependent on firms' belief about change. Organizational actions and beliefs induce constructive change (Vakola et al., 2013 ).

Organizational openness to change

The literature found reactions pose a challenge for organization towards change when there is a lack of organizational openness to change. Therefore, employees have negative reactions towards change, while leaders have positive reactions that support the change process and help to get change accepted (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). Individual employees understand that change can create a complex situation, which can give rise to issues for employees, and they refute change. In contrast, leaders perceive change as beneficial to the organization and they support it. Leaders see change as one major requirement for the development of organization. Therefore, they encourage openness to change. Whereas individual employees are not opened to change because they perceive change will create organizational instability. Leaders encourage organizational activities, which facilitate change. In contrast, individuals express lower level of openness and acceptance to change (Rechter & Sverdlik, 2016 ). Leaders see the attainment of organizational and personal goal through change. Contrary to this, the lack of opened to accept change create incompatibility between the organizational goals and the change initiative (Roczniewska & Higgins, 2019 ). Explicit reactions to change can be interpreted in many ways, some of which involve the benefits of change, while others are related to the negative consequences of change (Oreg et al., 2011 ). Thus, employees do not show a stronger commitment to accept change, but leaders tend to understand a change (Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ).

Organizational information systems

Organizational information systems are a vital and significant resource for companies. Consequently, the huge development in information and communication systems led to taking proactive steps towards adopting innovative and modern technology (Hadid & Al-Sayed, 2021 ). The adoption of modern information systems has contributed to increasing organizational anxiety due to fear of change (Paterson & Cary, 2002 ). However, interest in new technology development by companies increases the potential for long-term downtime. Therefore, context conditions must be created to encourage organizational changes (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). Digital technologies have penetrated companies tremendously and rapidly. Rapid technological changes have transformed organizational work designs by increasing flexibility and empowerment (Beare et al., 2020 ). However, digital technologies have negatively affected the organization by not separating personal and work life (Chen & Karahanna, 2014 ). Digital technologies have created enormous social challenges through the constant bombardment of social media messages and emails (Vakola, 2016 ). Therefore, the working hours of employees have increased because they are sometimes obligated to respond. Furthermore, organizational information systems enhanced emotional reactions by increasing feelings of anger, unhappiness, and frustration (Andrade & Ariely, 2009 ).

In conclusion, the level-specific study offers an examination of the antecedents, associations, and implications of reactions to organizational change at the individual and organizational level. However, multilevel theories, methods, and analyses have gained popularity in recent years (Walk & Handy, 2018 ), and the reactions to organizational change have been studied in this manner. Several studies examine how reactions to organizational change operates across levels, while others use cross-level designs to examine how reactions to organizational change is concurrently influenced by variables at different levels. Exemplary studies for both kinds are discussed below and are arranged according to the main predictor variable (or variables) from the preceding categories.

Outcomes of macro-level reactions to organizational change

The change reaction indicates to various consequences at macro-level. Hence, the frequency of macro-level reactions to change, relating to the reaction typology suggested by Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ). Apart from voice, exit, loyalty, and neglect, we added social identity as the most frequently mentioned reaction type at the macro level.

Organizational voice

A positive organizational change results into a voice behavior where employees accept organizational change (Barner, 2008 ). However, change is without organizational support led in negative voice behavior such as employees’ resistance (Peachey & Bruening, 2012 ). Directing organizations has the enormous leadership task of listening to the voices of managers and employees about strategies for change (O'Neill & Lenn, 1995 ). The literature indicates responses to change, such as organizational voice behavior, leave managers stuck between fear of the future and respect for the past (Stylianou et al., 2019 ). Organizational voice behavior affects the professional and personal lives of managers and employees. Consequently, the practice of organizational changes causes the loss of many jobs, which is reflected on the feelings of managers and employees and causes ridicule, anger, anxiety, resentment, and organizational surrender (O'Neill & Lenn, 1995 ). Organizational voices due to change exacerbate organizational problems because of constant blaming of the chief executive officer. Organizational concerns are heightened by the difficulty of expressing opinions. In this context, organizational voices turn into sources of organizational mopping throughout the organization except perhaps the chief executive office (Barner, 2008 ). As a result, the negative reactions cause feelings of organizational anger and anxiety by increasing the difficulty of articulate the organizational voice.

Organizational exit

The literature shows negative reactions to change increase workplace bullying (Barner, 2008 ; Peachey & Bruening, 2012 ). Thus, reactions to organizational procedures encourage behavioral responses to organizational exit (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Negative responses to organizational change are likely to be stronger in the exit behavior comparative with voice behavior (Balabanova et al., 2019 ). Because exit behavior is an assertive reaction that is associated with change and is not bound by organizational conditions (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). Hence, exit behavior is risky because such behavior increases organizational disruption and stimulates harmful work behavior (Ng et al., 2014 ). Unexpected change leads to the organization's exit from the entrepreneurial work. In this context, organizations leave the entrepreneurial profession. Exiting creative and entrepreneurial businesses affects the company and the economy in general (Shahid and Kundi, 2021b ). Negative reactions to change reduces motivation and self-efficacy, which increases organizational fatigue, impedes the implementation of organizational tasks, and causes exit (Surdu et al., 2018 ).

Organizational loyalty

Panchal and Catwright ( 2001 ) argued that organizational change is a complex process that makes it difficult for employees to accept such a process. Because routine work and many tasks affect change. Employees are significantly affected by frequent organizational change and are reflected in the practice of exit and neglect behaviors and low level of loyalty (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Adopting successful organizational change increases positive reactions. However, most of the change literature confirms numerous change programs erupt and increase the negative reactions that occur through the practice of neglectful behaviors and lack of organizational loyalty (Bartunek et al., 2006 ). Organizational change increases stress, decreases commitment, and decreases loyalty. Frequent and ineffective changes produce negative responses and cause a decrease in job security. Consequently, the organization will suffer from low loyalty (Guzzo et al., 1994 ). Organizational loyalty decreases due to frequent changes lead to employees rethinking that continuing in this organization is not beneficial (Reiss et al., 2019 ). Such changes create uncertainty and cause organizational mopping (Constantino et al., 2021 ). Organizational change is a critical cause of low loyalty because inefficient changes increase negative organizational perceptions regarding social atmosphere, perceived promise, job content, and rewards (Van der Smissen et al., 2013 ). Therefore, increased negative reactions to change due to frequent and ineffective changes raises organizational perceptions of low loyalty and decreases organizational loyalty.

Organizational neglect

Hirschman ( 1970 ) proposed the employees' enactment of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model and was expanded by (Farrell, 1983 ; Rusbult et al., 1988 ). The employees' enactment of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model refer the decline of the organization creates many negative reactions that increase the deterioration in performance and reduce efficiency and learning, involving exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Reactions contributes to identifying failures and correcting tracks. Therefore, adverse behaviors assist the organization to deal with unfavorable situations, because the behavior of neglect and tardiness for work represents a communication strategy for the members of the organization (Meyers, 2020 ). Organizational neglect represents dishonorable behavior and organizational leniency. Organizational neglect behaviors include reduced attention and delay, reduced effort, increased absenteeism, increased error rates, and concern for personal issues at work (Lee & Varon, 2020 ). Unsuccessful organizational change is a major source of social loafing. Social loafing is the tendency of people to neglect work (Murphy et al., 2003 ). Thus, the reactions of employees at the organizational level contribute to reducing performance and increasing organizational failure (Abbas et al., 2021a ; Akhtar et al., 2016 ).

Social identity

A fantastic reaction is generated by the members of the organization to protect and prove the social identity of the organization. Therefore, managing stability is as important as managing change in the context of social identity (Dutton et al., 1994 ). Organizational change affects some basic features of employees’ social identity, which leads to an imbalance in reactions towards change and causes uncertainty among individuals (Jacobs et al., 2008 ). The intense reactions of the members of the organization highlight the importance of organizational identity. Social identity is useful to understand and analyze reactions to deal positively with organizational change. For example, a weak social identity may lead to a negative reaction towards organizational change, such as disloyalty. Flexible social identity helps to give a quick response to organizational change and facilitates an anticipation of reactions towards change (Aggerholm, 2014 ). The success of organizational change and positive reaction is linked to the recognition of organizational identity based on the intention to remain in the organization and job satisfaction. Developing social identity in change programs reduces negative reactions to change (Clark et al., 2010 ). Łupina-Wegener et al. ( 2015 ) argued shared identity positively influences employees' perceptions of accepting change. Because the shared identity stimulates the transfer of organizational practices between units and departments after the post-change. Therefore, the organization must give employees a sense of continuity for the organization's bright future to practice transferring positive behaviors after implementing change programs (Jacobs et al., 2008 ).

Research issues and challenges

Previous research on reactions to organizational change is subject to several methodological issues and challenges. In the following, we asses methodological issues relating to research design, sector, country, research sample, techniques, and variables (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Compared to a multitude of other management subjects, research on reactions to organizational change shows both its strengths and limitations. Furthermore, it seems that similar problems are relevant at different levels of analysis. To a certain extent, a reaction to organizational change literature advances systematically, while other subject areas have not progressed as much.

Issues and challenges of research on reactions to organizational change

Reactions to organizational change as a multidimensional construct

Evidence has collected that a five-factor multi-indicator CFA model fits Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ) and Van Dick et al. ( 2018 ) reactions to organizational change measure at the individual levels of analysis (e.g., Exit, neglect, loyalty, voice, and social identity). Using first-order CFA, Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ) found an “modest fit” with one sample. Elsewhere, both Bryant ( 2006 ) and Šedžiuvienė and Vveinhardt ( 2018 ) found satisfactory fit for a two-factor (i.e., Exit and voice) latent model. Divergent validity of the five-dimensional reactions to organizational change scale was shown by Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ) who discovered that it was different from a single order factor. It should be noted that in addition to obtaining evidence supporting the discriminant validity of the reactions to organizational change dimensions from negative affectivity, job satisfaction, and psychological climate Van Dick et al. ( 2018 ) examined the relationships between social identity and voice behavior. Researcher Aggerholm ( 2014 ) was able to show the discriminant and convergent validity of reactions to organizational change, namely, the capacity to increase organizational misbehavior, working relationship with a supervisor, decrease trust in one's supervisor, and work performance, with unrespect to work engagement and job satisfaction.

There has been relatively little team-level CFA work done as compared to work done at the individual level. It should be clear that this fact comes from the truth that it is very difficult to sample enough teams to do studies for this kind of analyses. Although CFA models have been applied to the Walk and Handy ( 2018 ) individual and organizational outcomes but without respect multilevel model. This produces a discontinuity between the amount of investigation and the amount of theory used (Maynard et al., 2012 ). While we believe this is a promising approach, we encourage researchers to use multilevel CFA methods when conducting analyses that seek to elucidate the construct validity of aggregate variables, with the goal of the study being the total number of teams in the focus population. Concurrently, there is no published research on whether two- and four-dimensional forms of reactions to organizational change provide equivalent criterion-related validity. Here, future studies could compare the two measures, determine whether there are important changes between the various versions, and investigate if the various conceptualizations maintain validity and stability through time and cultures by respecting the assessment of measurement model. In addition, we think that these problems offer valuable topics for future study. In this context, there was vital issue which is related to assessment of structural model. Moreover, there is no study combination of structural equation modeling and artificial neural network. Hence, they did not consider the two mains of benefits the combination of structural equation modeling and artificial neural network is that the use of multi-analytical two-phases SEM–ANN method tool up two vital benefits. First, it allows for further validation of the SEM analysis findings. Second, this approach captures not just linear but also dynamic nonlinear interactions between antecedents and dependent variables and a more accurate measure of each predictor's relative power as well. Furthermore, the potential future work can use SEM-ANN model to determine the reactions to organizational change by adopting multilevel model.

Mono-method issues

At the individual and team levels, most research done on reactions to organizational change consists of questionnaires asking workers about antecedents, correlates, and consequences of such reactions. Any common measurement or percept-percept biases will increase observed associations (Maynard et al., 2012 ). These biases are intensified if both variables are measured at the same time. Three percent of the individual-level research utilized a different source, whereas 97 percent used self-reported criteria measures. Individual-level reactions to organizational change are more likely to be biased by monothiol bias, resulting in inflated correlations, while team-level relationships are less likely to be distorted by monothiol bias. In keeping with this result, Mangundjaya et al. ( 2015 ) showed that task performance correlated more strongly with the reactions of individuals when responses were obtained through self-report measures than when responses were collected by other means. Reactions to organizational change have been operationalized in different ways throughout the literature at each level of study. Reactions to organizational change, as measured and studied at both the individual and team levels, are each shown in the literature as being in two-dimensional, four-dimensional, and aggregated forms. However, yet, there has been no study to account for the disparate measuring methods that may influence the correlations shown in studies like this. Therefore, we believe future studies should examine how measuring approaches influence such correlations.

Mediator and moderator inferences

As mentioned before and shown in Fig.  2 , reactions to organizational change are usually regarded as a mediator between the characteristics of people and environments and outcomes, regardless of the substantive level of study. The validity of mediational effects is contingent on a variety of variables, most notably the accuracy of the assumed causal chain connecting antecedents to reactions to organizational change and to outcomes (Chung et al., 2014 ; Li et al., 2021 ). As shown in the contribution section, 49% of individual-level studies and 16% of team-level studies used cross-sectional designs. The studies conducted so far have shown nothing in the way of causation or association between organizational change and reactions at the level of analysis. Additional work exploring how direct impacts are mediated and/or studying variables that may mitigate such direct effects appears to hold across different levels of analysis in which reactions to organizational change have been examined. Researchers to date have mostly examined things that serve as antecedents to reactions and results that are influenced by reactions to organizational change. According to the authors of the paper Walk and Handy ( 2018 ), job crafting acts as a mediator in explaining the connection between the perceived effect of change and people's reactions to organizational change. Hence, there are many additional possible mediators that have not yet been studied. In fact, the few research that investigate how specific connections within the reactions to organizational change influence other possible moderators are found at different levels of analysis. And thus, we believe that it is the appropriate moment for those interested in the influences that mediate and moderate reactions to organizational change to investigate many facets that are intricately intertwined in these responses.

Research design

Research design refers to a general strategy chosen to integrate various components of a study in a coherent and logical manner. It is always challenging to choose an appropriate research design because sometimes a chosen design does not align with the data. For example, a longitudinal design often used in qualitative studies can be time consuming due to nature of data (Bayraktar & Jiménez, 2020 ; Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Liu & Zhang, 2019 ). Similarly, the descriptive design may not generate the required results due to inability to control the tendencies of the individuals involved in data collection (Barner, 2008 ; Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ). Some of the studies that have been covered focus on cross-sectional or one-way design, but they are not generalizable because they may be biased (Vakola et al., 2013 ). In addition, future studies should use longitudinal designs that allow tracking of changes at organizational levels and aim to collect data from multiple sources (Barner, 2008 ; Chung et al., 2014 ; Fournier et al., 2021 ; Kashefi et al., 2012 ; Oreg et al., 2011 ), while other studies called to follow the method of interviews that extract information and provide insight into the nature of change processes in organizations (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). An improved understanding of the long-term consequences of organizational transformation might enhance the reactions to such studies. Gerwin ( 1999 ) proposed managers could empower teams throughout the life cycle, for example, while the teams are forming, maturing, and growing. According to Gerwin ( 1999 ), organizational change may take place as a cycle, and it is the role of reactions to these changes to push the cycle in one direction or another.

