See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/211390260

Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational

commitment and change goal achievement

Article in Journal of Change Management · September 2004

DOI: 10.1080/1469701042000221696

CITATIONS READS

414 11,795

1 author:

Rune Lines

40 PUBLICATIONS 1,579 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rune Lines on 27 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Change Management, . j
Vol. 4, No. 3, 193-215, September 2004 l\

Influence of participation in
strategic change: resistance,
organizational commitment and
change goal achievement
RUNE LINES
Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Norway

ABSTRACT Participation in strategic change processes is frequently assumed to have a number of

positive consequences for decision quality, affective responses to change and success of strategic
change implementation. To date little research has successfully established the validity of these
claims. The fact that results from research into the effects of participation in other contexts
are inconclusive is adding to the ambiguity concerning participation's efficacy in a strategic change
context. This article uses data from a major strategic reorientation of a national telecommunications
firm in order to assess the outcomes of participation in strategic change. Findings indicate a strong
positive relationship between participation and goal achievement and organizational commitment,
and a strong negative relationship with resistance. The results also suggest that the effects of
participation are moderated by the changes' compatibility with organizational culture and the
personal goals of change recipients.

KEY WORDS: Strategic change, participation, implementation of change

Introduction
This article studies the influence of participation on a set of dimensions related to
the success of the implementation of deliberate strategic change (Mintzberg and
Waters, 1985). Participation is believed to have a number of positive effects on the
strategy process. Most notably, it is assumed that involvement of those affected by
a change in strategy will reduce organizational resistance and to create a higher
level of psychological commitment among employees towards the proposed
changes. Also, participation has been argued to lead to qualitatively better
strategic decisions (Kim and Mauborgne, 1998), One reason for this being that a
broader array of relevant skills, competencies and information is brought to bear

Correspondence address: Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics and
Business Administration, Breiviksveien 40, N 5045 Bergen, Norway; Email; Rune,Lines@nhh,no

1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/04/030193-23 © 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd,

DOI; 10,1080/1469701042000221696
R. Lines 194

on each stage in the strategic decision process. Participation is further believed to

make the political realities of the organization more salient and thus lead to
choices that are based on political as well as socio-technical considerations. In
sum, these and other putative effects are believed to lead to successful
implementation of strategic change.
Up to this point, very little empirical evidence has been provided to support the
assumed effects of participation in strategic change. Some sceptics hold that an
individual's reaction to a proposed change is more dependent on the relationship
between their own personal goals and the outcomes of change than on the
processes used for formulating and implementing change (Guth and MacMillan,
1986; Gaertner, 1989). Procedural justice theorists, on the other hand, argue that
the design and execution of strategy processes are the main determinants of
individual reactions to change (Korsgaard et al., 1995).
Extant research on participation has mostly been carded out in contexts that differ
substantially from strategic change processes; cuasing transference of generalizations
of any effects to this setting dubious. Strategic change processes have been
characterized as being highly complex, politically laden, affecting large parts of the
organization and driven by upper level managers (Hambdck and Mason, 1984;
Hardy, 1995), Research into participation, on the other hand, has most frequently
been carried out at much lower levels in the organization. Further, existing studies
have concentrated on the effect of participation in fairly simple structures and
processes the consequences of which are confined to one organizational subunit. The
possibility that outcomes of participation depend on the content in which the
decisions involved are taken is acknowledged in the participation literature (e,g,
Locke and Schweiger, 1979), This view is empirically supported by Sagie and
Kolowsky (1994) who found that subordinate participation in tactical decisions as
opposed to strategic decisions was a better predictor of an increase in change
acceptance, work satisfaction, effectiveness and time allotted to work. Also, some of
the dependent variables of interest may be different when studying effects of
participation on outcomes of intended strategic change. Research into the effects of
participation in other settings has often focused on job satisfaction and productivity.
Other outcomes such as the content and rate of learning, acceptance to change and
the achievement of change objectives may be more pertinent as dependent variables
when studying effects of participation in the context of strategic change.
Most importantly, findings from research on participation in other settings are
largely inconclusive. As shown in recent reviews, the average effects of
participation on attitudinal outcome variables such as job satisfaction and
commitment are modest (Cotton et al., 1988; Wagner, 1994), The average effect
of participation on group and organization level outcomes, such as productivity,
is virtually zero (Locke and Schweiger, 1979), Such research has also revealed
that participation is a much more complex issue than is often held, both as a
theoretical construct and as an empirical phenomenon. Participation has been
found to have different forms, and the appropriateness of a given form depends
on which outcomes are sought as well as the context in which participation is to
be implemented (Miller and Monge, 1986; Cotton et al., 1988),
This article attempts to address the knowledge gap related to participation in
strategic change by focusing on two interrelated research questions. First, it
195 Influence of participation in strategic change

investigates the relationship between two forms of participation, consultative

participation and the right to veto a decision, on change goal achievement,
resistance to change, and post change organizational commitment. The two forms
correspond to the distinction frequently made in the literature between process
control and decision control, where the former corresponds to consultative
participation and the latter to the term veto used here (Thibaut and Walker, 1975;
Early and Lind, 1987). I have chosen to include the right to veto a proposed change
because it could capture situations in which changes that are optimal from an
organizational perspective are foregone because they are unacceptable from a
change recipient perspective. Rather than focusing on one outcome of
participation, I have chosen a set of three effect variables. Together these variables
represent outcomes that together allow for a rather more complete assessment of
whether an implementation process is successful or not. Second, I try to establish if
and to what degree the effects of participation depend on the context in which the
approach is applied. To investigate this question, I focus on the following aspects of
the change to be implemented: the degree to which the change is compatible with
the organization's culture; the degree to which the change is intended to lower
costs; and to what extent the change will lead to more or less job variety. In order to
explore these research questions empirically, I use data from a set of change
projects drawn from an integrated change programme designed in order to
transform a telecommunication company into a customer driven, cost effective
provider of telecommunication services.

