UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Adaptation to organizational change Farrell, Seonaid 2004

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2004-901815.pdf [ 14.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091771.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091771-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091771-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091771-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091771-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091771-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091771-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091771-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091771.ris

Full Text

ADAPTATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE by SEONAED FARRELL B.A., Queen's University, 1994 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 1999 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology; Industrial/Organizational Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard.  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 2004 © Seonaid Farrell, 2004  Adaptation to Organizational Change ii Abstract The dimensional structure of adaptation to organizational change was identified. The dimensions were related to personality, work attitude, and job stress variables. The research extends previous research on adaptation to change at work (e.g. Chan, 2000; Pulakos et al., 2000) by examining adaptation in the context of large-scale organizational change and by empirically deriving its dimensional structure. Characteristics of adaptation to organizational change were identified by obtaining critical incidents of adaptation from 47 managers from four organizations following a merger and restructuring. A questionnaire was developed from these characteristics to measure adaptation to organizational change. Data on the questionnaire from 553 managers yielded five dimensions, which were interpreted and labelled: Supporting Change, Resisting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital. Openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive self-concept were positively related to four of the five adaptation dimensions. Linear combinations of the personality traits predicted the adaptation dimensions moderately well (Rs ranged .29 to .42). Work attitude variables were associated with Resisting Change. Job stress was positively related to Resisting Change and Initiating Effort. Two second-order factors were obtained, distinguishing between problem-focused and emotionfocused adaptation dimensions. A taxonomy of adaptation strategies was identified to reveal how individuals differ in their relative use of the five adaptation dimensions. These strategies were interpreted and labelled: strategy 1, strategy 2, highly responsive, moderately responsive, and unresponsive. Adaptation to organizational change is a multidimensional construct representing meaningful differences in how employees adapt. The five dimensions appear to differ on the basis of whether they reflect problem-focused or emotion-focused efforts to adapt. The  Adaptation to Organizational Change iii implications for management practice include both personnel selection and training. Personnel selection on the basis of personality traits would increase adaptability among employees. Measurement of adaptation to organizational change among employees would then identify developmental needs, and training could be designed to meet those needs.  Adaptation to Organizational Change iv Table of Contents Contents ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Definition of Adaptation to Change at Work Organizational Change Conceptualizations of Organizational Change The Experience of Organizational Change Conceptualizations of Adaptation to Change at Work Rationale for Adaptation to Organizational Change Characteristics of Adaptation to Change at Work Synthesis of Research on Adaptation to Change at Work Making Sense of Change Mastering New Skills and Knowledge Developing Social Relationships Negotiating the Change Creatively Solving Problems Managing Stress Summary Adaptation to Change as a Performance Domain Personality Traits as Predictors of Adaptation to Change at Work Positive Self-Concept Tolerance for Uncertain Events and Situations Interpersonal Effectiveness Adaptation to Organizational Change and Work Attitudes Adaptation to Organizational Change and Job Stress CHAPTER 3: RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES Structure of Adaptation to Organizational Change Personality Traits Related to Adaptation to Organizational Change Openness Emotional Stability Agreeableness Conscientiousness Positive Self-Concept Summary Work-Related Variables Related to Adaptation to Organizational Change Summary Taxonomy of Strategies for Adaptation to Organizational Change Research Objectives  Page ii iv viii xi xii 1 2 2 4 4 6 8 8 10 14 15 17 17 18 20 20 22 22 25 26 28 28 31 32 34 34 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 39 39 40  Adaptation to Organizational Change v Table of Contents (Cont'd) Contents  Page  CHAPTER 4: STUDY 1: THE STRUCTURE OF ADAPTATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD FOR ITS MEASUREMENT 43 Overview 43 Phase I: The Characteristics of Adaptation to Organizational Change ....43 Overview 43 Method 43 Participating Organizations 43 Procedures 46 Results 48 Phase II: The Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Adaptation to Organizational Change 48 Overview 48 Method 49 Participants 49 Procedures 49 Pretest 49 Pilot Test 50 Results 51 Phase III: The Structure of Adaptation to Organizational Change and the Development of Adaptation Scales 51 Overview 51 Method 51 Participants 51 Procedures 53 Structural Analysis 53 Conceptualization of the Factor Structure 56 Second Order Factor Analysis 56 Scale Development 56 Results 58 The Factor Solution 58 Interpretation of the First-Order Factor Structure 66 Supporting Change 69 Resisting Change 70 Career Development 70 Initiating Effort 71 Building Social Capital 71 Second Order Factor Analysis 71 Interpretation of the Second-Order Factor Structure 74 Development of Scales Based on the Factors 74 Comparative Analysis Using the Five Scales 79 Gender 79 Length of Employment 80 Public and Private Sector Organizations 80 Race 80  Adaptation to Organizational Change vi Table of Contents (Cont'd) Contents  Page  CHAPTER 4: STUDY 1: THE STRUCTURE OF ADAPTATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD FOR ITS MEASUREMENT (CONT'D) Discussion 81 The Structure of Adaptation to Organizational Change 81 First-Order Factors 81 Supporting Change 81 Resisting Change 84 Career Development 89 Initiating Effort 91 Building Social Capital 93 Second-Order Factors 94 Solving the Problems of Organizational Change 94 Managing the Experience of Change 95 Summary 95 Comparison to Pulakos' Adaptive Performance 98 CHAPTER 5: STUDY 2: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADAPTATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS, WORK ATTITUDES, AND JOB STRESS Overview 101 Method 101 Participants 101 Measure of Adaptation to Organizational Change 102 Personality Measures 102 Work-Related Measures 103 Job Satisfaction 103 Job Involvement 104 Organizational Commitment 104 Intent to Leave the Organization 104 Overall Measure of Work Attitudes 104 Job Stress Measure 105 Data Analysis 105 Results 106 Correlational Analyses Involving Adaptation to Organizational Change and Personality, Work Attitudes, and Job Stress 106 Discussion 129 Personality Traits 130 Work Attitudes 135 Job Stress 136  Adaptation to Organizational Change vii Table of Contents (Cont'd) Contents  Page  CHAPTER 6: STUDY 3: A TAXONOMY OF ADPATATION STRATEGIES FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 138 Overview 138 Method 138 Participants 138 Data Analysis : 138 Results 142 Identification and Interpretation of the Clusters 142 Validation of the Clusters 147 Cluster Profiles on Personality Dimensions 155 Discussion 160 CHAPTER 7: GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 166 Study 1 ...166 Study 2 167 Study 3 169 Conceptual Implications 169 Limitations 171 Areas for Future Research 175 CHAPTER 8: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 179 Personnel Selection 179 Personality Measures 179 Situational Judgment Tests 180 Structured Interview 181 Assessment Centres 181 Training 182 Three Generations of Training 182 Training Needs Assessment 183 Training Design 183 Training Evaluation/Transfer 185 Integration of Personnel Selection and Training 186  Adaptation to Organizational Change viii List of Tables Contents Table 1:  Page Definitions from the Research Literature of Adaptation in the Context of Work  3  Table 2: Variables Considered in Relationship to Adaptation to Organizational Change  41  Table 3: Primary Common-Factor Pattern Matrix for the 75-Item Adaptation to Organizational Change Inventory and the Related Primary-Factor Intercorrelation Matrix 61 Table 4: Congruence Coefficients Among the Pattern Matrices of Two Randomly-Selected Subsets, Men and Women, and Public and Private Organizations with 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Factors with Harris-Kaiser Transformation 65 Table 5:  Factor Labels and Descriptions  67  Table 6: Second-Order Factor Pattern Matrix for the Five First-Order Factors  73  Table 7: Psychometric Properties of the Adaptation Scales for Men (n=214) and Women (n=339) Table 8:  76  Correlations Between the 75-Item Factor Scores and 70-Item Scale Scores  Table 9: First-Order Factors Organized by Second-Order Factors  78 97  Table 10: Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates for Personality Measures, Work Attitude Measures, and Job Stress Measure Table 11: Correlations Among Personality Dimensions Table 12: Correlations Among Work Attitudes and Job Stress  107 108 110  Table 13: Correlations Between Dimensions of Adaptation to Organizational Change and Personality Dimensions, Work Attitudes, and Job Stress 112 Table 14: Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Supporting Change 114 Table 15: Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Resisting Change 115 Table 16: Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Career Development.....  116  Table 17: Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Initiating Effort  117  Adaptation to Organizational Change ix List of Tables (Cont'd) Contents  Page  Table 18: Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Building Social Capital Table 19: Personality Traits that Predict the Adaptation Dimensions Table 20: Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction Table 21: Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Job Involvement  118 120 122 123  Table 22: Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment  124  Table 23: Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Intent to Leave the Organization  125  Table 24: Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Overall Work Attitudes  126  Table 25: Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Job Stress Table 26: Adaptation Dimensions that Predict Work-Related Variables  127 128  Table 27: Adaptation Profiles for the Two- and Five-Cluster Hierarchical Cluster Solutions.. 143 Table 28: Adaptation Profiles for the Five-Cluster Solution from the Non-Hierarchical Cluster Analysis with Initial Seed Points Taken from the Hierarchical Centroids 144 Table 29: Adaptation Profile for the Five-Cluster Solution Obtained by Solution A: NonHierarchical Cluster Analysis with Initial Seed Points Taken from the Hierarchical Results, and Solution B: Non-Hierarchical Cluster Analysis with Random Seed Points 149 Table 30: Mean Values of the Clusters on Overall Work Attitudes and Job Stress  151  Table 31: Adaptation Profiles for the Five-Cluster Non-Hierarchical Solutions with Initial Seed Points Taken from the Hierarchical Results, Obtained in Two Independent Subsamples :  153  Table 32: Cluster Profiles on Personality Dimensions  157  Adaptation to Organizational Change x List of Tables (Cont'd) Contents  Page  Table 33: Standardized and Normalized Discriminant Function Coefficients Accompanying the Personality Dimensions in the Discriminant Analysis of Strategy 1 and Strategy 2 159  Adaptation to Organizational Change xi List of Figures Contents Figure 1: Cluster profiles for the five-cluster non-hierarchical solution with initial seed points from the hierarchical results Figure 2: Comparison of cluster profiles for the five-cluster non-hierarchical solution with initial seed points from the hierarchical results and the non-hierarchical cluster solution with initial seed points selected at random Figure 3: Comparison of cluster profiles for the five-cluster non-hierarchical solution with initial seed points from the hierarchical results in two independent subsamples....  