The sector refers to research site where the study is to be conducted and can be public or private organization as per the study requirements. Choosing a public sector as study site may be problematic for change related studies because public sector employees resist change and can generate biasness in responses (Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Kennedy-Clark, 2010 ; Santos Policarpo et al., 2018 ; Milton et al., 2020 ). Studies conducted in industrial organizations do not allow generalization of the results because these organizations require changes in terms of organizational structures, strategy, and operating procedures, but they are not on a large scale. Thus, results could not be generalized, and such studies should be conducted in other organizations (Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ). Studies in service sector (hotels, hospitals) give great importance to adopting actual change (Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ). As a result, it must be considered when generalizing to all other service organizations, as there may be fundamental differences between organizations. Future research should focus on other service sectors such as banking (Vakola, 2016 ). Regarding security issues, the effect of the organizational identity on the change processes of national security institutions has been verified, and the results of these studies cannot be generalized because the changes that are made may lead to imbalances with the organizational culture in other organizations (Belschak et al., 2020 ; Jacobs et al., 2008 ). In addition, researchers can focus on industrial companies such as technological industries, digital technologies, wired and wireless communication companies (Tang & Gao, 2012 ).

Countries differ from one another in many ways. Hence, the result of a study conducted in one country may not be generalized to other countries. Similarly, economic, social, and political restrictions among countries may reduce the possibility of generalization of research findings across countries (Fournier et al., 2021 ; Lines et al., 2015 ; Tang & Gao, 2012 ). Some studies focused on one country without considering the role of the social and political factors of other countries, Therefore, the results of these studies cannot be generalized to other countries (Kashefi et al., 2012 ; Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ). As a result, future studies are encouraged to use data from other countries to conduct comparative analyzes, which may allow generalization (Fournier et al., 2021 ; Straatmann et al., 2016 ). A study of Blom ( 2018 ) in manufacturing industries of South Africa, which included a sample of companies interconnected with the parent company, and thus studied the opinions of employees from other countries. As for studies conducted in developing countries, their results are not generalizable, as the behavioral responses in these countries differ from those in European countries (Busari et al., 2019 ; Li et al., 2021 ). Consequently, the country differs in many ways in terms of productive and social capabilities, and this may be a limitation in several countries (Huy et al., 2014 ; McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ).

Research sample

A sample represents a component of population chosen to provide the required data. There is problem when sample size is too small to generalize the result to larger population (Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2018 ; Yan & Jacobs, 2008 ). Similarly, a larger sample may provide the data which may not be relevant to the study objectives (Rizzuto et al., 2014 ; Stensaker & Meyer, 2012 ). Most of the studies discussed focused on collecting data from individuals working in different organizations. However, there is a strong tendency to conduct more studies that enable data collection in other contexts to highlight the roles of leaders and managers to participate in providing support for change processes (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ; Barner, 2008 ; Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). Moreover, the choice of the sample determines the fate of the study, whether it is possible to generalize or not. The larger sample size, the greater the possibility of generalization (Šedžiuvienė and Vveinhardt, 2018 ; Yan and Jacobs, 2008 ). Sample selection was problematic during the pandemic period because there were difficulties in collecting data and accessing responses (Li et al., 2021 ). In addition, some authors have dealt with specific groups in state-owned organizations, but such studies were hard to generalize as they need more verification and other opinions to prevent bias (Lines et al., 2015 ). More studies shed light on urging researchers to survey the opinions of users and beneficiaries at all organizational levels to reach the results. The researchers were also urged to take into consideration the age composition of the polarized sample before embarking on organizational change initiatives (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ).

Among the other challenges that some studies faces are the choice of statistical methods to analyze the data because the chosen methods may be not suitable for data and the results are less convincing (Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ; Chung et al., 2014 ). Many researchers have used exploratory studies, which are of great importance in drawing conclusions. However, previous studies focused on use such design in one context and limits the possibility of generalization (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Vakola et al., 2013 ). Researchers also used interviews for a specific number of employees, which caused biasness in reactions (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). Therefore, focusing on other methods such as observation to see the impact of reactions to change will provide motivational cases and ideas worth sharing (Kruglanski et al., 2007 ). Some studies used structural equation modeling, which revealed the suitability of this technique for experimental research (Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Gardner et al., 1987 ). Likewise, some studies used a questionnaire and performed analysis, such as multiple regression and content analysis, which is considered a qualitative method in analyzing data and interpreting its meaning and provides an opportunity for researchers to choose different issues (Alas, 2007 ; Busari et al., 2019 ; Chung et al., 2014 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ). Although these analyses have proven their worth in extracting results, it requires researchers to use deep statistical analysis to reach generalizable results (Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ; Huy et al., 2014 ). The researchers urged for future studies to use surveys and conduct comparative analysis between groups that would reduce time bias in the data (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ).

The selection of incorrect variables may generate the biased result, or the variables may not be able to sufficiently serve the purpose of study and researchers need to add more variable to get rich data (Albrecht et al., 2020 ; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005 ). Table ​ Table1. 1 . Explain the issues and challenges of reactions organizational change in this regard. One of the limitations that some studies faced is they did not examine the personal characteristics of individuals, such as the influence of traits and the role of personality in directing reactions, as individuals with a high degree of negative influence of traits tend to follow the opposite reactions, neglecting this aspect may cause bias (Huy et al., 2014 ). It was also noted the studies discussed focused on the pace of change and trust in management and still there is necessity to discuss other variables that are highly related to change such as organizational culture, employee communication, commitment, fairness, job characteristics, resistance to change, psychological context, individual incentives, and anxiety of change (Busari et al., 2019 ; Lines et al., 2015 ; Oreg et al., 2011 ). Given the behavioral aspect is very important in human studies, addressing the use of behavioral support for organizational performance contributes to improving the reaction to change processes (Fournier et al., 2021 ). Moreover, considering technological development and intense competition between current organizations, the use of management information system will reduce behavioral and organizational problems (Dickson & Simmons, 1970 ). Researchers called for attention to the problem of studying the planned organizational change on a large scale in a place where employees do not have a voice, and the opportunities for participation are limited and the resistance to change is extreme (Fugate, 2012 ; Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). As a result, the changing organizations face huge challenges and spend massive amounts of resources on training and developing their employees (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ).

Benefits of (Even Negative) reactions to organizational change

The purpose of this systematic review is to expand theory and the understanding on reactions to organizational change by incorporating ideas from several disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, complexity sciences, and institutional perspectives). Many studies on organizational change reactions have concentrated on the causes or outcomes of these reactions, with a specific focus on resistance and, therefore, rather negative outcomes. Organizational change is often a necessity caused by external threats, such as intense competition (Oreg et al., 2011 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ). To implement change, the cooperation of employees is required (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ; Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ; Peng et al., 2020 ). However, a mixture of psychological, social, emotional, and cultural dimensions in employees’ reactions can negatively interfere with the process of organizational change itself (Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ).

In this section, we attempt to change this perspective and, based on the findings in Sect. 3.1, formulate several propositions, which may enable organizations to overcome negative reactions and transform them into positive change outcomes. Basically, we argue that (1) negative reactions can be seen as a source of constructive criticism, (2) which can be used to improve the change process. Employees can be viewed as a critical authority in an organization, which might evoke new perspectives on the change process. The provided constructive criticism points to issues that require further attention by the organization. The antecedents, process, and outcomes of the change process are more thoroughly analyzed regarding possible weaknesses and strengths, which can improve the whole change process (Fournier et al., 2021 ; Straatmann et al., 2016 ). In particular, this encourages those in charge to address shortcomings and help facilitate change processes (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). It can also help increase communication between members of the organization during various stages of organizational change (Li et al., 2021 ). Listening to employees’ objections might reduce the complexity of change (Chung et al., 2014 ; Fugate, 2012 ; Reiss et al., 2019 ) and can motivate and empower them to contribute to the success of change processes (Casey et al., 1997 ; Kruglanski et al., 2007 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ).

Theoretical recommendation

The results of this review revealed several critical variables and factors that had been investigated in previous research on change responses. There are many challenges and benefits that academics should take into consideration. Hence, understanding the negative and positive effects of change reactions can be an essential key concept to the successful implementation of organizational change. The results of an extensive literature review show allowing human resources to participate and rush into change programs increases the likelihood of successful implementation of planned and unplanned change. The leadership style has a strong and significant role in adopting change. Theoretically, the literature has proven the transformational and transactional leadership style are vital leadership styles that raise positive reactions to organizational change (e.g., Bayraktar & Jiménez, 2020 ; Busari et al., 2019 ; Faupel, & Süß, 2019 ; Khan, et al., 2018 ; Oreg & Berson, 2011 ; Peng, et al., 2020 ; Thomson et al., 2016 ). The leadership aspect is of fantastic importance in the success of implementing change because the leader has ability to inspire employees towards increasing levels of motivation and deliver the message of change with the lowest level of negative reactions. Because leadership styles achieve mutual gain between individuals by giving individuals a sense of power to adjust or accept the changes that occur in the organization. This review expanded the communication's vision of change by identifying reactions in four integrated behaviors (i.e., Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect) that explain why individuals reject, resist, accept and embrace change.

Understanding reactions to change plays a critical role in enhancing individuals' cognitive, emotional experiences, and perceptions of changes. The results of this study shed light on the implementation of change during crises. The results prove epidemics and sudden consequences lead to lack of resources and loss of market share. There is huge benefit in adopting and responding to change programs amid crises, especially in the aftermath of unexpected crises, such as the COVID-19. Although crises add a significant burden to organizations in implementing change, it is necessary to face crises with a fantastic deal of courage, confidence, and communication to reduce exit reactions and disloyalty amongst employees. Supporting human resources and creating a work context with less organizational mopping leads to positive results and increases the success of organizational change adoption (Barner, 2008 ; Qin et al., 2019 ). Adopting organizational change is an emotional process based on individuals' feelings and perceptions of change. Organizational change causes high levels of anxiety and tension. Because the individual adversely interferes with aspects of organizational change in a manner that creates the feeling of anxiety increased and loss of identity. However, reactions to organizational change are varied and may be positive by increasing job satisfaction and granting of responsibility. In this context, the reactions toward change may be negative also by increasing the likelihood of unsuitability of change with the organizational work. Furthermore, academics and practitioners should be concerned with the sensory and emotional aspects of how individuals react to organizational change. Because the organizational changes that include providing importance to the emotions and feelings of staff as part of the change process can encourage employees to change the attitude towards change and cooperate with current events (Beare et al., 2020 ).

Organizational communication is important for understanding people's emotions and perceptions of change. Communication before and post organizational change provides people with suitable and timely information, creates a sense of delegation of responsibility for change, and mitigates negative responses to organizational change (e.g., Basinger & Peterson, 2008 ). Academics can use the results of this review to understand change reactions from an organizational and individual perspective and to highlight challenges and barriers to implementing change. Analyzing and examining organizational elements such as organizational communication and organizational attitudes provides solutions while implementing change. Additionally, sharing responsibilities and integrating roles between participants in the change increases the results achieved from adopting organizational change. This review confirms there is a dearth of investigation into the influence of psychological context factors such as individual incentives, change anxiety, and organizational mopping on post change results at the individual and organizational level. Studying reactions to organizational change at different organizational levels contributes to identifying differences and similarities to reactions at multiple organizational levels. In this context, using the results of this review by academics and practitioners contributes to reducing negative reactions and increases the chances of successful implementation of change programs.

Many studies highlight the importance of change efforts in contemporary organizations to address external threats. However, employees’, i.e., change recipients’, cognitive and behavioral responses to change often result in resistance. A comprehensive perspective of past research is required to have a clear understanding of the causes and consequences of responses to change. For this reason, we have conducted a systematic literature review on this subject. Much of what has been discovered before may be categorized into these four levels: micro and macro level responses. An in-depth analysis of the literature helped identify the antecedents, effects, benefits, challenges, and recommendations associated with reactions to organizational change.

Our findings have managerial implications. Based on the literature review, we derive recommendations for change agents to facilitate the issues experienced by researchers whilst studying reactions to organizational change. Insights from our literature review highlighted both positive and negative aspects of reactions towards change. Accordingly, we divided these studies into two groups discussing positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects highlight the importance of reactions in supporting change and broadening the view of the motives for change (Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ; Gardner et al., 1987 ; Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ). This increases employees’ participation and positively affects their perceptions of change (Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Straatmann et al., 2016 ; Paterson & Cary, 2002 ; Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ). In addition, there is a significant correlation between reactions, emotional commitment, self-respect, and optimism (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008 ; Liu & Zhang, 2019 ; Vakola, 2016 ), and this depends on administrative support to reduce the negative feelings towards change implementation. The stronger communication between individuals, the more it has a positive effect towards improving reactions to change (Tang & Gao, 2012 ). The leadership plays a big role in directing reactions by providing opportunities to participate in decision-making, build confidence, and give individuals compensation opportunities (Khan et al., 2018 ). Likewise, individuals’perception of change depends on their reactions and behaviors (Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ; Rechter & Sverdlik, 2016 ; Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). As the human being consists of a group of elements (emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical), when one of these elements is disrupted, it affects the other elements, which requires equal attention to these elements in order have a coherence and non-conflicting reactions (Blom, 2018 ).

Negative feelings towards change can occur due to increased fear of losing jobs and lower level of employees’ participation in change process (Barner, 2008 ; Rizzuto et al., 2014 ). When thinking about change, resistance is often the first thing that comes to mind (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). This is because individuals think of change as a shock that inversely affect them to think of negative consequences of change and hence, they resist change or develop an uncertainty about change processes (Størseth, 2006 ). There is also a perception that a poorly planned or poorly implemented change initiatives, in a way that does not consider the organizational or social conditions of individuals, increase stress levels (Blom, 2018 ). Likewise, changes frequently conflict with the organizational identity, which creates an unpleasant impression on individuals, and this leads to distort the intended purpose of the change and exposes the organizational identity to danger (Mdletye et al., 2013 ). It is imperative for practitioners and researchers to adopt broader, more accurate, and positive perspectives on how reactions affect organizational change (Belschak et al., 2020 ; McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ). In addition, some contradictory reactions lead to the deterioration of an organization (Fugate, 2012 ; Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu, 2015 ). This is because individuals have resistance to change and ridicule change, which generates internal conflict that negatively affects organization work processes (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Mdletye et al., 2013 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ). This happens because employees see change as a threat to their survival in organization (Huy et al., 2014 ; Paterson & Cary, 2002 ).

Our findings suggest steps aimed at addressing reactions should be initiated early on in a change process, to prevent negative attitudes from escalating into a desire to leave the organization. Organizations should also be aware that employees’ beliefs about ongoing change play an important role in shaping their work engagement and turnover intentions. Carefully monitoring and managing collective beliefs about a change during the full implementation phase—for instance, through employee participation and careful and timely communication. Therefore, help to avoid a loss in change momentum. Facilitating the change process and reducing the social and organizational costs of change.

This study also shows the theoretical contributions of previous studies by contributing to the development of the context of reactions towards organizational change at the individual, collective, and leadership levels, and using many of the above-mentioned scales at each level, which helps in accurately determining the impact at each level towards organizational change. This study, through its multi-level approach, attempted to cover as much as possible the reasons that may promote positive or negative reactions towards organizational change smoothly, which have not been extensively examined in previous studies. The results of the study found that the reactions towards organizational change within the cognitive and behavioral response were affected differently at each of the levels. For example, at the individual level by influencing the emotional side of working individuals, which affects their perceptions and thus their cognitive response to change and their behavior in terms of dealing with it (Hatjidis and Parker, 2020; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ), as both negative perception and the stimulation of negative emotions have A clear effect on the resistance reactions to organizational change in general (Belschak et al., 2020 ). The micro level, based on the criteria for strategic change, the pandemic, social identity, and vocal behavior, showed the negative effects of resistance reactions to organizational change resulting in most cases from negative perceptions and negative emotions towards change (Li et al., 2021 ; Milton et al., 2020 ; Van et al., 2018). The macro level by reviewing the types of leadership and the way each of them affects the reactions towards organizational change, as transformational leadership and transactions, as well as the response of managers, showed a prominent positive role in reducing the standing towards organizational change, promoting it and participating in it (Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Peng et al., 2020 ; Du et al., 2020 ). The macro levels depended on a set of important factors represented in education, human resources, explicit feedback, and self-evaluations. Organizational attitude is behind the disruption of positive and negative reactions based on individuals' perception of information in a positive or negative way, or rather in an optimistic or pessimistic manner (Roczniewska & Higgins, 2019 ). While the impact of human resources appears in the reactions towards organizational change, positively or negatively, depending on the system that has been adopted and the methods used to implement the change (Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ; Blom, 2018 ). The effect of explicit reactions appears depending on a rule from which individuals start in their behavior, which is the belief about change and a factor directing that behavior towards accepting change through the leader’s behavior as a role model to deal with change and clarifying the impact of change in the minds of individuals (Vakola et al., 2013 ). Finally, it seems that individuals' self-assessment about change is often based on the principle of maintaining the status quo and unwillingness to change, which shows resistance behavior (Rizzuto et al., 2014 ). Therefore, the study recommends in some variables for future research, which is the study of personality traits because there are some underlying factors of emotions and openness to change and other factors that may significantly affect reactions towards organizational change. It also recommends taking other types of leadership, for example, participatory leadership and knowing its impact in reactions.

