PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to focus on the resistance to change in the organizational contexts where a soon‐to‐be‐implemented change initiative infringes upon freedoms of the employees. Specifically, the role of affect was explored within the framework of psychological reactance theory, delineating salience of affect as a driver of the intention to restore one's threatened freedoms. Additionally, the roles that emotional intelligence and interpersonal justice play in lowering the activation of reactance were examined.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper that connects self‐determination, reactance, organizational change, emotional intelligence and justice literatures to explain how psychological reactance may be energized and de‐energized in the context of on‐going organizational change.FindingsThe study suggests that organizational change is likely to undermine employees' freedoms, which will arouse negative affective states. The latter are likely to energize reactance – a motivational state directed to restore the threatened freedoms. Negative affect and reactance may be mitigated by implementing and sustaining socially supportive and interpersonally just organizational environment, led by an emotionally intelligent management staff.Originality/valueThis work is the first that investigates how and under what circumstances organizational change is likely to activate employees' psychological reactance. Furthermore, the study presents two new methods that may be used by managers to mitigate change‐driven reactance and the negative affect that energizes it.

This study investigates the effects of group member nonresponse in research that examines relationships between group-level constructs aggregated from the responses of individual group members. Simulation data show that the effects of nonresponse vary greatly depending on levels of between-group variability and within-group variability expressed jointly as intraclass correlation, or ICC(1), values. Even high response rates, for example, can produce significantly attenuated correlations between group-level variables with ICC(1) levels commonly reported in group studies. Conversely, even low response rates can yield accurate group-level correlations when ICC(1) levels are high. These effects of nonresponse are equivalent whether nonresponse derives from a random or biased process. Group size appears to play no important role in moderating the effects of response rate. Suggestions for research design and post hoc diagnosis of findings are discussed.

Purpose This research aims to investigate how team support and cohesion channel the effects of relationship conflict and its management on team productivity. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire data were sampled from students working in groups to design software systems for companies. Structural equation methodology was used to estimate the proposed model. Findings The results indicate that the mediators (team support and cohesion) positively affect each other and team performance. The results support that the effects of conflict and conflict management on team performance are mediated by team support first and then indirectly through team cohesion. Research limitations/implications This paper empirically establishes the mechanisms through which conflict and its management affect team performance. The following limitations should be considered when generalizing the results of the study: team-level phenomena were assessed using perceived measures of individual team members and an academic setting was used for data collection. Practical implications The findings indicate that team support plays an important role in protecting the team from the negative effects of conflict and that team support contributes to the development of team cohesion. Originality/value This work is one of the first to evaluate the mechanisms of team support and cohesion through which team conflict and its management affect team performance.