Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2014

Exploring employees’ perceptions, job-related attitudes and

characteristics during a planned organizational change

Kleanthis K. Katsaros

University of Macedonia

Department of Accounting and Finance

156 Egnatia Str, 54006, Thessaloniki - Greece

Telephone: +30 2310891699, Fax: +30 2310891636

Email: kleanthis.katsaros@gmail.com

Athanasios N. Tsirikas

University of Macedonia

Department of Accounting and Finance

156 Egnatia Str, 54006, Thessaloniki - Greece

Telephone: +30 2310891699, Fax: +30 2310891636

Email: tsirikas@uom.gr

Sofia-Maria N. Bani

University of Macedonia

Department of Accounting and Finance

156 Egnatia Str, 54006, Thessaloniki - Greece

Telephone: +30 2310891699, Fax: +30 2310891636

Email: sofiamaria.mpani@gmail.com

Abstract

The current study explores employee perceptions regarding organizational readiness to change,

supervisory support, trust in management and appropriateness of change during a planned

organizational change in a public hospital. Survey data were collected at two time periods, before and

five months after the initiation of the planned change. Research findings show a significant increase in

perceptive organizational readiness to change, supervisory support, trust in management and

appropriateness of change after the planned change implementation. Findings also suggest that

differences in the aforementioned perceptions are moderated by certain job-related attitudes, namely,

job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement; and job-related characteristics,

namely, skill variety, task identity, task significance feedback, autonomy and goal clarity. Theoretical

and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords: attitudes, job characteristics, perceptions, organizational change

Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the participants and the top

management of the organization

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2014

1 INTRODUCTION

In today's extremely complex business environment where change continues to be the norm rather

than the exception, organizational change has become a core organizational value able to provide

organizations with a sustainable competitive advantage. However, though many change programs have

originally perceived as being successful; it is claimed that ultimately nearly 70 percent of all change

initiatives fail (Kotter, 2008) and thus, long-term success is elusive (Nadine & Persaud, 2003). That is,

changes involve making painful modifications to one’s behaviour; as well as they require placing

oneself in jeopardy (e.g. take risks that put the common good above self-preservation; Quinn, Spreitzer

& Brown, 2000). Within this context, management scholars acknowledge that this rate of change may

affect negatively employee attitudes, perceptions, morale, emotions, and/or feelings (Eby, Adams,

Russell & Gaby, 2000; Osterman, 2000). Organizational change has an important personal dimension

(Moran & Brightman, 2000); and it is actually an emotional experience, which notes the crucial role of

employees’ perceptual and attitudinal characteristics (Nicolaidis & Katsaros, 2010). Equally, it is

suggested that positive employee workplace attitudes are often critical in achieving organizational

goals and in succeeding in change programmes (Eby et al., 2000; Martin, 1998; Kotter, 1996).

Research proposes that employee perceptions of organizational readiness to change may either

facilitate or inhibit an organizational change initiative (Eby, et al., 2000). That is, they reflect the

degree to which the organization has the flexibility to achieve change, and the extent to which an

employee can actively and genuinely participate in the change process (Smith, 2005). On the whole, an

organizational environment that engulfs innovation and change influences positively employees’

preconceived notions about the extent to which the organization is ready for change. Other studies

suggest that organizational change may be more successful if employees perceive the management

support during the change initiative (Holt et al., 2007). That is, employees consider that their

supervisors are responsible for providing information and support because they are perceived to be the

principal agents of the organization (Cole et al., 2006). Nevertheless, support provided by supervisors,

yields positive emotions and emotional/cognitive openness towards the proposed change. Research also

proposes that trust in management can reduce negative feelings provoked by change uncertainty and

ambiguity (Weber & Weber, 2001). Thus, honest and fair business practices, trustful communication

and teamwork may craft a significant basis for accomplishing organizational change goals (Beer &

Nohria, 2000). Overall, trust in management is one mechanism that enables organizational members to

cope with operational flexibility and constant change (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). The change

management literature also proposes that perceptions about the appropriateness of change are

extremely significant during organizational change (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris 2007). Within

this context, Armenakis (2002) suggests that not only does there have to be agreement that the

proposed change is suitable, applicable and profitable, but also there must be agreement that the

initiative is congruent with. Thus, the perceived change’s fit with the organization is as vital as whether

the initiative is the proper one.

Nevertheless, several gaps remain in scholars’ understanding regarding how perceptions change

during new organizational efforts, as well as how job-related attitudes and characteristics influence

these changes. While employee perceptions regarding organizational readiness to change, supervisory

support, trust in management and appropriateness of change are considered to be vital to successful

organizational change, there are few empirical studies that examine how these attitudes may vary

before and after a change has been initiated. In more detail, there are few empirical studies that collect

longitudinal data before and after a planned change event and consequently, draw out some insights

into how change takes place. Based on Weber and Weber's research model (2001), the main aim of the

current research is to investigate how these critical attitudes may differ prior and five months after the

initiation of a planned organizational change. Further, it examines certain job-related attitudes (i.e. job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement) and specific job-related characteristics

(i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance feedback, autonomy, goal clarity) that may moderate

employee aforementioned perceptions. These job-related attitudes and characteristics may be vital in

establishing an organizational culture and climate able to promote innovation and change (Liu &

Perrewé, 2005; Wanberg & Banas, 2000) and their deeper understanding can be useful at both practical

and theoretical level.