The review also revealed research gaps to be addressed in future research. Regardless of the prevalence and value of reform initiatives in contemporary organizations, change initiatives often struggle to achieve desired goals. It has been argued employees are at the heart of the change initiative and major determinants of the degree to which any change will succeed. Despite many challenges, organizational change is relevant for firm survival and performance, which needs to be further investigated. Specific patterns can be drawn from different organization types where reactions towards organizational change have been studied. Further research gaps relate to the level of application, conceptual model, and sector. The literature made some recommendations to increase strategic performance as well as achieve marketing differentiation in addition to high customer satisfaction. This helps to reduce risks, respond to uncertainties and to achieve high flexibility under changing environmental conditions. These recommendations can address the challenges to organizational change and open more opportunities for future research. Because of the fierce competition, companies will continue to develop more sophisticated competitive advantages, and thus researchers must identify emerging trends and strategies of organizational change. Based on the research that is shown throughout this review, there is a wealth of work in different settings and at various levels of analysis that considers reactions to organizational change during the prior two decades.

The current study is not without some limitations like any other study. As the current study was limited to focusing on the leadership level on direct leadership instead of focusing on the leadership team, as the former appears as a representative of the interests of the organization and transfers its goals and defines tasks to working individuals, while the latter is concerned with clarifying the objectives and reasons behind the organizational change in a way that enhances acceptance of change and participation in it. by working individuals. In addition, when studying the variables that were adopted in the study and their impact on reactions to organizational change, that study did not control some of the variables that could have a very big role in explaining the nature of the results that were reached, which are individual differences and personal traits. Finally, the study neglects the cultural context, which often has a significant role in influencing the nature of the interrelationships between variables at the individual, collective, and leadership levels, and between the nature of reactions towards organizational change, which appears more clearly when the study sample is diverse in different countries able to reflect the nature of cultures change.

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia, Short Term Grant [Grant Number: 304/PMGT/6315513], for the Project entitled "The Efficiency of Variable Sampling Interval Scheme for the Multivariate Coefficient of Variation in Short Production Runs".

Data availability

Declarations.

All the procedures adopted by the study, involving human participants, were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants of the study.