Page 146  150  154  Adaptation to Organizational Change xii Acknowledgement I am truly grateful to some gifted people who guided me through my dissertation research. My committee members, Drs. Ralph Hakstian, Peter Frost, Peter McLean, Darrin Lehman, and Wolfgang Linden, gave their guidance and encouragement generously. I am particularly grateful to my academic advisor, Dr. Ralph Hakstian, who shared with me his commitment to excellence, integrity, and graciousness throughout my graduate studies. I would like to thank the hundreds of managers from TELUS, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the Fraser Health Authority, and the University of British Columbia for their efforts in the service of this dissertation research. On a personal note, I would like to thank my family for their support. My parents, Kate and Kevin, offered me every opportunity to find my talents. My brothers, Nic and Alastair, brought joy on the road to my dissertation. Finally, I am grateful for James; whose love and support encourage me to chase my dreams.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 1 Chapter 1 Introduction The purpose of the present research is to further our understanding of individual adaptation to organizational change. In particular, it will examine the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change, and establish their relationships with personality traits, work attitudes, and job stress. Although adaptation has been identified as important to successful adjustment to organizational change (Ashford, 1988; Ashford & Taylor, 1990)—yet missing from existing theories of performance (Campbell, 1999; Hesketh & Neal, 1999)—research has not provided evidence of the adaptive responses involved or established their relevance to other psychological constructs. Several hypothesized models of adaptation to change at work exist, but only one has been empirically supported and none has been examined in the context of organizational change or related to personality dimensions, work attitudes, or job stress. The aim of the research is to identify the cognitive, behavioural, and affective characteristics of adaptation to organizational change, and empirically derive their dimensional structure.  Relationships between the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change,  personality dimensions, work attitude variables, and job stress of employees will then be examined. Finally, a taxonomy of different strategies for adaptation, using multiple adaptation dimensions to different extents, will be considered. The present research will provide the academic literature with a new domain for existing theories of performance. The results of the studies will provide practitioners with a guide to important adaptive characteristics for training and development, and insights into individual-level issues in change management. The research will also reveal important personality traits for use in the selection of a more adaptive workforce. Finally, it will identify the implications of organizational change for work attitudes and psychological well-being of the workforce.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 2 Chapter 2 Literature Review This review presents contributions from the research literature to our understanding of adaptation to work. First, adaptation to change at work will be defined. Second, the context of organizational change and the individual's experience of change will be described. Third, previous conceptualizations of adaptation to change at work will be identified. Fourth, these conceptualizations will be synthesized to provide a rationale for how adaptive responses enable adaptation. Fifth, adaptation to change at work will be considered as a domain of performance within the Industrial/Organizational Psychology literature. Sixth, personality traits that may predict adaptation to organizational change will be identified. Finally, work attitude and job stress variables will be described as they relate to adaptation to organizational change. Definition of Adaptation to Change at Work  There are various definitions of adaptation in the context of work that have emerged recently in the research literature. These definitions are listed in Table 1, along with the label used in each case. These definitions highlight several characteristics of adaptation in the context of work. Adaptation occurs in response to some kind of event or change in role, task, or environment. The response involves a comparison between the individual and his/her environment. They also focus on the individual's, rather than the organization's, efforts to improve one's functioning in relationship to the change. The definition of adaptation to change at work developed by the author for the purposes of the present research is as follows. Adaptation to change at work consists of the individual's efforts to manage internal and external demands that arise from changing and uncertain work situations.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 3 Table 1 Definitions from the Research Literature of Adaptation in the Context of Work  Ashford and Taylor (1990) Adaptation: Process by which individuals learn, negotiate, enact, and maintain the behaviours appropriate to a given organizational environment. Chan (2000a) Adaptation at Work: Process by which an individual achieves some degree of fit between his or her behaviours and the new work demands created by the novel and often illdefined problems resulting from changing and uncertain work situations. Hesketh and Neal (1999) Adaptive Performance: Ease in learning new tasks, confidence in approaching new tasks, and flexibility and capacity to cope with change. London and Mone (1999) Adaptive Performance: Process in which individuals self-manage their learning experiences. Morrison and Hall (2001) Adaptation: Process of consciously revising behaviour and identity to negotiate and maintain an effective balance between one's identity and the demands of the environment. Murphy and Jackson (1999) Role Flexibility During Social or Technological Change: Process of changing established or emergent role expectations. Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) Adaptive Performance: Modification of one's behaviour to meet the demands of a new situation, event, or changed environment. Rosse and Hulin (1985) Adaptation: Process by which relative dissatisfaction with the work role is reduced through various behavioural or cognitive mechanisms.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 4 The individual's objective is to manage both internal demands, for example, fear of losing one's job, and external demands, for example, an increased workload. The focus here is on managing the demands created by change, rather than managing the change process itself or managing other people during a change. In the present research, adaptation to change at work is examined in the context of large-scale organizational change, examined next. Organizational Change  The individual's response to organizational change is becoming an increasingly important topic in the organizational literature. More jobs were eliminated between July 2000 and July 2001, than in any of the previous 15 years (American Management Association, 2001). The leading reason cited for the layoffs was organizational restructuring, followed by decreased market demand, reengineering of business processes, new technology, and relocation of work. Conceptualizations of organizational change. Organizational change is most often  initiated because of changes in the external environment. Environmental shifts—such as globalization, industry deregulation, emergence of new competitors, advanced technology, and an aging population—require organizations to change in order to survive. Organizations respond by (a) changing their strategies, structures, and processes, (b) pursuing strategic mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and spin-offs, and (c) appointing new leadership. Within the research literature, organizational change is a complex phenomenon that has been ambiguously described (Robertson, Roberts, & Porras, 1993). The present research focuses on change as a planned activity. Porras and Robertson (1992) described four subsystems of the work setting that are targets of planned change: (a) Organizing arrangements, which are the formal elements that provide coordination and control of organized activities (e.g., hierarchical structures and reward systems), (b) social factors, which include characteristics of people in the organization, patterns of interaction, and organizational culture, (d) technology, which is how  Adaptation to Organizational Change 5 organizational inputs are transformed into products (e.g., work flow design, job design), and (d) physical setting, which are the characteristics of the physical space. Organizational change is a broad concept that can be classified in several ways. Weick and Quinn (1999) noted a distinction between episodic and continuous organizational change. Episodic change is deliberate, infrequent, formal, and slower to complete. Continuous change, on the other hand, is incremental and evolving, and reflects ongoing improvisation and learning. Burke (2002, chap. 4) made a similar distinction between revolutionary change and evolutionary change. Revolutionary change involves a significant shift that affects the organization as a whole, whereas, evolutionary change involves improvements, incremental steps to fix a problem, or a change in one component of the organization. Since changes that affect the organization as a whole are rare, most changes in organizations would be classified as evolutionary changes. For the purposes of the present research, organizational change is defined as follows. Organizational change is planned change to the organization's strategy, structure, and/or work processes as a whole.  There are innumerable changes consistent with this definition. Some examples include: new leadership, a new organizational strategy, restructuring the workforce, work redesign, reengineering of business processes, production of new products or services, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, spin-offs, divestitures, downsizing, work relocation, decentralization of decision-making, new information technology, and expansion into new markets and geographic locations. While the target of organizational change is the organization, the effect is experienced directly by the individual. It is the individual's experience of organizational change that is the focus of the present research. Personally-relevant changes associated with organizational change include: decreased job security, new coworkers, increased workload, relocation of work,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 6 increased competition among departments, different reporting relationships, changes in span of control, layoffs, status changes, and new performance standards. The individual's experience of these changes will be described next. The experience of organizational change. Organizational change appears to influence  individuals by increasing uncertainty, disrupting relationships, and challenging their competence. The phenomenon most frequently reported during organizational change is uncertainty (Ashford, 1988; Kanter, 1987). Uncertainty during organizational change may refer to both one's uncertainty about the specific behaviours that will lead to desired outcomes, and the uncertainty about one's ability to perform the required behaviours (Brett, 1984). Uncertainty may result from personnel changes, decreased job security, disrupted career prospects, lack of information, and loss of identity and status (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994). When uncertainty is not resolved it may lead to the experience of anxiety. Anxiety is a state in which one perceives him/herself as having inadequate resources to cope with a new situation (Brewin, 1980). Organizational change also disrupts relationships. Disrupted relationships occur through personnel changes, work redesign, and relocation (Haunschild, Moreland, & Murrell, 1994). Disrupted group relationships may lead to the losses of attachments, turf, structure, meaning and control experienced among employees (Bridges, 1988). Disrupted relationships may also reduce the opportunities available to employees for coping through social support from others at work (Fugate, Kinicki, & Scheck, 2002). Another impact of change is the challenge to the individual's competence, as new tasks are required and old ones become obsolete. Changes create new and poorly-understood problems at work. These problems place demands on the competence of employees and can lead to new performance standards. An example of a challenge to one's competence is the increased rate of new technology in the workplace (Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Thach & Woodman, 1994).  