2 EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Perception is the process by which an employee organizes and interprets his/her impressions in

order to give meaning to his/her environment and thus, it influences significantly his/her workplace

behaviour (Langton & Robbins, 2006). The evidence suggests that what individuals perceive about

their work situation influences their attitudes and behaviour during organizational change. Thus,

Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Athanasios N. Tsirikas and Sofia-Maria N. Bani

employee perceptions will lead to either resistance or acceptance of change. (e.g. Coghlan, 1993,

Galpin, 1996).

Perceptive organizational readiness to change: Organizational readiness to change is reflected in

the organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, intentions and it is defined as the employees’ belief in

the benefits from a proposed change (Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths, 2005). Similarly, Kotter (1996)

suggests that failure to create sufficient readiness accounts for one-half of all unsuccessful, large-scale

change efforts. Employees' perceptions of organizational readiness to change can either facilitate the

success of a change intervention or be a significant source of resistance to change (Eby, et al., 2000).

Employees' readiness perceptions indicate the extent to which an organization is ready to make the

necessary changes as well as its ability to be adaptive to changing demands and new evolutions

(Elgamal, 1998). Thus, most change readiness models emphasize the significance of generating an

awareness of the need for change and supporting people’s perceived ability to change. In formulating

their change efficacy judgments, employees are influenced by the extent to which the work

environment and the organizational features seem to create a more receptive context for innovation and

change. Overall, it is critical to assess employees’ readiness perception prior to any change attempt.

Supervisory support: Supervisors act as agents of the organization who have responsibility for

managing and appraising employees’ performance. Thus, employees would view their positive or

negative orientation toward them as indicative of the organization’s support (Eisenberger, Huntington,

Hutchison & Sowa, 1986). Generally, perceived supervisor support reflects the extent to which the

organization cares about its members’ well-being (Treadway et al., 2004). Perceptions of supervisory

support refer to employees’ perceptions of how management both encourages and implements

employee suggestions for improvement (LaRocco et al., 1975). In more detail, they reveal whether

management encourages employees to propose creative ideas and suggestions for work improvements,

supports the improvement efforts and finally rewards employees for the resulting outcomes (Weber &

Weber, 2001). Overall, during times of organizational uncertainty and/or ambiguity, employees have an

increased need to perceive supervisory support (e.g. their input is being considered, frequent and

accurate feedback, available resources; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994). Thus, supervisory support plays a

vital role in an employee’s appraisal of a crisis situation and it may provide a foundation for open

employee participation and involvement.

Trust in management: The importance of trust during organizational change is widely reported in

the international literature, mainly because it is considered as a precondition for successful

collaboration (e.g. Cullen, Johnson & Sakano, 2000; Vangen & Huxham, 2003) and market orientation

(Kimura, 2012). It is acknowledged as an essential feature of organizational change and best achieved

through consultation, participation and empowerment (e.g. Cashman, 1998; Holoviak, 1999; Khan,

1997). Employees evaluate the key qualities of managers (e.g. integrity, competence,

consistency/fairness, openness; Clark & Payne, 1997) or similar attributes (e.g. Mayer, Davis &

Schoorman, 1995) according past behaviours and current situations. Further, Costigan, Ilter and

Berman (1998) claim that employees trust in management is based on the results of organizational

decisions made by the top management and less on direct experience of their character, words and

actions. Therefore, employee trust in management is interpreted through the organization’s policies and

practices. Within this context, other researches indicate that the performance of a manager during a

change effort may depend upon gaining the trust of their employees (Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler &

Martin, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). Overall, employees' trust in

management is a key factor for sustaining individual and organizational effectiveness during

organizational change.

Appropriateness of change: Employees perceived appropriateness of change is very critical for

avoiding individual resistance during organizational changes (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

Management should always provide information why the proposed change initiative is the correct one

by noting what the initiative is intended to correct or improve (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). In other

word, it should provide justification why the proposed change is the suitable action for the identified

discrepancy (e.g. the difference between the current state and an ideal or desired state). Further,

employees must believe they have the knowledge, skills, and ability to successfully implement the

proposed change. Without such a belief, the perception may be that the change initiative is

incompatible because it would not be successful (e.g., Galpin, 1996; Vollman, 1996). Though, not only

does there have to be agreement that the change initiative is suitable, but also there must be agreement

that the initiative is in the same vein with the vision, mission, scope, culture and structure of the

organization (Langton and Robbins, 2006). On the whole, change appropriateness refers both to the

features of a particular change (e.g. deals with the inconsistency between the organization's present and

desired state), and the context where the change will be implemented (e.g. organization is facing rough

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2014

competition). Thus, the change’s fit with the organization is as important as whether or not the

initiative is the right one.

The cited researchers indicate that the above mentioned employee perceptions are critical for

management consideration during a change initiative. Thus, it is proposed that during an organizational

change; employees’ perceptions of organizational readiness to change will covary with their

perceptions of supervisory support, trust in management and appropriateness of change. Hence, the

following hypothesis arises.

H1: Perceptions of organizational readiness to change, supervisory support, trust in management

and appropriateness of change will covary.

Further, the paper suggests that perceptions of organizational readiness to change, supervisory

support, trust in management and appropriateness of change will augment after the employees are

trained and have experienced the relevant changes. That is, employees progress through phases of

change acceptance (anticipation, confirmation, culmination, aftermath; Isabella, 1990). After a change

has been initiated in an organization, employees have a propensity to fear the unknown and exhibit

partial support for the proposed change effort. After training has been conducted and employees have

had initial knowledge of how the change will actually affect them, they may display greater

understanding and support for the planned change. Thus, the following hypothesis arises.

H2: Perceptions of organizational readiness to change, supervisory support, trust in management

and appropriateness of change will increase from time 1 to time 2 (prior and after the initiation of the

planned organizational change).

3 EMPLOYEE JOB-RELATED ATTITUDES & CHARACTERISTICS AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Research suggests that job-related attitudes and characteristics may potentially moderate increases

in perceptions of organizational readiness to change, supervisory support, trust in management and

appropriateness of change; prior and after the initiation of a planned organizational change (Weber &

Weber, 2001). These basic job-related attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and

job involvement) and job-related characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance

feedback, autonomy, goal clarity) may influence significantly the aforementioned employee

perceptions from time 1 to time 2. In more detail:

Job satisfaction is defined as the emotional response to the job, resulting from an employee’s job

assessment regarding his/her personal values (Janssen 2001) and/or as the emotional orientation that an

employee has towards his/her work (Price, 2001). In other words, it is an affective reaction to a job that

results from the comparison of perceived outcomes with the needed ones (Kam, 1998). Shortly, job

satisfaction describes perceptions, feelings or attitudes of individuals regarding their work (Chen,

2008). Clearly, changes in one’s job are likely to have an impact on employee perceptions (Ang &

Slaughter 2000). Further, organizational commitment is defined as an individual’s identification with

an organization; and it relies on one’s own personal choices as well as the expectations from others

around us (Singh, 2010). There is evidence that organizational commitment plays an important role in

employee’s acceptance of change in the workplace (Cordery, Sevastos, Mueller & Parker, 1993,

Iverson, 1996). Relatively, Lau and Woodman (1995) argue that highly committed employees are more

willing to accept organizational change ambiguity if it is perceived to be useful. That is, an individual

committed to an organization accepts its values, is willing to exert effort on its behalf, and wishes to

remain in the organization (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Additionally, job involvement is an

attitude towards the work role and its context and it is mainly defined as the employee’s willingness to

support the organization even if additional time and effort are required (Madsen, Miller & Cameron,

2005). Literature suggests that employees’ involvement relates to their cognitive support during the

change process (Oswald, Mossholder & Harris, 1994); may promote individual readiness for change

(Armenakis & Harris, 2002); and thus, enhance tolerance of change uncertainty. Relatively, research

suggests that involvement leads employees to recognize opportunities (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985); to

drive organizational performance (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993), and to have positive impact on the firm’s

knowledge creating capability (Smith, 2005).

According to job characteristics theory, the core job-related characteristics are linked directly to

critical employees’ psychological and perceptual states. In more detail, skill variety is the degree to

which the job entails a number of different activities in carrying out the work and/or the extent to which

a job requires the use of different talents (Hackman & Oldham 1980). Work that stretches one's skills

and abilities consistently is experienced as more meaningful than work that is simple and routine. Task

Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Athanasios N. Tsirikas and Sofia-Maria N. Bani

identity, is the extent to which a job involves completing a whole identifiable outcome (Hackman &

Oldham 1980). Putting together an entire product or providing a complete unit of service is intrinsically

more meaningful than being responsible for only a small part of the work. Further, task significance is

the degree to which the work has a considerable impact on the lives of other people and/or the extent to

which a job has impact on the lives of people in an organization or society in general (Hackman &

Oldham 1980). A job that is substantial for the psychological or physical wellbeing of the employees is

experienced as more meaningful than a job that makes a little difference.

In the same vain, feedback refers to the extent to which employees receive clear information about

his/her performance (Oldham & Hackman, 1981). Feedback informs employees about how successful

their work has been, which in turn enables them to learn from their mistakes. Further, it connects them

emotionally to their outputs, thus giving further purpose to their work. Similarly, providing effective

feedback may facilitate in managing employees’ fear of uncertainty/ambiguity since resistance to

change mainly derives from their fear of the unknown. Overall, it is acknowledged that an organization

with an effective feedback system would be in a better position to acquire employee support and

cooperation for the initiation of a planned change. Further, autonomy refers to the extent to which

employees are able to exercise discretion and initiative over what occurs on the job; as well as to the

freedom and independence in terms of scheduling their work, selecting the tools they will use and

deciding on procedures to follow (Chien & Su, 2009) and/or the employees’ ability to make changes

and incorporate the learning they gain whilst doing their job. By the mid-1990s, forms of employee

participation such as autonomy were used in more than 90% of Fortune 1000 companies (Lawler,

Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). Most important, employee autonomy may influence his/her perception

about how quickly and how efficiently the organization can respond to an upcoming change (Weber &

Weber, 2001). Finally, goal clarity is defined as the degree to which the goals, purposes and objectives

of the job are clearly and adequately defined (Bang, Fuglesang, Ovesen, & Eilertsen, 2010); and/or the

extent to which employees know what is expected of them and how these role expectations contribute

to the goals and strategy of the organisation (De Beuckelaer & Lievens, 2009). Further, it is suggested

that an increased understanding of work goals provides important work-relevant information and

motivation to improve work performance (Tubre & Collins 2000). Thus, goal clarity is positively

associated with employee performance especially during changing situations.

The cited studies indicate that the abovementioned job-related attitudes and characteristics may

influence employee perceptions during organizational change. Hence, the following four hypotheses

arise.

H3: Changes in perceived organizational readiness to change from time 1 to time 2 will be

moderated by job-related attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement)

and job-related characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance feedback, autonomy, goal

clarity).

H4: Changes in perceived supervisory support from time 1 to time 2 will be moderated by job-

related attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement) and job-related

characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance feedback, autonomy, goal clarity).

H5: Changes in perceived trust in management from time 1 to time 2 will be moderated by job-

related attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement) and job-related

characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance feedback, autonomy, goal clarity).