All the authors of this paper declare existence of no mutual conflict of interests.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abbas A, Ekowati D, Suhariadi F. Individual psychological distance: A leadership task to assess and cope with invisible change. Journal of Management Development. 2021; 40 (3):168–189. doi: 10.1108/jmd-09-2020-0304. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abbas A, Saud M, Suhariadi F, Usman I, Ekowati D. Positive leadership psychology: Authentic and servant leadership in higher education in Pakistan. Current Psychology. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01051-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abbas, S., Hadi, A. A., Abdullah, H. O., Alnoor, A., Khattak, Z. Z., & Khaw, K. W. (2021b). Encountering Covid-19 and perceived stress and the role of a health climate among medical workers. Current Psychology, 1–14 ,. 10.1007/s12144-021-01381-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Abdullah H, Ismail I, Alnoor A, Yaqoub E. Effect of perceived support on employee's voice behaviour through the work engagement: A moderator role of locus of control. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking. 2021; 11 (1):60–79. doi: 10.1504/IJPMB.2021.112253. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aggerholm HK. Communicating organizational change reactions: Downsizing survivors’ discursive constructions of flexible identities. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. 2014; 77 (4):473–498. doi: 10.1177/2329490614547757. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhtar MN, Bal M, Long L. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect reactions to frequency of change, and impact of change: A sensemaking perspective through the lens of psychological contract. Employee Relations. 2016; 38 (4):536–562. doi: 10.1108/ER-03-2015-0048. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Abrrow H, Alnoor A, Abbas S. The effect of organizational resilience and CEO’s narcissism on project success: Organizational risk as mediating variable. Organization Management Journal. 2019; 16 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1080/15416518.2018.1549468. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• AL-Abrrow H, Alnoor A, Ismail E, Eneizan B, Makhamreh HZ. Psychological contract and organizational misbehavior: Exploring the moderating and mediating effects of organizational health and psychological contract breach in Iraqi oil tanks company. Cogent Business & Management. 2019; 6 (1):1683123. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2019.1683123. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Abrrow, H., Fayez, A.S., Abdullah, H., Khaw, K.W., Alnoor, A. and Rexhepi, G. (2021), "Effect of open-mindedness and humble behavior on innovation: mediator role of learning", International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. 10.1108/IJOEM-08-2020-0888
• Alas R. Reactions to organizational change from the institutional perspective: The case of Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 2007; 5 (3):19–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Albrecht SL, Connaughton S, Foster K, Furlong S, Yeow CJL. Change Engagement, Change Resources, and Change Demands: A Model for Positive Employee Orientations to Organizational Change. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11 :2854. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.531944. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alfes K, Shantz AD, Bailey C, Conway E, Monks K, Fu N. Perceived human resource system strength and employee reactions toward change: Revisiting human resource's remit as change agent. Human Resource Management. 2019; 58 (3):239–252. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21948. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aljayi Y, Fjer A, Guennioui M, Tamek A. Multinational companies’ human resource management practices and their organizational culture impact on employees’ loyalty: Case of Japanese multinational company in Morocco. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2016; 230 :204–211. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alnoor AM, Al-Abrrow H, Abdullah H, Abbas S. The impact of self-efficacy on employees' ability to accept new technology in an Iraqi university. Global Business and Organizational Excellence. 2020; 39 (2):41–50. doi: 10.1002/joe.21984. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alnoor, A., Abdullah, H. O., Al-Abrrow, H., Wah Khaw, K., Al-Awidi, I. A., Abbas, S., & Omrane, A. (2021). A Fuzzy Delphi analytic job demands-resources model to rank factors influencing open innovation. Transnational Corporations Review, 1-15. 10.1080/19186444.2021.1956854.
• Alnoor, A., AL-Abrrow, H., Al Halbusi, H., Khaw, K. W., Chew, X., Al-Maatoq, M., & Alharbi, R. K. (2022). Uncovering the Antecedents of Trust in Social Commerce: An Application of the Non-Linear Artificial Neural Network Approach. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print (No. ahead-of-print).
• Andrade EB, Ariely D. The enduring impact of transient emotions on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2009; 109 (1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antonacopoulou EP, Gabriel Y. Emotion, learning and organizational change: Towards an integration of psychoanalytic and other perspectives. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2001; 14 (5):435–451. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005874. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 2017; 11 (4):959–975. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Armenakis AA, Harris SG. Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management. 2009; 9 (2):127–142. doi: 10.1080/14697010902879079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey JR, Raelin JD. Organizations don’t resist change, people do: Modeling individual reactions to organizational change through loss and terror management. Organization Management Journal. 2015; 12 (3):125–138. doi: 10.1080/15416518.2015.1039637. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bala H, Venkatesh V. Employees’ reactions to IT-enabled process innovations in the age of data analytics in healthcare. Business Process Management Journal. 2017; 23 (3):671–702. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-11-2015-0166. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balabanova, E., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., & Efendiev, A. (2019). Employee exit and constructive voice as behavioral responses to psychological contract breach in Finland and Russia: A within-and between-culture examination. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–32 ,. 10.1080/09585192.2019.1699144
• Barner R. The dark tower: Using visual metaphors to facilitate emotional expression during organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2008; 21 (1):120–137. doi: 10.1108/09534810810847075. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartunek JM, Rousseau DM, Rudolph JW, DePalma JA. On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2006; 42 (2):182–206. doi: 10.1177/0021886305285455. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Basinger NW, Peterson JR. Where you stand depends on where you sit: Participation and reactions to change. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2008; 19 (2):243–257. doi: 10.1002/nml.217. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bayraktar S, Jiménez A. Self-efficacy as a resource: A moderated mediation model of transformational leadership, extent of change and reactions to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2020; 33 (2):301–317. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-12-2018-0368. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beare EC, O’Raghallaigh P, McAvoy J, Hayes J. Employees’ emotional reactions to digitally enabled work events. Journal of Decision Systems. 2020; 30 (2–3):235–258. doi: 10.1080/12460125.2020.1782085. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, vol 29, pp: 226–242. 10.1080/12460125.2020.1782085
• Belschak FD, Jacobs G, Giessner SR, Horton KE, Bayerl PS. When the going gets tough: Employee reactions to large-scale organizational change and the role of employee Machiavellianism. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2020; 41 (9):830–850. doi: 10.1002/job.2478. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benford RD, Snow DA. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology. 2000; 26 :611–639. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berrang-Ford L, Pearce T, Ford JD. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Regional Environmental Change. 2015; 15 (5):755–769. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhatti ZA, Arain GA, Akram MS, Fang YH, Yasin HM. Constructive voice behavior for social change on social networking sites: A reflection of moral identity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 157 :120101. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120101. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bin Mat Zin, R. (2009). The reactions of employees towards the implementation of human resource information systems (HRIS) as a planned change program: A case study. In 2009 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology (pp. 433–437). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ICCSIT.2009.5234677
• Blom T. Organisational wellness: human reaction to change. South African Journal of Business Management. 2018; 49 (1):10. doi: 10.4102/sajbm.v49i1.2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borges R, Quintas CA. Understanding the individual's reactions to the organizational change: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2020; 33 (5):667–681. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-09-2019-0279. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouckenooghe D. Positioning change recipients' attitudes toward change in the organizational change literature. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2010; 46 (4):500–531. doi: 10.1177/0021886310367944. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowes J. Some cognitive and social correlates of children’s fluency in riddle-telling. Current Psychology. 1981; 1 (1):9–19. doi: 10.1007/BF02684421. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryant M. Talking about change: Understanding employee responses through qualitative research. Management Decision. 2006; 44 (2):246–258. doi: 10.1177/0021886310367944. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Busari AH, Khan SN, Abdullah SM, Mughal YH. Transformational leadership style, followership, and factors of employees’ reactions towards organizational change. Journal of Asia Business Studies. 2019; 14 (2):181–209. doi: 10.1108/JABS-03-2018-0083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caldwell SD, Liu Y. Further investigating the influence of personality in employee response to organisational change: The moderating role of change-related factors. Human Resource Management Journal. 2011; 21 (1):74–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00127.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caldwell SD, Yi L, Fedor DB, Herold DM. Why are perceptions of change in the "eye of the beholder"? The role of age, sex, and tenure in procedural justice judgements. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2009; 45 :437–459. doi: 10.1177/0021886309336068. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnall CA. Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change. Human Relations. 1986; 39 (8):745–766. doi: 10.1177/001872678603900803. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey MK, Miller VD, Johnson JR. Survivors' information seeking following a reduction in workforce. Communication Research. 1997; 24 (6):755–781. doi: 10.1177/0093650297024006007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen AJ, Karahanna E. Boundaryless technology: Understanding the effects of technology-mediated interruptions across the boundaries between work and personal life. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction. 2014; 6 (2):16–36. doi: 10.17705/1thci.00059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chou SY, Barron K. Employee voice behavior revisited: Its forms and antecedents. Management Research Review. 2016; 39 (12):1720–1737. doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chung GH, Du J, Choi JN. How do employees adapt to organizational change driven by cross-border M&As? A case in China. Journal of World Business. 2014; 49 (1):78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2013.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark SM, Gioia DA, Ketchen DJ, Jr, Thomas JB. Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2010; 55 (3):397–438. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.397. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Constantino SM, Schlüter M, Weber EU, Wijermans N. Cognition and behavior in context: A framework and theories to explain natural resource use decisions in social-ecological systems. Sustainability Science. 2021; 16 (5):1651–1671. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-00989-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis TRV, Luthans F. Organisational Exit: Understanding and Managing Voluntary Departures. Personnel Review. 1988; 17 (4):22–28. doi: 10.1108/eb055593. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickson GW, Simmons JK. The behavioral side of MIS Some aspects of the “people problem” Business Horizons. 1970; 13 (4):59–71. doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(70)90159-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Du J, Li NN, Luo YJ. Authoritarian leadership in organizational change and employees’ active reactions: Have-to and willing-to perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 10 :3076. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03076. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identifi cation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1994; 39 :239–263. doi: 10.2307/2393235. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elfenbein DW, Knott AM. Time to exit: Rational, behavioral, and organizational delays. Strategic Management Journal. 2015; 36 (7):957–975. doi: 10.1002/smj.2262. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Endrejat PC, Klonek FE, Müller-Frommeyer LC, Kauffeld S. Turning change resistance into readiness: How change agents’ communication shapes recipient reactions. European Management Journal. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fadhil, S. S., Ismail, R., & Alnoor, A. (2021). The influence of soft skills on employability: a case study on technology industry sector in Malaysia. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management , 16: 255. 10.28945/4807
• Farrell D. Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional study. Academy of Management Journal. 1983; 26 :569–607. doi: 10.5465/255909. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrell D, Rusbult CE. Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 1992; 5 (3):201–218. doi: 10.1007/BF01385048. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faupel S, Süß S. The effect of transformational leadership on employees during organizational change–an empirical analysis. Journal of Change Management. 2019; 19 (3):145–166. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2018.1447006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fournier PL, Chênevert D, Jobin MH. The antecedents of physicians’ behavioral support for lean in healthcare: The mediating role of commitment to organizational change. International Journal of Production Economics. 2021; 232 :107961. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107961. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fugate, M. (2012), "The Impact of Leadership, Management, and HRM on Employee Reactions to Organizational Change". In: Martocchio, J.J., Joshi, A. and Liao, H. (Ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 31) . Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 177–208. 10.1108/S0742-7301(2012)0000031007
• Fugate M, Kinicki AJ. A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2008; 81 (3):503–527. doi: 10.1348/096317907X241579. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner DG, Dunham RB, Cummings LL, Pierce JL. Employee focus of attention and reactions to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1987; 23 (3):351–370. doi: 10.1177/002188638702300305. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerwin D. Team empowerment in new product development. Business Horizons. 1999; 42 (4):29–36. doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80061-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillet N, Gagné M, Sauvagère S, Fouquereau E. The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees' satisfaction and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2013; 22 (4):450–460. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.665228. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzzo RA, Noonan KA, Elron E. Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994; 79 (4):617–626. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.617. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hadi, A. A., Alnoor, A., & Abdullah, H. O. (2018). Socio-technical approach, decision-making environment, and sustainable performance: Role of ERP systems. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management , 13: 397–415. 10.28945/4149
• Hadid W, Al-Sayed M. Management accountants and strategic management accounting: The role of organizational culture and information systems. Management Accounting Research. 2021; 50 :100725. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2020.100725. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harley B, Wright C, Hall R, Dery K. Management reactions to technological change: The example of enterprise resource planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2006; 42 (1):58–75. doi: 10.1177/0021886305284857. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatjidis D, Parker A. The relationship between universal network perceptions and dyadic network perceptions and their effect on employees’ behavioral reactions to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2017; 30 (7):1030–1043. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helpap S. The impact of power distance orientation on recipients’ reactions to participatory versus programmatic change communication. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2016; 52 (1):5–34. doi: 10.1177/0021886315617530. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herold DM, Fedor DB, Caldwell S, Liu Y. The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008; 93 (2):346. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschman AO. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Response to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hussain ST, Lei S, Akram T, Haider MJ, Hussain SH, Ali M. Kurt Lewin's change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change. Journal of Innovation Knowledge. 2018; 3 (3):123–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huy QN, Corley KG, Kraatz MS. From support to mutiny: Shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change. Academy of Management Journal. 2014; 57 (6):1650–1680. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0074. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Islam MN, Furuoka F, Idris A. Mapping the relationship between transformational leadership, trust in leadership and employee championing behavior during organizational change. Asia Pacific Management Review. 2021; 26 (2):95–102. doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2020.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobs G, Keegan A. Ethical considerations and change recipients’ reactions: ‘It’s not all about me’ Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 152 (1):73–90. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3311-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobs G, Christe-Zeyse J, Keegan A, Polos L. Reactions to organizational identity threats in times of change: Illustrations from the German police. Corporate Reputation Review. 2008; 11 (3):245–261. doi: 10.1057/crr.2008.18. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Kammeyer-Mueller JD. Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review. 2011; 21 (4):331–341. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kashefi A, Abbott P, Bell D. The influences of employees’ emotions and cognition on IT adoption: Some perspectives from Iran. International Journal of Social and Organizational Dynamics in IT (IJSODIT) 2012; 2 (3):1–16. doi: 10.4018/ijsodit.2012070101. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy-Clark, S. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on using scenario based MUVEs in science education. Curriculum, technology, and transformation for an unknown future . Proceedings ascilite, Sydney, 497–507. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.015
• Khan, S. N., Busari, A. H., Abdullah, S. M., & Mughal, Y. H. (2018). Followership moderation between the relationship of transactional leadership style and employees’ reactions towards organizational change. Polish Journal of Management Studies , 17. 10.17512/pjms.2018.17.1.11
• Khaw, K. W., Thurasamy, R., Al-Abrrow, H., Alnoor, A., Tiberius, V., Abdullah, H. O., & Abbas, S. (2021). Influence of generational status on immigrants’ entrepreneurial intentions to start new ventures: a framework based on structural equation modeling and multicriteria decision-making. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies . Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. 10.1108/JEEE-04-2021-0141
• Khaw, W., Alnoor, A., AL-Abrrow, H., Chew, X., Sadaa, A., Abbas, S., and Khattak, Z. (2022). Modelling and evaluating trust in mobile commerce: a hybrid three stage Fuzzy Delphi, structural equation modeling, and neural network approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , Article in press. 10.1080/10447318.2021.2004700
• Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2011; 39 (2):91–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2010.11.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruglanski AW, Pierro A, Higgins ET, Capozza D. “On the Move” or “Staying Put”: Locomotion, need for closure, and reactions to organizational change 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2007; 37 (6):1305–1340. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00214.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J, Varon AL. Employee exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect in response to dissatisfying organizational situations: It depends on supervisory relationship quality. International Journal of Business Communication. 2020; 57 (1):30–51. doi: 10.1177/2329488416675839. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li JY, Sun R, Tao W, Lee Y. Employee coping with organizational change in the face of a pandemic: The role of transparent internal communication. Public Relations Review. 2021; 47 (1):101984. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101984. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li M, Wang Z, Gao J, You X. Proactive personality and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers. Current Psychology. 2017; 36 (1):48–55. doi: 10.1007/s12144-015-9383-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lilly JD, Durr DW. Technology changes at work and employee reactions: The role of leader behavior. Human Systems Management. 2012; 31 (3–4):193–201. doi: 10.3233/HSM-2012-0769. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lines BC, Sullivan KT, Smithwick JB, Mischung J. Overcoming resistance to change in engineering and construction: Change management factors for owner organizations. International Journal of Project Management. 2015; 33 (5):1170–1179. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu B, Zhang Z. Motivational bases of commitment to organizational change in the Chinese public sector. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 2019; 47 (1):1–8. doi: 10.2224/sbp.7539. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Łupina-Wegener A, Schneider SC, Van Dick R. The role of outgroups in constructing a shared identity: A longitudinal study of a subsidiary merger in Mexico. Management International Review. 2015; 55 (5):677–705. doi: 10.1007/s11575-015-0247-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangundjaya WL, Utoyo DB, Wulandari P. The role of leadership and employee's condition on reaction to organizational change. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 172 :471–478. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.385. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthew CT. Leader Creativity as a Predictor of Leading Change in Organizations 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2009; 39 (1):1–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00427.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maynard MT, Gilson LL, Mathieu JE. Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management. 2012; 38 (4):1231–1281. doi: 10.1177/0149206312438773. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McElroy JC, Morrow PC. Employee reactions to office redesign: A naturally occurring quasi-field experiment in a multi-generational setting. Human Relations. 2010; 63 (5):609–636. doi: 10.1177/0018726709342932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLarty BD, Muldoon J, Quade M, King RA. Your boss is the problem and solution: How supervisor-induced hindrance stressors and LMX influence employee job neglect and subsequent performance. Journal of Business Research. 2021; 130 :308–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mdletye MA, Coetzee J, Ukpere WI. Emotional reactions to the experiences of transformational change: Evidence from the Department of Correctional Services of South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2013; 4 (14):501–516. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Men LR, Stacks D. The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research. 2014; 26 (4):301–324. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers MC. The neglected role of talent proactivity: Integrating proactive behavior into talent-management theorizing. Human Resource Management Review. 2020; 30 (2):100703. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100703. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michela JL, Vena J. A dependence-regulation account of psychological distancing in response to major organizational change. Journal of Change Management. 2012; 12 (1):77–94. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.652376. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milton J, Chaboyer W, Åberg ND, Andersson AE, Oxelmark L. Safety attitudes and working climate after organizational change in a major emergency department in Sweden. International Emergency Nursing. 2020; 53 :100830. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2020.100830. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ming-Chu Y, Meng-Hsiu L. Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between perceive organizational support and resistance to change. Asia Pacific Management Review. 2015; 20 (3):177–183. doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M.,…, & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1–9. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Monroe MC, Plate RR, Oxarart A, Bowers A, Chaves WA. Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research. 2019; 25 (6):791–812. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy S, Wayne S, Liden R, Erdogan B. Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations. 2003; 56 :61–84. doi: 10.1177/0018726703056001450. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng TWH, Feldman DC, Butts MM. Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behavior: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2014; 23 (4):537–553. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.766394. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng TW, Feldman DC. Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2012; 33 (2):216–234. doi: 10.1002/job.754. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Neill HM, Lenn DJ. Voices of survivors: Words that downsizing CEOs should hear. Academy of Management Perspectives. 1995; 9 (4):23–33. doi: 10.5465/ame.1995.9512032188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oreg S, Berson Y. Leadership and Employees ‘reactions to Change: The Role of Leaders ‘personal Attributes and Transformational Leadership Style. Personnel Psychology. 2011; 64 (3):627–659. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01221.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oreg S, Vakola M, Armenakis A. Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A sixty-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2011; 47 (4):461–524. doi: 10.1177/0021886310396550. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Panchal S, Cartwright S. Group differences in post-merger stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2001; 16 (6):424–433. doi: 10.1108/02683940110402398. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson JM, Cary J. Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model. Motivation and Emotion. 2002; 26 (1):83–103. doi: 10.1023/A:1015146225215. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peachey JW, Bruening J. Investigating ambivalence towards organisational change in a Football Championship Subdivision intercollegiate athletic department. Sport Management Review. 2012; 15 (2):171–186. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2011.05.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng, J., Li, M., Wang, Z., & Lin, Y. (2020). Transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change: Evidence from a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 0021886320920366 ,. 10.1177/0021886320920366
• Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS. Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal. 2001; 44 (4):697–713. doi: 10.5465/3069411. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piderit SK. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review. 2000; 25 (4):783–794. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.3707722. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qin K, Xie N, Tang Y, Wong L, Zhang J. Perceived parental attitude toward sex education as predictor of sex knowledge acquisition: The mediating role of global self-esteem. Current Psychology. 2019; 38 (1):84–91. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9578-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rafferty AE, Jimmieson NL. Team change climate: A group-level analysis of the relationships among change information and change participation, role stressors, and wellbeing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2010; 19 (5):551–586. doi: 10.1080/13594320903007869. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rafferty AE, Jimmieson NL, Armenakis AA. Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of management. 2013; 39 (1):110–135. doi: 10.1177/0149206312457417. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rechter E, Sverdlik N. Adolescents' and teachers' outlook on leisure activities: Personal values as a unifying framework. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016; 99 :358–367. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.095. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiss S, Prentice L, Schulte-Cloos C, Jonas E. Organizational change as threat – from implicit anxiety to approach through procedural justice. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) 2019; 50 (2):145–161. doi: 10.1023/A:1015146225215. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rizzuto TE, Schwarz A, Schwarz C. Toward a deeper understanding of IT adoption: A multilevel analysis. Information & Management. 2014; 51 (4):479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.02.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roczniewska M, Higgins ET. Messaging organizational change: How regulatory fit relates to openness to change through fairness perceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2019; 85 :103882. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103882. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult CE, Farrell D, Rogers G, Mainous AG. Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal. 1988; 31 :599–627. doi: 10.5465/256461. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanchez de Miguel M, Lizaso I, Larranaga M, Arrospide JJ. Women bus drivers and organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2015; 28 (1):117–133. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0120. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Santos Policarpo RV, Guimaraes e Borges RS, Almada L. Leadership and individual reactions to organizational change. Revista Ciencias Administrativas. 2018; 24 (2):1–19. doi: 10.5020/2318-0722.2018.7197. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saunders MN, Thornhill A. Researching sensitively without sensitizing: Using a card sort in a concurrent mixed method design to research trust and distrust. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 2011; 5 (3):334–350. doi: 10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.334. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schilling A, Werr A, Gand S, Sardas JC. Understanding professionals' reactions to strategic change: The role of threatened professional identities. The Service Industries Journal. 2012; 32 (8):1229–1245. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2010.531269. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Šedžiuvienė, N., & Vveinhardt, J. (2018). The reactions of post-soviet countries employees to changes carried out by organizations in higher education: cases of Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarusian state colleges. Montenegrin Journal of Economics , 225–235. 10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-4.16
• Seeger MW, Ulmer RR, Novak JM, Sellnow T. Post-crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2005; 18 (1):78–95. doi: 10.1108/09534810510579869. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahid, S. and Kundi, Y.M. (2021b), "Feel dragged out: a recovery perspective in the relationship between emotional exhaustion and entrepreneurial exit". Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. 10.1108/JSBED-05-2021b-0199
• Shura RD, Rutherford BJ, Fugett A, Lindberg MA. An exploratory study of attachments and posttraumatic stress in combat veterans. Current Psychology. 2017; 36 (1):110–118. doi: 10.1007/s12144-015-9390-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stensaker IG, Meyer CB. Change experience and employee reactions: Developing capabilities for change. Personnel Review. 2012 doi: 10.1108/00483481211189974. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Størseth F. Changes at work and employee reactions: Organizational elements, job insecurity, and short-term stress as predictors for employee health and safety. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2006; 47 (6):541–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00548.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Straatmann T, Kohnke O, Hattrup K, Mueller K. Assessing employees’ reactions to organizational change: An integrative framework of change-specific and psychological factors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2016; 52 (3):265–295. doi: 10.1177/0021886316655871. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stylianou AM, Counselman-Carpenter E, Redcay A. Developing a financial literacy program with survivors of intimate partner violence: The voices of survivors. Social Work. 2019; 64 (4):311–320. doi: 10.1093/sw/swz034. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Surdu I, Mellahi K, Glaister KW, Nardella G. Why wait? Organizational learning, institutional quality and the speed of foreign market re-entry after initial entry and exit. Journal of World Business. 2018; 53 (6):911–929. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2018.07.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Svendsen M, Joensson TS. Transformational leadership and change related voice behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2016; 37 (3):357–368. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0124. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang C, Gao Y. Intra-department communication and employees' reaction to organizational change: The moderating effect of emotional intelligence. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management. 2012; 3 (2):100–117. doi: 10.1108/20408001211279210. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavakoli M. A positive approach to stress, resistance, and organizational change. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010; 5 :1794–1798. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.366. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thirumaran, M., Dhavachelvan, P., & Aishwarya, D. (2013). An approach for evaluating the functional and non-functional change factors of web service using finite state machine. In 2013 International Conference on Recent Trends in Information Technology (ICRTIT) (pp. 674–679). IEEE. 10.1109/ICRTIT.2013.6844281
• Thomson NB, III, Rawson JV, Slade CP, Bledsoe M. Transformation and transformational leadership: A review of the current and relevant literature for academic radiologists. Academic Radiology. 2016; 23 (5):592–599. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.01.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyler TR, De Cremer D. Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly. 2005; 16 (4):529–545. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vakola M. The reasons behind change recipients’ behavioral reactions: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2016; 31 (1):202–215. doi: 10.1108/JMP-02-2013-0058. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. In S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R. T. By (Eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee's perspective (pp. 95–122). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139096690.008
• Van der Smissen S, Schalk R, Freese C. Contemporary psychological contracts: How both employer and employee are changing the employment relationship. Management Revue. 2013; 24 (4):309–327. doi: 10.1688/1861-9908_mrev_2013_04_Smissen. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Dick R, Ciampa V, Liang S. Shared identity in organizational stress and change. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2018; 23 :20–25. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.11.005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vantilborgh T. Volunteers’ reactions to psychological contract fulfillment in terms of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect behavior. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 2015; 26 (2):604–628. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9441-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valitova E, Starodubtsev V, Goryanova L. Formative personalisation of students’ self-determination and employability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 214 :739–747. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.706. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walk M, Handy F. Job crafting as reaction to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2018; 54 (3):349–370. doi: 10.1177/0021886318777227. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whelan-Barry KS, Gordon JR, Hinings CR. Strengthening organizational change processes: Recommendations and implications from a multilevel analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2003; 39 (2):186–207. doi: 10.1177/0021886303256270. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whiting SW, Maynes TD, Podsakoff NP, Podsakoff PM. Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012; 97 (1):159–182. doi: 10.1037/a0024871. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 521–539 ,. 10.2307/2393565
• Yan, B., & Jacobs, K. (2008). Evaluating employee responses to the lean enterprise system at a manufacturing company in Cape Town, South Africa. In 2008 Second International Conference on Future Generation Communication and Networking Symposia (Vol. 4, pp. 85–92). IEEE. 10.1109/FGCNS.2008.120
• Zellars, K. and Tepper, B.J. (2003), “Beyond social exchange: new directions for organizational citizenship behavior theory and research”. In: Martocchio, J.J. and Ferris, G.R. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management . JAI Press, pp. 395–424. 10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22009-0

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology

Personality

• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Organizational behavior.

• Neal M. Ashkanasy Neal M. Ashkanasy University of Queensland
•  and  Alana D. Dorris Alana D. Dorris University of Queensland
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.23
• Published online: 29 March 2017

Organizational behavior (OB) is a discipline that includes principles from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Its focus is on understanding how people behave in organizational work environments. Broadly speaking, OB covers three main levels of analysis: micro (individuals), meso (groups), and macro (the organization). Topics at the micro level include managing the diverse workforce; effects of individual differences in attitudes; job satisfaction and engagement, including their implications for performance and management; personality, including the effects of different cultures; perception and its effects on decision-making; employee values; emotions, including emotional intelligence, emotional labor, and the effects of positive and negative affect on decision-making and creativity (including common biases and errors in decision-making); and motivation, including the effects of rewards and goal-setting and implications for management. Topics at the meso level of analysis include group decision-making; managing work teams for optimum performance (including maximizing team performance and communication); managing team conflict (including the effects of task and relationship conflict on team effectiveness); team climate and group emotional tone; power, organizational politics, and ethical decision-making; and leadership, including leadership development and leadership effectiveness. At the organizational level, topics include organizational design and its effect on organizational performance; affective events theory and the physical environment; organizational culture and climate; and organizational change.

