Status, Risk, and Receptivity to Innovations in Complex Organizations: A Study of the Responses of Four Groups of Educators to the Proposed Introduction of Sex Education in Elementary School

Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change

“…The Enrollment Procedures Questionnaire asked whether the students had pre-enrolled for courses, and if so, whether they had added or dropped any courses from their schedule during the changing period; a number of questions regarding the adoption and use of a new system; postchange behavior/functioning at work: "When possible, I try to work out of the office as much as I can these days" Oreg (2006) Behavioral reaction to change "I looked for ways to prevent the change from taking place," "I protested against the change" Paterson and Cary (2002) Acceptance of change Used scale from V. D. Miller et al (1994) Peach et al (2005 Intentions to support change Items involved questions about the extent to which employees intended to carry out specific supportive change behaviors Sagie and Koslowsky (1994) Change acceptance Sample items are not provided Stanley et al (2005) Intentions to resist the change, resistance/ support for change Intentions to resist: ''I will resist any efforts to impose this change"; resistance/support for change was assessed using the behavioral continuum developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002, see above) 2000Readiness for change "employees here are resistant to change," "employees here act as agents of change" Fugate et al (2002) Negative appraisal Scale includes items that could be considered both affective and cognitive items (e.g., "the change is threatening," "the change is harmful") Giacquinta (1975) Innovation receptivity Scale items were adjective pairs, some of which appear to be affective ("tense" vs. "relaxed"), and others cognitive ("good" vs. "bad") User satisfaction with postchange system "Are you satisfied with the accuracy of the system," "Does the system provide information that meets your needs?" Lau and Woodman (1995) Specific attitude toward change Scale includes items for all three attitude components: "I enjoy changes like this," "I think the change in bonfire tradition is excellent," "If I can, I will do my best to help this happen" V. D. Miller et al (1994) Openness toward change Scale includes both cognitive and behavioral items: "Right now, I am somewhat resistant to the proposed change in work teams," "From my perspective, the proposed changes in the work teams will be for the better" Paterson and Cary (2002) Acceptance of change V. D. Miller et al's (1994) Openness toward change scale was used, which included cognitive and behavioral items Shapiro and Kirkman (1999) Resistance to change Some of the sample items provided were behavioral (e.g., "resist," "comply"), some appeared to be more affective in nature (e.g., "feel frustrated," or "feel eager") Susskind et al Sometimes different terms were used for describing the same phenomenon (the "jangle" fallacy...…”

“…This is because in many of the studies the reactions to change were not assessed with a tridimensional definition of reactions in mind. Therefore, measures of reactions to change in these studies combined items that tap different components (C. E. Cunningham et al, 2002;Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000;Fugate, Kinicki, & Scheck, 2002;Giacquinta, 1975;Lau & Woodman, 1995;Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999;Susskind, Miller, & Johnson, 1998). In other studies, questions about the reaction to change were very general (e.g., "employees here are resistant to change," Eby et al, 2000) and thus do not tap any particular component (affect, cognition, behavior) of the reaction toward change.…”

“…Whether or not one is a manager has been shown to influence perceptions of the change process, with managers perceiving the process to be fairer; however, managerial status was not related to the ultimate reaction to the change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). Similarly, one’s position in the organization (conceptualized as status) was associated with receptivity to innovation (Giacquinta, 1975). In another study, change recipients’ ages moderated the relationship between perceived change fairness and perceived person–organization fit, with older change recipients exhibiting a weaker relationship between the two (Caldwell et al, 2004).…”

“…These include both examinations of mediated paths and moderated relationships. Specifically, in five of the studies, the perceived benefit/harm mediated relationships between other antecedents and the ultimate reaction to change (Bartunek et al, 2006; Fried et al, 1996; Giacquinta, 1975; Hornung & Rousseau, 2007; Johnson et al, 1996). In other words, perceived benefits/harm were found to be a more proximal determinant of change recipients’ reactions than other antecedents, such as recipient characteristics (e.g., Hornung & Rousseau, 2007) or the change process (e.g., Johnson et al, 1996).…”

The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: An experimental approach

“…It is therefore, by definition, more risky than continuing existing routines or skills (Becker, 2004;Benner and Tushman, 2002;Greve, 1998;Rogers, 1995). This element of risktaking is a key feature of innovative behavior and explains the likelihood of displaying the behavior (Bloom and Milkovich, 1998;Giacquinta, 1975;Rosenkopf and McGrath, 2011).…”