H6: Changes in perceived appropriateness of change from time 1 to time 2 will be moderated by

job-related attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement) and job-related

characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance feedback, autonomy, goal clarity).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2014

Figure 1. Research Model

4 RESEARCH SETTING

The research was conducted in a public hospital with approximately 800 employees. This

organization was selected because it was about to begin a wide range organizational change under the

direction of a new external president appointed by the central government. Further, for the first time the

new president would be a technocrat and not a doctor. Prior to the change effort, the organization

exhibited poor effectiveness in terms of financial profitability and efficiency, quality of health services,

average length of stay, waiting lists, occupancy rate (inpatient days of care / bed days available) as well

as high levels of bureaucracy and conflicts among stakeholders. Further, the management style was

characterized as rather centralized (e.g. fully dominated by the top management), authoritative (e.g.

doctors and nurses were excluded from decision making processes about their own departments), and

inflexible (e.g. the director of a medical department couldn’t replace a nurse that was sick without the

senior management approval). After the resignation of the former president and the hiring of his

replacement we collected the first data (time 1). At time 1 no changes have been initiated but there was

information about the changes that were about to happen.

The new president was highly educated, with significant experience in public healthcare

management. His main goals were to initiate a new Hospital Information System (HIS) and to

implement quality management principles in order to achieve efficient administration of finance and

distribution of medical aid; quality of services; decentralization of the decision-making process;

monitoring of drug usage; immediate solutions for the patients’ problems; reduction of transcription

errors; information integrity and an overall patient oriented culture. These initiatives included wide-

ranging training. In more details, extensive internal and external seminars were conducted by internal

and external specialists to broaden employees’ IT knowledge capabilities; to reduce operational costs;

to enhance employees’ feelings of security; to improve their stress management; to note future

perspectives; to increase their organizational commitment and thus, their loyalty and efficiency. In

parallel, they were introduced significant policy changes to improve patient service and employee

satisfaction (e.g. open horizontal and vertical communication; close monitoring of performance

indicators to motivate employees and promote a culture of continuous quality improvement; promotion

of teamwork; coordination of services and enhancement of continuity).

We selected a five-month time frame for the second measurement (time 2) because during this time

period the organization’s planned training and new policy implementation efforts were fulfilled. The

present research aims to capture how employee perceptions and attitudes changed after the completion

of the implementation process.

5 SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY

The research was conducted in close cooperation with the hospital administration at two different

points in time, prior and five months after the implementation of the planned change (2012 - 2013).

The research sample was the total number of the hospital employees (801 employees; doctors, nurses,

administrative stuff). Through a relevant workshop, employees were informed about the purpose of the

research as well as the confidentiality of their responses. One month before the beginning of the

research, we conducted a pilot test to examine the research features and functionality. All through the

Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Athanasios N. Tsirikas and Sofia-Maria N. Bani

research period, we provided full support (i.e. personal meetings, phone or e-mail) to the participants.

At time 1, survey data were collected from 442 employees including doctors, nurses and administrative

stuff (response rate 55,25%). At time 2 (5 months later), 428 surveys were completed and returned

(fourteen less employees due to retirements or unavailability). Further, surveys with uncompleted items

as well as surveys that were not completed by the same employees at both time 1 and time 2 were

excluded, resulting in a total of 778 usable surveys (389 pairs).

In more detail, 53.98% of the respondents were female and 66.84% were married; their average

age was 44.2 years (min 23 vs max 62 years); their working experience in the current position was 14.2

years (min 1 vs max 29 years); and their total working experience was 19.4 years (min 2 vs max 41

years). Finally, to a response bias, we examined whether any significant differences existed between

participants and non-participants. Thus, t-tests were performed on the measures taken at time 1 between

two groups; the respondents who completed surveys for time 2 and those that did not. Data analysis

showed that respondents were not significantly different from their colleagues that did not complete

surveys at both times (1 & 2). There were no differences in mean age, working experience in the

current position and total working experience; nor were differences in time 1 appraisals of study

variables at the p<0.05 level.

5.1 Measures

Participants used a seven point Likert type scale ranging from “never” to “always” to complete the

survey. Regarding the perceptual dependent variables, change appropriateness was explored with the

questions proposed by Armenakis and Harris (2002; 4 items) and supervisory support was examined

with De Beuckelaer and Lievens questionnaire (2009; 3 items). Further, trust in management was

assessed with LaRocco et al. questionnaire (1975; 4 items; cited in Weber & Weber, 2001) and for the

measurement of perceptive organizational readiness to change we used the Survey of Management

Climate Questionnaire (Gordon & Cummins, 1979; 4 items; cited in Weber & Weber 2001).

Regarding the independent attitudinal variables of our model, for the measurement of job

satisfaction, we used the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire which contains a three-

item overall satisfaction subscale (Spector, 1997). Regarding the measurement of organizational

commitment we used Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Mowday et al., (1979)

that is composed of 15 semantic different items. Additionally, for the measurement of job involvement,

we used the McQuarrie and Munson’s (1991) revised version of their Revised Personal Involvement

Inventory (RPII; 10 items). The questionnaire suggests that individual’s involvement is based on the

inherent needs, values and interests and it captures two independent and bipolar dimensions that

appraise involvement namely, importance and interest (Bearden, Netemeyer & Mobley, 1993).