Adaptation to Organizational Change 7 Challenges to one's competence may lead to the experiences of loss of face, resentment, and reduced control (Kanter, 1987). Uncertainty, disrupted relationships, and challenges to one's competence from organizational change were rationally-derived by the author independently from three similar challenges that Skinner, Edge, Altman, and Sherwood (2003) put forth to organize coping families. These authors identified challenges to autonomy, relatedness, and competence, which are conceptually similar to the challenges outlined in this research. Noer (1993) described some of the experiences of people who remain employed after  many others are laid off, which he termed layoff survivor sickness. Some of the characteristics of layoff survivor sickness identified by Noer include stress, sadness, depression, anxiety, and perceptions of unfairness. He suggested that these characteristics lead to reduced risk taking, lower productivity, and blaming those who remain with the organization Chan (2000a) noted several common characteristics in how individuals deal with change at work. He noted that (a) changes and uncertainty in the work situation create novel and illdefined problems, (b) these problems place new work demands on individuals, (c) established and routine behaviours that were successful in previous work situations become ineffective, suboptimal, or irrelevant in new work situations, and (d) adaptive behaviours that are qualitatively different from established routines become successful in new work situations. Within this framework, uncertainty, disrupted relationships, and challenges to one's competence represent problems that require a different response than would have been previously successful. Planned organizational change requires adaptation by employees. The present research examines adaptation by employees at work in the context of organizational change. These changes are externally-induced rather than self-initiated, and, therefore, not events that the employee has direct control over. It is assumed that the effects of organizational change are  Adaptation to Organizational Change 8 widespread across the organization, lasting anywhere from several months to several years depending on the nature and scope of the change. Conceptualizations of Adaptation to Change at Work  The research literature provides various conceptualizations of adaptation to change at work. Adaptation is conceptualized in terms of (a) the reasons why employees engage in adaptive responses, and (b) the set of characteristic responses.  Rationale for adaptation to organizational change. The reasons why employees engage  in adaptive responses are examined in the job stress and job satisfaction literatures. Lazarus (1966, p. 19) defined stress as a "relationship between the person and environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being." McGrath (1976) described stress as a "perceived substantial imbalance between demands and response capabilities under conditions where failure to meet demands has important perceived consequences" (p. 1352). In affective events theory, Weiss & Cropanzano (1996) proposed that employees cognitively appraise whether or not work events and environmental features obstruct goal attainment. Goal obstruction leads to a perceived imbalance between environmental demands and the employee's ability to deal with those demands. The imbalance leads the employee to respond in some way. Consistent across definitions of stress is the importance offitbetween the employee and the environment. The person-environment fit model of stress suggests that the experience of stress depends on the perceived imbalance between the demands of the environment and the employee's ability to cope with those demands (Landy, 1989, p. 544). Uncertainty, disrupted relationships, and challenges to one's competence would likely increase the demands being made by the environment in a context where successfully meeting those demands is important. The  Adaptation to Organizational Change 9 job stress literature suggests that employees engage in adaptation in order to reduce the stress that is caused by a perceived imbalance between external demands and their capabilities. The job satisfaction literature suggests that work events trigger both affective reactions and evaluations related to job satisfaction. If dissatisfaction follows an evaluation of work events, it is believed to motivate the employee to seek a means to reduce the dissatisfaction. It is likely that organizational change would lead to many work events that would be subject to the cognitive appraisal suggested in this literature. According to the job satisfaction literature, the behavioural responses of employees to dissatisfaction are often counterproductive. Hanisch & Hulin (1990, 1991) suggested that the responses fall within one of the following two categories: (a) Job withdrawal, which is intended to remove the employee from the organization and the job (e.g., voluntary departure and retirement), and (b) work withdrawal, which is intended to provide temporary escape from work (e.g., absenteeism and tardiness). Despite its primary focus of explaining counterproductivity at work, the job satisfaction literature offers an explanation of adaptation by means of reducing job dissatisfaction. Before different models of adaptation to change at work are described, it is interesting to consider why such an imbalance would exist between work demands and the employee's capabilities following organizational change. Organizational change often introduces substantial changes in work processes, technology, and hierarchy, among other things. These changes are introduced before behaviour can change to accommodate new demands. While the speed of change may account for the imbalance, the reluctance to employ appropriate behavioural responses may also be accountable for the imbalance. In an organization, behaviour becomes routinized and persists with little conscious thought (Weiss & Hgen, 1985). The longer an employee remains with the organization, the more routinized his/her behaviour becomes, and the less s/he may attend to changes in the environment or signs of upcoming changes. Learning  Adaptation to Organizational Change 10 theories have noted changes in an individual's attention over time when given complex tasks (P. L. Ackerman, 1992; Kanfer & P. L. Ackerman, 1996). In the first stage of learning complex tasks, attentional resource demands are high and the ability of learners to meet these demands determines their level of performance. In the second stage, attentional demands decrease, while performance accuracy and speed increase, as information becomes integrated. In the third phase of learning complex tasks, there are minimal attentional requirements and performance becomes fast, accurate, and automatic. Among employees whose performance has become routinized, adaptive responses may be delayed because of a lack of attention being paid to changes. Both the speed of change in organizations and the lack of attention being paid to the environment may account for the imbalance between new demands and an employee's capabilities, requiring adaptive responses.  Characteristics of adaptation to change at work. Models of adaptation to change at wo  attempt to provide conceptual frameworks to describe the set of responses made by employees to adapt to change at work. The behaviours and thoughts described in these models were based on reviews of the research literature and informal observation of employees adapting to change at work. The models, however, are speculative, and only one has been supported with empirical evidence. The models of adaptation from the research literature are presented next in chronological order. Louis (1982) outlined eight basic tasks involved in transition. The tasks include (a) mastering the basics of the job's procedures, technology, tasks and activities; (b) building an image or role identity; (c) building relationships with others; (d) constructing a frame of reference; (e) mapping the relevant players, names, faces, roles and power; (f) locating oneself in task and social networks; (g) learning the local language; and (h) assessing how well the job is being done and the general state of affairs at work. Louis points out that the tasks of transition  Adaptation to Organizational Change 11 extend beyond the scope of the individual's job to include other people, norms, values, and symbols that represent the system of the organization. Nicholson (1984) proposed a theory of work role transitions, which suggests that in response to a change in employment status or job content, individuals either adjust the role characteristics in a process of role development, or adjust themselves in a process of personal development. Nicholson suggested that role development would occur when one has a high desire for control and opportunity for discretion in altering the job tasks. On the other hand, personal development will occur when one has a strong desire for feedback and when the change requires new knowledge and skills. Rosse and Hulin (1985) proposed that adaptation occurs when an event triggers the evaluation of one's work situation and dissatisfaction is perceived; organizational change may be regarded as such an event. These authors proposed a model of adaptation to account for employee withdrawal behaviours. Rosse and Hulin suggested that individual adaptation to work includes (a) work avoidance, (b) attempts to change the undesirable aspects of work, (c) acts of aggression or retaliation, and (d) cognitive readjustments. Work avoidance includes physical avoidance, in which one increases the physical distance to work through lateness, absence, turnover, and leaving work during scheduled time; and psychological avoidance, which involves reducing one's awareness at work with diversions, such as, daydreaming, using drugs or alcohol, and engaging in nonwork activities. Attempts to change the undesirable aspects of work include actions taken by the individual to redress dissatisfying conditions though such means as filing grievances and unionizing activity. Acts of aggression and retaliation include such activities as restriction of production, theft, and violence. Finally, cognitive readjustments are attempts to change how one thinks about a situation when there is no feasible behavioural alternative. After publication of the model of adaptive behaviour by Rosse and Hulin (1985), Miller  Adaptation to Organizational Change 12 and Rosse (2002) proposed a revision to include conceptual and empirical developments in the research literature. Their revised model suggests that job dissatisfaction