Theoretical background and model development

Participation
Participation has been defined in several ways. In this research we will use the
definition of Glew etal (1995:402) as a theoretical point of departure: 'the essence
of participation is a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in
an organization to provide visible extra role or role-expanding opportunities for
individuals or groups at a lower level in the organization to have a greater voice in
one or more areas of organizational performance.' Efforts to involve employees at
lower levels have taken a variety of forms; among such are participation in
decisions directly related to how work is performed (Trist et al., 1977); consultative
participation in decisions on work issues (where employees do not have a veto or
complete decision-making power) (Schuster, 1984); informal participation,
employee ownership and representative participation (Martin et al, 1995).
Researchers have found it useful to develop a set of dimensions to describe
theoretically important distinctions between forms of participation. Locke and
Schweiger (1979) and Cotton et al. (1988) use three properties to develop a
classification scheme that reflects the conceptual distinction of different forms of
participation: degree of formalization; direct versus indirect (i.e. representative or
'vicarious') participation (Strauss and Rosenstein, 1970); and the breadth and depth
of employee access to decision-making processes and issues. A fourth dimension
that has received attention is the degree of influence. This dimension is meant to
reflect the notion that participation does not influence equally and that people can
R. Lines 196

participate in a wide array of processes without having much influence on those

processes or their outcomes. Thus, several theorists have made distinctions
between autocratic decisions with no direct participation or influence, joint
decisions where the superordinate has no more influence than subordinates, and
delegationin which a subordinate or a group of subordinates is given the authority
and responsibility for making the decision (Heller and Yukl, 1969; Strauss, 1977).

Outcomes of Participation
Participation in the workplace has been presumed to lead to a number of positive
outcomes. The general belief has been that employees tend to react positively to
increases in the level of involvement in existing and new areas of organizational
performance. One important theoretical underpinning for this belief comes from
the psychological literature on perceived control (Blumberg, 1969). According to
this perspective, people's desire for increased participation at the workplace
reflects a more generalized need for control. The need for control acts as a strong
motivational driver. This implies that states of higher perceived control are
preferred over states with less control (White, 1992). A slightly different model
leading to a prediction of the same general positive affective response holds that
people value increased control because is ensures that it will be a reliable
relationship between effort and outcome (e.g. Bandura, 1986). Argyris (1957) took
an even broader view and argued that participative practices were valued because
they fllled very general needs of normal, healthy adults. These needs are,
according to Argyris, to develop from passive infants into active adults, to move
from dependent to independence in relationships, to increase one's range of
effective behaviours, to understand complex problems and opportunities and to see
them as challenges, to develop a long-term time perspective, to move from a
position of subordinancy to equality and to gain autonomy over one's behaviour
(Pasmore and Fagans, 1992). Finally, it has been argued that participation is
valued because it is more compatible with general democratic values than more
centralized or autocratic decision-making styles (Arendt, 1958). The hypothesized
positive valence accorded to participation by employees has led to the assumption
of a set of more speciflc, second-order outcomes of increased participation. These
outcomes are either attitudinal or behavioural, and have been conceptualized at
individual, group and organizational levels. Although employee satisfaction and
productivity are the most frequently used outcome variables in research on
participation, several other variables have received some attention. Among the
attitudinal outcomes that have received most attention are job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, involvement, fairness perceptions, motivation,
expectancies and emotional distress (Spector, 1986). Behavioural outcome
variables used in participation research include absenteeism, industrial conflict,
turnover and grievances and organizational innovativeness.

Contextual Influences on Participation Outcomes

It has been argued that the effects of participation—if any—would not be stable
across all possible conditions in which it is implemented. A number of contextual
197 Influence of participation in strategic change

factors have been hypothesized to moderate the relationships between

participation and its outcomes. Locke and Schweiger (1979) made a distinction
between individual contextual factors and organizational contextual factors. Glew
et al. (1995) subdivided individual contextual factors into two subgroups, one
related to differences in subordinates, such as personality, ability, demographic
profile and willingness to participate, the other consists of factors related to
personality traits and characteristics of managers. One of the more common
variables examined as a moderator in organizational research is the company's
culture. The general hypothesis guiding this research is that participation will
work better in cultural contexts which are compatible with a participative style.
Representative of this research is Miller (1988) who found that the relationship
between participation and turnover was stronger (negatively) in companies with a
collectively oriented culture than in those with a more individually oriented
culture. According to Conger and Kanugo (1988) bureaucratic organizations may
embrace rules and regulations that limit autonomy and self-expression, leading to
a blocking of even the potential for participation. Neumann (1989) proposed that
the degree of centralization would limit the effectiveness of participation for
achieving valued outcomes.

Research hypotheses
Participation and Post Change Organizational Commitment
As shown above, the effects of participation on attitudinal and behavioural
outcomes so far have been elusive. However, the hypothesized relationships
between participation and positive attitudes have proved somewhat more robust
than the relationship between participation and more behaviourally related
outcomes such as productivity. Among the attitudinal consequences of
participation, organizational commitment is particularly interesting because the
positive effects of a change in the content of an organization's strategy can easily
be offset if the change and its implementation produce a negative shift
in organizational commitment. This is because lower levels of organizational
commitment are likely to produce less organizational citizen behavior
(VanYpere et al., 1999) and other behaviours that promote organizational
effectiveness (Mayer and Schoorman, 1992; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986).
Organizational commitment is characterized by an individual's: (1) belief in and
acceptance of organizational goals and values; (2) willingness to exert effort
toward organizational goal accomplishment; and (3) strong desire to maintain
organizational membership (Porter et al., 1974).
All three dimensions are relevant for judging the performance of a strategic
change process because they tend to be positively related to organizational
efficiency and effectiveness by contributing to resource transformations,
innovativeness and adaptability (Williams and Anderson, 1991). According to
procedural justice theory, members' commitment to an organization is heavily
influenced by their perception of to what degree they receive fair treatment.
Procedural justice leads to organizational commitment because fair procedures
make people feel that their interests are protected in the long run, and that the
R. Lines 198

decision makers values them and affirms their status within the organization.
Perceived fairness in the context of strategic change is likely to depend on whether
those affected by the change are invited to voice their opinions (Folger, 1977) and
in other ways have an influence on assumptions underlying the need for change,
development of the change content and the processes chosen for implementing the
change (Korsgaard et al, 1995). The opportunity to merely voice an opinion,
however, does not seem to lead directly to the perception of procedural fairness
(Leung and Li, 1990). The impact of voice seems to depend on whether people
believe that decision makers consider their input. Thus, a process in which affected
members are invited to participate in the development of assumptions, change and
implementation plans is likely to be perceived as more just than a process where
people are merely invited to give their opinions on decisions made by others.
Based on this discussion, we expect that:
HI: Tiiere is a positive relationship between participation in strategy processes and post
change organizational commitment.