Regarding the independent job-related variables of our reasearch; skill variety, feedback and

autonomy were assessed through Job characteristic Inventory developed by Sims et al. (1979). Further,

we employed the Measures of the Five Organisational Climate (De Beuckelaer & Lievens, 2009; 3

items) to examine goal clarity (i.e. the degree to which employees know what is expected of them and

how these role expectations translate into the goals and strategy of the organisation). Finally, task

identity and task significance were examined with the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) developed by

Hackman and Oldham (1980). Study variables and their relevant internal reliability (Cronbach alpha)

are presented in Table I. Alphas ranged from 0.782 to 0.912.

Table I. Variables, number of respondents and associated internal reliability

Variables

Alpha

Perceptions

Organizational readiness to change

389

0.810

Supervisory support

389

0.841

Trust in management

389

0.912

Appropriateness of change

389

0.794

Job-related attitudes & characteristics

Job satisfaction

389

0.802

Organizational commitment

389

0.709

Employee involvement

389

0.862

Skill variety

389

0.782

Task identity

389

0.812

Task significance

389

0.820

Feedback

389

0.869

Autonomy

389

0.888

Goal clarity

389

0.798

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2014

6 RESULTS

Taking into consideration that organizational change is actually a change in organizational

members’ perception, attitudes, beliefs and interpretative schemes (Isabella, 1990; Lau & Woodman,

1995) and the few empirical relevant studies regarding their differentiation before and after a change

effort; the purpose of the research was firstly, to examine how perceptions regarding organizational

readiness to change, supervisory support, trust in management and appropriateness of change differ

during a planned organizational change; and secondly, to investigate how these perceptions are

moderated by certain job-related attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job

involvement) and job-related characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance feedback,

autonomy and goal clarity).

The principal component analysis results revealed two factors that describe employees’ job

involvement: (i) importance (variance 42,07%), and (ii) interest (variance 19,53%). The two factors

had eigenvalues greater than 1 and accounted for 61,60% of the total variance. Further, high reliability

characterizes the two factors. The Crobach coefficient alpha is 0,85 for the importance factor and 0,80

for the interest factor. On the whole, employees’ involvement factors are considerably positive. The

factor of importance, on a 1 to 6 scale, has a value equal to 5,55 (sd:0,74) and the factor of interest has

a value equal to 4,99 (sd:1,01). Finally, the correlations among the two factors are in general medium

to low degree (r <0,32; p<.05).

Table II. Involvement - Factor Analysis Results

Questions

Ι. Importance

ΙΙ. Interest

IQ1

.828

IQ2

.789

IQ3

.770

IQ6

.702

IQ10

.689

IQ7

.888

IQ8

.787

IQ4

.732

IQ5

.699

IQ9

.689

Eigenvalue

3.816

1.752

% Variance

42.07

19.53

Cronbach α

0.851

0.801

Mean & SD

5.55+ 0.74

4.99+ 1.01

We validated the construct measures with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is most

appropriate for verifying whether construct measures load on their respective a priori defined

constructs (Browne & Cudek, 1993). The range of loadings for the four employee perceptions were as

follows: organizational readiness to change 0.75 to 0.84; supervisory support 0.77 to 0.88; trust in

management 0.72 to 0.90; and appropriateness of change 0.75 to 0.88 respectively. The results

demonstrate the discrete nature of these constructs. Further, correlation coefficients were calculated

between all-time 2 job-related independent variables and all time 1 and time 2 dependent perceptual

variables. Correlations between organizational readinesses to change, supervisory support, trust in

management and appropriateness of change were all significant (p<.05, p<.01). Thus, with respect to

H1, perceptions of organizational readiness to change, supervisory support, trust in management and

appropriateness of change will co-vary. Table III illustrates descriptive statistics and correlations

between these variables.

Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Athanasios N. Tsirikas and Sofia-Maria N. Bani

Table III. Means, standard deviations and correlations of research variables

Note. significance level: *p<.05, **p<.01

Variables

Mean

1. T1_ Org. readiness to change

3.52

0.86

2. T2_ Org. readiness to change

3.98

0.96

0.48**

3. T1_Supervisory support

3.51

0.78

0.39*

0.33*

4. T2_Supervisory support

4.02

0.88

0.33*

0.32*

5. T1_Trust in management

3.52

0.77

0.32*

0.33*

0.31*

0.34*

6. T2_Trust in management

4.08

0.97

0.31*

0.32*

0.34*

0.44**

7. T1_Appropr. of change

3.90

0.91

0.47**

0.46**

0.33*

0.42**

0.55**

0.34*

8. T2_Appropr. of change

4.23

1.07

0.34*

0.29*

0.35*

0.35**

0.31*

0.32*

0.30*

9. T2_Job satisfaction

4.10

0.96

0.22

0.42**

0.31*

0.38**

0.32*

0.30*

0.32*

0.21*

10. T2_Org. commitment

4.56

0.88

0.43**

0.42**

0.38*

0.35**

0.21

0.32*

0.31*

0.36**

0.42**

11. T2_Importance (Involvement)

5.55

0.74

0.33*

0.42**

0.38**

0.35**

0.32*

0.30*

0.32*

0.17

0.28

0.38**

12. T2_Interest (Involvement)

4.99

1.01

0.30*

0.41**

0.21

0.17

0.22*

0.30*

0.41**

0.18

0.28

0.42**

0.55**

13. T2_Skill variety

4.62

0.85

0.25

0.22*

0.17

0.32*

0.45**

0.38**

0.22

0.12

0.31*

0.30

0.32*

0.27*

14. T2_Task identity

4.58

0.97

0.28

0.17

0.24

0.38**

0.32*

0.30*

0.22

0.38**

0.49**

0.38**

0.27*

0.30*

15. T2_Task significance

4.63

1.02

0.25

0.46**

0.29*

0.41**

0.29*

0.21

0.41**

0.37**

0.39**

0.31*

0.30*

0.29*

0.39**

0.29*

16. T2_Feedback

4.87

0.85

0.32*

0.45**

0.42**

0.31*

0.32*

0.44**

0.42**

0.21

0.25*

0.12

0.18

0.22*

0.38*

0.22

0.37**

17. T2_Autonomy

3.99

0.88

0.32*

0.41**

0.38**

0.17

0.21*

0.55**

0.31*

0.44**

0.38**

0.21

0.17

0.22

0.12

0.30*

0.32*

0.22

18. T2_Goal clarity

4.05

1.05

0.41**

0.37**

0.29*

0.12

0.25*

0.36**

0.30*

0.22

0.32*

0.44**

0.32*

0.31*

0.23

0.24

0.31*

0.30*

0.37**

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table IV shows the means and standard deviations of the perceived organizational readiness to change,

supervisory support, trust in management and appropriateness of change during the planned organizational

change. It also illustrates the results of paired t-tests regarding the difference in means from time 1 to time 2 for

every variable. The research findings indicate significant positive changes after the change initiative in all

perceptions and thus, they fully confirm H2. That is, perceptions of organizational readiness to change,

supervisory support, trust in management and appropriateness of change will increase from time 1 to time 2 (i.e.

prior and after the initiation of the planned organizational change).

Table IV. Means, standard deviations and paired t-tests (time 1 & time)

Variables

Time 1

Time 2

t-test difference

Organizational readiness to change

3.52 (sd:0.91)

3.98 (sd:0.96)

1.89**

Supervisory support

3.51 (sd:0.77)

4.02 (sd:0.88)

2.52**

Trust in management

3.52 (sd:0.78)

4.08 (sd:0.97)

2.22*

Appropriateness of change

3.90 (sd:0.86)

4.23 (sd:1.07)

1.99**

Note. significance level: *p<.05, **p<.01

We run ordinary least-squares regressions in order to investigate how the changes in perceptions from time

1 to time 2 will be moderated by job-related attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job

involvement) and job-related characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance, feedback,

autonomy, goal clarity). We added the job-related independent variables into the model to assess their effect on

the variation in dependent variables from time 1 to time 2. Table V shows the regression analysis results.

Table V. Results of regression analysis

Variables

Organizational

readiness to change

Supervisory

support

Trust in

management

Appropriateness

of change

Job satisfaction

0.188

0.358*

0.228

0.548**

Organizational commitment

- 0.542

0.322

- 0.622**

Importance (Involvement)

1.325**

0.885*

0.245

0.356

Interest (Involvement)

0.253

0.563

0.425*

0.785*

Skill variety

0.475*

0.475

0.257

0.237

Task identity

0.225

0.325*

0.369

0.256*

Task significance

0.242

0.349*

0.984

0.241

Feedback

0.867

0.256

0.563*

Autonomy

0.825**

0.825

- 0.522*

0.459*

Goal clarity

0.783**

0.602**

0.802**

0.562*

T1_Org.readiness to change

0.251

T1_Supervisory support

0.142

T1_Trust in management

0.042

T1_Appropri. of change

0.242

21.69**

14.42**

18.63**

20.11**

389

0.43

0.64

0.51

0.68

Note. significance levels: *p<.05, **p<.01

In more detail, partial support was found for H3: One attitude (i.e. job importance) and three job-related

characteristics (i.e. skill variety, autonomy, goal clarity) emerged as significant moderators of the perceptive

organizational readiness to change from time 1 to time 2 (positive relationships). Further, partial support was

also found for H4: Two attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, job importance) and three job-related characteristics (i.e.

task identity, task significance, and goal clarity) emerged as significant moderators of the perceptive supervisory

support from time 1 to time 2 (positive relationships).

Additionally, limited support was found for H5. Statistically significant moderators of trust in management

included two positive relationships with employee interest and goal clarity; and two negative relationships with

organizational commitment and autonomy. Finally, partial support was found for H6: Three attitudes (i.e. job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, job interest) and four job-related characteristics (i.e. task identity,

feedback, autonomy, goal clarity) emerged as significant moderators of the perceptive change appropriateness

from time 1 to time 2 (negative relationship only with organizational commitment).

Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Athanasios N. Tsirikas and Sofia-Maria N. Mpani

7 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The research provides empirical evidence that five months after the implementation of a planned

organizational initiative change, measures of perceived organizational readiness to change, supervisory support,

trust in management and appropriateness of change increased significantly. Thus, in line with previous

researches which suggest that individuals progress through a series of stages in recognizing and accepting the

need to change (e.g. Isabella, 1990; Rogers, 2003; Weber & Weber, 2001), we can propose that as employees

become more familiar with the change process and its outcomes, their support for the change initiative will

augment. Consequently, management should focus on both the timing and the amount of information

disseminated as well as the training received regarding the planned change; to influence positively employee

attitudes towards the proposed organizational change. As a result, open communication, early training and

transparency of the process may facilitate employee understanding of the change purpose and allow them to

progress more quickly towards change acceptance.

The research findings, also suggest that job involvement (i.e. importance and interest) as well as goal

clarity have a positive relationship with all four dependent variables from time 1 to time 2. This provides further

support to the international literature, which suggests that it is impossible to influence ones’ perception or

attitude if he/she considers it as relevantly unimportant or without personal interest (e.g. Curren & Harich, 1994;

Katsaros, Tsirikas & Nicolaidis, 2014); and the goals and objectives of the change effort are not clearly well

defined (Sawyer, 1992). Thus, management should try to enhance employees’ job involvement (e.g. by

employing a collaboration/participation management style; Johnson & Scholes, 2002) and clearly define the

goals of the proposed organizational change (Weber & Weber, 2001) to develop employees’ positive attitudes

during a change initiative.

Further, feedback has a moderating effect on change appropriateness but not on the other three perceptions.

Even so, management should establish formal processes of directive (i.e. what change aims to fix and/or revise)

and facilitative (i.e. suggestions to facilitate employees in their own revision and conceptualization) feedback

(Black & Wiliam, 1998); to provide employees with the necessary verification (e.g. judgment of why the

proposed change is the correct one) and elaboration (e.g. discuss the particular problems, provide real case

studies, give tender guidance).

Research data showed negative moderating relationships between organizational commitment and trust in

management & appropriateness of change, as well as between autonomy and trust in management. As literature

suggests, highly committed employees with positive attitudes towards their present jobs may face changes

negatively if they perceive them as a threat for their own benefit or harmful to the organization (Mowday, et al.,

1979). Similarly, other research suggests that employees tend to act more independently when they lacked trust

in management to properly manage their efforts (Weber & Weber, 2001). Consequently, we argue that

management should try to influence their employees’ cognitive and emotional attitudes by delivering the right

“message” to them (discrepancy, self-efﬁcacy, personal valence, principal support, appropriateness; Armenakis

et al., 1999). This “message” may address the necessity, suitability and effective outcomes of change for them

and the whole organization; as well as to note management’s continuous support during the change process.

Further, we argue that senior management should try to employ dynamic approaches to change, such as the

appreciative inquiry. This approach seeks to detect the unique qualities and special strengths of an organization,

which can then be built on to develop organizational performance; rather than looking for problems to fix (Four

D’s: Discovery, Dreaming, Design, Destiny; often played out in a large-group meeting over a two- or three-day

time period, and overseen by a trained change agent; Langton & Robbins, 2006). That is, this approach allows

the organization to change by focusing on to its strengths and competitive advantages.

Finally, certain aspects of the findings presented here should be interpreted in light of their limitations.

Since time 2 data were collected five months after the planned organizational change, it is possible that

employees needed more time to fully adapt emotionally and cognitively to the implemented change.

Furthermore, the simultaneous examination of all employees, regardless their position, specialization or

educational background, indicates that further research need to be conducted through the use of certain control

groups. Additionally, even if the president of the hospital reassurance us that no other changes occurred within

the organization, it is possible that other external or internal evolutions could provide further explanation for the

employee attitudinal change. Finally, the fact that survey was conducted in a single organization may to some

extent limit the applicability of the results to other contexts. Nonetheless, it should be noted that further

investigation needs to be conducted in other industries, by examining concurrently other important perceptual,

emotional and attitudinal moderators (e.g. stress, risk-taking, self-motivation, emotional intelligence,

organizational citizenship, self-efficacy) at different points of time.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

8. CONCLUSION

In closing, the present paper demonstrates how employee perceptions change during a planned

organizational change and it suggests that as employees become more aware of the change process; their support

for the change effort will increase. Research findings suggest that management should try to initiate certain

policies and practices that could positively influence employees’ attitudes and thus, minimize the potential

negative impact of the proposed change. Overall, the paper provides an additional step towards understanding a

critical component of organizational change, which is a major focus of today’s organizational behavior and

change management research; and notes the necessity for future research.

REFERENCES

Ang, S., & Slaughter, S. A. (2000). The Missing Context of Information Technology Personnel: A Review and

Future Directions for Research. In R. W. Zmud (eds.), Framing the Domains of IT Management:

Projecting the Future through the Past (pp. 305-328). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the

1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183.

Bang, H., Fuglesang, S., Ovesen, M., & Eilertsen, D. (2010). Effectiveness in top management group meetings:

The role of goal clarity, focused communication, and learning behavior, Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 51, 253–261.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1993). Beyond the reform: Toward a managerial theory of the firm. Strategic

Management Journal, 14, 23-46.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Mobley, M. F. (1993). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi item

measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Beckhard, R., & Reuben, H. (1987). Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Reading, Mass:

Addison-Wesley Pub. Co

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change, Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133–141.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. Assessment and

classroom learning, 5(1), 7–74.

Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating

effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558 –583.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long

(eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136-62). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Cashman, K. (1998). Change Mastery: Leading the Row. Executive Excellence, 15(1), 12.

Chen, L. H. (2008). Job satisfaction among information system (IS) personel. Computers in Human Behavior,

24, 105-118.

Chien, C.C., & Su, F.C. (2009), The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job

characteristics and organizational citizenship behaviour, The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 474-

494.

Coghlan, D. (1993). A person-centered approach to dealing with resistance to change. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 14(4), 10-14.

Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor

support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 463–

484.

Cordery, J., Sevastos, P., Mueller, W., & Parker, S. (1993). Correlates of employee attitude toward functional

flexibility. Human Relations, 46(6), 705-23.

Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A Multi-Dimensional Study of Trust in Organizations.

Journal of Management Issues, 10(3), 303-317.

Cullen, J., Johnson, J., & Sakano, T. (2000). Success through commitment and trust: The soft side of strategic

alliance management. Journal of World Business, 35(3), 223-240.

Curren, M. T., & Harich, K. R. (1994). Consumers’ mood states: The mitigating influence of personal relevance

on product evaluations. Psychology and Marketing, 11(2), 91–107.

Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Athanasios N. Tsirikas and Sofia-Maria N. Mpani

De Beuckelaer, A., & Lievens, F. (2009). Measurement equivalence of paper-and pencil and internet

organizational surveys: A large scale examination in 16 countries. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 58, 336–361.

Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A, & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perception of Organizational Readiness for

Change: Factors Related to Employees' Reaction to the Implementation of Team-based Selling. Human

Relations, 53(3), 419-428.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71, 500– 507.

Elgamal, M.A. (1998). An Examination of Organization and Suborganization Readiness for Total Quality

Management. International Journal of Technology Management, 16, 556-569.

Galpin, T. J. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organizational redesign. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Gordon, G. G., & Cummins. W. M. (1979). Managing Management Climate. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Holoviak, S. J. (1999). Building Trust. Executive Excellence, 16,11-14.

Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for Organizational Change: The

Systematic Development of a Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232-255.

Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds: How Managers Construe Key

Organizational Events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7-41.

Iverson, R.D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational commitment.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 122-49.

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness Perceptions as a Moderator in the Curvilinear Relationships between Job Demands,

and Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.

Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Case. London: Prentice Hall

International.

Jones, R., Jimmieson, N., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The Impact of organizational culture and reshaping

capabilities on change implementation success: the mediating role of readiness for change, Journal of

Management Studies, 42, 361-386.

Kam, L.F. (1998). Job satisfaction and autonomy of Hong Kong registered nurses. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 27, 355-363.

Katsaros, K.K., Tsirikas, A. & Nicolaidis, C. (2014). Managers' workplace attitudes, tolerance of ambiguity and

firm performance: The case of Greek banking industry, Management Research Review, 37(5), 442 – 465.

Khan, S. (1997). The Key to be a Leader Company: Empowerment. Journal of Quality and Participation, 20, 44-

50.

Kimura, T. (2012). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of perceptions of

politics and market orientation in the Japanese context, International Journal of Business Science and

Applied Management, 7(1), 29-42.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Kotter, J.P. (2008). A Sense of Urgency, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Langton, N., & Robbins, S. (2006). Organizational Behaviour. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Canada.

LaRocco, J. M., Gunderson, E. K. E., Dean, L. M., James, L. R., Jones, A. P., & Sells, S. B. (1975).

Organizational and Envirormental Factors in Health and Personnel Effectiveness: II. Data Collection

Methods, Test Instruments, and Criterion Variables. Report No. 75-9. Naval Health Research Center,

San Diego, CA.

Lau, C., & Woodman, R. C. (1995). Understanding organizational change: a schematic perspective. Academy of

Management Journal, 38(2), 537-54.

Lawler, E.E. III., Mohrman, S.A. & Ledford, G.E. (1995). Creating High Performance Organizations: Impact of

Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Liu, Y., & Perrewé, P. (2005). Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational change: A process

model, Human Resource Management Review, 15(4), 263–280.

Madsen S., Miller D., & Cameron J. (2005). Readiness for organizational change: do organizational

commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference?. Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 16(2), 213–234.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Martin, M. (1998). Trust leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(13), 41-8.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of

Management Review, 20(3), 709-34.

McQuarrie, E.F., & Munson J.M. (1991). A Revised Product Involvement Inventory: Improved Useability and

Validity. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 108-115.

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal,

6, 257-272.

Moran, J.W., & Brightman, B.K. (2000). Leading organizational change. Employee counseling today, 12(2), 1–

Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55-75.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Nadine, L., & Persaud, D. (2003). Gaining and maintaining commitment to large-scale change in healthcare

organizations. Health Services Management Research, 16, 179-188.

Nicolaidis, C., & Katsaros K. (2010). Emotions towards Change “A Case of Northern Greek IT Industry”.

International Journal of Business & Economics, 10 (1), 65-74.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1981). Relationship between organizational structure and employee

reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 66-83.

Osterman, P. (2000). Work Reorganization in an Era of Restructuring: Trends in Diffusion and Effects on

Employee Welfare. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(2), 176-96.

Oswald, S.L., Mossholder, K.W., & Harris, S.G. (1994). Vision salience and strategic involvement: implications

for psychological attachment to organization and job. Strategic Management Journal, 15(6), 477-89.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviours

and their effect on trust, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1,

107-142.

Price, J. l. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower.

22(7), 660-624.

Quinn, R. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Brown, M. V. (2000). Changing others through changing ourselves. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 9(2), 147-164.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of participation in

strategic and tactical change decisions: An application of path-goal theory. Journal of Organizational

Behavior. 15, 37–47.

Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs of Role Ambiguity and a

Structural Equation Model of Their Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,

130 - 142.

Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1979). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of

management journal, 19, 195-212.

Singh, K. (2010). Developing human capital by linking emotional intelligence with personal competencies in

Indian business organizations, International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 5(2),

29-42.

Smith, I. (2005). Achieving readiness for organizational change. Library Management. 26, 406-412.

Spector, P. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and Consequences. London: Sage

Publications.

Treadway, D., Hochwater, W., Ferris, G., Kacmar, C., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A., & Buckley, R. (2004). Leader

political skill and employee reactions. Leadersh. Q., 15(4), 493-513.

Vangen, C., & Huxham, S. (2003). Nurturing Collaborative Relations. Building Trust in Interorganizational

Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5-31

Vollmann, T. E. (1996). The transformation imperative: achieving market dominance through radical change.

Harvard Business School Press.

Wanberg, C., & Banas, J. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.

Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Athanasios N. Tsirikas and Sofia-Maria N. Mpani

Weber, S., & Weber, E. (2001). Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 22(6), 291-300.