motivates employees to reduce their dissatisfaction by means of one or more of the following five behaviours: (a) problem solving, which is a constructive attempt to fix, reduce, or remove the source of dissatisfaction; (b) planned exit, which involves leaving the job by voluntary separation, transfering to another job, or retiring to avoid the source of dissatisfaction; (c) planned avoidance, which is a short-term strategy that involves avoiding work by means of absenteeism, lateness, or avoiding meetings to avoid the source of dissatisfaction; (d) equity-enhancing retaliation, which involves violent or aggressive behaviour, such as stealing, sabotage or gossip, to retaliate against the source of dissatisfaction; and (e) capitulation, which is a short-term strategy of avoiding dealing with the dissatisfaction by denying its existence. Farrell (1983) suggested a taxonomy of responses to dissatisfaction at work that relates to adaptation in that it describes individual responses to change at work. The taxonomy includes exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Exit involves leaving the organization as a result of dissatisfaction. Voice is any activity taken to improve the situation at work. Loyalty involves adopting a passive stance while not interfering with the organization's goals, such as, in remaining silent. Neglect involves active attempts to diminish one's relationship with the employer, such as tardiness, absenteeism, and theft. Withey and Cooper (1989) proposed that the choice of each of these behaviours depends on the associated costs of each, extent of selfefficacy for each, and attractiveness of remaining in the current setting. Ashford and Taylor (1990) reviewed the literature on adaptation to different work transitions and proposed a model of adaptation based on the common underlying elements. These authors proposed several tasks of adaptation that include learning/sensemaking, decisionmaking/negotiation, action regulation, and stress management. The learning/sensemaking task  Adaptation to Organizational Change 13 includes recognizing the need for adaptation, obtaining and interpreting information about the environment, and seeking out and interpreting feedback to reduce errors. Decisionmaking/negotiation involves deciding whether to change oneself, the environment or both, and modifying the exchange relationship between oneself and the organization. Action regulation involves reorganizing one's habitual work behaviours to meet the needs of the new environment. Stress management involves coping with the anxiety associated with organizational change. Freeman (1999) proposed a set of responses to organizational change within the hypothesized framework of the Kiibler-Ross stage theory of loss (1969). The stages of responses to organizational change in this model include: (a) denial that the loss involved in the change is inevitable, (b) anger associated with the injustice of change and an attempt to reverse this change, (c) bargaining to preserve the status quo by acting to appease the change-makers, (d) depression upon recognizing that the change is inevitable, and (e) resolution as the change is accepted and adaptation ensues. London and Mone (1999) suggested that change requires continuous learning, and described a model of performance that describes continuous learning. The dimensions of continuous learning include planning for development, learning, and applying new knowledge and skills to changing organizational conditions. Morrison and Hall (2001) proposed a theoretical model of adaptive competence. This model describes the influence of change on one's identity. The model includes three components: (a) identity adaptation, in which one changes the view of oneself, (b) behavioural adaptation, which involves changing one's behaviour in response to the environment, and (c) integrative adaptation, involving integration of one's identity and actions. The only empirically-derived model of adaptive job performance was developed by Pulakos et al. (2000) who found support for an eight-factor taxonomy of adaptive job  Adaptation to Organizational Change 14 performance. The components were derived from adaptive behaviours reported by employees in 21 different jobs in military, government, and private sector organizations. These authors developed self-report items based on the adaptive behaviours that represented the eight dimensions, and administered these items in the Job Adaptability Inventory to 3,411 employees across a range of occupations that were primarily nonmanagerial. The empirically-derived components of adaptive performance included: (a) solving problems creatively; (b) dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations; (c) learning work tasks, technologies, and procedures; (d) demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; (e) demonstrating cultural adaptability; (f) demonstrating physically-oriented adaptability; (g) handling emergencies or crisis situations; and (h) handling work stress. The results of this investigation suggested that adaptive performance is multidimensional, with adaptive performance in different occupations requiring different components of adaptive performance. Pulakos et al. found that adaptation among managers, in particular, included the following five components: (a) learning work tasks, technologies, and procedures; (b) dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations; (c) solving problems creatively; (d) demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; and (e) demonstrating cultural adaptability. The models of adaptation to change at work from the research literature suggest a variety of behavioural and cognitive characteristics that may be useful in adapting to organizational change. In the next section, a more comprehensive description of the characteristics of adaptation is presented that includes suggestions from these models, along with other characteristics from the research literature. Synthesis of Research on Adaptation to Change at Work  Along with the characteristics of adaptation to change at work described in the previous section, there is research evidence to suggest the importance of a variety of other ways of  Adaptation to Organizational Change 15 adapting to change at work. This broader review is presented as a synthesis of the research on adaptation to change at work and includes: (a) making sense of change, (b) mastering new skills and knowledge, (c) developing social relationships, (d) negotiating the change, (e) creatively solving problems, and (f) managing stress. The characteristics of adaptation to change within each of these areas are described and rationales are provided for how they enable adaptation in the context of organizational change. Making sense of change. Making sense of change involves developing an understanding  of the impact of the change on one's work and the organization. Making sense of change is important to adaptation because it reduces uncertainty (L. S. Ackerman, 1982; Ashford, 1988). Employees may experience uncertainty during organizational change as a result of lacking knowledge about modified aspects of work, such as new procedures, role requirements, and career progression. Gaining knowledge during organizational change may reduce uncertainty by providing an understanding of the relationships among effort, behaviour, and outcomes. Knowledge gained to make sense of organizational change may exist in the form of a change schema. Change schemas are cognitive structures that represent knowledge about the organizational change, in order to simplify, manage, and make sense of new information (Lau & Woodman, 1995). In this way, change schemas guide cognitions, interpretations, and ways of understanding events. Lau and Woodman examined schemas among students and human resource personnel experiencing organizational change. These authors found that during the change people tended to focus on the causes, meaning, and consequences of the change. This research suggests that the knowledge most important to making sense of change is that which describes the source/cause of the change; meaning/significance of the change, and outcomes or predictions for the future. Developing a schema for organizational change was also identified by Louis (1982) who described the importance of constructing a frame of reference during  Adaptation to Organizational Change 16 transitions at work. Gaining knowledge to make sense of organizational change is one of the key tasks of adaptation described in a model proposed by Ashford and Taylor (1990). These authors suggested that the task of learning/sensemaking is important to adapting to work transitions. They suggested that the process involves recognizing that adaptation is required, obtaining and interpreting information about the environmental conditions, and seeking out and interpreting feedback to reduce any errors introduced in this process. Two important behaviours in gaining knowledge to make sense of organizational change are information-seeking and feedback-seeking (Ashford & Black, 1996; Wanberg & KammeyerMueller, 2000). Information-seeking includes the search for and acquisition of new information about the job and organization. Employees may seek information from formal channels, such as meetings with superiors, or by informal means, such as discussing the change with trusted coworkers. Feedback-seeking involves the employee's asking for information regarding how his/her performance compares with changing performance standards. Feedback-seeking is important because it provides information about how well one's schema for organizational change matches what is actually taking place in the environment. Given the extent of uncertainty during organizational change, gaining knowledge within the framework of a change schema is an important element of adapting to organizational change. Making sense of change allows one to develop an understanding of the impact of the change on one's work and the organization. The behaviours that reflect one's attempt to make sense of change may include recognizing that adaptation is required, seeking information about the change, interpreting the source, evaluating the impact of the change, predicting the consequences of the change, and seeking feedback about how well one's behaviour meets the requirements of the changing organization.