• organizational psychology
• organizational sociology
• organizational anthropology

Introduction

Organizational behavior (OB) is the study of how people behave in organizational work environments. More specifically, Robbins, Judge, Millett, and Boyle ( 2014 , p. 8) describe it as “[a] field of study that investigates the impact that individual groups and structure have on behavior within organizations, for the purposes of applying such knowledge towards improving an organization’s effectiveness.” The OB field looks at the specific context of the work environment in terms of human attitudes, cognition, and behavior, and it embodies contributions from psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The field is also rapidly evolving because of the demands of today’s fast-paced world, where technology has given rise to work-from-home employees, globalization, and an ageing workforce. Thus, while managers and OB researchers seek to help employees find a work-life balance, improve ethical behavior (Ardichivili, Mitchell, & Jondle, 2009 ), customer service, and people skills (see, e.g., Brady & Cronin, 2001 ), they must simultaneously deal with issues such as workforce diversity, work-life balance, and cultural differences.

The most widely accepted model of OB consists of three interrelated levels: (1) micro (the individual level), (2) meso (the group level), and (3) macro (the organizational level). The behavioral sciences that make up the OB field contribute an element to each of these levels. In particular, OB deals with the interactions that take place among the three levels and, in turn, addresses how to improve performance of the organization as a whole.

In order to study OB and apply it to the workplace, it is first necessary to understand its end goal. In particular, if the goal is organizational effectiveness, then these questions arise: What can be done to make an organization more effective? And what determines organizational effectiveness? To answer these questions, dependent variables that include attitudes and behaviors such as productivity, job satisfaction, job performance, turnover intentions, withdrawal, motivation, and workplace deviance are introduced. Moreover, each level—micro, meso, and macro—has implications for guiding managers in their efforts to create a healthier work climate to enable increased organizational performance that includes higher sales, profits, and return on investment (ROE).

The Micro (Individual) Level of Analysis

The micro or individual level of analysis has its roots in social and organizational psychology. In this article, six central topics are identified and discussed: (1) diversity; (2) attitudes and job satisfaction; (3) personality and values; (4) emotions and moods; (5) perception and individual decision-making; and (6) motivation.

An obvious but oft-forgotten element at the individual level of OB is the diverse workforce. It is easy to recognize how different each employee is in terms of personal characteristics like age, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, and gender. Other, less biological characteristics include tenure, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. In the Australian context, while the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act of 1992 helped to increase participation of people with disabilities working in organizations, discrimination and exclusion still continue to inhibit equality (Feather & Boeckmann, 2007 ). In Western societies like Australia and the United States, however, antidiscrimination legislation is now addressing issues associated with an ageing workforce.

In terms of gender, there continues to be significant discrimination against female employees. Males have traditionally had much higher participation in the workforce, with only a significant increase in the female workforce beginning in the mid-1980s. Additionally, according to Ostroff and Atwater’s ( 2003 ) study of engineering managers, female managers earn a significantly lower salary than their male counterparts, especially when they are supervising mostly other females.

Job Satisfaction and Job Engagement

Job satisfaction is an attitudinal variable that comes about when an employee evaluates all the components of her or his job, which include affective, cognitive, and behavioral aspects (Weiss, 2002 ). Increased job satisfaction is associated with increased job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), and reduced turnover intentions (Wilkin, 2012 ). Moreover, traditional workers nowadays are frequently replaced by contingent workers in order to reduce costs and work in a nonsystematic manner. According to Wilkin’s ( 2012 ) findings, however, contingent workers as a group are less satisfied with their jobs than permanent employees are.

Job engagement concerns the degree of involvement that an employee experiences on the job (Kahn, 1990 ). It describes the degree to which an employee identifies with their job and considers their performance in that job important; it also determines that employee’s level of participation within their workplace. Britt, Dickinson, Greene-Shortridge, and McKibbin ( 2007 ) describe the two extremes of job satisfaction and employee engagement: a feeling of responsibility and commitment to superior job performance versus a feeling of disengagement leading to the employee wanting to withdraw or disconnect from work. The first scenario is also related to organizational commitment, the level of identification an employee has with an organization and its goals. Employees with high organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and employee engagement tend to perceive that their organization values their contribution and contributes to their wellbeing.

Personality represents a person’s enduring traits. The key here is the concept of enduring . The most widely adopted model of personality is the so-called Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992 ): extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. Employees high in conscientiousness tend to have higher levels of job knowledge, probably because they invest more into learning about their role. Those higher in emotional stability tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of stress, most likely because of their positive and opportunistic outlooks. Agreeableness, similarly, is associated with being better liked and may lead to higher employee performance and decreased levels of deviant behavior.

Although the personality traits in the Big Five have been shown to relate to organizational behavior, organizational performance, career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 2006 ), and other personality traits are also relevant to the field. Examples include positive self-evaluation, self-monitoring (the degree to which an individual is aware of comparisons with others), Machiavellianism (the degree to which a person is practical, maintains emotional distance, and believes the end will justify the means), narcissism (having a grandiose sense of self-importance and entitlement), risk-taking, proactive personality, and type A personality. In particular, those who like themselves and are grounded in their belief that they are capable human beings are more likely to perform better because they have fewer self-doubts that may impede goal achievements. Individuals high in Machiavellianism may need a certain environment in order to succeed, such as a job that requires negotiation skills and offers significant rewards, although their inclination to engage in political behavior can sometimes limit their potential. Employees who are high on narcissism may wreak organizational havoc by manipulating subordinates and harming the overall business because of their over-inflated perceptions of self. Higher levels of self-monitoring often lead to better performance but they may cause lower commitment to the organization. Risk-taking can be positive or negative; it may be great for someone who thrives on rapid decision-making, but it may prove stressful for someone who likes to weigh pros and cons carefully before making decisions. Type A individuals may achieve high performance but may risk doing so in a way that causes stress and conflict. Proactive personality, on the other hand, is usually associated with positive organizational performance.

Employee Values

Personal value systems are behind each employee’s attitudes and personality. Each employee enters an organization with an already established set of beliefs about what should be and what should not be. Today, researchers realize that personality and values are linked to organizations and organizational behavior. Years ago, only personality’s relation to organizations was of concern, but now managers are more interested in an employee’s flexibility to adapt to organizational change and to remain high in organizational commitment. Holland’s ( 1973 ) theory of personality-job fit describes six personality types (realistic, investigative, social, conventional, enterprising, and artistic) and theorizes that job satisfaction and turnover are determined by how well a person matches her or his personality to a job. In addition to person-job (P-J) fit, researchers have also argued for person-organization (P-O) fit, whereby employees desire to be a part of and are selected by an organization that matches their values. The Big Five would suggest, for example, that extraverted employees would desire to be in team environments; agreeable people would align well with supportive organizational cultures rather than more aggressive ones; and people high on openness would fit better in organizations that emphasize creativity and innovation (Anderson, Spataro, & Flynn, 2008 ).

Individual Differences, Affect, and Emotion

Personality predisposes people to have certain moods (feelings that tend to be less intense but longer lasting than emotions) and emotions (intense feelings directed at someone or something). In particular, personalities with extraversion and emotional stability partially determine an individual predisposition to experience emotion more or less intensely.

Affect is also related as describing the positive and negative feelings that people experience (Ashkanasy, 2003 ). Moreover, emotions, mood, and affect interrelate; a bad mood, for instance, can lead individuals to experience a negative emotion. Emotions are action-oriented while moods tend to be more cognitive. This is because emotions are caused by a specific event that might only last a few seconds, while moods are general and can last for hours or even days. One of the sources of emotions is personality. Dispositional or trait affects correlate, on the one hand, with personality and are what make an individual more likely to respond to a situation in a predictable way (Watson & Tellegen, 1985 ). Moreover, like personality, affective traits have proven to be stable over time and across settings (Diener, Larsen, Levine, & Emmons, 1985 ; Watson, 1988 ; Watson & Tellegen, 1985 ; Watson & Walker, 1996 ). State affect, on the other hand, is similar to mood and represents how an individual feels in the moment.

The Role of Affect in Organizational Behavior

For many years, affect and emotions were ignored in the field of OB despite being fundamental factors underlying employee behavior (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995 ). OB researchers traditionally focused on solely decreasing the effects of strong negative emotions that were seen to impede individual, group, and organizational level productivity. More recent theories of OB focus, however, on affect, which is seen to have positive, as well as negative, effects on behavior, described by Barsade, Brief, and Spataro ( 2003 , p. 3) as the “affective revolution.” In particular, scholars now understand that emotions can be measured objectively and be observed through nonverbal displays such as facial expression and gestures, verbal displays, fMRI, and hormone levels (Ashkanasy, 2003 ; Rashotte, 2002 ).

Fritz, Sonnentag, Spector, and McInroe ( 2010 ) focus on the importance of stress recovery in affective experiences. In fact, an individual employee’s affective state is critical to OB, and today more attention is being focused on discrete affective states. Emotions like fear and sadness may be related to counterproductive work behaviors (Judge et al., 2006 ). Stress recovery is another factor that is essential for more positive moods leading to positive organizational outcomes. In a study, Fritz et al. ( 2010 ) looked at levels of psychological detachment of employees on weekends away from the workplace and how it was associated with higher wellbeing and affect.

Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Labor

Ashkanasy and Daus ( 2002 ) suggest that emotional intelligence is distinct but positively related to other types of intelligence like IQ. It is defined by Mayer and Salovey ( 1997 ) as the ability to perceive, assimilate, understand, and manage emotion in the self and others. As such, it is an individual difference and develops over a lifetime, but it can be improved with training. Boyatzis and McKee ( 2005 ) describe emotional intelligence further as a form of adaptive resilience, insofar as employees high in emotional intelligence tend to engage in positive coping mechanisms and take a generally positive outlook toward challenging work situations.

Emotional labor occurs when an employee expresses her or his emotions in a way that is consistent with an organization’s display rules, and usually means that the employee engages in either surface or deep acting (Hochschild, 1983 ). This is because the emotions an employee is expressing as part of their role at work may be different from the emotions they are actually feeling (Ozcelik, 2013 ). Emotional labor has implications for an employee’s mental and physical health and wellbeing. Moreover, because of the discrepancy between felt emotions (how an employee actually feels) and displayed emotions or surface acting (what the organization requires the employee to emotionally display), surface acting has been linked to negative organizational outcomes such as heightened emotional exhaustion and reduced commitment (Erickson & Wharton, 1997 ; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002 ; Grandey, 2003 ; Groth, Hennig-Thurau, & Walsh, 2009 ).

Affect and Organizational Decision-Making

Ashkanasy and Ashton-James ( 2008 ) make the case that the moods and emotions managers experience in response to positive or negative workplace situations affect outcomes and behavior not only at the individual level, but also in terms of strategic decision-making processes at the organizational level. These authors focus on affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996 ), which holds that organizational events trigger affective responses in organizational members, which in turn affect organizational attitudes, cognition, and behavior.

Perceptions and Behavior

Like personality, emotions, moods, and attitudes, perceptions also influence employees’ behaviors in the workplace. Perception is the way in which people organize and interpret sensory cues in order to give meaning to their surroundings. It can be influenced by time, work setting, social setting, other contextual factors such as time of day, time of year, temperature, a target’s clothing or appearance, as well as personal trait dispositions, attitudes, and value systems. In fact, a person’s behavior is based on her or his perception of reality—not necessarily the same as actual reality. Perception greatly influences individual decision-making because individuals base their behaviors on their perceptions of reality. In this regard, attribution theory (Martinko, 1995 ) outlines how individuals judge others and is our attempt to conclude whether a person’s behavior is internally or externally caused.

Decision-Making and the Role of Perception

Decision-making occurs as a reaction to a problem when the individual perceives there to be discrepancy between the current state of affairs and the state s/he desires. As such, decisions are the choices individuals make from a set of alternative courses of action. Each individual interprets information in her or his own way and decides which information is relevant to weigh pros and cons of each decision and its alternatives to come to her or his perception of the best outcome. In other words, each of our unique perceptual processes influences the final outcome (Janis & Mann, 1977 ).

Common Biases in Decision-Making

Although there is no perfect model for approaching decision-making, there are nonetheless many biases that individuals can make themselves aware of in order to maximize their outcomes. First, overconfidence bias is an inclination to overestimate the correctness of a decision. Those most likely to commit this error tend to be people with weak intellectual and interpersonal abilities. Anchoring bias occurs when individuals focus on the first information they receive, failing to adjust for information received subsequently. Marketers tend to use anchors in order to make impressions on clients quickly and project their brand names. Confirmation bias occurs when individuals only use facts that support their decisions while discounting all contrary views. Lastly, availability bias occurs when individuals base their judgments on information readily available. For example, a manager might rate an employee on a performance appraisal based on behavior in the past few days, rather than the past six months or year.

Errors in Decision-Making

Other errors in decision-making include hindsight bias and escalation of commitment . Hindsight bias is a tendency to believe, incorrectly, after an outcome of an event has already happened, that the decision-maker would have accurately predicted that same outcome. Furthermore, this bias, despite its prevalence, is especially insidious because it inhibits the ability to learn from the past and take responsibility for mistakes. Escalation of commitment is an inclination to continue with a chosen course of action instead of listening to negative feedback regarding that choice. When individuals feel responsible for their actions and those consequences, they escalate commitment probably because they have invested so much into making that particular decision. One solution to escalating commitment is to seek a source of clear, less distorted feedback (Staw, 1981 ).

The last but certainly not least important individual level topic is motivation. Like each of the topics discussed so far, a worker’s motivation is also influenced by individual differences and situational context. Motivation can be defined as the processes that explain a person’s intensity, direction, and persistence toward reaching a goal. Work motivation has often been viewed as the set of energetic forces that determine the form, direction, intensity, and duration of behavior (Latham & Pinder, 2005 ). Motivation can be further described as the persistence toward a goal. In fact many non-academics would probably describe it as the extent to which a person wants and tries to do well at a particular task (Mitchell, 1982 ).

Early theories of motivation began with Maslow’s ( 1943 ) hierarchy of needs theory, which holds that each person has five needs in hierarchical order: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. These constitute the “lower-order” needs, while social and esteem needs are “higher-order” needs. Self-esteem for instance underlies motivation from the time of childhood. Another early theory is McGregor’s ( 1960 ) X-Y theory of motivation: Theory X is the concept whereby individuals must be pushed to work; and theory Y is positive, embodying the assumption that employees naturally like work and responsibility and can exercise self-direction.

Herzberg subsequently proposed the “two-factor theory” that attitude toward work can determine whether an employee succeeds or fails. Herzberg ( 1966 ) relates intrinsic factors, like advancement in a job, recognition, praise, and responsibility to increased job satisfaction, while extrinsic factors like the organizational climate, relationship with supervisor, and salary relate to job dissatisfaction. In other words, the hygiene factors are associated with the work context while the motivators are associated with the intrinsic factors associated with job motivation.

Contemporary Theories of Motivation

Although traditional theories of motivation still appear in OB textbooks, there is unfortunately little empirical data to support their validity. More contemporary theories of motivation, with more acceptable research validity, include self-determination theory , which holds that people prefer to have control over their actions. If a task an individual enjoyed now feels like a chore, then this will undermine motivation. Higher self-determined motivation (or intrinsically determined motivation) is correlated with increased wellbeing, job satisfaction, commitment, and decreased burnout and turnover intent. In this regard, Fernet, Gagne, and Austin ( 2010 ) found that work motivation relates to reactions to interpersonal relationships at work and organizational burnout. Thus, by supporting work self-determination, managers can help facilitate adaptive employee organizational behaviors while decreasing turnover intention (Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002 ).

