Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Too Busy to Change: High Job Demands Reduce the Beneficial Effects of Information and Participation on Employee Support

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the abundant literature on organizational change management, the success of change initiatives in organizations remains low. In this study, we investigate employee support for change in the context of two change management practices (information and participation). We use the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to examine why these change management practices foster employee support, and the extent to which the efficacy of these practices depends on current job demands. Participants were 106 employees undergoing a building relocation at their place of employment who responded to an initial questionnaire at time 1 (pre-occupancy) and a follow-up questionnaire 2 months later (post-occupancy). We found that the TPB variables mediated the effects of information and participation on employee support (both intentions at time 1 and self-reported behaviors at time 2). The indirect relationships from information and participation to employee support were significant at low and medium, but not at high levels of job demands. The positive effects of information and participation on employee support can be largely attributed to employee attitudes and subjective norms. Thus, consultants should target employee attitudes and norms when garnering employee support, but also be aware of the limitations of these practices when employees are preoccupied with their work. This study demonstrates that the TPB can account for the beneficial effects of change management practices on employee support. It also reports the novel finding that change management practices are less effective at high levels of job demands.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, C., & Keller, S. (2009). The irrational side of change management. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 100–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal direct behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management, 7, 187–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2015). Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly, May, Catalogue Number 6291.0.55.003.

  • Bamberger, S. G., Vinding, A. L., Larsen, A., Nielsen, P., Fonager, K., Nielsen, R. N., Ryom, P., & Omland, O. (2012). Impact of organizational change on mental health: A systematic review. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 69, 592–598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boudrias, J. S., & Savoie, A. (2006). Behavioral empowerment at work: Development of a conceptual framework and a measurement instrument. Psychologie du Travail et des Organizations, 12, 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, R., Mackay, C. J., Clarke, S. D., Kelly, C., Kelly, P. J., & McCaig, R. H. (2004). Management standards and work-related stress in the UK: Practical development. Work and Stress, 18, 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2005). Organization development and change. Mason, OH: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 623–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragano, N., Verde, P. E., & Siegrist, J. (2005). Organizational downsizing and work stress: Testing synergistic health effects in employed men and women. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 694–699.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fila, M. J., Paik, L. S., Griffeth, R. W., & Allen, D. (2014). Disaggregating job satisfaction: Effects of perceived demands, control, and support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 639–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of organizational change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1843–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61, 227–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent context. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change Management, 11, 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M. (1998). A strategic approach to a changing world. Credit Union Magazine, 64, 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimmieson, N. L., Peach, M., & White, K. M. (2008). Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to inform change management: An investigation of employee intentions to support organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimmieson, N. L., & White, K. M. (2011). Predicting employee intentions to support organizational change: An examination of identification processes during a re-brand. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 331–341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jimmieson, N. L., White, K. M., & Zajdlewicz, L. (2009). Psychological predictions of intentions to engage in change supportive behaviors in an organizational context. Journal of Change Management, 9, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, B. H., & Corrigan, W. A. (1989). Understanding organizational change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 10, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73, 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Kao, Y., Chen, Y., & Lu, S. (2016). Fostering change-oriented behaviors: A broaden-and-build model. Journal of Business Psychology, 31, 399–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Coxe, S., & Baraldi, A. N. (2012). Guidelines for the investigation of mediating variables in business research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (1999). Adjusting to job relocation: Relocation preparation can reduce relocation stress. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 231–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McManus, J., & Wood-Harper, T. (2007). Understanding the sources of information systems project failure. Management Services, 51, 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about organizational change. Human Communication Research, 11, 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, A. J., Boudrias, J. S., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Dagenais-Desmarais, V., Madore, I., & Litalien, D. (2017). Complementary variable-and person-centered approaches to the dimensionality of psychometric constructs: Application to psychological wellbeing at work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 395–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, A. E., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Krueger, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Can work make you sick? A meta-analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms. Work and Stress, 35, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680–693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ortgvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahkin, K., Mattila-Holappa, P., Nielsen, K., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., & Wiezer, N. (2014). A sound change: Ways to support employees’ well-being during organizational restructuring. In S. Leka & R. R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165–180). Chichester, WS: Wiley Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N. G., Jesuino, J. C., D’Amorim, M., Francois, P. H., Hofmann, K., Koopman, P. L., Leung, K., Lim, T. K., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J., Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, T. N., Sorenson, R., & Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 174–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, M., Pung, C., & González-Blanch, J. M. (2006). Organizing for successful change management: A McKinsey global survey. The McKinsey Quarterly, June, pp 1–8.

  • Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When change causes stress: Effects of self-construal and change consequences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 249–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Peter J. O’Connor & Nerina L. Jimmieson

  2. School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Katherine M. White

Authors
  1. Peter J. O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nerina L. Jimmieson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine M. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. O’Connor.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Scales Used in Questionnaire

Time 1 Information:

  1. 1.

    How well do you think you have been informed about the implications that the relocation will have on your work?

  2. 2.

    How clearly have you been informed about the reasons underlying the relocation?

  3. 3.

    Overall, how clearly do you think you have been informed about the changes relating to the relocation?

Time 1 Participation:

  1. 1.

    To what extent have you had the opportunity to take part in decisions related to the relocation?

  2. 2.

    To what extent have you been able to voice your concerns about the relocation?

  3. 3.

    Overall, how much participation have you had regarding the changes associated with the relocation?

Time 1 Attitude:

Carrying out activities during the next two months that support the relocation to [new location] would be:

Beneficial, positive, worthwhile, useful, exciting, relaxing, enjoyable, constructive.

Time 1 Subjective Norm:

  1. 1.

    Most people who are important to me would approve of me carrying out activities during the next two months that support the relocation to [new location].

  2. 2.

    Most people who are important to me would think that my carrying out activities during the next two months that support the relocation to [new location] would be desirable.

  3. 3.

    Most people who are important to me would think that I should carry out the activities during the next two months that support the relocation to [new location].

Time 1 Perceived Behavioral Control:

  1. 1.

    I have complete control over whether I carry out activities during the next two months that support the relocation to [new location].

  2. 2.

    It is mostly up to me whether or not I carry out activities during the next two months that support the relocation to [new location]

  3. 3.

    How much control do you have over whether you carry out activities during the next two months that support the relocation to [new location]?

Time 1 Job Demands:

  1. 1.

    I am pressured to work long hours

  2. 2.

    I have to work very intensively

  3. 3.

    I have to work very fast

  4. 4.

    I have to neglect some tasks because I have too much to do

  5. 5.

    I am unable to take sufficient breaks

  6. 6.

    I have unachievable deadlines

Time 1 Intentions/Time 2 Behaviors:

Adaptive:

  1. 1.

    I will read/I read the updates on the [new location name] website

  2. 2.

    I will attend/I attended information sessions about the relocation

  3. 3.

    I will read/I read the [new location name] newsletter

Proactive:

  1. 1.

    I will identify/I identified new work systems and processes that should continue in the new accommodation

  2. 2.

    I will determine/I determined my storage needs

  3. 3.

    I will consider/I considered resource sharing needs for my team

  4. 4.

    I will identify/I identified work practices that require improvement before implementation in the new accommodation

Environmental:

  1. 1.

    I will recycle/I recycled paper waste

  2. 2.

    I will become/I became familiar with the goals of an ecologically sustainable work environment

  3. 3.

    I will file/I filed documents electronically

  4. 4.

    I will archive or dispose of outdated files/I archived or disposed of outdated files

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Connor, P.J., Jimmieson, N.L. & White, K.M. Too Busy to Change: High Job Demands Reduce the Beneficial Effects of Information and Participation on Employee Support. J Bus Psychol 33, 629–643 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9515-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9515-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation