predicting pro-change behaviour: the role of perceived organisational justice and organisational...

Predicting pro-change behaviour: the role of

perceived organisational justice and

organisational identification

Sebastian Fuchs, HRM Department, Middlesex UniversityMartin R. Edwards, Department of Management, King’s College LondonHuman Resource Management Journal, Vol 22, no 1, 2012, pages 39–59

This study sets out to determine some of the key factors that foster employees’ behavioural support forchange management interventions. Specifically, we examine the relationships between organisationaljustice, organisational identification and employees’ pro-change behaviour by analysing questionnaire-based survey data from 137 market research employees. Full structural equation modelling resultsindicate that out of the four main organisational justice types, only interpersonal justice perceptions playa significant role in predicting pro-change behaviour after controlling for same source bias effects. Inparticular, the relationship between interpersonal justice and pro-change behaviour is partially mediatedby organisational identification. The results additionally indicate that age is positively associated withpro-change behaviour and tenure with organisational identification. The study as such indicates thatwhile perceptions of fair treatment based on respectful and courteous interactions are important inencouraging employees’ behavioural engagement in change management interventions, key in thisprocess is the role that they play in encouraging identification with the employing organisation.Contact: Sebastian Fuchs, HRM Department, Middlesex University Business School, TheBurroughs, Hendon, London NW4 4BT, UK. Email: [email protected]_167 39..59

INTRODUCTION

The existence of volatile business environments, characterised by heightened levels ofinstability and consumer capriciousness, has led both scholars and practitioners toseek ways to help manage organisational change interventions most effectively (Burke,

2008). The current study, contributing to this body of work, investigates factors influencingemployees’ pro-change behaviour in change management interventions. There is evidence tosuggest that employees’ behavioural engagement in change management interventions (thatinclude ‘going the extra mile’ to ensure success of change initiatives and co-operation oractive promotion of change) are of considerable importance for organisations operating in achangeable business environment (Conner and Patterson, 1982). Literature in the area pointstowards the importance of justice perceptions in leading to positive employee responses tochange and uncertainty, namely distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informationaljustice (Kilbourne et al., 1996; Rodell and Colquitt, 2009). Further, another stream of researchindicates that whether employees identify with an organisation may be important inencouraging discretionary work efforts. Specifically, levels of organisational identificationhave been found to predict organisational citizenship behaviour (van Dick et al., 2006) andWolfe Morrison and Phelps (1999) argue that during organisational renewal, citizenshipbehaviour may take on distinct forms such as initiating and behaviourally supportingchange initiatives. We refer to this type of discretionary behavioural effort here as pro-change behaviour.

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00167.x

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 22 NO 1, 2012 39

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Fuchs, S. and Edwards, M.R. (2012) ‘Predicting pro-change behaviour: the role of perceived organisational justiceand organisational identification’. Human Resource Management Journal 22: 1, 39–59.

Integrating the above concepts, we argue that the relationship between justice perceptionsand pro-change behaviour can be explained via the psychological processes associated withidentification, in that justice is likely to have a positive effect on individual’s pro-changebehaviour through the impact it has on identification. As such, the current study contributesto our understanding of change management through an investigation of the relationshipsbetween four different justice types and identification. Although some research exists that hasexplored the impact of three types of justice (distributive, procedural and interactional justice)on identification, further examination is required to investigate the importance of the fourdimensions highlighted by Colquitt (2001) and their likely impact on identification. The currentstudy does exactly this and is furthermore unique in the literature as it examines the mediatingeffect of identification on the relationship between these justice perceptions and employees’pro-change behaviour. As to date, no literature exists that examines the unique role that the fourdifferent forms of justice have on organisational identification or tests whether organisationalidentification mediates the relationship between justice perceptions and pro-change behaviour,this study sets out to further develop our understanding of what, and more importantly, howorganisations can create employees’ pro-change behaviour.

The article proceeds by outlining the notion of pro-change behaviour and its importanceduring change interventions, which is followed by a discussion of factors deemed important inencouraging employees’ pro-change behaviour and expected links between these studyvariables. Further, we present and discuss the results of an empirical study investigating theinterplay of these constructs and provide practical implications for human resource managers.

THEORISING

Employees’ pro-change behaviour in change management interventions

One of the key issue that organisational scholars often focus on when researching change inorganisations is the failure rate of change interventions (Beer et al., 1990). Many changeinterventions that underperform or fail can be traced back to employee resistance to change(Coch and French, 1948; O’Connor, 1993; Waldersee and Griffiths, 1997). One argument as towhy change initiatives have such high failure rates is that management often fails to recognisethe importance of the human element of organisational renewal or the importance of ensuringthat employees are supportive of the change (Arendt et al., 1995). When planning andimplementing change, however, managers often become preoccupied with profitability orefficiency and with a mere focus on ensuring financial gains and resource optimisation withoutconsidering the actual processes associated with the change (Kotter, 1995). Given this, it isimportant to gain a better understanding of the factors that create employees’ pro-changebehaviour in change settings. Some authors discuss the importance of employees having apositive attitude towards change in the form of commitment to change (Herscovitch and Meyer,2002) and show a link between particular forms of such commitment (i.e. affective andnormative) and change support. The current study is unique, however, in that it focuses on thebehavioural aspect of change support, which has been referred to as ‘the glue that provides thevital bond between people and change goals’ (Conner, 1992: 147) and factors that can explainwhether or not people are likely to behaviourally support change management interventions.

The ultimate focus of the current study, pro-change behaviour, can be considered particularlyimportant for change success (when compared to more attitudinal concepts such ascommitment to change) as it is the behavioural extra effort or change-related citizenshipbehaviour that is seen to actually drive and push change interventions towards completion andsuccess (Klein and Speer Sorra, 1996; Armenakis et al., 1999). One important predictor or

Predicting pro-change behaviour

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 22 NO 1, 201240


antecedent of pro-change behaviour refers to the degree to which individuals feel they aretreated fairly and just by their organisation, commonly referred to as organisational justice(Rodell and Colquitt, 2009).

The role of organisational justice in fostering pro-change behaviour

A number of authors have researched the importance of justice and fairness in changinguncertain organisational environments (see for instance Lind, 2001, and Lind and Van den Bos,2002), and fairness heuristic theory suggests that when faced with uncertain and changingenvironments, employee reactions will be heavily driven by fairness judgements. As Lind andVan den Bos (2002: 189) put it, ‘fairness matters to people’ – and even more so in times ofuncertainty and change, which stimulates peoples’ interest in fairness. They argue that peopleactively seek out information that may or may not suggest that the organisation is acting in afair manner to help reduce perceived uncertainty. Given these arguments, it follows that onewould expect employees to react more positively to situations of change if and when theyperceive high levels of organisational justice.

When considering the role that justice plays in explaining employee reactions to change, itis important to take into account the varied nature of the different forms of justice perceptionsin organisations. There is evidence that organisational justice comprises of four elements(Colquitt et al., 2001). These are distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice.In summary, distributive justice is concerned with the perceived fairness of the distribution ofoutcomes and workloads provided to and performed by individuals based on Adams’ (1965)equity theory. The judgement of fairness of such outcomes and workloads can be madeaccording to one of the three allocation rules, namely by equality, equity or need (Lam et al.,2002). During change, however, it is often impossible for organisations to reconsider the fairdistribution of resources and workloads for all employees as perceptions of resource claims andworkload allocations are likely to differ among various organisational constituencies; as such,one would expect this to influence employee reactions to change management interventions.

A second form of justice likely to have an impact on employee reactions to change involvesperceptions of fairness in relation to formal processes and procedures used to reach outcomedecisions (Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Procedural justice will arise when, according toLeventhal’s (1976) six procedural rules, procedures are seen to be consistent, free from bias,ethical, accurate, correctable and representative. It is argued that these rules can attenuatedistributive injustice perceptions, which may arise during change interventions (Cropanzanoand Greenberg, 1997), and, as such, one would expect procedural justice to play an importantrole in determining levels of pro-change behaviour.

The third form of organisational justice that would be expected to have an impact on howpeople react to change interventions refers to interpersonal justice. The interpersonal elementof organisational justice has been proposed by Bies and Moag (1986) and is a conceptually andempirically distinct construct (as highlighted in Colquitt et al.’s (2001) meta-analysis). Theinterpersonal element of justice refers to ‘the degree to which people are treated with politeness,dignity and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures ordetermining outcomes’ (Colquitt et al., 2001: 427). During organisational change, thisinterpersonal treatment has been found to significantly predict justice perceptions of employeesinvolved in change interventions (Novelli et al., 1995). As such, fair interpersonal treatmentperceived by employees is known to influence responses to change in a positive way.

The fourth type of organisational justice refers to informational justice perceptions ofemployees. Informational justice perceptions are shaped through accounts and explanationsprovided by organisational authorities about reasons as to why certain procedures were chosen

Sebastian Fuchs and Martin R. Edwards



and why certain outcomes were distributed in a certain way (Colquitt et al., 2001). The role ofsocial accounts – often referred to as explanations given by organisational leaders for theiractions in a change intervention (Cobb and Wooten, 1998) – taps into the literature ofinformational justice. Meta-analytical evidence presented by Shaw et al. (2003) suggests thatexplanations and social accounts have organisationally desired effects with regards toemployees’ cooperation, retaliation and withdrawal, which in turn are likely to influenceemployees’ pro-change behaviour and ultimately the success of change interventions.Therefore, social accounts and positive perceptions of informational justice can be an importantdevice for organisations to augment change intervention success.

There are, as such, a number of different forms of justice that when present one would expectto lead to positive employee reactions to change, and furthermore, to high levels of employeepro-change behaviour. Importantly, however, it is argued here that the effect that each of thesejustice types has on pro-change behaviour will be indirect via the degree to which they helpencourage employees to identify with their organisation. Some authors have argued thatperceptions of justice play a particularly important role in encouraging employee identificationwith organisations (Tyler and Blader, 2003) and identification has in turn been shown to helpencourage a wide range of positive employee reactions such as citizenship behaviour (van Dicket al., 2006) and organisational involvement (Edwards and Peccei, 2010) among others. Wetherefore argue that the effect of justice perceptions on pro-change behaviour is likely to be viaemployees’ levels of organisational identification. According to some theoretical positions,justice perceptions are considered to encourage identification, and here we argue that whereemployees feel a sense of oneness with the organisation they are more likely to exhibitpro-change behaviour.1

The effect of organisational identification on pro-change behaviour

The concept of organisational identification refers to the degree to which employees feel a senseof psychological oneness and unity with an organisation (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Edwards,2005). A considerable body of conceptual and empirical work provides evidence thatidentification is associated with organisationally desired employee attitudes and behaviourssuch as an increase in intentions to stay, citizenship behaviour and individuals generally actingin the best interest of their organisation among others (for an overview, see Ashforth et al.,2008). Some of these employee attitudes and behaviours have also been found to be associatedwith the broader concept of organisational commitment, in particular affective commitment(Meyer et al., 2002). Some debate exists in the literature however as to the relationship betweenidentification and commitment (Edwards, 2005; Riketta, 2005; van Knippenberg and Sleebos,2006; Ashforth et al., 2008) and authors often examine identification in conjunction withcommitment. The current study deliberately focuses on the more specific notion oforganisational identification for reasons of precision in conceptualisation and measurement andthe rich theory-driven research that focuses on the importance of identification in organisationalcontexts. A key conceptual difference between the two concepts lies in the proposedmechanisms underlying both concepts.2 It is argued that commitment, on the one hand, isactivated predominantly through social exchange relationships (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964) inwhich employees reciprocate for favourable treatment received from their organisation.Organisational identification, on the other hand, lies to a greater extent in social identityprocesses (van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006), which suggest that people’s membership ofsocial groups helps to form a particularly important part of their self-concept (i.e. their socialidentity) and as individuals tend to have a need to establish or enhance a sense of positiveself-regard, they strive for positive group member differentiation in order to maintain a positive




social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1986). A central explanation as to why employeesidentify with their employing organisation is hence to satisfy their need for a positiveself-regard, and one’s organisational membership provides a potential opportunity to doprecisely this.

There is a significant body of research which suggests that employees who identify stronglywith an organisation are willing to behaviourally support and engage in the organisation inwhich they work and are more likely to act in the best interest of the organisation by exhibitingextra-role and citizenship behaviours (Christ et al., 2003; van Dick et al., 2006). It followstherefore that if higher levels of organisational identification are expected to lead to a greatertendency for employees to put themselves out for the benefit of the organisation, thenidentification would be expected to be a powerful device for fostering pro-change behaviour asthis concept neatly captures such discretionary behavioural engagement during organisationalrenewal. It can thus be argued that employees who identify strongly with the organisation willexhibit extra effort to help enable organisational objectives during change implementation asthey are expected to share the values and goals of the organisation (Edwards, 2005). The mainrationale behind such an argument is that when individuals identify highly with anorganisation, they are more likely to act in the best interest of the organisation as their personalvalues, goals and ambitions are in tune with the organisational goals, objectives and ambitions(Dutton et al., 1994; Edwards, 2005). During organisational change interventions, the strategicfocus, goals and ambitions of the organisation are to pursue the change initiative that it hasdecided upon and we consequently would expect that organisational identification generateshigher levels of employee pro-change behaviour. This line of reasoning is based on theassumption that the change in question is seen as part of the overall organisational strategy andpursuing this is in the best interest of the organisation. It is possible, however, that someemployees may feel that the change could not be in the best interest of the organisation or thatthe change will in some way be unsettling to employees as sometimes a change in anorganisation’s structure (which high identifiers link themselves to) might be unsettling.However, the authors argue here that those who identify to a greater extent will share theorganisation’s overall goals to a greater degree (as argued by Ashforth and Mael, 1989) andtherefore tend to be more supportive of organisationally driven changes. We therefore proposethe following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Organisational identification will have a positive relationship with employeepro-change behaviour.

Organisational justice and identification

In recent years, a number of scholars have examined the role justice plays in encouragingemployees to identify with their organisation. The conceptual and empirical evidence suggeststhat justice can be considered an important factor that encourages employees to identify withan organisation (Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006). Blader and Tyler (2009), Edwards (2009) andFuller et al. (2006) argue that distributive justice, fair procedures and a good communicationclimate are important explanatory variables for the occurrence of organisational identification.More precisely, authors suggest that organisational distributive and procedural justicecommunicate identity-relevant information to individuals that subsequently affect the degree towhich employees identify with their employing organisation (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler andBlader, 2003). Built on arguments presented as part of the group-value model of proceduraljustice (Lind and Tyler, 1988), which were developed further within the framework of thegroup-engagement model (Tyler and Blader, 2003), it is argued that when an organisation treats




employees in a fair and just manner, this provides them with information that influencesrelational judgements about authority such as trustworthiness and respect. Fair treatment thusprovides information that employees are valued and respected and that they can be proud oftheir membership, which subsequently helps to foster employee identification.

As there are a number of possible forms of justice, it is important to consider the role thateach might play in encouraging organisational identification. Fair procedures (proceduraljustice) and the fair provision or allocation of resources to employees (distributive justice) areconsidered direct signals to employees showing that they are valued and respected by theirorganisation (Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler and Blader, 2003). Both distributive and procedural justicehelp foster organisational identification as fair treatment encourages employees’ sense ofself-regard and provides a safe environment when linking their identity to the organisation.Additionally, both interpersonal and informational justice (predominantly concerned withpoliteness, dignity, respect and justifications or social accounts of decisions and organisationalprocedures) are important features of fairness that will also tap the mechanisms highlightedwithin the group value and group engagement models; these mechanisms being theencouragement of a feeling of pride in the organisation and a heightened sense of self-regard(when treated fairly and respectfully by organisational authorities). As such, as well asdistributive and procedural justice, just interpersonal and informational treatment from thesesources is also likely to positively influence an individuals’ pride and self-regard, which are inturn important ingredients for high levels of organisational identification. Although someevidence exists pointing to direct relationships between procedural and distributive justice withorganisational identification, as yet research that examines the importance of interpersonal andinformational justice in fostering identification is sparse. Given the above theorising and suchsparsity, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Perceived distributive justice will have a positive relationship withorganisational identification.

Hypothesis 2b: Perceived procedural justice will have a positive relationship withorganisational identification.

Hypothesis 2c: Perceived interpersonal justice will have a positive relationship withorganisational identification.

Hypothesis 2d: Perceived informational justice will have a positive relationship withorganisational identification.

Organisational justice, identification and pro-change behaviour

The current study involves an investigation into factors that encourage pro-change behaviourduring change interventions, in particular the role that both organisational justice andidentification play in fostering employees’ behaviourally supportive actions. Given thedifferent sets of linked findings outlined above, it is important to understand the inter-relationships within a nomological network. One way of explaining how these features willinteract is by understanding them in a predictive sequence. We argue that justice perceptionsare likely to encourage employees to identify with their employer; once these employeesdefine themselves in terms of their organisational membership, only then are they most likelyto behaviourally support change interventions. Although one would consider justice to beimportant in influencing pro-change behaviour in change settings, it is plausible thatencouraging support for change interventions requires an extra mechanism to explain whyemployees act in the interest of the organisation during organisational change. The notion of




organisational identification can provide this additional mechanism, as individuals whoidentify strongly will act in a manner that protects and perpetuates their own shared identity,which is closely constructed around that of their employing organisation, and, as such,behaviourally supporting the change intervention is both in the organisations but moreimportantly also in the employees’ very own interest in order to satisfy their self-enhancementneed (Cheney, 1983).

It follows that without the mechanism of identification, individuals will not necessarily havethe incentive to support the change based on justice perceptions alone, as they do not have anidentity-related concern at stake. Hence, we argue that employees require an adoption of thisidentity-based device before they are willing to take on board organisational goals andbehaviourally support change interventions. A similar proposition has been posed linked to therelationship between procedural justice, identification and organisational citizenship behaviour(Blader and Tyler, 2009); however, to date, no research exists that examines the link between thefour different types of justice, organisational identification and pro-change behaviour. Itfollows, then, that both identification and justice are important in ensuring employees’pro-change behaviour and the main criteria for evaluations of this kind are the fair distributionof resources and workloads, fair procedures, fair treatment and social accounts andexplanations provided by the organisation.

It is important to recognise that the research model being presented here can be defined asa mediated model exploring the antecedents of pro-change behaviour. The assumptionsassociated with this model are that organisational distributive, procedural, interpersonal andinformational justice have a positive effect on employees’ pro-change behaviour through theimpact that these forms of justice have on identification. Given the arguments associated withthis mediated model, the following set of propositions can be presented:

Hypotheses 3a–d: The relationships between perceptions of (3a) distributive justice, (3b)procedural justice, (3c) interpersonal justice, (3d) informational justice and employeepro-change behaviour will be mediated by organisational identification.

Although here we have argued that the relationship between justice perceptions andpro-change behaviour will be fully mediated by identification, an alternative explanatory modelmight have justice as a direct predictor of pro-change behaviour. As such, in testing out ourpropositions, we will also test for direct and partial mediation effects among the four types ofjustice and pro-change behaviour as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Our approach totesting these research propositions is set out below.

METHOD

Context

This research was conducted at the UK headquarters of a global market research company.There were 387 members of staff employed in the UK-based headquarters at the time of ourinvestigation with a new global chief executive officer appointed earlier in the same year as thestudy was carried out. In the two years previous to this, employees experienced numerousrounds of strategically driven large-scale changes. Employees were therefore used toorganisational change and as further ongoing strategic change initiatives were being plannedat the time of the study, the relevance of the investigation into what factors predict pro-changebehaviour was high.




Procedure and sample

Given the professional nature of the workforce at this organisation, an online questionnaire-based survey was deemed the most appropriate method of survey distribution. A link to thesurvey webpage was emailed to all 387 employees within the organisation. In total, 137 usableresponses were returned (35.4% response rate). The overall sample consisted of 59.1% femaleand 40.9% male. Regarding age, 11.7% were between 16 and 24 years, 27.1% between 25 and29, 25.5% between 30 and 34, 19.7% between 35 and 39, 8.0% between 40 and 44, 3.6% between45 and 49, 2.9% between 50 and 54 and 1.5% of 55 and above. Linked to tenure, 7.3% had beenthere less than six months, 12.4% between six months and one year, 18.3% between one and twoyears, 19.7% between two and three years, 5.1% between three and four years, 5.1% betweenfour and five years, 18.2% between five and ten years and 13.9% more than ten years.

Measures

Unless otherwise stated, responses to all questionnaire items were scored on a five-pointLikert-type scale measuring respondents’ agreement or disagreement (1 = strongly disagree,5 = strongly agree).

Control variables Controls of age and tenure were included in the analysis due to their likelyeffect on organisational identification as suggested by Riketta’s (2005) meta-analysis.Respondents were asked to indicate their age and tenure using eight possible categories (seesample details above).

Organisational justice perceptions A five-item measure of distributive justice, defined as ‘theperceived fairness of the outcomes or allocations that an individual receives’ (Folger andCropanzano, 1998: xxi) was used (adapted from Byrne, 1999, and Byrne and Cropanzano, 2000).Examples of items are ‘Everyone around here gets their fair share of what the organisation hasto offer’ and ‘My organisation makes sure that people get what they deserve’. The measureused for procedural justice, viewed as the fairness perceptions of the organisation’s proceduresand policies (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998), was based on Byrne and Cropanzano’s (2000)study. This measure consisted of four items, including statements such as ‘I can count on myorganisation to have fair policies’. A three-item interpersonal justice scale was adopted fromByrne and Cropanzano (2000) and included statements such as ‘Since I have been working here,I have found that my rights as an employee are respected by the organisation’ and ‘Myorganisation treats me with dignity and respect’. A three-item informational justice scale was alsoadopted from Byrne and Cropanzano (2000). The informational justice items includedstatements such as ‘Whenever things go wrong, the organisation provides me with adequateexplanations’ and ‘The organisation takes the time to explain decisions to me’.

Organisational identification The Edwards and Peccei (2007: 30) six-item scale was used tomeasure organisational identification, defined as ‘a psychological linkage between theindividual and the organization whereby the individual feels a deep, self-defining affective andcognitive bond with the organization as a social entity’. The measure included items such as‘My employment at [organisation’s name] is a big part of who I am’ and ‘What [organisation’sname] stands for is important to me’.

Pro-change behaviour The measure used for pro-change behaviour was adapted fromGiangreco and Peccei’s (2005) scale for behaviourally oriented change support and composed




of five items. Previous to indicating their agreement with the items, respondents were asked tothink about a recent proposed change in their organisation. Item examples include ‘I promotethe change with enthusiasm’ and ‘I go the extra mile to ensure changes are successfullyimplemented’.

Analysis procedures

A two-stage analysis procedure was adopted in order to test the study’s propositions assuggested by DeVellis (2003) and Long (1983). These involved testing the measurementproperties of the constructs used in the model and then parcelling items into composites forstructural testing. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for all scales using LISREL8.80 (SSI, Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL). Due to violations of non-normalityassumptions associated with five-point Likert-type scale items, when testing the measurementmodels, the data were treated as ordinal for the purpose of the CFAs and polychoric correlationmatrices with associated asymptotic covariance matrices were produced as input into theanalysis following Jöreskog’s (2005) guidelines for dealing with ordinal data. As the structuralmodels included multi-item composites, these were treated as continuous variables andcovariance matrices were used for the study’s structural model testing.

Testing the measurement model involved a number of different analytical steps. Firstly, allitems were loaded onto their identified structures (six latent factors) and this was comparedwith a solution that loaded all items onto a single factor (the Harman test; Harman, 1976).Additionally, the six-item organisational identification measure was tested using CFA as aone-factor latent structure and the same was carried out with the pro-change behaviourmeasure; these two factors were then set as a one-factor versus a two-factor model to ensurefactorial separation with the proposed endogenous variables. As there were four differentjustice measures, more tests were carried out with this construct to ensure that the four justicemeasures could be considered separate constructs. Firstly, a four versus a one-factor solutionwas tested where all justice items were loaded onto a single latent construct, which wascompared with a solution where the items were loaded onto their appropriate sub-factors.Additionally, seven alternative three-factor structures were tested along with three alternativetwo-factor justice structures.

When testing the structural models, where possible, the items for each scale were partiallyaggregated into parcels following the procedure outlined by Little et al. (2002). A parcellingapproach was taken for a number of reasons. Firstly, Type 1 errors are less likely to occur withaggregate parcels. Secondly, it is argued that aggregating items generally leads to a higherlikelihood that the measure represents the psychological construct at hand. Third and finally,the relatively low sample size of the study meant that the more parsimonious the model is thebetter. With this method, items with high factor loadings are combined with items with lowfactor loadings to create parcels. Where possible, two parcels were constructed per latentconstruct (apart from the three-item scales that were left disaggregated due to the likelihood ofunbalanced parcels). A number of indices were used to test the adequacy of the measurementand structural path models. In accordance with Hu and Bentler (1999) and Jöreskog’s (2005)recommendations of confirmatory modelling, the chi square (c2) statistic used in our study isthe Satorra–Bentler scaled c2, which adjusts for non-normality with ordinal data. As compositeswere used in our structural models, the normal theory c2 is used with the structural models.With respect to the c2/degrees of freedom (df) ratio, we adhere to the recommendations ofBollen (1989) and Kelloway (1998) and consider a ratio below two as a good fitting model, aratio between two and three as an acceptable fit, and a ratio of between three and five asapproaching an acceptable fit. We also present the root mean square error of approximation




(RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) indicators. Based on therecommendations from Hu and Bentler (1999) and Steiger (2000), we use a cut-off of 0.05 forthe RMSEA in conjunction with 0.05 for the SRMR for good fitting models. Values lyingbetween 0.05 and 0.08 for both of these indices represent acceptable levels of fit and valuesbetween 0.08 and 0.10 approaching acceptable levels of fit. Additionally, the Tucker Lewis Index(TLI) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were used (with cut-off values of >0.95, see Bollen,1989) along with the expected cross-validation index (ECVI; for comparing badness of fit). Inthe structural models, the control variables age and tenure were treated as continuous datagiven that participants had to indicate their responses to both variables in categories.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for all variables and correlations between all measuresused in the study. The Cronbach alphas for all variables showed good levels of reliability, being0.92 for distributive justice, 0.87 for procedural justice, 0.84 for interpersonal justice, 0.80 forinformational justice, 0.94 for organisational identification and 0.92 for pro-change behaviour.The correlations between perceptual, attitudinal and behavioural variables in our model are allsignificant and in a positive direction, as predicted in the studies’ Hypotheses 1 and 2a–d.Organisational identification is significantly and positively related to distributive justice(r = 0.47, p < 0.001), procedural justice (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), interpersonal justice (r = 0.56,p < 0.001), informational justice (r = 0.38, p < 0.001) and pro-change behaviour (r = 0.54,p < 0.001). Furthermore, pro-change behaviour has a significant positive relationship withdistributive justice (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), procedural justice (r = 0.23, p < 0.01), interpersonal justice(r = 0.47, p < 0.001) and informational justice (r = 0.24, p < 0.001).

Testing the measurement model

The CFAs generally support the measurement models posed. The six-factor model showed agood fit (c2 = 374.4, df = 284, c2/df = 1.32, RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.077, CFI = 0.99, TLI 0.99,

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean SD

1 Age – – –2 Tenure 0.49*** – – –3 ODJ -0.07 -0.08 0.92 2.13 0.904 OPJ -0.12 -0.03 0.65*** 0.87 2.45 0.835 OIPJ -0.14 -0.00 0.63*** 0.55*** 0.84 2.79 0.956 OIFJ 0.06 0.06 0.61*** 0.65*** 0.59*** 0.80 1.90 0.827 OID 0.18* 0.37*** 0.47*** 0.33*** 0.56*** 0.38*** 0.94 2.92 1.048 PCB 0.16 0.23** 0.33*** 0.23** 0.47*** 0.24*** 0.54*** 0.92 3.26 0.75

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.n = 137; Cronbach alphas for scales are reported in italic on the diagonal of the correlation matrix.ODJ, organisational distributive justice; OID, organisational identification; OIFJ, organisational informational justice;OIPJ, organisational interpersonal justice; OPJ, organisational procedural justice; PCB, pro-change behaviour.




ECVI = 3.74) and was superior to the one-factor solution, which produced fit statisticsindicating a bad fitting model (c2 = 2,179.45, df = 299, c2/ df = 7.29, RMSEA = 0.22, SRMR = 0.16,CFI = 0.82, TLI = 0.80, ECVI = 16.79). The results of our CFA for a one-factor model oforganisational identification suggest good to acceptable levels of fit (c2 = 17.2, df = 9, c2/df = 1.9,RMSEA = 0.082, SRMR = 0.036, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, ECVI = 0.30). Pro-change behaviour alsohad good to acceptable levels of fit (c2 = 8.84, df = 5, c2/ df = 1.77, RMSEA = 0.075,SRMR = 0.026, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, ECVI = 0.21). Items linked to these two latent constructswere loaded onto one factor, which was tested against a two-factor model. The two-factormodel showed a good fit to the data (c2 = 58.22, df = 43, c2/df = 1.35, RMSEA = 0.051,SRMR = 0.042, CFI = 0.99, TLI 0.99, ECVI = 0.77), which was superior to the (badly fitting)one-factor solution (c2 = 335.91, df = 44, c2/df = 7.63, RMSEA = 0.22, SRMR = 0.16, CFI = 0.90,TLI = 0.88, ECVI = 2.79). Various testing was carried out to check the factor structure for thefour justice measures. Firstly, the testing indicated that the four-factor organisational justicemodel fits the data well. This model showed a good level of fit (c2 = 126.5, df = 84, c2/df = 1.51,RMSEA = 0.061, SRMR = 0.073, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, ECVI = 1.46) and was superior to aone-factor justice model (c2 = 346.67, df = 90, c2/df = 3.85, RMSEA = 0.14, SRMR = 0.092,CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, ECVI = 2.99), which did not reach acceptable levels of fit. Secondly, thefour-factor justice model was tested against all possible three sub-factor and two sub-factorjustice solutions and on all occasions the four-factor model produced better fit indices (seeTable 2). Lastly, we compared a three-factor model in which interpersonal and informationaljustice were combined against the four-factor model. The results indicate that the four-factormodel fits the data better than the three-factor model does (c2 = 193.58, df = 101, c2/df = 1.92,RMSEA = 0.082, SRMR = 0.068, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, ECVI = 1.94). The fit indices overall, assuch, show at least acceptable levels of fit for all study constructs.

Testing a mediated model

In order to test for Hypothesis 3a–d (the mediated model), full structural equation modelling(SEM) was carried out using LISREL 8.80. This involved setting latent structures associatedwith item parcels for each construct before testing the structural properties of the predictedmodel. This testing included setting the control variables and the four justice variables topredict organisational identification, which subsequently predicts pro-change behaviour. Theresults of the analysis showed good to acceptable fit results (c2 = 163.51, df = 84, c2/df = 1.95,RMSEA = 0.083, SRMR = 0.059, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, ECVI = 1.97). The results indicate thatinterpersonal justice (beta = 0.54, p < 0.001) and tenure (beta = 0.34, p < 0.001) relate positively toorganisational identification, which in turn predicts pro-change behaviour (beta = 0.59,p < 0.001). However, distributive justice (beta = 0.22, p > 0.05), procedural justice (beta = -0.17,p > 0.05), informational justice (beta = 0.11, p > 0.05) and age (beta = 0.12, p > 0.05) are not relatedto organisational identification. Sobel testing additionally indicates that identification mediatesthe relationship between interpersonal justice (Sobel = 3.47, p < 0.001) and tenure (Sobel = 3.31,p < 0.001) and pro-change behaviour.

In accordance with analytic convention, when testing mediated models, alternativestructures should also be considered. In line with Baron and Kenny (1986) and Kelloway (1998),three models were tested: one test, involving the mediated model (above); a second, testing thepartially mediated model; and a third model, examining direct relationships only (between theindependent variables and the dependent variable without assuming mediation). The partiallymediated model shows good to acceptable fit statistics (c2 = 149.29, df = 78, c2/df = 1.91,RMSEA = 0.082, SRMR = 0.051, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, ECVI = 1.95). The fit statistics of thepartially mediated model are better than the fully mediated model, and these models are




TAB

LE

2Fi

tst

atis

tics

for

all

mea

sure

men

tm

odel

s

Mea

sure

men

tm

odel

sd

fc2

c2 /df

SR

MR

RM

SE

AR

MS

EA

90%

CI

(;)C

FIT

LI

EC

VI

Org

anis

atio

nal

just

ice

Nul

lm

odel

105

4,74

7.19

One

-fac

tor

mod

el90

346.

673.

850.

092

0.14

0.13

;0.1

60.

940.

932.

99Tw

o-fa

ctor

mod

el:

OD

Jan

dO

IPJ

vers

usO

DJ

and

OIF

J89

272.

33.

060.

092

0.12

0.11

;0.1

40.

960.

952.

46Tw

o-fa

ctor

mod

el:

OD

Jan

dO

PJve

rsus

OIP

Jan

dO

IFJ

8923

9.25

2.69

0.08

80.

110.

095;

0.13

0.97

0.96

2.22

Two-

fact

orm

odel

:O

DJ

and

OIF

Jve

rsus

OPJ

and

OIP

J89

274.

113.

080.

10.

120.

11;0

.14

0.96

0.95

2.47

Thr

ee-f

acto

rm

odel

a:O

IPJ

assi

ngle

fact

or87

163.

01.

870.

070.

081

0.06

1;0.

10.

980.

981.

69T

hree

-fac

tor

mod

elb:

OD

Jan

dO

PJas

sing

lefa

ctor

8726

2.31

3.02

0.1

0.11

0.09

5;0.

130.

970.

962.

21T

hree

-fac

tor

mod

elc:

OD

Jan

dO

IPJ

assi

ngle

fact

or87

206.

062.

370.

097

0.01

0.08

3;0.

120.

970.

972.

00T

hree

-fac

tor

mod

eld

:O

DJ

and

OIF

Jas

sing

lefa

ctor

8718

9.93

2.18

0.08

90.

093

0.07

5;0.

110.

980.

971.

88T

hree

-fac

tor

mod

ele:

OPJ

and

OIP

Jas

sing

lefa

ctor

8721

3.95

2.5

0.08

80.

10.

086;

0.12

0.97

0.97

2.06

Thr

ee-f

acto

rm

odel

f:O

PJan

dO

IFJ

assi

ngle

fact

or87

156.

481.

80.

066

0.07

70.

057;

0.96

0.99

0.98

1.64

Thr

ee-f

acto

rm

odel

g:O

IPJ

and

OIF

Jas

sing

lefa

ctor

101

193.

581.

920.

068

0.08

20.

064;

0.09

90.

980.

981.

94Fo

ur-f

acto

rm

odel

8412

6.5

1.51

0.07

30.

061

0.03

8;0.

082

0.99

0.99

1.46

OID N

ull

mod

el15

1,25

8.42

One

-fac

tor

mod

el9

17.2

1.9

0.03

60.

082

0.01

1;0.

140.

990.

990.

30PC

B Nul

lm

odel

1082

9.46

One

-fac

tor

mod

el5

8.84

1.77

0.02

60.

075

0.0;

0.15

1.00

1.00

0.21

OID

and

PCB

Nul

lm

odel

553,

053.

39O

ne-f

acto

rm

odel

4433

5.91

7.63

0.16

0.22

0.2;

0.24

0.90

0.88

2.79

Two-

fact

orm

odel

4358

.22

1.35

0.04

20.

051

0.0;

0.82

0.99

0.99

0.77

Org

anis

atio

nal

just

ice,

OID

and

PCB

Nul

lm

odel

325

10,5

85.5

One

-fac

tor

mod

el29

92,

179.

457.

290.

160.

220.

21;0

.22

0.82

0.80

16.7

9Si

x-fa

ctor

mod

el28

437

4.4

1.32

0.07

70.

048

0.03

4;0.

061

0.99

0.99

3.74

CFI

,co

mpa

rati

vefit

ind

ex;C

I,co

nfid

ence

inte

rval

;df,

deg

rees

offr

eed

om;E

CV

I,ex

pect

edcr

oss-

valid

atio

nin

dex

;OD

J,or

gani

sati

onal

dis

trib

utiv

eju

stic

e;O

ID,

orga

nisa

tion

alid

enti

ficat

ion;

OIF

J,or

gani

sati

onal

info

rmat

iona

lju

stic

e;O

IPJ,

orga

nisa

tion

alin

terp

erso

nal

just

ice;

OPJ

,or

gani

sati

onal

proc

edur

alju

stic

e;PC

B,

pro-

chan

gebe

havi

our;

RM

SEA

,ro

otm

ean

squa

reer

ror

ofap

prox

imat

ion;

SRM

R,

stan

dar

dis

edro

otm

ean

squa

rere

sid

ual;

TL

I,Tu

cker

–Lew

isin

dex

.




significantly different3 (c2 diff. = 14.22, df = 6, p < 0.05). Importantly, with this model,interpersonal justice (beta = 0.49, p < 0.01) and age (beta = 0.22, p < 0.05) were found to directlypredict pro-change behaviour. The other significant structural paths found were betweeninterpersonal justice (beta = 0.52, p < 0.001) and tenure (beta = 0.34, p < 0.001) and identificationand from identification to pro-change behaviour (beta = 0.31, p < 0.05). All other paths remainednon-significant in that distributive justice (beta = 0.22, p > 0.05), procedural justice (beta = -0.16,p > 0.05), informational justice (beta = 0.12, p > 0.05) and age (beta = 0.11, p > 0.05) were notrelated to identification and distributive justice (beta = 0.03, p > 0.05), procedural justice(beta = -0.02, p > 0.05), informational justice (beta = -0.18, p > 0.05) and tenure (beta = -0.02,p > 0.05) were not related to pro-change behaviour. Sobel tests further indicate thatidentification mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice (Sobel = 2.10, p < 0.05) andtenure (Sobel = 2.09, p < 0.05) and pro-change behaviour. Figure 1 depicts only the significantpaths from this best-fitting final pre-common method variance (CMV) structural model due tographical constraints.

The direct relationship model, which does not assume that identification mediates therelationship between the independent variables and pro-change behaviour does not fit the datawell (c2 = 224.67, df = 86, c2/df = 2.61, RMSEA = 0.109, SRMR = 0.19, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93,ECVI = 2.39). Furthermore, it is significantly different when compared to the partially mediatedmodel4 (c2 diff. = 75.38, df = 8, p < 0.01) and the fully mediated model (c2 diff. = 61.16, df = 2,p < 0.01). In this direct relationship model, the only significant predictors of pro-changebehaviour are interpersonal justice (beta = 0.66, p < 0.001) and age (beta = 0.26, p < 0.05).Distributive justice (beta = 0.10, p > 0.05), procedural justice (beta = -0.07, p > 0.05),informational justice (beta = -0.15, p > 0.05) and tenure (beta = 0.08, p > 0.05), however, do notpredict pro-change behaviour directly in this model.

Testing for the effects of same source bias

We also tested for possible problems linked to same source bias by following a technique setout by Podsakoff et al. (2003), which controls for an unmeasured latent common method

FIGURE 1 Final pre-CMV structural model

Note: Only significant structural paths are depicted in this figure; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.




variance factor. Such an additional latent variable was included in the SEM model that crossloaded all observed variables onto this construct. For this analysis, the best-fitting partiallymediated model with its significant structural paths only was tested with the common methodlatent structure cross loaded onto all of the observed variables linked to each measure. TheCMV model showed a good fit to the data (c2 = 79.50, df = 73, c2/df = 1.09, RMSEA = 0.026,SRMR = 0.032, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, ECVI = 1.51). The test showed, importantly, that the samestructural relationships as found in the final pre-CMV structural model come through in thismore rigorous analysis. Specifically, interpersonal justice (beta = 0.31, p < 0.01) and tenure(beta = 0.47, p < 0.001) predict organisational identification, which in turn predicts pro-changebehaviour (beta = 0.28, p < 0.01). As in the final pre-CMV model, interpersonal justice(beta = 0.31, p < 0.01) and age (beta = 0.27, p < 0.01) also predict pro-change behaviour directly.Sobel tests for the mediation effects of organisational identification on the relationshipsbetween interpersonal justice (Sobel = 2.07, p < 0.05) and tenure (Sobel = 2.64, p < 0.01) andpro-change behaviour provide additional support for the significance of these structuralrelationships. Figure 2 depicts these directional paths found in the final post-CMV structuralmodel.

DISCUSSION

The results of the study indicate mixed support for the hypothesised model, which predictedthat organisational identification would mediate the relationship between justice and pro-change behaviour. However, in summary, there are two main findings: the first is that of thefour forms of justice included in the models predicting organisational identification andultimately pro-change behaviour, only interpersonal justice features in the structural models.The second main finding is that while organisational identification did mediate the relationshipbetween interpersonal justice and pro-change behaviour, the process that the analysis pointstowards is a partially mediated model as there is a consistent direct relationship betweeninterpersonal justice and pro-change behaviour, even when controlling for same source bias.

FIGURE 2 Final post-CMV structural model

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.




While there is some correlational evidence that supports individual hypotheses linking thefour different forms of justice and identification (Hypothesis 2a–d), as well as the link betweenorganisational identification and pro-change behaviour (Hypothesis 1), when the mediatedmodels were tested, support for the predicted model is mixed both before and after testing forthe possible effects of same source bias. In both of these tests, interpersonal justice predictsidentification and identification subsequently predicts pro-change behaviour. However,distributive, procedural and informational justice do not feature in the models tested.Ultimately, the analysis points to the importance of interpersonal justice in not only predictingorganisational identification but also pro-change behaviour, as interpersonal justice is alsodirectly related to pro-change behaviour. Furthermore, in all of the testing, identificationconsistently mediated the relationship between interpersonal justice and pro-change behaviour(Hypothesis 3c), all be it partially.

The findings indicate that although justice perceptions are an important potential driver ofemployee identification and subsequently pro-change behaviour, the particular form of justiceis key; different forms of organisational justice seem to have differential effects. Althoughinterpersonal justice plays a crucial role, distributive, procedural and informational forms ofjustice are not found to be important in predicting organisational identification and subsequentlypro-change behaviour when tested for simultaneously. The current study therefore highlightsthe importance of measuring a range of justice forms when trying to understand the role thatjustice plays in encouraging identification and subsequently pro-change behaviour.

Our results accord with arguments presented by Lind and Tyler (1988) and Tyler and Blader(2000, 2003) who suggest that identity-relevant status and respect information is communicatedby justice perceptions which in turn encourage employees to link their identities with that ofthe organisation. However, Tyler and Blader (2000, 2003) focus predominantly on proceduraljustice in explaining how justice can encourage organisational identification. This was notfound in the current study as interpersonal justice seem to eclipse any effect that proceduraljustice (and distributive justice) plays in the models tested. Our results therefore indicate thatwhen other forms of justice are taken into account, distributive, procedural and informationaljustice may not necessarily be the key when considering the role that justice plays inencouraging organisational identification.

The results also indicate that both age and tenure play a significant role in the presentednomological network as they, respectively, relate positively to pro-change behaviour andorganisational identification. This is to some extent in line with Riketta’s (2005) meta-analysis,which suggests that tenure is positively related to organisational identification, arguablythrough a gradual convergence of values and goals between an individual and an organisation.

Despite these important findings, the results of the current study present a complicatedpicture, which raises some interesting methodical issues. Firstly, although theory (for instancethe group value model) points to particular forms of justice as being important in predictingcertain outcomes such as identification, one needs to systematically assess the role that otherforms might play in the processes as such justice types may be more important in certaincontexts. Secondly, when statistically controlled for possible effects of same source bias,comparable structural relationships emerge in the final post-CMV model (Figure 2). Thissuggests that the presented paths in the final model do not suffer from this type of commonmethod bias and one can be fairly confident about the robustness of these structuralrelationships.

Overall, our results extend the existing work that looks at the links between organisationaljustice and identification by demonstrating the importance of interpersonal justice in predictingemployee identification. This, we argue, is not surprising because respectful interpersonal




treatment from the organisation is likely to communicate information about one’s status in asalient manner. In fact, our measure of interpersonal justice explicitly refers to whether theorganisation treats the respondent with dignity and respect. These measures of interpersonaljustice thus tap directly into the mechanism Tyler et al. (1996) and Tyler and Blader (2000, 2003)suggest as important with the group value and group engagement models as an explanationas to why justice predicts identification. The interpersonal justice measure used in this studycan be argued as being a more direct test of the mechanisms proposed by these models thanprocedural justice is.

The finding that distributive, procedural and informational justice was not a significantpredictor of identification in our study warrants further discussion. As mentioned, Tyler andBlader (2000, 2003) argue that distributive and procedural justice are of central importance inencouraging organisational identification because fair resource distributions and justprocedural treatment send a signal to employees indicating that they are valued and respectedby their organisation. It is likely that the importance of interpersonal justice in the model couldexplain why distributive and procedural justice do not feature – mainly because interpersonaljustice taps the theoretical mechanism between justice and identification more directly thandistributive and procedural justice do. When all of these justice forms are included in themodel, distributive and procedural justice simply become redundant.

As mentioned, we also found support for the mediating effect of organisational identificationbetween interpersonal justice and pro-change behaviour, albeit partially. This, we argue, is bestexplained in that justice perceptions alone do not account significantly enough for employees’pro-change behaviour. In practical terms, the mere fact that one receives fair interpersonaltreatment from organisational agents does not seem to guarantee that employees engage inpro-change behaviour during change interventions. The results indicate that perceptions ofinterpersonal justice would be expected to encourage employees to identify with theirorganisation, and once individuals identify with their organisation and define themselves interms of their organisational membership, they become more likely to behaviourally supportchange interventions. We argue that since strong identifiers tie their own identity closely to thatof the organisation, they are more likely to act in the best interest of the organisation in orderto ensure some degree of self-consistency (Edwards, 2005). As a result, in situations of perceivedinterpersonal fairness, the notion of identification will lead employees to support changemanagement interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Implications for human resource managers

Beyond the academic significance of these findings, important implications for managers in theimplementation of change can be drawn. The discovery of interpersonal justice as a keypredictor of identification and subsequently pro-change behaviour signifies that managers whomake a particular effort to increase perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment possess avaluable device during change management interventions. The key message from this study isthat organisations need to ensure that they treat employees with dignity and respect, which canbe seen as central in ensuring that employees are willing to identify with the organisation andshare its change goals; ultimately this will help ensure that employees actively support (ratherthan resist) change initiatives. Awareness of what constitutes interpersonal justice (treatingpeople with dignity and respect) can be increased through targeted training for topmanagement and supervisors, as perceptions of interpersonal justice are often based upon thebehaviours of ones superior (Greenberg, 2001). In fact, Skarlicki and Latham (1996, 1997)




provide empirical evidence for a positive relationship between interpersonal justice leadershiptraining and a subsequently reported increase in employees’ citizenship behaviour – a type ofbehaviour with some conceptual overlap with our pro-change behaviour construct. The focusof such training, essentially, should be on fostering a sense of self-worth through carefulinteractions with employees.

Limitations of the study

There are a number of limitations with the current study that merit discussion. The cross-sectional nature of the data used does not allow for rigorous testing of any causality betweenthe variables at hand, thus, the dynamic nature of the relationships between different types ofjustice, identification and pro-change behaviour cannot be uncovered with total accuracy. Thefindings do however form a useful basis for considering further research into factors thatinfluence employees’ pro-change behaviour. One also needs to consider that the use of aself-report method may be a limitation of the study. We cannot be certain that self-reportmeasures provide an accurate picture of employees’ actual responses to change, in particularhere pro-change behaviour. While this is a common concern for many organisational scholars,empirical evidence presented by Wolfe Morrison and Phelps (1999) suggests that self-reportedand co-worker data on behaviourally change-related variables seem not to differ significantly. Assuch, while we acknowledge this limitation of our study, we are confident that the self-reportednature especially of our behavioural measure is a valid and reliable measurement instrumentwhen seeking to better understand individuals’ behaviour in organisational change settings.

Due to the design of this study, respondents were asked to think of a recent change in theirorganisation when filling in the survey. This method was chosen to avoid simply recordingresponses to one change and to provide more general findings. This method, however, mayhave caused problems as some individuals could have referred to large-scale changes whileothers thought of more incremental changes. When filling in the survey, additionally, some ofthese changes had occurred recently, while others dated back some years. An issue therefore isthat a variety of changes referred to may place limits on the generalisability of our findings.

A further limitation to our study is the relatively low number of responses, despite anacceptable response rate (35.4%). While the models presented fit the data well, a small sampleis likely to lack generalisability and statistical power (Myors, 2006) despite the significantresults found. Furthermore, linked to this, as this study was only carried out in the head officeof a UK-based organisation, one needs to be careful on how much the current findings areconsidered to be generalisable.

Directions for future research

There are a number of promising research avenues conceivable to pursue based on our study.Firstly, considerable empirical work has been conducted in the area of organisational leveljustice perceptions; however, relatively little is known about the role interpersonal treatmentplays between group members and we henceforth would encourage organisational scholars tolook into effects in such settings. Further, relatively little is known about changes in levels oforganisational identification in change settings. In other words, organisational scholars couldlook at the key factors that both foster and limit organisational identification duringorganisational change and whether these effects can be restored to pre-change levels. Here,organisational scholars could investigate contingent and moderating effects likely to influenceemployee identification and reactions to change. For example, the type of change is likely toplay an important role in how employees react in terms of identification and subsequentlypro-change behaviour. Some types of change that threaten the organisational and employee




identity may be more likely to have a negative impact on identification and pro-changebehaviour. This may not be the case with changes that do not impact or threaten theorganisation’s identity in any way. Based on our results, the way change is communicated bythe organisation and whether (and how) it alters individuals’ self-concepts during changewould also be interesting to examine further. Finally, as change and employee reactions occurover time, it would be important to measure factors throughout the entire change process(within the context of a range of different types of change) to enable a better understanding ofthe dynamics of change reactions across time and how employee reactions unfold.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jennifer Boylan and Jacqueline A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro for theirinvolvement in an earlier stage of this study and the two anonymous reviewers for theirvaluable comments on a previous draft of this article.

Notes

1. The focus of this study is the mediating role that identification plays in the relationshipbetween different types of justice and pro-change behaviour, as this is to date anunexamined, unique research focus in the respective streams of literature. Some literaturedoes exist that looks at relationships between justice and organisational commitment (seeColquitt et al., 2001) and between affective commitment and employee outcomes such asorganisational citizenship behaviour (see Meyer et al., 2002). The current study is, however,focusing specifically on organisational identification rather than commitment. In focussingon identification, the authors do not wish to exclude related literature that examinesorganisational commitment; the focus is, however, deliberately limited to the more specificidentity-related research that the literature linked to justice and identification focuses on.2. Please note that there are in addition to conceptual variations between organisationalcommitment and organisational identification also empirically different effects in thatoutcomes of both concepts seem to differ according to Riketta’s (2005) meta-analysis.3. With the fully mediated model the direct paths between the justice variables and pro-change behaviour were set to 0 to enable a nested structure comparison between thepartially mediated model and the fully mediated model.4. To enable a nested model comparison, this direct path only model was set to essentiallyreplicate the partially mediated model while fixing a number of structural paths to 0. Thesewere the links between the independent variables and identification as well as the linkbetween identification and pro-change behaviour.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965). ‘Inequity in social exchange’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, New York: Academic Press.

Arendt, C.H., Landis, R.M. and Meister, T.B. (1995). ‘The human side of change – part 4’. IEESolutions, May, 22–26.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Field, H.S. (1999). ‘Paradigms in organizational change: changeagent and change target perspectives’, in R. Golembiewski (ed.), Handbook of OrganizationalBehavior, New York: Marcel Dekker.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989). ‘Social identity theory and the organization’. Academy ofManagement Review, 14: 1, 20–39.

Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, K.G. (2008). ‘Identification in organizations: anexamination of four fundamental questions’. Journal of Management, 34: 3, 325–374.




Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51: 6, 1173–1182.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990). ‘Why change programs don’t produce change’.Harvard Business Review, 68: 6, 158–166.

Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986). ‘Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness’. Research onNegotiation in Organizations, 1: 43–45.

Blader, S.L. and Tyler, T.R. (2009). ‘Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkagesbetween social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior’. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94: 2, 445–464.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley Publishers.Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: Wiley & Sons.Burke, W.W. (2008). Organization Change: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.Byrne, Z.S. (1999). ‘Procedural and Interactional Justice: Understanding Multilevel Outcomes’.

Unpublished Master Thesis. Colorado: Colorado State University.Byrne, Z.S. and Cropanzano, R. (2000). ‘To which source do I attribute this fairness? Differential

effects of multi-foci justice on organizational work behaviours’. Paper presented at the AnnualConference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April. New Orleans, LA.

Cheney, G. (1983). ‘On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: a fieldstudy of organizational identification’. Communication Monographs, 50: 4, 342–362.

Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U. and Stellmacher, J. (2003). ‘When teachers go the extra mile: fociof organisational identification as determinants of different forms of organisational citizenshipbehaviour among schoolteachers’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73: 3, 329–341.

Cobb, A.T. and Wooten, K.C. (1998). ‘The role social accounts can play in a “justice intervention”’,in R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development,Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Coch, L. and French, J.R.P., Jr (1948). ‘Overcoming resistance to change’. Human Relations, 1: 4,512–532.

Colquitt, J.A. (2001). ‘On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of ameasure’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 3, 386–400.

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Yee Ng, K. (2001). ‘Justice at themillennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research’. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86: 3, 425–445.

Conner, D.R. (1992). Managing at the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers Succeed and Prosper WhereOthers Fail, New York: Villard Books.

Conner, D.R. and Patterson, R.W. (1982). ‘Building commitment to organizational change’. Trainingand Development Journal, 36: 4, 18–30.

Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997). ‘Progress in organizational justice: tunnelling through themaze’, in C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (eds), International Review of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994). ‘Organizational images and memberidentification’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 2, 239–263.

Edwards, M.R. (2005). ‘Organizational identification: a conceptual and operational review’.International Journal of Management Reviews, 7: 4, 207–230.

Edwards, M.R. (2009). ‘HR, perceived organisational support and organisational identification: ananalysis after organisational formation’. Human Resource Management Journal, 19: 1, 91–115.

Edwards, M.R. and Peccei, R. (2007). ‘Organizational identification: development and testing of aconceptually grounded measure’. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16: 1,25–57.




Edwards, M.R. and Peccei, R. (2010). ‘Perceived organizational support, organizational identification,and employee outcomes: testing a simultaneous multifoci model’. Journal of Personnel Psychology,9: 1, 17–26.

Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fuller, J.B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C. and Beu, D. (2006). ‘Perceived external prestigeand internal respect: new insights into the organizational identification process’. Human Relations,59: 6, 815–846.

Giangreco, A. and Peccei, R. (2005). ‘The nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance tochange: evidence from an Italian context’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16:10, 1812–1829.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960). ‘The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement’. American SociologicalReview, 25: 2, 161–178.

Greenberg, J. (2001). ‘The seven can(n)ons of organizational justice’, in J. Greenberg and R.Cropanzano (eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Harman, H.H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis, 3rd edn, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002). ‘Commitment to organizational change: extension of a

three-component model’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 3, 474–487.Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999). ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

conventional criteria versus new alternatives’. Structural Equation Modelling, 6: 1, 1–55.Jöreskog, K.G. (2005). ‘Structural Equation Modelling with Ordinal Variables Using LISREL’. Scientific

Software International, Inc. (SSI), http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ordinal.pdf,accessed 15 May 2009.

Kelloway, K.E. (1998). Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modelling: A Researcher’s Guide, ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kilbourne, L.M., O’Leary-Kelly, A. and Williams, S.D. (1996). ‘Employee perceptions of fairness whenhuman resource systems change: the case of employee layoffs’. Research in Organizational Changeand Development, 9: 25–48.

Klein, K.J. and Speer Sorra, J.S. (1996). ‘The challenge of innovation implementation’. Academy ofManagement Review, 21: 4, 1055–1080.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). ‘Leading change: why transformation efforts fail’. Harvard Business Review, 73:March/April, 59–67.

Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J. and Aryee, S. (2002). ‘Relationships between organizational justiceand employee work outcomes: a cross-national study’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 1,1–18.

Leventhal, G.S. (1976). ‘The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations’.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9: 91–131.

Lind, E.A. (2001). ‘Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizationalrelations’, in J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (eds), Advances in Organizational Behavior, Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York: PlenumPublishing.

Lind, E.A. and Van den Bos, K. (2002). ‘When fairness works: toward a general theory of uncertaintymanagement’, in L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G. and Widaman, K.F. (2002). ‘To parcel or not to parcel:exploring the question, weighing the merits’. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 2, 151–173.

Long, J.S. (1983). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Preface to LISREL, Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002). ‘Affective, continuance, andnormative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, andconsequences’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61: 1, 20–52.




Myors, B. (2006). ‘Statistical power’, in T.L. Leong and J.T. Austin (eds), The Psychology ResearchHandbook: A Guide for Graduate Students and Research Assistants, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Novelli, L., Jr, Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (1995). ‘Effective implementation of organizationalchange: an organizational justice perspective’, in C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (eds), Trends inOrganizational Behavior, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

O’Connor, C.A. (1993). ‘Resistance: the repercussions of change’. Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 14: 6, 30–36.

Olkkonen, M.-E. and Lipponen, J. (2006). ‘Relationships between organizational justice, identificationwith organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes’. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 100: 2, 202–215.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). ‘Common method biases inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88: 5, 879–903.

Riketta, M. (2005). ‘Organizational identification: a meta-analysis’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 2,358–384.

Rodell, J.B. and Colquitt, J.A. (2009). ‘Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: the role of anticipatoryjustice in an organizational change context’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 4, 989–1002.

Shaw, J.C., Wild, E. and Colquitt, J.A. (2003). ‘To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of theeffects of explanations’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 3, 444–458.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1996). ‘Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: a testof organizational justice theory’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 2, 161–169.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1997). ‘Leadership training in organizational justice to increasecitizenship behavior within a labor union: a replication’. Personnel Psychology, 50: 3, 617–633.

Steiger, J.H. (2000). ‘Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using RMSEA: somecomments and a reply to Hayduk A. Glaser’. Structural Equation Modelling, 7: 2, 149–162.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979). ‘An integrative theory of social conflict’, in W.G. Austin and S.Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn, Chicago, IL: Nelson HallPublishers.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986). ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour’, in S. Worcheland W.G. Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn, Chicago, IL: Nelson-HallPublishers

Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Publishers.

Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2000). Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and BehavioralEngagement, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2003). ‘The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity,and cooperative behaviour’. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 4, 349–361.

Tyler, T., Degoey, P. and Smith, H. (1996). ‘Understanding why the justice of group proceduresmatters: a test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model’. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 70: 5, 913–930.

van Dick, R., Grojean, M.W., Christ, O. and Wieseke, J. (2006). ‘Identity and the extra mile:relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour’.British Journal of Management, 17: 4, 283–301.

van Knippenberg, D. and Sleebos, E. (2006). ‘Organizational identification versus organizationalcommitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes’. Journal of Organizational Behavior,27: 5, 571–584.

Waldersee, R. and Griffiths, A. (1997). ‘The changing face of organisational change’. CCC Paper No. 065,Centre for Corporate Change, Australian Graduate School of Management, The University of NewSouth Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Wolfe Morrison, E. and Phelps, C.C. (1999). ‘Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiateworkplace change’. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 4, 403–419.




predicting pro-change behaviour: the role of perceived organisational justice and organisational...

Documents