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 17 Mastering new skills and knowledge. Mastering new skills and knowledge is a  requirement of changing performance standards. Adaptation requires mastering new skills and knowledge because change creates gaps between employees' competence and the performance requirements of the new situation. These gaps emerge on an ongoing basis with technological advances, increased competition among companies, and higher expectations from customers regarding the quality and quantity of work (London & Mone, 1999), but they emerge most noticeably following a period of organizational change. London and Mone (1999) described the importance of continuous learning in a changing environment and identified several relevant behaviours. They suggested that employees need to plan for their development during times of change. This involves recognizing gaps in their knowledge and skills and anticipating future performance requirements. Employees then need to find a way to acquire the new knowledge and skills. During change, employees also need to be able to apply their knowledge and skills to changing organizational conditions. The importance of mastering new skills and knowledge was emphasized in Pulakos et al.'s (2000) taxonomy of adaptive performance. These authors suggested that the dimension of learning new tasks, technologies, and procedures involves keeping knowledge and skills current, adopting new processes and procedures, anticipating changes in work demands, and initiating one's own plan for development. Given the gaps between the employee's competence and performance requirements created by organizational change, mastering new skills and knowledge is important to adaptation. The behaviours that reflect mastering new skills and knowledge include planning for one's own development, learning new skills and knowledge, applying the new skills and knowledge at work, and anticipating future performance requirements. Developing social relationships. A third important component of adaptation is  Adaptation to Organizational Change 18 developing social relationships, including the initiation and maintenance of relationships with people at work. Social relationships facilitate adaptation during and after organizational change because relationships ensure cooperation among coworkers, communication of important information, and valuable social support. Social relationships were identified in three of the tasks of transition described by Louis (1982). Social relationships were implicated in the tasks of building relationships with others, locating oneself in task and social networks, and mapping relevant players, names, faces, roles and power. Research on the socialization of newcomers at work suggests that building relationships during transition leads to subsequent social integration, role clarity, job satisfaction and reduced intent to leave the organization (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). An important outcome of developing social relationships at work is the social support they afford. Social support has been described as a positive influence during transition because it provides affective support (i.e., positive regard), confirmation (i.e., validating one's actions and beliefs), and direct help (i.e., assistance with work and providing information; Frese, 1999). Nelson and Quick (1991) found evidence for the relationship between social support and reduced psychological distress during newcomers' transition to work. After an organizational change, social relationships may encourage adaptation because they increase cooperation, communication, and social support. The development and maintenance of social relationships are important elements of adaptation following organizational change. Negotiating the change. Individuals must continually negotiate with the organization  with respect to the extent to which they will change and the extent to which they require that the organization will change to improve the fit between themselves and new aspects of the organization introduced by the change. The importance of being actively engaged in negotiating  Adaptation to Organizational Change 19 job changes was noted by Coch and French (1948) who found that employees who were active in the design and implementation of changes were more supportive of the changes, as observed in their levels of production. Participation in decisions related to organizational change was also found to be related to lower resistance to organizational change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Ashford and Taylor (1990) included decision-making/negotiation in their model of adaptation to work transitions, in which they distinguished between adjustment as an active strategy of changing the situation, and as a reactive response of changing oneself. These authors noted that an important dimension of adaptation involves determining the acceptability of organizational demands and negotiating with organizational representatives to change those unacceptable demands. Ashford and Taylor (1990) suggested that decision-making/negotiation might reflect one form of voice from Withey and Cooper's (1989) model of responses to dissatisfaction at work, in which action is taken to improve the situation at work. Negotiating the change was also identified as an important performance dimension in the research literature on newcomer socialization (Ashford & Black, 1996). In adapting to new work situations, new employees demonstrate attempts to alter their environment to increase the degree of control they experience (Bell & Staw, 1989). Negotiating the change is One of two modes of adjustment described in Nicholson's (1984) theory of work role transitions. This mode of role development involves taking the initiative to change tasks, methods, materials, schedules, and interpersonal relationships related to the role during periods of transition. Negotiating the demands introduced by organizational change is an important element of adaptation. Despite the importance of exerting influence over the changes, it was not identified as a dimension of adaptive performance in the model proposed by Pulakos et al. (2000). The  Adaptation to Organizational Change 20 behaviours involved in negotiating change include determining the acceptability of demands introduced by the change, and negotiating with organizational representatives to modify unacceptable demands. Creatively solving problems. Adapting to organizational change involves finding  solutions to new problems introduced by organizational change. The atypical, ill-defined, and complex problems that arise from organizational change can threaten the effectiveness and wellbeing of employees, and it is for these reasons that finding creative solutions to problems is an important component of adaptation. Despite the rise in unfamiliar problems resulting from organizational change, only Pulakos et al. (2000) proposed creative problem solving as a component of adaptive performance. These authors described solving problems creatively as finding new approaches to problems, integrating unrelated information to develop creative solutions, and considering a broad range of possibilities. Organizational change creates ambiguous and complex problems for employees who must find creative solutions as part of their adaptation. The behaviours involved in creatively solving problems include taking a different perspective to new problems encountered, producing new solutions, and demonstrating flexibility in experimenting with different solutions. Managing stress. Managing stress refers to managing the distressing emotions that result  from organizational change. Aldwin (2000) suggested that a mismatch between the individual's resources and perceived challenge might lead to psychological or physiological distress. Organizational change may present challenges that threaten to overwhelm employees' resources. Nicholson (1984) noted that anxiety and frustration might be two common emotional responses during transitions at work. Nicholson suggested that anxiety is the emotional reaction associated with having inadequate resources to deal with the challenge, such as when employees are asked  Adaptation to Organizational Change 21 to assume greater responsibility following a downsizing. Frustration, on the other hand, may be thought of as the experience of having inadequate challenges for one's resources, such as when an employee's discretion in decision-making is reduced through reengineering business processes. Ashford and Taylor (1990) suggested that during organizational change, employees must maintain adequate internal conditions to enable them to respond effectively. The adequacy of one's internal conditions during organizational change may depend on effectively coping with distressing emotions. Managing stress was not initially identified in the model of adaptive performance proposed by Pulakos et al. (2000); however, it was added after these authors identified it as a theme among critical incidents of adaptive performance produced by employees. The behaviours they identified in handling stress include remaining composed in the face of difficult circumstances, managing frustration by directing effort to constructive solutions rather than blaming others, demonstrating professionalism in stressful situations, and acting as a calming influence on others. Coping strategies are efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the individual's resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Among a variety of coping strategies examined, Ashford and Black (1996) found that positive framing— attempting to alter one's understanding of a situation by explicitly controlling the cognitive frame placed on the situation—was the most frequently used strategy employed by newcomers in transition to the organization. These authors suggested that positive framing gives people a sense of control by increasing their self-confidence and sense of efficacy in the situation. Fugate et al., (2002) examined changes in the use of different coping strategies over time following a merger. These authors found that wishful thinking decreased over nine months  Adaptation to Organizational Change 22 following a merger as employees gained more information about the implications of the changes. If employees' best efforts at solving the problems created by organizational change fail, then managing their resulting distress may have an important adaptive function for the individual. The behaviours involved in managing stress include becoming aware of one's internal conditions, positively framing one's understanding of an aversive situation, and demonstrating control over intense distress to focus on constructive solutions and appear composed. Summary. This synthesis provides a review of the characteristics of adaptation to change  at work identified in the research literature. The synthesis includes: making sense of change, mastering new skills and knowledge, developing social relationships, negotiating the change, creatively solving problems, and managing stress. It suggests how the underlying responses may facilitate individual adaptation in the context of organizational change. Adaptation to Change as a Performance Domain  Adaptation to change is an important component of performance. Performance is behaviour that is relevant to the organization's goals (Borman, 1994). Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) distinguished among job behaviour, performance, and effectiveness, where behaviour is what employees actually do, regardless of its value to the organization; performance is behaviour that is related to important organizational outcomes; and effectiveness is the contribution of an employee to outcomes, which includes factors that are beyond the employee's control. Adaptive behaviour is related to the organization's goals, because an improved fit between an employee and his/her organization allows more of the employee's effort to be directed towards the organization's goals. With the increasing amount of change in organizations and evidence that the rate of change is not abating, employees' adaptation to change is becoming more important than ever to the achievement of the organization's goals.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 23 Performance is often construed as multidimensional. Campbell, McCloy, Oppler and Sager (1993) developed a model of job performance with eight performance components, which include: job-specific task proficiency, non-job-specific-task proficiency, written and oral communication, demonstrating effort, maintaining personal discipline, maintaining peer and team performance, supervision/leadership, and management/administration. Multiple dimensions of performance suggest that different people can achieve the same level of overall performance using varying levels of the performance dimensions. For example, while some employees may perform well by demonstrating expertise and effectively managing a large project, another employee may perform well by leading a team and ensuring their high level of performance. Given the multidimensional conceptualization of performance and the complex nature of work, it is likely that adaptation is also multidimensional. New ideas about performance emerged following Campbell et al.'s (1993) taxonomy of performance components. One major distinction in the research literature is made between task performance and contextual performance. Task performance is the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization's technical core, either directly by implementing a part of its technological process, or indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Contextual performance, on the other hand, is the contribution of an employee to organizational effectiveness in ways that shape the organizational, social, and psychological contexts within the organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Behaviour that reflects contextual performance includes volunteering for committees, providing technical support to newcomers, and cooperating with others. Adaptation to change at work appears to be more consistent with the concept of contextual performance than task performance because it is unrelated to the organization's technical core, while it contributes to organizational effectiveness by aligning the efforts of  Adaptation to Organizational Change 24 employees with the goals of the organization. For example, developing social relationships improves communication within the organization, which in turn may facilitate the achievement of the organization's goals, but is not directly related to the core technology of the organization. While Hesketh and Neal (1999) suggested that adaptation to change at work is distinct from task and contextual performance, Johnson (2001) provided evidence that handling work stress is a component of contextual performance. There are several concepts subsumed within contextual performance and several taxonomies that have been developed to account for these concepts. Organizational citizenship behaviour (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) is considered to be a component of contextual behaviour because it includes extra-role behaviour that is intended to help others in the organization or to demonstrate conscientiousness to promote the effectiveness of the organization. Prosocial organizational behaviour (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986) is another component of contextual performance that includes both in-role and extra-role behaviour that is performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of individuals and groups to whom that behaviour is directed. Brief and Motowidlo (1997) suggested a taxonomy of contextual performance to subsume the different concepts related to non-task performance. Their taxonomy of contextual performance includes: (a) persisting with enthusiasm and extra effort as necessary to complete one's own task activities successfully, (b) volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of one's own job, (c) helping and cooperating with others, (d) following organizational rules and procedures, and (e) endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives. Coleman and Borman (2000) proposed another model of contextual performance from an empirical examination of 27 different contextual performance behaviours. These authors used factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, and cluster analysis to yield a model of contextual performance that includes: (a) interpersonal citizenship performance—  Adaptation to Organizational Change 25 behaviours benefiting individuals in the organization, (b) organizational citizenship behaviour— behaviours benefiting the organization, and (c) job-task conscientiousness—behaviours benefiting execution of the job or task. While adaptation to change appears to lie within the contextual domain, there are two ways in which it differs from the concepts and dimensions previously considered with regard to contextual performance. First, the focus of adaptation to change at work is on improving the fit between oneself and the organization, while previous concepts of contextual performance have focused on helping other people and teams within the organization. Second, the contribution to organizational effectiveness is an outcome of adaptation, but it is not the motivation for adaptation. As described earlier, adaptation is driven solely by the desire to reduce the imbalance between an individual's perception of work demands and the perception of his/her capabilities. Adaptation to change at work is a new area within the performance literature. Campbell (1999) noted the unique contribution of adaptive performance to conceptualizations of performance by suggesting that adaptation to new conditions or job requirements would be a genuine addition to his taxonomy of performance. It fits within the contextual performance domain and may be multidimensional. Adaptation will likely become an important dimension of performance as a number of changes in the environment (e.g., globalization, new technology, increased competition) raise performance standards within organizations. Personality Traits as Predictors of Adaptation to Change at Work  The variety of responses to organizational change suggests that individuals do not adapt equally well to changing events, roles, and situations. The evidence of burnout and turnover following organizational change suggests that successful adaptation is not necessarily the outcome of organizational change for all employees. Individual differences in personality may  Adaptation to Organizational Change 26 explain some of the variation in the extent to which people adapt to organizational change. Personality dimensions may predict the extent of adaptation to change at work by influencing how work stressors are perceived, which coping strategies are used, and the number of personal resources the individual can rely upon during transition (Roskies, Louis-Guerin, & Fournier, 1993). Kobasa (1979) examined hardiness among executives and found that this personality characteristic successfully discriminated between executives who experienced high stress and became ill and those who experienced high stress but did not fall ill. She described hardy individuals as those who possess: (a) the belief that they can control or influence the events of their experience, (b) an ability to feel deeply involved in or committed to the activities of their lives, and (c) the anticipation of change as an exciting challenge to further development. Borman and Motowidlo (1997) described evidence to support the effectiveness of personality in predicting contextual performance. The evidence they cited suggests that personality dimensions are more strongly related to contextual performance than either task performance or overall performance. They suggested that the relationship between personality and overall performance is accounted for by the relationship between personality and the contextual component of overall performance. Evidence in the research literature suggests that successful adaptation to change at work is related to several specific personality traits. The relevant traits are presented next within a framework that describes the characteristics of people who successfully adapt to organizational change. The framework includes positive self-concept, tolerance for uncertain events and situations, and interpersonal effectiveness. Positive self-concept. Successful adaptation to organizational change may require a  strong positive self-concept. Personality traits related to a positive self-concept may explain, in  Adaptation to Organizational Change 27 part, differences in the extent of adaptation achieved by employees following an organizational change. Positive self-concept was proposed by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) as a higherorder construct composed of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability, which was found to be related to job satisfaction and the motivational component of performance in a meta-analysis of 274 effect sizes (Judge & Bono, 2001). Selfesteem is the self-evaluation of one's competence and worthiness. Self-esteem may lead to maintaining optimism in the face of failure (Dodgson & Wood, 1998) and was found to be related to role adaptability among managers (Morrison, 1977). Generalized self-efficacy is the perception of one's ability to cope and perform successfully and has been suggested to be a valuable resource to manage stress during adaptation to work transitions (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). Self-efficacy was found to be related to fewer perceptions of threat among 172 high-tech employees nine months after an organizational acquisition. Internal locus of control is one's perceived ability to control the environment and has been found to relate to whether or not employees leave dissatisfying situations sooner (Judge & Bono, 2001). Internal locus of control was found to be related to more activity among newcomers during organizational socialization (Ashford & Black, 1996). It was also shown to be related to less self-reported stress and disruption among 180 employees six months after the divestiture of AT&T (Ashford, 1988) and less anxiety among 100 lawyers after an organizational change (Callan & Terry, 1994). Emotional stability represents the opposite pole of neuroticism, which refers to the tendency to exhibit poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affect (Goldberg, 1993). Neuroticism was found to be related to distress in dealing with short- and long-term life changes (Ormel & Wohlfarth, 1991). Wanberg and Banas (2000) found that the positive self-concept traits of self-esteem, optimism, and internal locus of control among employees during an industry restructuring were  Adaptation to Organizational Change 28 related to greater change acceptance, but not a positive view of the changes. Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999) examined the relationship between several dispositions—locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positive affectivity—and coping with organizational change among a sample of 514 managers. The results suggested that the traits reduced to a single factor, which predicted self-reports and independent assessments of coping with organizational change. People who successfully adapt to organizational change appear to have a strong selfconcept. The strength they find to adapt to organizational change may be based on their selfesteem, self-efficacy, internal locus of control and emotional stability during organizational change. People who successfully adapt to organizational change may draw on their self-concept to confidently confront challenging situations, maintain a sense of self through ambiguous and uncertain times, and minimize the apparent threats from the organizational change. Tolerance for uncertain events and situations. The ability to tolerate uncertain events  and situations appears to be related to adaptation to organizational change. Tolerance for ambiguity is the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable, rather than threatening. Research suggests that tolerance for ambiguity is related to lower levels of work-related anxiety and strain (Keenan, 1978; Keenan & McBain, 1979). Ashford (1988) found that tolerance for ambiguity buffered the influence of stressors on stress outcomes six months after AT&T's divestiture. Uncertainty orientation (Sorrentino & Short, 1986; Sorrentino, Short & Raynor, 1984) is a construct that takes tolerance for ambiguity one step further. These authors suggest that uncertainty-oriented individuals see uncertainty as a challenge and will perform better in uncertain situations than will certainty-oriented individuals. Openness is considered to be associated with intelligence, perceptiveness, creativity, imagination, tolerance, and curiosity (Goldberg, 1992). Pulakos, Schmitt, Dorsey, Arad, Hedge, and Borman (2002) found that  Adaptation to Organizational Change 29 openness was positively related to one's perceived capability and interest in adapting to different cultures at work. Risk aversion is the tendency to avoid taking chances, in favour of security. Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999) found that assessments of tolerance for ambiguity, openness to experience, and low risk aversion among 514 employees represented a single factor, which they labelled risk tolerance. Risk tolerance was positively related to selfreports and independent assessments of coping with change. Successful adaptation following organizational change requires a high level of tolerance for uncertain events and situations. People who tolerate ambiguity well and maintain a sense of openness during changing times are likely to perceive a changing environment as less threatening, subsequently experiencing less distress. Interpersonal effectiveness. Personality traits associated with interpersonal effectiveness  may explain some of the variation in adaptation to organizational change. Louis (1982) suggested the importance of building relationships with others and locating oneself in task and social networks during transitions at work. Pulakos et al. (2000) found evidence to support a similar dimension, interpersonal adaptability, as a component of adaptive performance. Research evidence has suggested different relationships between dimensions of the Five Factor Model of personality and interpersonal effectiveness. The Five Factor Model describes personality in terms of the dimensions of emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (e.g., Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; Norman, 1963). The term Five Factor Model will be used interchangeably with the Big Five in what follows. There are two contexts in which interpersonal effectiveness has been examined—teamwork and one-toone contact with customers. The teamwork context is more relevant to interpersonal effectiveness as a component of adaptation because it focuses on initiating and maintaining cooperative relationships with coworkers, whereas one-to-one contact with customers refers to  Adaptation to Organizational Change 30 individual relationships with people outside the organization. Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998) examined the relationships between Big Five personality factors and job performance involving interpersonal interactions. These authors found agreeableness and emotional stability to be more highly correlated with performance involving teamwork than were extraversion, conscientiousness, or openness to experience. Similarly, results of a meta-analysis by Hough (1992) found agreeableness, emotional stability, and two facets of conscientiousness (achievement and dependability) were related to teamwork, whereas extraversion and openness to experience were less strongly correlated. There are several reasons why agreeableness and emotional stability may be more strongly related to performance involving teamwork than are any other personality factors. Employees who are more agreeable tend to be more cooperative, tolerant, flexible, and goodnatured than those who are less agreeable. These characteristics help to build cooperative relationships with other people. Employees who are more emotionally stable tend to be more relaxed and tolerant of stress, which may help in building credibility and trust with others. Employees with lower emotional stability (i.e., higher neuroticism) tend to be anxious, fearful and moody, which can be unattractive to others and create distance among people. Emotional stability was found to be positively related to supervisory ratings of adaptive performance among 739 military personnel (Pulakos et al., 2002). Extraversion may seem, intuitively, to be related to interpersonal effectiveness, because people who are more gregarious and outgoing should perform better in contexts that involve social interaction. Research evidence, however, does not support the relationship between extraversion and interpersonal effectiveness (Mount, Barrick & Stewart, 1998). Extraversion may not be as strongly related to interpersonal effectiveness as emotional stability and agreeableness because people who are more extraverted may be seen by others as overbearing  Adaptation to Organizational Change 31 and attention-seeking, which may impede the development of relationships. Successful adaptation requires interpersonal effectiveness. Interpersonal effectiveness enables the employee to initiate and maintain positive relationships with people at work, which may be especially important following organizational change. The well-established personality dimensions that constitute interpersonal effectiveness are agreeableness and emotional stability. Adaptation to Organizational Change and Work Attitudes  Work attitudes among employees are relevant to the experience of organizational change and adaptation. Perceived pressures of organizational change, in general, and mergers, in particular, have been found to be related to lower job satisfaction, lower organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization (Rush, Schoel, & Barnard, 1995; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Allen, Freeman, Russell, Reizenstein, and Rentz (2001) examined job attitudes among 106 managers at several points during a 16-month period following an organizational downsizing. These authors found evidence of a relationship between downsizing and satisfaction with job security, and a positive relationship with the intent to leave after one month, which improved to pre-downsizing levels by four months after the downsizing. The work attitude variables most often examined include job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization. Job satisfaction refers to the extent to which employees are satisfied with their jobs, which is considered to be strongly influenced by working conditions (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Organizational change may substantially influence working conditions. Job involvement is the extent to which employees engage core aspects of themselves in their work. Job involvement is considered to be based on one's personal value system, and may lead to greater effort being focused on adaptation to organizational change. Organizational commitment refers to the strength of the individual's relationship with the organization, reflected in the acceptance of the organization's goals and  Adaptation to Organizational Change 32 values, willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). It is relevant to organizational change because during change the organization's goals and values are revealed and are often the focus of attention. Intent to leave the organization is the employee's desire to terminate membership with the organization. Despite its conceptual overlap with organizational commitment, it is often considered to be a distinct construct in research on work attitudes. Work attitudes have been discussed relative to organizational change, but may also be related to adaptive behaviours taken in response to that change. Ashford and Taylor (1990) suggested that the process of negotiating mutually acceptable organizational demands in adaptation leads to increased satisfaction, commitment, and length of tenure. Proactive attempts at making positive changes at work on the part of 42 new hospital employees was found to be related to organizational commitment and satisfaction with the job, supervision, co-workers, promotion, and pay (Rosse & Hulin, 1985). Change acceptance among 173 employees during an industry restructuring related positively to job satisfaction and negatively to intent to leave the organization (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) examined adaptive behaviour and work attitudes among 118 newcomers to an organization and found that adaptive behaviours of seeking feedback, building relationships, and positive framing related positively to job satisfaction and negatively to intent to leave the organization. Adaptation to Organizational Change and Job Stress  Adaptation to organizational change relates to individual well-being. Organizational change often involves job loss, reduced status, and conflict in relationships at work, which can threaten psychological well-being (Ashford, 1988; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). It may be the pervasiveness of uncertainty in organizational change that is associated with job stress, given that the anticipation of harm or loss (e.g., job insecurity, relocation) can have effects as potent as  Adaptation to Organizational Change 33 experiencing the harm itself (Lazarus, 1966). Research evidence supports the relationship between organizational change and job stress. Job insecurity was found to predict increased medical consultations for psychological distress (Catalano, Rook, & Dooley, 1986). Frese (1999) found evidence of the relationship between work stress and psychosomatic complaints, anxiety, depression, and irritation/strain. Callan and Terry (1994) provided evidence of the relationship between organizational change and anxiety and depression.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 34 Chapter 3 Rationale and Hypotheses The recency of the research literature on adaptation to change at work reflects a growing interest in understanding how individuals adapt to change. The research literature has called for studies of adaptation to change at work in general, and various issues in particular. Structure of Adaptation to Organizational Change  There have been several calls for the development of an empirically-supported dimensional model of adaptation to change at work and assessment methods for its measurement (Campbell, 1999; Chan, 2000a; Hesketh & Neal, 1999, London & Mone, 1999, Murphy & Jackson, 1999). Whereas a large body of literature describes employees' resistance to organizational change, it has been suggested that research should shift its focus instead to increasing knowledge about how employees respond adaptively to change (Ashford, 1988; Piderit, 2000). Campbell (1999) suggested the addition of adaptive performance to his model of the components of job performance and invited the development of assessment procedures for its measurement. Chan (2000a) called for theory-based and empirically-validated taxonomies of adaptation demands and performance outcomes. Hesketh and Neal (1999) suggested the addition of adaptive performance to their model of task and contextual performance, citing evidence of the distinctions among adaptive, task, and contextual performance. There have also been calls to examine adaptation in a particular context, such as largescale organizational change. Pulakos et al. (2000) suggested that different performance dimensions from those provided in their taxonomy of adaptive performance might emerge during periods of organizational change. Judge et al. (1999) suggested that different personality traits would account for performance during periods of greater change. Scheck and Kinicki (2000)  Adaptation to Organizational Change 35 noted that there is little research on how people cope in the aftermath of an organizational change, such as an acquisition. Aldwin (2000) noted that responses to stress need to be examined in a particular context. A purpose of the present research is to empirically derive a dimensional structure of adaptation to change at work in the context of large-scale organizational change. A belief going into this research is that adaptation to change at work is multidimensional. A research question of the thesis is, what are the specific dimensions that constitute adaptation to organizational change? These dimensions are then compared with the dimensions identified in previous conceptual and empirical models of adaptation to change at work. The identification of this hierarchy, however, does not necessarily imply evaluations of the adaptiveness of each dimension. The focus on large-scale organizational change extends previous research on adaptation beyond relatively minor changes at work, to organization-wide changes. The context of largescale organizational change is important because these changes have greater implications for job insecurity and the experience of work. The present research specifies, for the first time, the context of change in which employees respond. Personality Traits Related to Adaptation to Organizational Change  Several authors have suggested an examination of the relationships between personality traits and adaptation to change at work (Chan, 2000a, Pulakos et al., 2000). Pulakos et al. provided a multidimensional criterion of adaptive performance and suggested that different personality traits may relate to the different criterion dimensions. Judge et al. (1999) examined the relationship of a set of personality traits to coping with organizational change. Based on this research, these authors called for future research to examine the relationships among the traits  Adaptation to Organizational Change 36 and important work behaviours, and to demonstrate the validity of these traits in a selection context. Understanding the relationships between