Core self-evaluation (CSE) theory is a relatively new concept that relates to self-confidence in general, such that people with higher CSE tend to be more committed to goals (Bono & Colbert, 2005 ). These core self-evaluations also extend to interpersonal relationships, as well as employee creativity. Employees with higher CSE are more likely to trust coworkers, which may also contribute to increased motivation for goal attainment (Johnson, Kristof-Brown, van Vianen, de Pater, & Klein, 2003 ). In general, employees with positive CSE tend to be more intrinsically motivated, thus additionally playing a role in increasing employee creativity (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005 ). Finally, according to research by Amabile ( 1996 ), intrinsic motivation or self-determined goal attainment is critical in facilitating employee creativity.

Goal-Setting and Conservation of Resources

While self-determination theory and CSE focus on the reward system behind motivation and employee work behaviors, Locke and Latham’s ( 1990 ) goal-setting theory specifically addresses the impact that goal specificity, challenge, and feedback has on motivation and performance. These authors posit that our performance is increased when specific and difficult goals are set, rather than ambiguous and general goals. Goal-setting seems to be an important motivational tool, but it is important that the employee has had a chance to take part in the goal-setting process so they are more likely to attain their goals and perform highly.

Related to goal-setting is Hobfoll’s ( 1989 ) conservation of resources (COR) theory, which holds that people have a basic motivation to obtain, maintain, and protect what they value (i.e., their resources). Additionally there is a global application of goal-setting theory for each of the motivation theories. Not enough research has been conducted regarding the value of goal-setting in global contexts, however, and because of this, goal-setting is not recommended without consideration of cultural and work-related differences (Konopaske & Ivancevich, 2004 ).

Self-Efficacy and Motivation

Other motivational theories include self-efficacy theory, and reinforcement, equity, and expectancy theories. Self-efficacy or social cognitive or learning theory is an individual’s belief that s/he can perform a task (Bandura, 1977 ). This theory complements goal-setting theory in that self-efficacy is higher when a manager assigns a difficult task because employees attribute the manager’s behavior to him or her thinking that the employee is capable; the employee in turn feels more confident and capable.

Reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1938 ) counters goal-setting theory insofar as it is a behaviorist approach rather than cognitive and is based in the notion that reinforcement conditions behavior, or in other words focuses on external causes rather than the value an individual attributes to goals. Furthermore, this theory instead emphasizes the behavior itself rather than what precedes the behavior. Additionally, managers may use operant conditioning, a part of behaviorism, to reinforce people to act in a desired way.

Social-learning theory (Bandura, 1977 ) extends operant conditioning and also acknowledges the influence of observational learning and perception, and the fact that people can learn and retain information by paying attention, observing, and modeling the desired behavior.

Equity theory (Adams, 1963 ) looks at how employees compare themselves to others and how that affects their motivation and in turn their organizational behaviors. Employees who perceive inequity for instance, will either change how much effort they are putting in (their inputs), change or distort their perceptions (either of self or others in relation to work), change their outcomes, turnover, or choose a different referent (acknowledge performance in relation to another employee but find someone else they can be better than).

Last but not least, Vroom’s ( 1964 ) expectancy theory holds that individuals are motivated by the extent to which they can see that their effort is likely to result in valued outcomes. This theory has received strong support in empirical research (see Van Erde & Thierry, 1996 , for meta-analytic results). Like each of the preceding theories, expectancy theory has important implications that managers should consider. For instance, managers should communicate with employees to determine their preferences to know what rewards to offer subordinates to elicit motivation. Managers can also make sure to identify and communicate clearly the level of performance they desire from an employee, as well as to establish attainable goals with the employee and to be very clear and precise about how and when performance will be rewarded (Konopaske & Ivancevich, 2004 ).

The Meso (Group) Level of Analysis

The second level of OB research also emerges from social and organizational psychology and relates to groups or teams. Topics covered so far include individual differences: diversity, personality and emotions, values and attitudes, motivation, and decision-making. Thus, in this section, attention turns to how individuals come together to form groups and teams, and begins laying the foundation for understanding the dynamics of group and team behavior. Topics at this level also include communication, leadership, power and politics, and conflict.

A group consists of two or more individuals who come together to achieve a similar goal. Groups can be formal or informal. A formal group on the one hand is assigned by the organization’s management and is a component of the organization’s structure. An informal group on the other hand is not determined by the organization and often forms in response to a need for social contact. Teams are formal groups that come together to meet a specific group goal.

Although groups are thought to go through five stages of development (Tuckman, 1965 : forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning) and to transition to effectiveness at the halfway mark (Gersick, 1988 ), group effectiveness is in fact far more complex. For example, two types of conformity to group norms are possible: compliance (just going along with the group’s norms but not accepting them) and personal acceptance (when group members’ individual beliefs match group norms). Behavior in groups then falls into required behavior usually defined by the formal group and emergent behavior that grows out of interactions among group members (Champoux, 2011 ).

Group Decision-Making

Although many of the decisions made in organizations occur in groups and teams, such decisions are not necessarily optimal. Groups may have more complex knowledge and increased perspectives than individuals but may suffer from conformity pressures or domination by one or two members. Group decision-making has the potential to be affected by groupthink or group shift. In groupthink , group pressures to conform to the group norms deter the group from thinking of alternative courses of action (Janis & Mann, 1977 ). In the past, researchers attempted to explain the effects of group discussion on decision-making through the following approaches: group decision rules, interpersonal comparisons, and informational influence. Myers and Lamm ( 1976 ), however, present a conceptual schema comprised of interpersonal comparisons and informational influence approaches that focus on attitude development in a more social context. They found that their research is consistent with the group polarization hypothesis: The initial majority predicts the consensus outcome 90% of the time. The term group polarization was founded in Serge Moscovici and his colleagues’ literature (e.g., Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969 ). Polarization refers to an increase in the extremity of the average response of the subject population.

In other words, the Myer and Lamm ( 1976 ) schema is based on the idea that four elements feed into one another: social motivation, cognitive foundation, attitude change, and action commitment. Social motivation (comparing self with others in order to be perceived favorably) feeds into cognitive foundation , which in turn feeds into attitude change and action commitment . Managers of organizations can help reduce the negative phenomena and increase the likelihood of functional groups by encouraging brainstorming or openly looking at alternatives in the process of decision-making such as the nominal group technique (which involves restricting interpersonal communication in order to encourage free thinking and proceeding to a decision in a formal and systematic fashion such as voting).

Elements of Team Performance

OB researchers typically focus on team performance and especially the factors that make teams most effective. Researchers (e.g., see De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001 ) have organized the critical components of effective teams into three main categories: context, composition, and process. Context refers to the team’s physical and psychological environment, and in particular the factors that enable a climate of trust. Composition refers to the means whereby the abilities of each individual member can best be most effectively marshaled. Process is maximized when members have a common goal or are able to reflect and adjust the team plan (for reflexivity, see West, 1996 ).

Communication

In order to build high-performing work teams, communication is critical, especially if team conflict is to be minimized. Communication serves four main functions: control, motivation, emotional expression, and information (Scott & Mitchell, 1976 ). The communication process involves the transfer of meaning from a sender to a receiver through formal channels established by an organization and informal channels, created spontaneously and emerging out of individual choice. Communication can flow downward from managers to subordinates, upward from subordinates to managers, or between members of the same group. Meaning can be transferred from one person to another orally, through writing, or nonverbally through facial expressions and body movement. In fact, body movement and body language may complicate verbal communication and add ambiguity to the situation as does physical distance between team members.

High-performance teams tend to have some of the following characteristics: interpersonal trust, psychological and physical safety, openness to challenges and ideas, an ability to listen to other points of view, and an ability to share knowledge readily to reduce task ambiguity (Castka, Bamber, Sharp, & Belohoubek, 2001 ). Although the development of communication competence is essential for a work team to become high-performing, that communication competence is also influenced by gender, personality, ability, and emotional intelligence of the members. Ironically, it is the self-reliant team members who are often able to develop this communication competence. Although capable of working autonomously, self-reliant team members know when to ask for support from others and act interdependently.

Emotions also play a part in communicating a message or attitude to other team members. Emotional contagion, for instance, is a fascinating effect of emotions on nonverbal communication, and it is the subconscious process of sharing another person’s emotions by mimicking that team member’s nonverbal behavior (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993 ). Importantly, positive communication, expressions, and support of team members distinguished high-performing teams from low-performing ones (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008 ).

Team Conflict

Because of member interdependence, teams are inclined to more conflict than individual workers. In particular, diversity in individual differences leads to conflict (Thomas, 1992 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ; see also Cohen & Bailey, 1997 ). Jehn ( 1997 ) identifies three types of conflict: task, relationship, and process. Process conflict concerns how task accomplishment should proceed and who is responsible for what; task conflict focuses on the actual content and goals of the work (Robbins et al., 2014 ); and relationship conflict is based on differences in interpersonal relationships. While conflict, and especially task conflict, does have some positive benefits such as greater innovation (Tjosvold, 1997 ), it can also lead to lowered team performance and decreased job satisfaction, or even turnover. De Dreu and Van Vianen ( 2001 ) found that team conflict can result in one of three responses: (1) collaborating with others to find an acceptable solution; (2) contending and pushing one member’s perspective on others; or (3) avoiding and ignoring the problem.

Team Effectiveness and Relationship Conflict

Team effectiveness can suffer in particular from relationship conflict, which may threaten team members’ personal identities and self-esteem (Pelled, 1995 ). In this regard, Murnighan and Conlon ( 1991 ) studied members of British string quartets and found that the most successful teams avoided relationship conflict while collaborating to resolve task conflicts. This may be because relationship conflict distracts team members from the task, reducing team performance and functioning. As noted earlier, positive affect is associated with collaboration, cooperation, and problem resolution, while negative affect tends to be associated with competitive behaviors, especially during conflict (Rhoades, Arnold, & Jay, 2001 ).

Team Climate and Emotionality

Emotional climate is now recognized as important to team processes (Ashkanasy & Härtel, 2014 ), and team climate in general has important implications for how individuals behave individually and collectively to effect organizational outcomes. This idea is consistent with Druskat and Wolff’s ( 2001 ) notion that team emotional-intelligence climate can help a team manage both types of conflict (task and relationship). In Jehn’s ( 1997 ) study, she found that emotion was most often negative during team conflict, and this had a negative effect on performance and satisfaction regardless of the type of conflict team members were experiencing. High emotionality, as Jehn calls it, causes team members to lose sight of the work task and focus instead on the negative affect. Jehn noted, however, that absence of group conflict might also may block innovative ideas and stifle creativity (Jehn, 1997 ).

Power and Politics

Power and organizational politics can trigger employee conflict, thus affecting employee wellbeing, job satisfaction, and performance, in turn affecting team and organizational productivity (Vigoda, 2000 ). Because power is a function of dependency, it can often lead to unethical behavior and thus become a source of conflict. Types of power include formal and personal power. Formal power embodies coercive, reward, and legitimate power. Coercive power depends on fear. Reward power is the opposite and occurs when an individual complies because s/he receives positive benefits from acting in accordance with the person in power. In formal groups and organizations, the most easily accessed form of power is legitimate because this form comes to be from one’s position in the organizational hierarchy (Raven, 1993 ). Power tactics represent the means by which those in a position of power translate their power base (formal or personal) into specific actions.

The nine influence tactics that managers use according to Yukl and Tracey ( 1992 ) are (1) rational persuasion, (2) inspirational appeal, (3) consultation, (4) ingratiation, (5) exchange, (6) personal appeal, (7) coalition, (8) legitimating, and (9) pressure. Of these tactics, inspirational appeal, consultation, and rational persuasion were among the strategies most effective in influencing task commitment. In this study, there was also a correlation found between a manager’s rational persuasion and a subordinate rating her effectively. Perhaps this is because persuasion requires some level of expertise, although more research is needed to verify which methods are most successful. Moreover, resource dependence theory dominates much theorizing about power and organizational politics. In fact, it is one of the central themes of Pfeffer and Salancik’s ( 1973 ) treatise on the external control of organizations. First, the theory emphasizes the importance of the organizational environment in understanding the context of how decisions of power are made (see also Pfeffer & Leblebici, 1973 ). Resource dependence theory is based on the premise that some organizations have more power than others, occasioned by specifics regarding their interdependence. Pfeffer and Salancik further propose that external interdependence and internal organizational processes are related and that this relationship is mediated by power.

Organizational Politics

Political skill is the ability to use power tactics to influence others to enhance an individual’s personal objectives. In addition, a politically skilled person is able to influence another person without being detected (one reason why he or she is effective). Persons exerting political skill leave a sense of trust and sincerity with the people they interact with. An individual possessing a high level of political skill must understand the organizational culture they are exerting influence within in order to make an impression on his or her target. While some researchers suggest political behavior is a critical way to understand behavior that occurs in organizations, others simply see it as a necessary evil of work life (Champoux, 2011 ). Political behavior focuses on using power to reach a result and can be viewed as unofficial and unsanctioned behavior (Mintzberg, 1985 ). Unlike other organizational processes, political behavior involves both power and influence (Mayes & Allen, 1977 ). Moreover, because political behavior involves the use of power to influence others, it can often result in conflict.

Organizational Politics, Power, and Ethics

In concluding this section on power and politics, it is also appropriate to address the dark side, where organizational members who are persuasive and powerful enough might become prone to abuse standards of equity and justice and thereby engage in unethical behavior. An employee who takes advantage of her position of power may use deception, lying, or intimidation to advance her own interests (Champoux, 2011 ). When exploring interpersonal injustice, it is important to consider the intent of the perpetrator, as well as the effect of the perpetrator’s treatment from the victim’s point of view. Umphress, Simmons, Folger, Ren, and Bobocel ( 2013 ) found in this regard that not only does injustice perceived by the self or coworkers influence attitudes and behavior within organizations, but injustice also influences observer reactions both inside and outside of the organization.

Leadership plays an integrative part in understanding group behavior, because the leader is engaged in directing individuals toward attitudes and behaviors, hopefully also in the direction of those group members’ goals. Although there is no set of universal leadership traits, extraversion from the Big Five personality framework has been shown in meta-analytic studies to be positively correlated with transformational, while neuroticism appears to be negatively correlated (Bono & Judge, 2004 ). There are also various perspectives to leadership, including the competency perspective, which addresses the personality traits of leaders; the behavioral perspective, which addresses leader behaviors, specifically task versus people-oriented leadership; and the contingency perspective, which is based on the idea that leadership involves an interaction of personal traits and situational factors. Fiedler’s ( 1967 ) contingency, for example, suggests that leader effectiveness depends on the person’s natural fit to the situation and the leader’s score on a “least preferred coworker” scale.

More recently identified styles of leadership include transformational leadership (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996 ), charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1988 ), and authentic leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003 ). In a nutshell, transformational leaders inspire followers to act based on the good of the organization; charismatic leaders project a vision and convey a new set of values; and authentic leaders convey trust and genuine sentiment.

Leader-member exchange theory (LMX; see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ) assumes that leadership emerges from exchange relationships between a leader and her or his followers. More recently, Tse, Troth, and Ashkanasy ( 2015 ) expanded on LMX to include social processes (e.g., emotional intelligence, emotional labor, and discrete emotions), arguing that affect plays a large part in the leader-member relationship.

Leadership Development

An emerging new topic in leadership concerns leadership development, which embodies the readiness of leadership aspirants to change (Hannah & Avolio, 2010 ). In this regard, the learning literature suggests that intrinsic motivation is necessary in order to engage in development (see Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000 ), but also that the individual needs to be goal-oriented and have developmental efficacy or self-confidence that s/he can successfully perform in leadership contexts.

Ashkanasy, Dasborough, and Ascough ( 2009 ) argue further that developing the affective side of leaders is important. In this case, because emotions are so pervasive within organizations, it is important that leaders learn how to manage them in order to improve team performance and interactions with employees that affect attitudes and behavior at almost every organizational level.

