Procedural justice as a moderator of the relationship between organizational change intensity and commitment to organizational change

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why different forms of organizational change have different levels of organizational intensity, which in turn differentiate its impact on commitment to organizational change (COC). Its purpose is to also identify how procedural justice can reduce change-related stress and buffer the strain inducing effects of job demands. Design/methodology/approach The authors tested the hypotheses using data collected from two sources in Korea. First, the authors conducted a survey in several organizations to identify employees’ attitudes and stress during organizational change. Second, the author surveyed MBA students to evaluate the degree of organizational change intensity (severity) across the types of change. Findings There is a hierarchy of the severity of organizational change and the most severe forms of change are the ones that impact employees’ job security and organizational identity. The influence of job demands (represented as organizational change intensity-severity) on COC can depend on the nature of COC. Procedural justice not only facilitates employees to accept values and goals pertaining to organizational change but also adapt themselves to pressures of external change. Buffering effects of job resources (represented as job resources) had significant impacts only on normative commitment to organizational change (NCOC). Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the job demands-resources model by considering organizational change intensity as job demands and procedural justice as job resources and showing the relationships among them. Future studies can further extend the model by identifying other variables related to job demands and resources during organizational change and extending the nomological networks of NCOC and continuance commitment to organizational change. Practical implications The results of this study provide important insights for human resource managers who plan and implement organizational changes. Procedural justice and organizational change intensity-severity should be considered to increase commitment to change. Originality/value This study is one of the few studies to identify the different types of organizational change and quantify them to measure organizational change intensity-severity. A new finding is that the buffering role of job resources (procedural justice in this study) can be marginal when the influence of job demands on employees’ attitudes is strong.

Empowering Leadership, Risk-Taking Behavior, and Employees’ Commitment to Organizational Change: The Mediated Moderating Role of Task Complexity

“…According to Herscovitch and Meyer [43], there are three types of commitment to change: affective commitment, which supports organizational change based on trust and attachment to the organization; normative commitment, in which support to organizational change is considered a duty that arises from a sense of moral obligation; and continuance commitment, which is based on the fear of cost of resistance to change or failure to support it. According to previous research, commitment to organizational change can be viewed as a key element in promoting true change behavior of employees in the process of organizational change [5,7,44]. Thus, commitment to organizational change is essential for its successful implementation.…”

“…Meanwhile, commitment to organizational change is a key factor in gaining the support of employees in the process of organizational change [7]. If organizational change is a success, it is important that employees do not have negative perceptions about it.…”

The Effects of Organizational Justice on Positive Organizational Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Sample Survey and a Situational Experiment

“…Kim and Park ( 2017 ) stated that procedural justice positively influences employee's work engagement, knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior. Lee et al ( 2017 ) showed that procedural justice can facilitates employees to accept the change of values and objectives of organization and also adapt themselves to pressures of external change. Furthermore, certain findings suggested that the process of allocating rewards is more important than the result (Lind and Tyler, 1988 ; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001 ).…”

Organisationaler Wandel als Bedrohung – von impliziter Angst zur Annäherung durch prozedurale Gerechtigkeit

“…Fugate et al 2012). Viele MitarbeiterInnen empfinden geplante Veränderungen als Stressoren (Lee et al 2017) und begegnen dieser Gefährdung des Status quo deshalb mit Unbehagen oder gar psychosomatischen Beschwerden (Schumacher et al 2016). Solche Diskrepanzen zwischen Ist-und Soll-Zustand, also z.…”

“…Im Kontext von organisationalem Wandel zeigten Coch und French (1948), dass Mitarbeiter, die in die Gestaltung von Veränderungsmaßnahmen miteinbezogen wurden, seltener kündigten, bessere Arbeitsleistung zeigten und sich gegenüber Vorgesetzten positiver verhielten, als Mitarbeiter, denen die Veränderung als bereits entschieden kommuniziert wurde. Spätere Studien zeigten, dass die Wahrnehmung prozeduraler Gerechtigkeit in starkem Zusammenhang mit Annäherungsmotivation steht (Murphy und Tyler 2008), und dass das Commitment von Mitarbeitern in Veränderungsprozessen von prozeduraler Gerechtigkeit beeinflusst wird (Lee et al 2017).…”