Resistance towards Change

Resistance towards change emcompasses behaviours that are acted out by change
recipients in order to slow down or terminate an intended organizational
change. Several researchers have reported that attempts to implement strategic
changes sometimes are met with resistance from those affected by the change. In
their study of employees' reactions to change in organizational structure. Valley
and Thompson (1998) made a distinction between resistance due to attitudes
towards the change itself, and due to the extent to which a person's job after the
change includes new task demands. According to expectancy theory (Vroom,
1964) people consciously choose courses of action, based upon perceptions,
attitudes and beliefs, as a consequence of their desires to enhance pleasure and
avoid pain. Building on early formulations. Porter and Lawler (1968) suggested
that the expenditure of an individual's effort is determined by expectations that an
outcome may be attained and the degree of value placed on the outcome in the
person's mind. Thus, a person's attitude towards the change and subsequent
behaviour stem from a process by which the perceived outcomes of a change are
compared with the individual's goals and values. Expectance theory predicts that
resistance will result if any of the following conditions hold: (1) the individual has
expectancies that the relationship between a change in behavior and performance
is uncertain; (2) that the link between performance and outcome is uncertain; and
(3) the outcomes have negative value to the individual (Hope and Pate, 1988).
Participation can lead to lower resistance through its influence of all three of the
above conditions. First, participative processes provide management with an arena
for explaining and presenting the arguments for a proposed change. During this
process, motives for change and the necessity of change can be made explicit, and
counter-arguments made by subordinates can be voiced, discussed and
incorporated into the content and process of change. Also, participation can
grant subordinates direct influence on the content of change, scheduling of sub-
processes and how to handle politically difficult issues such as replacement and of
199 Influence of participation in strategic change

employees and layoffs. Together this would change the expectancies of

relationship between individual behaviour and performance, the perceived rela-
tionships between performance and outcome dimensions relevant to the individual
as well as the perception of outcome valence. Based on these arguments, we
propose;
H2: Tiiere is a negative reiationsiiip between participation and resistance towards change.

Achievement of Change Objectives

Although empirical support for relationships between participation and behaviour
so far has been mixed, there are several theoretical reasons for believing that
participation will have a positive impact on the achievement of objectives
associated with a particular change. First, by involving those affected by the
change, it is likely that relevant factors related to socio-technical as well as
political realities impinging on the implementation are considered (Hardy, 1995).
Effective implementation of change is dependent on a detailed understanding of
work processes, relationships between organizational structure and functioning
and informal distribution of power in the units affected by the change. Second,
participation has been argued to have a positive impact on employees' attitudes
towards the change itself. Participation has been found to be positively linked to
attitudinal variables such as commitment to change. As change often demand extra
efforts from those affected, processes creating higher levels of commitment should
also be more effective at producing the desired outcomes because they most likely
reduce resistance towards change and increase the level of effort spent by those
involved in the implementation of the change. Thus;
H3: Participation is positively related to the achievement of change objectives.
A commonly held assumption is that changes which in their content are
compatible with salient organizational norms and values are more easily
accepted than changes that are highly incompatible with organizational culture
(Marchington et al., 1994; Glew et al., 1995). Thus, changes that contain elements
in conflict with dominating norms and values are more likely to be resisted unless
the process by which they are conceived and implemented is capable of reducing
this resistance. For example, changes that involve a tightening of control is likely
to be more resisted in organizations where the culture emphasize autonomy than in
organizations where control is part of the accepted norms. Changes that are
compatible with the organization's culture would be more readily accepted, and
thus there is less need for explicit processual elements to sell the change, adapt the
change or to influence change-value compatibility through sensemaking and
sensegiving activities. So we expect the effects of participation to be stronger for
changes that are less compatible with organizational culture than for changes that
are more compatible with organizational culture. Stated formally;
H4: The effects of participation are negatively moderated by the compatibility of the change
with the organizational culture.
Change recipients' reactions to a proposed change are also likely to be affected by
its impact on the level of job variety (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) and to what
R. Lines 200

degree the main goal of the change is on cost savings. Both change dimensions are
here assumed to affect the alignment between change content and individual goals
of change recipients. According to job characteristics theory, individuals prefer
jobs with high levels of variety to repetitive, monotonous tasks that involve little
or no challenges. Jobs with low levels of variety are less preferred because they
provide small opportunities for personal growth. Sometimes organizations feel
forced to implement such changes in order to meet the challenges of less benign
environments. Changes involving reductions in job variety are likely to be
evaluated negatively by change recipients, whereas changes not affecting or
leading to an increase in job variety will lead to a neutral or positive evaluation of
the change. Negative outcomes such as less job variety can be partly mitigated by
fair processes, such as processes involving high levels of participation. For
changes involving no effect or a positive effect on job variety, there is less need to
compensate for loss by increasing the level of procedural fairness. In the same
vein, changes for which the main objective is to reduce costs are assumed to be
evaluated more negatively by recipients than changes more oriented towards
business development. This is because cost reductions most often are
accompanied with tighter control, thus less autonomy:
H5: The effects of participation are negatively moderated by the change's coinpatibility with
the change recipients' goals.

Methods
Research Setting
The organizational setting for this research was a large (approximately 17 000
employees), national full service providing telecommunication company. Prior to
the strategic changes taking place at the time of the research, the company has had
a long history spanning over a period of several decades as a monopolist with
exclusive right to provide telecommunication services to the population of an
European country. The external impetus for strategic reorientation was the
announcement of complete deregulation of European telecommunication markets
by 1 January 1998. Deregulation was perceived to have several rather dramatic
consequences for the task environment of the company. It was assumed that a
series of new actors would enter the market either as start-ups or as a consequence
of geographical diversification from established national, international and global
telecommunication players. By 1 January 1998 more than 20 new entrants were
registered in this sector. In response to the threat of deregulation a major integrated
change programme was launched.
The vision for the initiative was to 'develop an integrated master change
programme to transform the company into a cost efficient provider of world class
customer driven products and services in a national and international telecom
market.' The first phase of the programme had the character of a comprehensive
sensemaking process whereby a set of internal and external strategic issues were
identified. Important activities in this phase included the development of a set of
scenarios in areas such as industry structure, possible positioning of key
201 Influence of participation in strategic change

competitors, merge between IT and telecommunications industries, new

developments in service content and emergence of new technologies (e.g.
broadband cables, new IT platforms, satellite and mobile communication
technologies). Another important area of activity was the assessment of the
internal functioning and output of the organization. Across areas of assessment,
the organization was benchmarked against a total of more than 50 organizations
both from within and outside the global telecommunications industry. This
phase revealed a number of weaknesses regarding the organization's performance
compared with the envisioned end state of the programme. Among these were
poor level of perceived customer service, slow and inefficient product
development processes, the existence of cross subsidies between geographical
areas, segments and divisions, inefficient delivery processes and sub-optimaliza-
tion in a range of areas due to a low level of integration vertically and between
divisions. Based on this initial assessment a set of six programme areas were
defined starting with an area for strategic reorientation which included both
corporate level (selection of business areas, focus and degree of corporate
involvement vis-a-vis the line organization) and business level strategy. The five
other areas were customer orientation, supply chain management, support
processes, IT and change management. The sub-programme for change
management was later dropped from the programme. The sub-programmes were
broken further down into a population of change projects each of which was
staffed with a given mix of organizational members and external consultants. Then
followed a prolonged period of more detailed analyses within each of these areas
as well as the development of solutions with measure parameters and financial
benefit estimates attached to each proposition for change. Finally, attempts were
made to implement the changes. At the time of data collection, a majority of these
initiatives were completed or abandoned.
The level of participation used varied substantially across change projects. In
some of the projects, a centralized task force analysed the need for change,
developed solutions to the problems that were identified, chose the preferred
solution and also developed procedures for its implementation. In these cases, a
complete change including a plan for its implementation were handed over to the
relevant part of the organization. At the other extreme, there were changes that
were totally developed and implemented by those directly affected by the change.
Between these extremes, central task forces staffed with in-house specialists and
external consultants developed the change using different forms of cooperative
arrangements. In some cases, the line organization was the leading change agent in
other cases the process was dominated by the central task force.

Data Collection
The respondents for this study were managers drawn from a larger population of
managers in the company described above. We used a stratified sampling
procedure in order to achieve respondents from staff units as well as line units,
from different functional areas and from several of the seven divisions in the
company. A total of 250 prospective respondents were contacted by telephone,
and their agreement to participate was solicited. Of the 250, 96% (A^ = 241) of the
R. Lines 202

subjects agreed to take part in tbe study. The respondents were asked to base their
answers on experiences from one particular cbange project in wbicb they bad
taken part as cbange agents, formally responsible for the cbange and its outcomes
or as affected by tbe cbange. Tbe screening criteron used was tbat tbe cbange
project was perceived as part of tbe implementation of tbe company's strategic
reorientation. We used an oversampling strategy in order to avoid receiving data
only for successful change projects. Half of the respondents were asked to base
tbeir answers on 'fairly successful' change processes while the other half based
their answers on 'fairly unsuccessful' change processes. The final sample
contained data from 51% with the first instruction and 49% with the latter
instruction.
Questionnaires were administered via mail to study respondents. After one
remainder by telephone, we received 138 questionnaires, a response rate of 57%.
Test for non-response bias did not indicate any differences between respondents
and non-respondents in terms of departmental affiliation with regard to size,
division, staff versus line or vertical position. We also compared the means of the
respondents who received the reminder to those wbo did not. All study variables
were included in this comparison. These tests did not indicate differences between
groups. The procedure yielded information from a set of change projects that vary
significantly in their content. A large portion of the projects involved changes in
the internal structure of tbe organization. Tbe relationship between formal
structure and strategy is widely recognized (e.g. Bart, 1986). Also, Skivington and
Daft (1991) identified structure as one important vehicle for implementing
strategy. A second major class of projects was initiatives to change the formal
systems of the organization. Changes in organizational systems such as
performance measurement systems and reward systems have been identified as
important parts of overall approaches to install strategy (Snell and Dean, 1994)
and strongly advocated in tbe normative literature on strategy implementation
(e.g. Stonich, 1981). The remaining projects were attempts to introduce new
technology and to implement changes in organizational domain.

Measures
All measures of tbe variables included in this study were obtained from key
informants. A key informant approach in combination with tbe use of perceptual
measures is the most frequently used way of obtaining information on subunit,
organizational and environmental variables in organizational research. Although
this approach has some well-known weaknesses, it is often used because of its
equally well known strengths. The two main alternative data collection procedures
are tbe use of multiple informants and the use of 'objective' indicators. Although
the use of multiple informants generally will lead to less biased measures, the
overall response rate is likely to drop significantly (e.g. Dooley et al., 2000). This
increases the likelihood of biased samples and may reduce generalizability of
results. In addition, low sample sizes lower the statistical conclusion validity
(Cook and Campbell, 1979) of tbe study and increases tbe likelihood of making
type 2 errors (rejecting a true null hypothesis). Objective data are frequently used
in strategy research in order to reduce measurement contamination from
203 Influence of participation in strategic change

perceptual factors. The key problem with 'objective' data is that their content
validity is often severely restricted by the availability of objective indicators and
the link between such indicators and the underlying conceptual domain is often
very tenuous. Based on these considerations we chose to use self reports and key
informant reports in order to measure our variables.

Participation. In the operationalization of participation, I followed the advice of

Pasmore and Fagans (1992) who argue that the validity of participation measures
is dependent on the level of specificity asked for in a set of items. In order to
maximize the level of specificity, I asked for participation in distinct activities
commonly believed to be parts of a change process such as initial situation
assessment, development of solution/change and development of framework for
implementation of change (Wooldridge and Floyd, 1990). This part of the scale
contained four items. Also, I developed two items tapping the right to veto a
decision in addition to merely participating in the process of making and
implementing a decision. Principal components analysis with oblimin rotation
yielded two factors with eigenvalues > 1 . The first factor represents the items
reflecting participation across activities of the process (a — .84) and the second
represents the right to veto a decision (a = .71). Thus, in these data, processes
with high/low levels of participation in one activity also were high/low on
participation in other activities. There is little evidence that the use of participation
is confined to particular phases of the change process.

Outcome Variables. Central to the concept in most contributions is the view of

organizational commitment as an individual's desire to remain with the
organization (e.g. Meyer and Allen, 1984) a willingness to exert considerable
effort on behalf of the organization (Mowday et ai, 1979) and a strong belief in
and acceptance of the organization's beliefs and values. Two distinct forms of
organizational commitment have been identified: The affective commitment form
and the calculative commitment form. I chose to include the former in the study,
because calculative commitment is contaminated by factors not reflecting the
relationship between individuals and the organization, such as the presence of
alternative employers. Post change organizational commitment was assessed
using an adaptation of Porter et al. (1974) Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ). Questions were phrased in order elicit a comparison of
post change organizational commitment with pre change organizational
commitment. An example item is 'individuals affected by the change are willing
to exert extra effort when needed.' Principal component analysis with oblique
rotation indicated that in this sample, the items were three dimensional (three
components with eigenvalues >1), with one component corresponding to
the attachment dimension (Cident) a second to the effort dimension (Ceffort) and
the third to the loyalty dimension (Cloyalty) of the construct. Cronbach's alphas
for these three dimensions are .81, .78 and .75, respectively. Thus, in the analysis
below, I analyse the effects of participation on all three dimensions of
commitment. Organizational resistance was measured with three Likert-type
items (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). One of the items states 'the
implementation of the project is carried out without enthusiasm.' One of the items
R. Lines 204

was reversed. Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.79. Goal achievement was
measured with two items (1 = not at all, 7 = completely achieved) yielding a
Cronbach's alpha of .73. An example item is 'the objectives of the project were
achieved.' All items for new scales are reported in the Appendix.

Hypothesized Moderators and Control Variables. The strength of relationships

between participation and outcomes are in this research assumed to depend on the
change's compatibility with organizational culture (H4) and with the goals of those
affected by the change (H5). Important elements of an organization's culture are
norms for what constitute acceptable performance and behavior and values shared
by organization members (Walter, 1985). Cultural compatibility was measured
using two seven-point Likert type items (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree) asking for the change's perceived compatibility with organizational norms
and values (a = .81 for the combined measure). In order to measure compatibility
with personal goals, two change content dimensions were used: (1) cost focus; and
(2) job variety. The degree to which a change implies increased focus on cost
effectiveness in the organization, was assumed to be negatively related to the
variable compatibility with personal goals of those affected by the change. Changes
involving a substantial amount of job variety were assumed to be associated with
high levels of compatibility with personal goals. Six seven-point Likert type items
was used in order to measure the two content dimensions. Task variety was
assessed by adapting three items from the Hackman and Oldham (1975) Job
Diagnostic Measure. Principal component analysis resulted in two factors with
eigenvalues > 1 indicating a satisfactory discriminant validity. The first dimension,
cost focus, has an internal consistency of a = .88 (e.g. 'This change will imply an
increased focus on efficiency'). The internal consistency of the task variety
dimension is a = .72. Change novelty was included as a control variable, because
outcomes of change are generally believed to depend on its degree of novelty to the
focal organization (e.g. Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996). Change novelty was
measured by two Likert-type items with a Cronbach's alpha of .68.
In the analyses of the effects of participation on goal achievement, resistance
and post change organizational commitment, the assumed moderators were also
entered as control variables. This was done in order to partial out their possible
direct effects on the outcome variables.

Assessment of Common Method Variance

Both independent and dependent variables in this study were measured by
gathering responses from the same source using similar measurement instruments.
This procedure raises the question of common method variance as a partial
explanation for the findings. Harman's one-factor test was used to address this
issue. According to this test logic, common method variance is a serious threat to
the internal validity of the study if one single factor accounts for most of the
correlations between dependent and independent variables. I performed a
principal component analysis on items from the dependent variables (goal
achievement, resistance, organizational commitment) and the process measures
(participation, veto). This procedure led to the extraction of seven components.
205 Influence of participation in strategic change

with the first factor merely accounting for 19% of the variance in the responses to
the items. The same procedure was repeated substituting the items from the
content variables for the process variables. This led to a seven component solution,
with the first factor accounting for 17% of the variance. Based on these results we
concluded that common method variance was not a serious threat to the internal
validity of the study.

Assessment of Motivational Response Distortion

A second issue related to validity is the degree to which motivational processes
could have led respondents to inaccurate reporting on some of the variables in the
study (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). This is an issue of construct validity, that is
whether one succeeds in measuring the constructs the items are intended to
measure. Such motivational response distortion can result if the respondents
engage in impression management in order to create a positive image of
themselves. Among the study variables it was judged that the outcome measures
were most liable to be affected by this source of bias. In order to test for
motivational response distortion in outcome variables we compared mean scores
from respondents who were responsible for carrying out the change with
respondents who merely were affected by the change. According to this test
motivational response distortion would be present if mean scores on the variables
learning, goal achievement and organizational commitment were higher for the
first group of respondents and the mean score on the variable resistance was lower
for the first group. A multiple comparison test (Scheffe's test) was performed, the
results of which indicated no significant difference in responses between
the groups. The results of this test offer some indication that motivational response
distortion was not a problem in this study.

Results
Correlations
Table 1 presents, means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations among
variables. The bivariate relationships indicate that the independent variables were
significantly related to most of the independent outcome variables. As can be seen,
participation is strongly related to all outcome variables and the sign of the
correlations are as expected. The variable veto is also related to some of the
dependent variables, but not as strongly as the participation variable. The signs
and sizes of these correlations are consistent with predictions made in the main-
effects hypotheses. Thus, some preliminary support is found for these hypotheses.

Testing of Hypotheses
Participation and Post Change Organizational Commitment. To test HI I
regressed the participation and veto measures on the three independent measures
of organizational commitment. In the regression models, variables representing
dimensions of change content (job variety, cost focus, cultural compatibility and
R. Lines 206

q
1

.45
-.07
-.21
m 8 mO

r~ 00 — in
en fs o o
I I

I O in 00 ^^
•a ra cs o .-
3
U
.36

CM O ON <N —'
1 1 11

O 00 00 OO m cs <S NO
•* CM CN
Tj- —'o —

T3

o o o m o o •^ONCNI'^
q < N — (NCN <z> ^ o o

'r''' '' r
00 O O O O O O O N 0 0 t N 3 t ~ ~
in c O T f ^ r n c ^ '-•^oo^
I I
•a
c

o — o o o m r j - O N OOONC<^NO
t-;'^ i n ' ^ O N — - q (NlTf—;ON

(NON f-ioovoTt^j- or^inoo

OOON I-;CStnt-;ON in — ino)
rn '^ ' ^ - ^i n ' ^ ' * in^fMTf

c c
o
u
c •o
o « > o
1 •E .a
a.
t: -a -3
e « §
IS 00 ON O —'
I
207 Influence of participation in strategic change

change novelty) were also included. In order to assess the relative explanatory
power of independent and control variables, I used a hierarchical regression
approach with the independent variables entered first. Results of these regressions
are reported in table 2.
The model explains a substantial amount of variance in all three dependent
variables. This indicates that the use of participative practices is related to post
change organizational commitment. In fact, the amount of variance explained by
the model is very similar across dimensions of organizational commitment (R^
ranging from .20 to .25). Results of the hierarchical regressions indicate that
adding the control variables leads to a significant increase in explained variance
for two out of three dimensions of commitment (Cloyalty, A/?^ = .10, p = .015
and Cidentif, A.R^ = .10, p = .013). However, for all three dependent variables,
the majority of variance is accounted for by the independent variables. Only
participation, however, is significantly and positively related to organizational
commitment. In none of the cases a significant relationship between veto and
organizational commitment is found. Thus, HI is supported, but only for the
participation variable.