Abusive Leadership

Leaders, or those in positions of power, are particularly more likely to run into ethical issues, and only more recently have organizational behavior researchers considered the ethical implications of leadership. As Gallagher, Mazur, and Ashkanasy ( 2015 ) describe, since 2009 , organizations have been under increasing pressure to cut costs or “do more with less,” and this sometimes can lead to abusive supervision, whereby employee job demands exceed employee resources, and supervisors engage in bullying, undermining, victimization, or personal attacks on subordinates (Tepper, 2000 ).

Supervisors who are very high or low in emotional intelligence may be more likely to experience stress associated with a very demanding high-performance organizational culture. These supervisors may be more likely to try to meet the high demands and pressures through manipulative behaviors (Kilduff, Chiaburu, & Menges, 2010 ). This has serious implications for employee wellbeing and the organization as a whole. Abusive supervision detracts from the ability for those under attack to perform effectively, and targets often come to doubt their own ability to perform (Tepper, 2000 ).

The Macro (Organizational) Level of Analysis

The final level of OB derives from research traditions across three disciplines: organizational psychology, organizational sociology, and organizational anthropology. Moreover, just as teams and groups are more than the sum of their individual team members, organizations are also more than the sum of the teams or groups residing within them. As such, structure, climate, and culture play key roles in shaping and being shaped by employee attitudes and behaviors, and they ultimately determine organizational performance and productivity.

Organizational Structure

Organizational structure is a sociological phenomenon that determines the way tasks are formally divided and coordinated within an organization. In this regard, jobs are often grouped by the similarity of functions performed, the product or service produced, or the geographical location. Often, the number of forms of departmentalization will depend on the size of the organization, with larger organizations having more forms of departmentalization than others. Organizations are also organized by the chain of command or the hierarchy of authority that determines the span of control, or how many employees a manager can efficiently and effectively lead. With efforts to reduce costs since the global financial crisis of 2009 , organizations have tended to adopt a wider, flatter span of control, where more employees report to one supervisor.

Organizational structure also concerns the level of centralization or decentralization, the degree to which decision-making is focused at a single point within an organization. Formalization is also the degree to which jobs are organized in an organization. These levels are determined by the organization and also vary greatly across the world. For example, Finnish organizations tend to be more decentralized than their Australian counterparts and, as a consequence, are more innovative (Leiponen & Helfat, 2011 ).

Mintzberg ( 1979 ) was the first to set out a taxonomy of organizational structure. Within his model, the most common organizational design is the simple structure characterized by a low level of departmentalization, a wide span of control, and centralized authority. Other organizational types emerge in larger organizations, which tend to be bureaucratic and more routinized. Rules are formalized, tasks are grouped into departments, authority is centralized, and the chain of command involves narrow spans of control and decision-making. An alternative is the matrix structure, often found in hospitals, universities, and government agencies. This form of organization combines functional and product departmentalization where employees answer to two bosses: functional department managers and product managers.

New design options include the virtual organization and the boundaryless organization , an organization that has no chain of command and limitless spans of control. Structures differ based on whether the organization seeks to use an innovation strategy, imitation strategy, or cost-minimization strategy (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1994 ). Organizational structure can have a significant effect on employee attitudes and behavior. Evidence generally shows that work specialization leads to higher employee productivity but also lower job satisfaction (Porter & Lawler, 1965 ). Gagné and Deci emphasize that autonomous work motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation and integrated extrinsic motivation) is promoted in work climates that are interesting, challenging, and allow choice. Parker, Wall, and Jackson ( 1997 ) specifically relate job enlargement to autonomous motivation. Job enlargement was first discussed by management theorists like Lawler and Hall ( 1970 ), who believed that jobs should be enlarged to improve the intrinsic motivation of workers. Today, most of the job-design literature is built around the issue of work specialization (job enlargement and enrichment). In Parker, Wall, and Jackson’s study, they observed that horizontally enlarging jobs through team-based assembly cells led to greater understanding and acceptance of the company’s vision and more engagement in new work roles. (In sum, by structuring work to allow more autonomy among employees and identification among individual work groups, employees stand to gain more internal autonomous motivation leading to improved work outcomes (van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000 ).

The Physical Environment of Work

Ashkanasy, Ayoko, and Jehn ( 2014 ) extend the topic of organizational structure to discuss, from a psychological perspective, how the physical work environment shapes employee attitudes, behaviors, and organizational outcomes. Elsbach ( 2003 ) pointed out that the space within which employees conduct their work is critical to employees’ levels of performance and productivity. In their study, Ashkanasy and his colleagues looked at the underlying processes influencing how the physical environment determines employee attitudes and behaviors, in turn affecting productivity levels. They base their model on affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996 ), which holds that particular “affective” events in the work environment are likely to be the immediate cause of employee behavior and performance in organizations (see also Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011 ). Specifically, Ashkanasy and colleagues ( 2014 ) looked at how this theory holds in extremely crowded open-plan office designs and how employees in these offices are more likely to experience negative affect, conflict, and territoriality, negatively impacting attitudes, behaviors, and work performance.

• Organizational Climate and Culture

Although organizational structure and the physical environment are important determinants of employee attitudes and behaviors, organizational culture and climate lie at the heart of organizational interactions (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001 ). Organizational culture derives from an anthropological research tradition, while organizational climate is based on organizational psychology.

A central presumption of culture is that, as Smircich ( 1983 ) noted, organizational behavior is not a function of what goes on inside individual employees’ heads, but between employees, as evidenced in daily organizational communication and language. As such, organizational culture allows one organization to distinguish itself from another, while conveying a sense of identity for its members.

Organizational Climate and its Relation to Organizational Culture

Organizational culture creates organizational climate or employees’ shared perceptions about their organization and work environment. Organizational climate has been found to facilitate and/or inhibit displays of certain behaviors in one study (Smith-Crowe, Burke, & Landis, 2003 ), and overall, organizational climate is often viewed as a surface-level indicator of the functioning of the employee/organizational environment relationship (Ryan, Horvath, Ployhart, Schmitt, & Slade, 2000 ). For instance, a more restrictive climate may inhibit individual decision-making in contrast to a more supportive climate in which the organization may intervene at the individual level and in which the ability/job performance relationship is supported (James, Demaree, Mulaik, & Ladd, 1992 ). In a study focused on safety climate, Smith-Crowe and colleagues found that organizational climate is essential in determining whether training will transfer to employee performance, and this is most likely because organizational climate moderates the knowledge/performance relationship. Gibbs and Cooper ( 2010 ) also found that a supportive organizational climate is positively related to employee performance. They specifically looked at PsyCap, the higher-order construct of psychological capital first proposed by Luthans and Youssef ( 2004 ).

Organizational Change

The final topic covered in this article is organizational change. Organizational culture and climate can both be negatively impacted by organizational change and, in turn, negatively affect employee wellbeing, attitudes, and performance, reflecting onto organizational performance. Often, there is great resistance to change, and the success rate of organizational change initiatives averages at less than 30% (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015 ). In order to overcome this resistance, it is important that managers plan ahead for changes and emphasize education and communication about them. As organizations becoming increasingly globalized, change has become the norm, and this will continue into the future.

Additionally, as organizations become increasingly globalized, organizational changes often involve mergers that have important organizational implications. In this regard, Kavanagh and Ashkanasy ( 2006 ) found that, for a merger to be successful, there needs to be alignment between the individual values and organizational cultures of merging partners. Managers during a merger situation need to be especially cognizant of how this organizational change affects the company’s original organizational culture.

Organizational development (OD), a collection of planned change interventions, may be the way to improve organizational performance and increase employee wellbeing. OD focuses on employees respecting one another, trust and support, equal power, confrontation of problems, and participation of everyone affected by the organizational change (Lines, 2004 ). Moreover, when an organization already has an established climate and culture that support change and innovation, an organization may have less trouble adapting to the change.

Organizational change research encompasses almost all aspects of organizational behavior. Individuals and employees are motivated to achieve success and be perceived as successful. In this regard, each of the individual differences—personality, affect, past experiences, values, and perceptions—plays into whether individuals can transcend obstacles and deal with the barriers encountered along the journey toward achievement. Teams are similarly motivated to be successful in a collective sense and to prove that they contribute to the organization as a whole. In addition to individual differences, team members deal with bringing all those individual differences together, which can wreak havoc on team communication and cause further obstacles in terms of power differences and conflicts in regard to decision-making processes. Last, at the organizational level of organizational behavior, it is important to account for all of these micro- and meso-level differences, and to address the complexity of economic pressures, increasing globalization, and global and transnational organizations to the mix. This is at the top level of sophistication because, as emphasized before, just as groups equal much more than the sum of individual members, organizations are much more than the sum of their teams. The organizational structure, the formal organization, the organizational culture, and climate and organizational rules all impact whether an organization can perform effectively. Organizational behavior, through its complex study of human behavior at its very conception, offers much-needed practical implications for managers in understanding people at work.

• Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67 , 422–436.
• Al-Haddad, S. , & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 28 , 234–262.
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Anderson, C. , Spataro, S. E. , & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 702–710.
• Ardichivili, A. , Mitchell, J. A. , & Jondle, D. (2009). Characteristics of ethical business cultures. Journal of Business Ethics , 85 , 445–451.
• Ashforth, B. E. , & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations , 48 , 97–125.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F. Danserau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues (Vol. 2, pp. 9–54). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Ashton-James, C. E. (2008). Affective events theory: A strategic perspective. In W. J. Zerbe , C. E. J. Härtel , & N. M. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations (Vol. 4, pp. 1–34). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Pub.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , Ayoko, O. B. , & Jehn, K. A. (2014). Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 35 , 1169–1184.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education in Business , 79 , 18–22.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , Dasborough, M. T. , & Ascough, K. W. (2009). Developing leaders: Teaching about emotional intelligence and training in emotional skills. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The Sage handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 161–185). London: SAGE.
• Ashkanasy, N. M & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy of Management Executive , 16 , 76–86.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Härtel, C. E. J. (2014). Emotional Climate and culture: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In B. Schneider & K. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 136–152). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Current research on emotion in organizations. Emotion Review , 3 , 214–224.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Jackson, C. R. A. (2001). Organizational culture and climate. In N. Anderson , D. S. Ones , H. K. Sinangil , & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 398–415). London: SAGE.
• Bakker, A. B. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 29 , 147–154.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
• Barsade, S. G. , Brief, A. P. , & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 3–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Bass, B. M. , Avolio, B. J. , & Atwater, L. E. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 45 , 5–34.
• Bono, J. E. , & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi‐source feedback: The role of core self‐evaluations. Personnel Psychology , 58 , 171–203.
• Bono, J. E. , & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 901–910.
• Boyatzis, R. E. , & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Brady, M. K. , & Cronin, J. J., Jr. (2001). Customer orientation: Effects on customer service perceptions and outcome behaviors. Journal of Service Research , 3 , 241–251.
• Britt, T. W. , Dickinson, J. M. , Greene-Shortridge, T. M. , & McKibbin, E. S. (2007). Self-engagement at work. In D. L. Nelson & C. L Cooper (Eds). Positive Organizational Behavior (pp. 143–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Brotheridge, C. , & Grandey, A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior , 60 , 17–39.
• Castka, P. , Bamber, C. J. , Sharp, J. M. , & Belohoubek, P. (2001). Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal , 7 (7/8), 123–134.
• Champoux, J. E. (2011). Organizational behavior: Integrating individuals, groups and organizations (4th ed.). Florence: Routledge.
• Cohen, S. G. , & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management , 23 , 239–290.
• Conger, J. A. , & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership. The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Costa, P. T., Jr. , & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 , 309–3278.
• Diener, E. , Larsen, R. J. , Levine, S. , Emmons, R. (1985). Intensity and frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 28 , 1253–1265.
• Druskat, V. U. , & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review , 79 , 81–90.
• Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly , 48 , 622–654.
• Erickson, R. J. , & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Inauthenticity and depression: Assessing the consequences of interactive service work. Work and Occupations , 24 , 188–213.
• Feather, N. T. , & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender discrimination in the workplace in the context of affirmative action: Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian sample. Sex Roles , 57 , 31–42.
• Fernet, C. , Gagne, M. , & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 1163–1180.
• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effective ness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Fritz, C. , Sonnentag, S. , Spector, P. E. , & McInroe, J. (2010). The weekend matters: Relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 1137–1162.
• Galunic, D. C. , & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1994). Renewing the strategy-structure-performance paradigm. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 215–255). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Gallagher, E. C. , Mazur, A. K. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Rallying the troops or beating the horses? How project-related demands can lead to either high performance or abusive supervision. Project Management Journal , 46 (3), 10–24.
• Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal , 31 , 9–41.
• Gibbs, P. C. , & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Fostering a positive organizational culture and climate in an economic downturn. In N. M. Ashkanasy , C. P. M. Wilderom , & M. F. Peterson , The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2d ed., pp. 119–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Graen, G. B. , & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly , 6 , 219–247.
• Grandey, A. (2003). When the show must go on: Surface and deep acting as predictors of emotional exhaustion and service delivery. Academy of Management Journal , 46 , 86–96.
• Groth, M. , Hennig-Thurau, T. , & Walsh, G. (2009). Customer reactions to emotional labor: The roles of employee acting strategies and customer detection accuracy. Academy of Management Journal , 52 , 958–974.
• Hannah, S. T. , & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Ready or not: How do we accelerate the developmental readiness of leaders? Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 1181–1187.
• Hatfield, E. , Cacioppo, J. T. , & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion: Current directions. Psychological Science , 2 , 96–99.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man . Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.
• Hidi, S. , & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research , 70 , 151–179.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44 , 513–524.
• Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: Q theory of careers . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Janis, I. L. , & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment . New York: Free Press.
• James, L. R. , Demaree, R. G. , Mulaik, S. A. , & Ladd, R. T. (1992). Validity generalization in the context of situational models. Journal of Applied Psychology , 77 , 3–14.
• Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 , 538–566.
• Johnson, E. C. , Kristof-Brown, A. L , van Vianen, A. E. M. , de Pater, I. E. , & Klein, M. R. (2003). Expatriate social ties: Personality antecedents and consequences for adjustment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 11 , 277–288.
• Judge, T. A. , Bono, J. E. , Erez, A. , & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 257–268.
• Judge, T. A. , Higgins, C. A. , Thoresen, C. J. , & Barrick, M. R. (2006). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology , 52 , 621–652.
• Judge, T. A. , Ilies, R. , & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work-family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and home. Personnel Psychology , 59 , 779–814.
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33 , 692–724.
• Kavanagh, M. H. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British Journal of Management , 17 , S81–S103.
• Kilduff, M. , Chiaburu, D. S. , & Menges, J. I. (2010). Strategic use of emotional intelligence in organizational settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in Organizational Behavior , 30 , 129–152.
• Konopaske, R. , & Ivancevich, J. M. (2004). Global management and organizational behavior: Text, readings, cases, and exercises . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Latham, G. P. , & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology , 56 , 485–516.
• Lawler, E. E. , & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied psychology , 54 , 305–312.
• Leiponen, A. , & Helfat, C. E. (2011). Location, decentralization, and knowledge sources for innovation. Organization Science , 22 , 641–658.
• Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management , 4 (3), 193–215.
• Locke, E. A. , & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Luthans, F. , & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron , J. E. Dutton , & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
• Luthans, F. , & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management. Organizational Dynamics , 33 , 143–160.
• Martinko, M. J. (1995). The nature and function of attribution theory within the organizational sciences. In. M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Advances in attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 7–14). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review , 50 , 370–396.
• Mayer, J. D. , & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
• Mayes, B. T. , & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Journal , 2 , 635–644.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as a political arena. Journal of Management Studies , 22 , 133–154.
• Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review , 7 , 80–88.
• Moscovici, S. , & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 12 , 125–135.
• Murnighan, J. K. , & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense workgroups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly , 36 , 165–186.
• Myers, D. G. , & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin , 83 , 602–627.
• Ozcelik, H. (2013). An empirical analysis of surface acting in intra-organizational relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 , 291–309.
• Ostroff, C. , & Atwater, L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group and age composition on managers’ compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 725–740.
• Parker, S. K. , Wall, T. D. , & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That's not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal , 40 , 899–929.
• Pelled, L. H. (1995). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science , 7 , 615–631.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Leblebici, H. (1973). Executive recruitment and the development of interfirm organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 18 , 449–461.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Salancik, G. R. (1973). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Porter, L. W. , & Lawler, E. E. (1965). Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin , 64 , 23–51.
• Rashotte, L. S. (2002). What does that smile mean? The meaning of nonverbal behaviors in social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly , 65 , 92–102.
• Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues , 49 , 227–251.
• Richer, S. , Blanchard, C. , & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 32 , 2089–2113.
• Rhoades, J. A. , Arnold, J. , & Jay, C. (2001). The role of affective traits and affective states in disputants’ motivation and behavior during episodes of organizational conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 , 329–345.
• Robbins, S. P. , Judge, T. A. , Millett, B. , & Boyle, M. (2014). Organisational behaviour (7th ed.). French’s Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearson Education.
• Ryan, A. M. , Horvath, M. , Ployhart, R. E. , Schmitt, N. , & Slade, L. A. (2000). Hypothesizing differential item functioning in global employee opinion surveys. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 531–562.
• Scott, W. G. , & Mitchell, T. R. (1976). Organization theory: A structural and behavioral analysis . Homewood, IL: Irwin.
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative science quarterly , 28 , 339–358.
• Smith-Crowe, K. , Burke, M. J. , & Landis, R. S. (2003). Organizational climate as a moderator of safety knowledge-safety performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 , 861–876.
• Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review , 6 , 577–587.
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal , 43 , 178–190.
• Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette , & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2d ed., Vol. 3, pp. 652–717). Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
• Tjosvold, D. (1997). Networking by professionals to manage change: Dentists’ cooperation and competition to develop their business. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 18 , 745–752.
• Tse, H. M. M. , Troth, A. M. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Leader-member exchange and emotion in organizations. In B. Erdogan & T. N. Bauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 209–225). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin , 63 , 384–399.
• Umphress, E. E. , Simmons, A. L. , Folger, R. , Ren, R. , & Bobocel, R. (2013). Observer reactions to interpersonal injustice: The roles of perpetrator intent and victim perception. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 , 327–349.
• Van Erde, W. , & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s Expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 576–588.
• Van Knippenberg, D. , & Van Schie, E. L. S. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 73 , 137–147.
• Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 57 , 326–347.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . New York: Wiley.
• Wall, J. , & Callister, R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management , 21 , 515–558.
• Wallach, M. A. , Kogan, N. , & Bem D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology , 68 , 263–274.
• Watson, D. (1988). The vicissitudes of mood measurement: Effects of varying descriptors, time frames, and response formats on measures of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55 , 128–141.
• Watson, D. , & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin , 98 , 219–235.
• Watson, D. , & Walker, L. M. (1996). The long-term stability and predictive validity of trait measures of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , 567–577.
• Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review , 12 , 173–194.
• Weiss, H. M. , & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Westport, CT: JAI Press.
• West, M. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M. A. West (Ed.), The handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555–579). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
• Wilkin, C. L. (2012). I can’t get no job satisfaction: Meta-analysis comparing permanent and contingent workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 , 47–64.
• Yukl, G. , & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology , 77 , 525–535.

Related Articles

• Organizational Sensemaking
• Human Resource Management and Organizational Psychology
• Overqualification in the Workplace
• Communication and Intergroup Relations
• Justice in Teams
• Training from an Organizational Psychology Perspective
• Dual Process Models of Persuasion

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 02 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

Character limit 500 /500

Organizational behaviour management in clinical laboratory: A literature review

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Health Management and Economics, Health Information Management Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
• PMID: 34395647
• PMCID: PMC8318186
• DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1000_20

Background: The clinical laboratories require organizational behavior management approach that creates a balance between directors' expectations and staffs' needs in this field. This study was aimed to explain the role of organizational behavior management in clinical laboratories and suggest mechanisms for its implementation in these organizations.

Materials and methods: In this research, using several Persian and English databases by keywords consist of the clinical laboratory, organizational behavior management, and staff diversity. Three hundred and fifty four references from 1990 to 2020 were studied, and 72 references, including abstracts and full papers utilized for this research, and excluded papers presented at conferences, seminars, and dissertations. Using MESH strategy and Pico's instruction.

Results: The results of studies revealed staffs' individual differences in all aspects, including early and secondary dimensions may influenced the style of leadership implemented in clinical laboratories, "job-personality compatibility theory," job satisfaction and job commitment of staffs work in clinical laboratories and the way the directors and managers can develop the job loyalty and improve the organizational productivity in these organizations.

Conclusion: It is suggested a conceptual model for understanding and assessing the different organizational behaviors of clinical laboratories staffs based on communication skills, staffs' interaction, and socio-political, economic, and cultural elements, which should be more developed in future using the other similar studies.

Keywords: Clinical laboratory; organizational behavior; staff.

Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Education and Health Promotion.

Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda

• Review Paper
• Published: 04 March 2021
• Volume 179 , pages 63–87, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Madhurima Mishra 1 ,
• Koustab Ghosh 2 &
• Dheeraj Sharma 3  

10k Accesses

78 Citations

Explore all metrics

Since the conceptualization of unethical pro-organizational behavior ten years ago, scholarly interest in exploring this phenomenon has multiplied. Given a burgeoning body of empirical research, a review of unethical pro-organizational behavior literature is warranted. This study, therefore, systematically reviews the extant literature on unethical pro-organizational behavior and presents a comprehensive theory-based review of the past developments in this field. We classify previous studies based on their underlying theoretical perspectives and discuss the antecedents and consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior in work context. We also explicate the boundary conditions under which the influence of these antecedents gets accentuated or alleviated. Overall, this study synthesizes past knowledge to elucidate why, how, and when unethical pro-organizational behavior unfolds in the workplace. Finally, the gaps in the extant theorization are identified and an agenda for future research is proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Adapted from Hunter et al. 2019 )

Similar content being viewed by others

Is behaving unethically for organizations a mixed blessing? A dual-pathway model for the work-to-family spillover effects of unethical pro-organizational behavior

Exploring the Antecedents of Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior (UPB): A Meta-Analysis

Investigating the impacts of organizational factors on employees’ unethical behavior within organization in the context of chinese firms, data and/or code availability.

The paper is a review article and does not generate any new data. Hence, there is no relevant data that may be deposited to any repository.

*References marked with an asterisk indicate the studies included in the review.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999 .

Article   Google Scholar  

*Babalola, M. T., Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Ren, S., & Garba, O. A. (2020). Whatever it takes: How and when supervisor bottom-line mentality notivates employee contributions in the workplace. Journal of Management . https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320902521 .

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Prentice-hall.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364 .

*Baur, C., Soucek, R., Kühnen, U., & Baumeister, R. F. (2019). Unable to resist the temptation to tell the truth or to lie for the organization? Identification makes the difference. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04162-3 .

Blanken, I., van de Ven, N., & Zeelenberg, M. (2015). A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (4), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215572134 .

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643 .

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 .

*Castille, C. M., Buckner, J. E., & Thoroughgood, C. N. (2018). Prosocial citizens without a moral compass? Examining the relationship between machiavellianism and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 149 (4), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3079-9 .

*Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (8), 1082–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000111 .

*Cheng, K., Wei, F., & Lin, Y. (2019). The trickle-down effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of leader-follower value congruence. Journal of Business Research, 102, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2019.04.044 .

Cialdini, R., Li, Y., Samper, A., & Ethics, N. W. (2019). How bad apples promote bad barrels: Unethical leader behavior and the selective attrition effect. Journal of Business Ethics .

Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Turan, N. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt proneness. Journal of Business Ethics, 114 (1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1326-2 .

De Cooman, R., Gieter, S. D., Pepermans, R., Hermans, S., Bois, CDu., Caers, R., & Jegers, M. (2009). Person-organization fit: Testing socialization and attraction-selection-attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74 (1), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.010 .

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 252–284. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410210749 .

*Effelsberg, D., & Solga, M. (2015). Transformational leaders’ in-group versus out-group orientation: Testing the link between leaders’ organizational identification, their willingness to engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior, and follower-perceived transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 126 (4), 581–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1972-z .

*Effelsberg, D., Solga, M., & Gurt, J. (2014). Transformational leadership and follower’s unethical behavior for the benefit of the company: A two-study investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1644-z .

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 42–51.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 (1), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003 .

Farmer, S. M., Frank Barton, W., Van Dyne, L., & Kamdar, D. (2015). The contextualized self: How team-member exchange leads to coworker identification and helping OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (2), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037660 .

*Fehr, R., Welsh, D., Yam, K. C., Baer, M., Wei, W., & Vaulont, M. (2019). The role of moral decoupling in the causes and consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.007 .

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fortune. (2018). How VW paid $25 billion for “Dieselgate” — and got off easy . http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-penalties/ .

Gee, J., & Button, M. (2019). The financial cost of fraud 2019 . http://www.crowe.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-Financial-Cost-of-Fraud-2019.pdf .

*Ghosh, S. K. (2017). The direct and interactive effects of job insecurity and job embeddedness on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Personnel Review, 46 (6), 1182–1198. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2015-0126 .

*Grabowski, D., Chudzicka-Czupała, A., Chrupała-Pniak, M., Mello, A. L., & Paruzel-Czachura, M. (2019). Work ethic and organizational commitment as conditions of unethical pro-organizational behavior: Do engaged workers break the ethical rules? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27 (2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12241 .

*Graham, K. A., Resick, C. J., Margolis, J. A., Shao, P., Hargis, M. B., & Kiker, J. D. (2020). Egoistic norms, organizational identification, and the perceived ethicality of unethical pro-organizational behavior: A moral maturation perspective. Human Relations, 73 (9), 1249–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719862851 .

*Graham, K. A., Ziegert, J. C., & Capitano, J. (2015). The effect of leadership style, framing, and promotion regulatory focus on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 126 (3), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1952-3 .

Guardian. (2019). Volkswagen’s $75m fine over diesel emissions scandal rejected by judge . https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/16/volkswagens-75m-fine-over-diesel-emissions-scandal-rejected-as-outrageous-by-judge#maincontent .

Hunter, C., Verreynne, M. L., Pachana, N., & Harpur, P. (2019). The impact of disability-assistance animals on the psychological health of workplaces: A systematic review. Human Resource Management Review, 29 (3), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.07.007 .

*Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liao, H., Hong, Y., & Liu, S. (2016). Do it well and do it right: The impact of service climate and ethical climate on business performance and the boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (11), 1553–1568. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000138 .

Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., Gallo, E., & James Reade, J. (2016). Whatever it takes to win: Rivalry increases unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 59 (5), 1508–1534. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0545 .

Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2013). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Academy of Management Review, 38 (2), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0109 .

*Kong, D. T. (2016). The pathway to unethical pro-organizational behavior: Organizational identification as a joint function of work passion and trait mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2015.08.035 .

*Lawrence, E. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2017). Exploring the impact of job insecurity on employees’ unethical behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27 (1), 39–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.58 .

*Lee, A., Schwarz, G., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2019). Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154 (1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3456-z .

*Lee, J., Oh, S. H., & Park, S. (2020). Effects of organizational embeddedness on unethical pro-organizational behavior: roles of perceived status and ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04661-8 .

Liu, Y., Chen, S., Bell, C., & Tan, J. (2019). How do power and status differ in predicting unethical decisions? a cross-national comparison of China and Canada. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04150-7 .

*Mahlendorf, M. D., Matějka, M., & Weber, J. (2018). Determinants of financial managers’ willingness to engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30 (2), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51957 .

*Matherne, C. F., Ring, J. K., & Farmer, S. (2018). Organizational Moral identity centrality: Relationships with citizenship behaviors and unethical prosocial behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33 (6), 711–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9519-4 .

*May, D. R., Chang, Y. K., & Shao, R. (2015). Does ethical membership matter? Moral identification and its organizational implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (3), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038344 .

*Miao, N., & Xu, Y. (2013). The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Linear or curvilinear effects? Journal of Business Ethics, 116 (3), 641–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1504-2 .

*Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., Nielsen, I., & Herbert, K. (2020). Ethical leadership and unethical pro-organisational behaviour: The mediating mechanism of reflective moral attentiveness. Applied Psychology, 69 (3), 834–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12210 .

Molinsky, A., & Margolis, J. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30 (2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.16387884 .

*Naseer, S., Bouckenooghe, D., Syed, F., Khan, A. K., & Qazi, S. (2020). The malevolent side of organizational identification: Unraveling the impact of psychological entitlement and manipulative personality on unethical work behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35 (3), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09623-0 .

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27 (3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001 .

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2012). The influence of unethical peer behavior on observers’ unethical behavior: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 109 (2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1111-7 .

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. In Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6 .

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (6), 1610–1624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1610 .

Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory. In Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, Methods, Research (pp. 3–19).

Seuntjens, T. G., Zeelenberg, M., van de Ven, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2019). Greedy bastards: Testing the relationship between wanting more and unethical behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.027 .

*Sheedy, E., Garcia, P., D., & Jepsen. (2020). The role of risk climate and ethical self-interest climate in predicting unethical pro-organisational behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04542-0 .

Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35 (6), 1312–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309337489 .

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of group relations (pp. 33–47).

Takeuchi, R., Bolino, M. C., & Lin, C. C. (2015). Too many motives? The interactive effects of multiple motives on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (4), 1239–1248. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000001 .

*Tang, P. M., Yam, K. C., & Koopman, J. (2020). Feeling proud but guilty? Unpacking the paradoxical nature of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.004 .

Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036708 .

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 .

Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)Ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65 (1), 635–660. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143745 .

*Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22 (3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559 .

*Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (4), 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214 .

*Vadera, A. K., & Pratt, M. G. (2013). Love, hate, ambivalence, or indifference? A conceptual examination of workplace crimes and organizational identification. Organization Science, 24 (1), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0714 .

Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations. Journal of Management, 39 (5), 1221–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475816 .

*Valle, M., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2019). Understanding the effects of political environments on unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 156 (1), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3576-5 .

Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: a motivational framework. Organization Science, 7 (2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.151 .

*Wang, T., Long, L., Zhang, Y., & He, W. (2019). A social exchange perspective of employee-organization relationships and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of individual moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 159 (2), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3782-9 .

Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28 (4), 622–632. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.10899440 .

Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal, 60 (1), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0234 .

*Yu, A., Hays, N. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2019). Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.011 .

*Zhang, S. (2019). Impact of workplace ostracism on unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Personnel Review . https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2019-0245 .

*Zhang, S. (2020). Workplace spirituality and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The mediating effect of job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 161 (3), 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3966-3 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are truly grateful to all the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback that enabled them to improve the manuscript’s quality.

No funding, grants, or other support was received for conducting this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Rohtak, Haryana, 124001, India

Madhurima Mishra

Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Management City, Southern Bypass, Sunaria, Rohtak, Haryana, 124010, India

Koustab Ghosh

Marketing and Organizational Behavior, Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Rohtak, Haryana, 124001, India

Dheeraj Sharma

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

This manuscript is a part of the first author’s doctoral thesis. The draft was prepared by the first author under the supervision of the second and third authors who reviewed and edited it.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koustab Ghosh .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial conflict of interests to disclose.

Ethical Approval

This is a review article. Hence, the study was granted exemption from requiring ethics approval.

Informed Consent

This study does not involve human subjects. Therefore, informed consent was not required.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mishra, M., Ghosh, K. & Sharma, D. Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. J Bus Ethics 179 , 63–87 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04764-w

Download citation

Received : 02 May 2020

Accepted : 04 February 2021

Published : 04 March 2021

Issue Date : August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04764-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPOB)
• Systematic literature review
• Future research agenda
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research