Resistance and change goal achievement. According to H2, a negative

relationship between participation and resistance to change was expected. To
test this hypothesis, the same procedure as the one above was used except that
resistance was substituted for organizational commitment as the dependent
variable. The full model explains 31% of the variance in resistance to change
(F = 8.7, p < .001). The regression coefficient for participation is significant and
the sign as expected (/3 = —.39, p < .01). No significant relationship between
veto and resistance was found. The hierarchical regression procedure revealed that

Table 2. Results of Regression Analyses of Participation and Veto on Goal Achievement,

Organizational Commitment, Learning and Resistance^

Variables Goal ach. Resistance Loyalty Effort Identif.

Intercept 2.4*** 2.3** 4.0*** 5.1*** 3.5***

Participation .40*** -.39 .29** .38*** .27**
Veto -.25** .01 -.02 -.15 -.01
Moderators and control variables
Cost focus .39*** -.25** .31*** .12 .33**
Job variety -.15 .002 .01 .09 .10
Novelty .08 .24* -.15 -.15 -.14
Compatibility -.11 -.17 .21 .08 .14
.31 .35 .23 .20 .25
Adjusted R^ .27 .31 .18 .15 .20
F 7.2*** 8.7*** 4.7*** 3.8*** 5.1***

Note: > < .05

*'p < .01
***p < .001
''A'= 133
R. Lines 208
en t-~ oo o
CM — O CM

o o CM — VO en
u —• CM CM CM

o
o r 1
r r

.50
.53

.58

.49
.59
c o
o o 1

1 B oo o

.08 ..48
OS

.14 .
O o ;;; r-
q
00
1
q
1
r

.32
.41
.17

.21
CM

s
.08

.07
.18
i q
.07 .38
.25 .32

.19
.22

.37
s
3
"3
O I 1
P
00 CM
.19
.14
.13

CM
^.
1
X)
o
.40

.19
.32

.26
.26

1 •*

vo -^ >n CM

en o OS r^
it: o CM m o
00
N "n CM o m vo
a ; — en — — —

I 0 m
u en
oa. I

00 t^ en en
CM o en en
o
U
a.
.20
.35
.30

.73

o
0
8 8 Bo
High

CM
el 1

>n

1 « I 5^ ^ <-•
.2 _ .a 13 e -s
S3 § S g^sg g
t^ O OS j w S
209 Influence of participation in strategic change

most of the variance in the dependent variable is accounted for by the participation
variable (A/?^ = .25, p < .0001). An additional, but smaller amount of variance is
accounted for by the control variables (A7?^ = .09, p < .02).
Goal achievement was expected to be positively affected by participation in the
change process (H3). This hypothesis is also supported by our findings that show a
positive and significant relationship between participation and goal achievement
(j3 = .40, p < .001). However, contrary to our expectations, veto is negatively and
significantly related to goal achievement ()8 = —.25, p< .01). Results from
hierarchical regression show that the participation variables and the control
variables explain a similar amount of variance in goal achievement (A/?^ = .18,
p < .0001 and A/?^ = .16, p < .001, respectively for the two variable blocks).

Sub-group analysis. Table 3 presents results of subgroup analyses of the possible

moderating effects of change content on outcomes. The results indicate that
several of the relationships between participation and outcomes are moderated by
cost focus, job variety and cultural compatibility of the changes. Consistent with
our hypothesis, a focus on cost appears to strengthen the relationship between
participation and resistance (negative) as well as between participation and the
loyalty component of organizational commitment. The relationships between
participation and goal achievement and the effort component of organizational
commitment are unchanged across change content conditions. Contrary to one's
expectations, the link between participation and the identification component of
organizational commitment is weaker in the high efficiency focus condition than in
the low efficiency focus condition.
The relationships between participation and the outcome dimensions also seem
to be strongly affected by the cultural compatibility of the change. For all outcome
dimensions, the link to participation is strengthened in the low cultural
compatibility condition compared to the high cultural compatibility condition.
Finally, the participation-outcome link was found to be affected by the level of
job variety implied the change. For all outcome variables, this link is different
between the high and low job enrichment condition. However, contrary to our
expectations, the participation-outcome links are stronger in the high job variety
condition than in the low job variety condition.

Discussion
Overall the results from this research have provided support for a positive
relationship between participation and a number of outcome variables that
are relevant for judging the successfulness of implementing strategic change. At
the general level it can be concluded that the use of participation seems to be
related to successful implementation of strategic change. Thus, the claims made by
some writers on strategic change regarding the efficacy of participation receive
some support from the findings of this study. In fact, seen from the background of
conclusions found in several meta-analytic studies, the strength of the
participation-outcome relationships found in this study merit some further
comment. It seems likely that the main effect findings can be accounted for by the
situation facing the company from which the sample of changes was drawn. The
R. Lines 210

threat from deregulation may have created a strong feeling of urgency (Eisenhardt,
1989) and a vertical and horizontal alignment of interest among members of the
organization. For this company, the very survival was at stake if it did not cope
with the reorientation process. Owing to this, political aspects of change and
differences in interests across levels and units may thus have been de-emphasized
during the processes we have studied (Armenakis et al, 1993). Thus, it seems that
organizational members' perceptions of the organization's need for change
interact with the use of participation, making the participation-outcome links
stronger when perceived need for change is high than when it is low.
The survival threat facing this company was very real as an influx of new
competition was expected. Some of the potential entrants were global actors with
enough financial and organizational resources survive a prolonged period of price
wars. Organizational members' perceptions of the need for change, however, can
also be change by careful use of communication in order to construct the images of
threats or opportunities. The complexity of situations facing companies when they
consider changes in strategy give change agents considerable discretion to select,
compile and communicate issues in such a way that the perception of need to
change is shifted upwards.
Participation was found to have a strong effect on all outcome variables.
However, the relationships between participation and goal achievement, and
resistance are somewhat stronger than the relationships between participation and
the three components of organizational commitment. This finding is somewhat
surprising given that previous research have tended to find participation a better
predictor of attitudes than behavior. A likely explanation for this finding is that the
two first outcomes dimensions are more directly related to the processes for which
participation was measured in this research. Organizational commitment is a result
of employees' experiences with the organization over time and across tasks.
According to Hill (1993) employees typically spend very little of their work time
on participative processes (an average of 2.7% of the employees' time was spent
on quality circle activities), and the impact of participation on general attitudes
such as organizational commitment is likely to be limited.
Notable also is the differential influences of participation and veto on the
outcomes examined in this study. Whereas participation is positively related to all
outcomes (negatively related to resistance to change), merely according those
affected by change the possibility to block a proposal or decision does not seem to
have the same impact. In fact only one significant relationship between veto and
outcome of change was found: a negative link to goal achievement. This indicates
that veto actually has a detrimental effect on implementation success because the
negative relationship with goal achievement is not compensated for by a positive
influence of veto on other outcome variables. Some authors have argued that an
important process mediating the link between participation and attitudes towards
change and the organization itself is that of building commitment to a decision and
trust in change leadership. Korsgaard et al. (1995: 62) defined trust as 'the degree
of confidence the members of a team has in the goodwill of their leader,
specifically, the extent to which they believe that the leader is honest, sincere, and
unbiased in taking their positions into account.' Trust in turn is related to the use
of authentic participative processes in which solutions are developed in a
211 Influence of participation in strategic change

collaborative manner with genuine consideration of each participant's input,

values and views (e.g. Folger and Konovsky, 1989). The use of veto, on the other
hand may indicate an organizational climate that is more politicized,
confrontational and where members are not willing or able to transcend from a
focus on narrow self-interest to the consideration of overall organizational goals.
Finally, the influence of participation seems to be strongly moderated by the
context in which participation is used. Context in this research was operationalized
as three aspects of change content. Previous research has largely ignored the issue
of how the effect of participation interacts with change content or the decision
issues for which participation is used. One notable exception is Sagie and
Koslowski (1994) who found that subordinate participation in tactical decisions, as
opposed to strategic decisions was a better predictor of an increase in change
acceptance, work satisfaction, effectiveness and time allotted to work. Our research
indicates that the effects of participation are stronger when the change is intended to
increase the level of efficiency in the organization. This is supposedly because the
need to use processes associated with a high level of procedural justice increases
when the content of the change is perceived as negative (e.g. Kim and Mauborgne,
1998). The finding is consistent with those from previous research on procedural
justice that seem to imply that procedural justice can override distributive justice in
creating reactions from those affected by a change. Also, I found that when cultural
compatibility of the change is low, the effects of participation are higher than when
it is high. This finding is also consistent with the interpretation given above.
However, the hypothesized moderating role of changes involving different levels of
job variety on the participation-outcome links was not supported. The data shows
some evidence of a reversed relationship, that is the effect of participation is
stronger when changes involve a positive change in job variety. One possible reason
for this finding is that changes involving more job variety will be more complex,
and demand new skills of the change recipients. In order to make change recipients
accept, and become committed to such changes, more change agents must put more
effort into explaining the rationale, content and personal consequences of the
changes. This is easier done in a context of high levels of participation because
participation allows more interaction between change agents and change recipients,
than more autocratic approaches to change. Also the distinction between change
agents and change recipients becomes blurred, as change recipients are more likely
to participate in the development of the change itself.
The findings from this study have several managerial implications. First and
foremost, the study supports the frequently made claim that broad involvement of
organizational members that are affected by change is associated with success at
implementation. Thus, it seems warranted to recommend participation as one
important element of the overall approach to implementation. Second, the results
indicate that the collaborative climate generated by an authentic invitation to
participate as a full member of the project/change team is the key mediating factor
that link participation to implementation success. Cranting organizational member
a right to veto decisions that have been made by others does not seem to have this
positive infiuence on implementation success. Third, as argued by Vroom (1964) in
his contingency model of leadership and decision making, managers could actively
choose to blend autocratic or participative implementation processes based on an
R. Lines 212

overall consideration of costs and benefits associated with participation. This is the
case because the strength of the positive effects, from a managerial perspective,
depends on the perceived compatibility of the change with important values in the
organization. Thus, the implementation of highly controversial changes seems to
benefit most from participation.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

A number of theoretical and methodological Umitations of this study should be
noted. An attempt was made in this study to introduce contextual variables thought
to moderate relationships between participation and outcomes. It is clear, however,
that the context in which participatory structures are introduced has a much higher
level of complexity than what can be captured by the three contextual variables
under investigation here. In particular, individual differences have previously been
found to moderate links between participation and attitudes/behaviours (see the
review by Glew et al., 1995). Among the more prominent individual factors
discussed in past research are levels of relevant knowledge and skills and attitudes
toward the company and management. Also, past research has identified many
forms of participation and meta-analyses have shown that outcomes differ across
forms. In our research two forms of participation were used but inclusion of a finer
grained typology could give more insight into the effects of participation. Further,
within a given form of participation variance is to be expected on important
dimensions such as authenticity. No attempt was made to measure authenticity in
this research. Finally, this research has one major methodological limitation in that
single key informants were used to provide information on the study variables. Our
assessment of motivational response distortion showed no significant differences
between change managers and other organizational members with regard to mean
responses to the stimuli. This provides some indication of construct validity.
However it has been forcefully argued that perceptions of participative schemes
introduced in an organization vary from a managerial to an employee perspective
(Marchington et al., 1994). Thus, future research should attempt to validate our
findings using multiple informants or other designs capable of strengthening
construct validity as well as internal validity of the proposed relationships.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Kjell Gronhaug, Svein T. Johansen and two
anonymous reviewers of this journal for their thoughtful comments on earlier
versions of this paper.

References
Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Argyris, C. (1957) Personality and Organization, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993) Creating readiness for organizational change.
Human Relations, 46(6), pp. 681-703.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ.
213 Influence of participation in strategic change

Bart, C.K. (1986) Product strategy and formal structure. Strategic Management Journal, 7, pp. 293-313.
Blumberg, P. (1969) Industrial Democracy: The sociology of participation, Schocken, New York.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice, Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), pp. 471-82.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings,
Boston, Houghton-Mifflin, MA.
Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Frogatt, K.C., Lengnick-Hall, M.L. and Jennings K.R. (1988) Employee
participation: diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 8-22.
Dooley, R.S., Fryxell, G.E. and Judge, W.Q. (2002) Belaboring the not-so-obvious: consensus, commitment and
strategy implementation speed and success. Journal of Management, 26, pp. 1237-57.
Earley, P.C. and Lind, E.A. (1987) Procedural justice and the participation in task selection: the role of control
in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, pp. 1148-60.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management
Journal, 32(3), pp. 543-76.
Foger, R. (1977) Distributive and procedural justice: combined impact of 'voice' and improvement on
experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, pp. 108-19.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.K. (1989) Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay rise
decision. Academy of Management Journal, 32, pp. 115-30.
Gaertner, K.N. (1989) Winning and losing: understanding managers' reactions to strategic change. Human
Relations, 6, pp. 527-46.
Glew, D.J, O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W. and Van Fleet, D.D. (1995) Participation in organizations: a
preview of the issues and proposed framework for analysis. Journal of Management, 21(3), pp. 395-421.
Guth, W.D. and MacMillan, I.C. (1986) Strategy implementation versus middle manager self-interest. Strategic
Management Journal, 7(4), pp. 313—27.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, J.R. (1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, pp. 159-70.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, J.R. (1980) Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P. (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers.
Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 193-206.
Hardy, C. (1995) Managing strategic change: power, paralysis and perspective. In: P. Srivastava and R. Lamb
(eds) Advances in Strategic Management, JAI Press, Greenwich CT.
Heller, F. and Yukl, G. (1969) Participation, managerial decision making, and situational variables.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, pp. 227-41.
Hill, F.M. (1993) An evaluative study of the attitudinal and performance-related outcomes of quality circle
participation. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 10, pp. 28-47.
Hope, J.W. and L.E. Pate (1988) A cognitive expectancy analysis of compliance decisions. Human Relations, 41,
pp. 739-51.
Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (1998) Procedural justice, strategic decision making and the knowledge economy.
Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp. 323-38.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D. and Sapienza, H. (1995) Building commitment, attachment and trust in
strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),
pp. 60-84.
Leung, K. and Li, W. (1990) Psychological mechanisms of process control effects. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, pp. 613-20.
Locke, E.A. and Schweiger, D.M. (1979) Participation in decision-making: omore look. In B.M. Staw (ed.)
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 265-39, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P.A. and Goodman, J. (1994) Understanding the meaning of
participation: views from the workplace. Human Relations, 47(8), pp. 867-94.
Martin, C.L., Parsons, C.K. and Bennett, N. (1995) The influence of employee involvement program
membership during downsizing: attitudes toward the employer and the union. Journal of Management,
21(5), pp. 879-90.
Mayer, R.C. and Schoorman, F.D. (1992) Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-
dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp. 671-84.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984) Testing the sidebet model of organizational commitment and satisfaction:
some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 372-8.
Miller, K.I. (1988) Cultural and role-based predictors of organizational participation and allocation preferences.
Communications Research, 15(6), pp. 699-725.
R. Lines 214
Miller, K.I. and Monge, P.R. (1988) Participation, satisfaction and productivity: a meta-analytic review. Academy
of Management Journal, 29, pp. 727-53.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. (1985) Of strategies, deliberate and emergent, Strategic Management Journal, 6,
pp. 257-72.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14, pp. 224-7.
Neumann, J.E. (1989) Why people don't participate in organizational change. In R. Woodman and W. Pasmore
(eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 3, pp. 181 -212, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
O'Reilly III, C. and Chatman, J. (1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of
compliance, identification, and intemalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
pp. 492-9.
Pasmore, W.A. and Fagans, M.R. (1992) Participation, individual development, and organizational change: a
review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 18(2), pp. 375—97.
Podsakoff, O. and Organ, D. (1986) Self reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of
Management, 12, pp. 531-44.
Porter, L.W. and Lawler, E.E. (1968) Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974) Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, pp. 603-9.
Rajagopalan, N. and Stpreitzer, G.M. (1996) Towards a theory of strategic change: a multi-lens perspective and
integrative framework. Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 51-6.
Sagie, A. and Koslowsky, M. (1994) Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of participation in
strategic and tactical decisions: an application of path-goal theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
15(1), pp. 37-47.
Schuster, M. (1984) The Scanlon plan: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14,
pp. 87-98.
Skivington, J.K. and Daft, R.L. (1991) A study of organizational 'framework and process' modalities for the
implementation of business-level strategic decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 28, pp. 45-69.
Snell, S.A. and Dean, J.W. Jr. (1994) Strategic compensation for integrated manufacturing: The moderating
effects of jobs and organizational inertia. Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp. 1109-40.
Spector, P.E. (1986) Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and
participation at work. Human Relations, 39, pp. 1005-16.
Stonich, P.J. (1981) Using rewards in implementing strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 2, pp. 345-53.
Strauss, G. (1977) Managerial practices. In J.R. Haekman and J.L. Suttle (eds) Improving Life at Work, Goodyear,
Santa Monica, CA.
Strauss, G. and Rosenstein, E. (1970) Workers' participation: a critical view. Industrial Relations, 9,
pp. 197-214.
Thibault, J. and Walker, R. (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence—Earlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Trist, E.L., Sushman, G.I. and Brown, G.R. (1977) An experiment in autonomous working in an American
underground coal mine. Human Relations, 30, pp. 201-36.
Valley, K.L. and Thompson, T.A. (1998) Sticky ties and bad attitudes: relational and individual bases of
resistance to change in organizational structure. In R.M. Kramer and M.A. Neale (eds) Power and Influence
in Organizations, SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA.
VanYperen, N.W., van den Berg, S.E. and Willering, M.C. (1999) Towards a better understanding of the link
between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behavior: a multilevel analysis.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 72, pp. 377-92.
Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York.
Wagner, J.A., III (1994) Participation's effect on performance and satisfaction: a reconsideration of the research
evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 312-30.
Walter, G.A. (1985) Culture collisions in mergers and acquisitions. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis,
C.C. Lundberg and J. Marins (eds) Organizational Culture, pp. 301-14, SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA.
White, H.C. (1992) Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 601-17.
Wooldridge, W. and Hoyd, S.W. (1990) The strategy process, middle management involvement and
organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp. 231-41.
215 Influence of participation in strategic change

Appendix—measures
Goal Achievement
The goals of this change are achieved.
The change has contributed to the achievement of strategic goals.

Resistance
Implementation of the change was met by considerable resistance from the
members of the organization.
Implementation tasks were carried out unwillingly.
Implementation of the change is performed with great enthusiasm (r).

Participation
Steps were taken to involve affected persons at an early stage of the change process.
Affected persons became actively involved in the development of the change
content.
Affected persons were actively involved in the developtnent of solutions to
identified problems.
Suggestions from affected persons were considered seriously.

Veto
Affected persons had the authority to terminate implementation of the change.
Affected persons had the authority to reject proposed solutions to problems that
were identified.

Cultural Compatibility
The content and consequences of this change are not aligned with established
norms of behaviour in this organizational unit.
The content and consequences of this change are not aligned with the values of
this organizational unit.

Cost Focus
It was obvious that this change would imply a reduction in the number of employees.
It was obvious that this change would imply an increased focus on cost.
It was obvious that this change would imply a closer monitoring of costs.

Change Novelty
The change can be characterized as a natural extension of the way we
previously have worked in order to achieve our objectives (r).
The change represents a radical departure from previous organizing or
performance of work.
View publication stats