personality traits and adaptation to organizational change would make an important contribution to the personnel selection literature, because it would offer insights regarding the personality traits that predispose people to respond to change in certain ways and provide the basis on which to develop selection procedures for selecting a more adaptive workforce. A purpose of the present research is to identify the personality dimensions of the Big Five taxonomy of personality that predict adaptation to organizational change. The personality dimensions that are believed to be related to adaptation to organizational change are described next. Openness. Individuals with a high degree of openness tend to be broadminded, do not  hold dogmatic attitudes, prefer variety, are intellectually curious, and are aesthetically sensitive. Given these characteristics, employees with a high degree of openness should approach change at work more favourably and be less threatened by uncertainty. Judge et al. (1999) found a positive relationship between openness and coping with organizational change. Pulakos, et al. (2002) found that openness was related to one's perceived capability and interest in adapting to different cultures at work. Emotional stability. Emotional stability is the polar opposite of neuroticism, and refers to  being even-tempered, free from disruptive emotions, and less likely to be discouraged by difficult situations. Given the importance of managing difficult situations to adaptation, individuals with a high degree of emotional stability are likely to have a more positive experience of change and cope more successfully. A higher degree of emotional stability also makes it easier to build relationships with people at work (Mount, Barrick & Stewart, 1998),  Adaptation to Organizational Change 37 which, in turn, may facilitate adaptation to organizational change. Pulakos et al. (2002) found that emotional stability was positively related to supervisory ratings of adaptive performance. Agreeableness. Individuals with a high degree of agreeableness tend to be more helpful,  compliant, tolerant, and supportive. Agreeableness is important in building social relationships (Mount, Barrick & Stewart, 1998), which may, in turn, facilitate adaptation to organizational change. Agreeableness may also account for greater cooperation and support during change. Conscientiousness. Individuals with a high degree of conscientiousness are planful,  purposeful, organized, determined, reliable, hardworking, and ambitious. In the section Synthesis of Research on Adaptation to Change at Work in the previous chapter, the themes  mastering new skills and negotiating the change were suggested as important aspects of adapt  to change at work. Given the planning and determination involved in these activities, it is likely that individuals with a high degree of conscientiousness will be more successful in adapting to change. Pulakos et al. (2002) found that the achievement motivation component of conscientiousness was positively related to supervisory ratings of adaptive performance. Positive self-concept. Several personality dimensions not accounted for in the Big Five  taxonomy of personality were included in the present research to more fully examine the personality correlates of adaptation to organizational change. The additional personality . dimensions include self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, and internal locus of control. Selfesteem may relate to adaptation to organizational change, in that evaluating oneself as competent and worthy may make it more likely for the individual to take on the demands of change to improve their work situation. Generalized self-efficacy may be related to adaptation to organizational change in that perceiving one has the capacity and resources to deal with organizational change may make it more likely that the individual will exert the effort required to  Adaptation to Organizational Change 38 adapt. An internal locus of control may relate to adaptation to organizational change, in that perceiving one has control over the environment may make it more likely that the individual would take action to improve the work situation. These additional personality dimensions, combined with emotional stability, comprise positive self-concept (Judge et al., 1999). Positive self-concept was found to be related to coping with organizational change (Judge et al.; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Summary. Given the research evidence suggesting relationships between personality  dimensions and adaptation to organizational change, a purpose of this research is to examine these relationships systematically. It is expected that openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and positive self-concept will be positively related to adaptation to organizational change. To what extent do these personality dimensions, taken individually and in combination, relate to the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change? What do the personality-trait correlates tell us about adaptation to organizational change? Work-Related Variables Related to Adaptation to Organizational Change  Organizational change has implications for important work-related variables. Research evidence suggests that the experience of organizational change is associated with decreased job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment, as well as increased intent to leave the organization and job stress (Allen et al., 2001; Ashford, 1988; Rush et al., 1995; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Given that organizational change is negatively related to the experience of work, adaptation to organizational change may be positively related to these work-related variables. That is, if employees who experience a large-scale organizational change have a poorer experience of work than they do before the change, it is likely that those who adapt by managing  Adaptation to Organizational Change 39 the new internal and external demands that arise from changing and uncertain work situations will have a more positive experience of work. Individuals who adapt to change at work are more likely than others to experience their jobs as satisfying, to invest themselves in their work, to remain committed to the organization, to intend to remain employed by the organization, and to experience less job stress. It is not possible, however, to speculate further regarding the direction of the relationships between the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change and work-related variables. The conditions required to test the direction of these relationships were beyond the scope of this thesis, and there was insufficient evidence of relationships between these variables to support a path analysis. Summary. Adaptation to organizational change has important implications for work-  related variables, such as, job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational corrimitment, intent to leave the organization, and job stress. The research aims to identify the extent of the relationships between these variables and the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change. It is expected that job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment will be positively related to adaptation to organizational change, while intent to leave the organization and job stress will bear negative relationships. This pattern of relationships will provide insight into the experience of employees adapting to organizational change. Taxonomy of Strategies for Adaptation to Organizational Change  Employees do not use single approaches to adapt to organizational change, but rather use a variety of adaptation dimensions. It is interesting to consider the extent to which employees use the adaptation dimensions to different extents. Previous research on adaptation to change at work has not considered the basic strategies that employees use in drawing on multiple  Adaptation to Organizational Change 40 adaptation dimensions. An understanding of how individuals differ in their use of multiple adaptation dimensions would provide greater insight on the construct of adaptation to organizational change that cannot be gained from looking only at individual adaptation dimensions. These strategies may relate to individual differences in personality and work-related variables. Just as various personality traits predict different adaptation dimensions, so may they also predict different combinations of these dimensions. The particular combination of adaptation dimensions may also be associated with the work-related variables described above. A purpose of the present research is to identify the basic ways in which employees draw on the adaptation dimensions to different extents. It is expected that these differences will relate to personality traits and work-related variables. Research Objectives  The research objectives aim to explore the construct of adaptation to organizational change more comprehensively than in previous research. The variables that are examined in the research for the purpose of providing a greater understanding of this construct are outlined in Table 2.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 41 Table 2 Variables Considered in Relationship to Adaptation to Organizational Change  Adaptation to Organizational Change Dimension A Dimension B Dimension C Dimension D Dimension E  3  Personality Traits Openness Emotional Stability Agreeableness Conscientiousness Positive Self-Concept self-esteem - generalized self-efficacy internal locus of control emotional stability  Work-Related Variables Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Organizational Commitment Intent to Leave the Organization Job Stress  Adaptation to organizational change is believed to be comprised of multiple dimensions. Dimensions A through E are intended to represent an unspecified number of dimensions that will be empirically-derived in the research.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 42 There are four main objectives of the research. The first objective is to empiricallyderive the basic structure of adaptation to organizational change. An understanding of these dimensions will provide for a deeper, more empirically-based exploration of the domain of adaptation to organizational change than has been performed in previous research. The second objective is to understand the stable, personality characteristics that relate to how individuals adapt to organizational change. This unique pattern of relationships will provide new insights into how different personality traits may predispose individuals to respond in particular ways to organizational change. The third objective of the research is to understand how adaptation to organizational change relates to the experience of work. These relationships will shed light on how one's approach to adapting to organizational change relates to multiple aspects of the experience of work. Finally, the fourth objective is to identify a taxonomy of adaptation strategies to describe the basic ways in which individuals combine the adaptation dimensions. These strategies will provide a better understanding of how employees use multiple adaptation dimensions to different extents.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 43 CHAPTER 4 STUDY 1: THE STRUCTURE OF ADAPTATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD FOR ITS MEASUREMENT Overview The goal of this study was to identify the structure underlying adaptation to organizational change. This was achieved by: (a) identifying the characteristics of adaptation to organizational change, (b) developing a questionnaire to measure adaptation to organizational change, and (c) obtaining the factor structure of data collected on this questionnaire. Three sets of analyses were performed to achieve these objectives, which are described next in three sections. Phase I: The Characteristics of Adaptation to Organizational Change Overview  The characteristics of adaptation to organizational change were identified by: (a) obtaining critical incidents involving adaptation among managers in organizations that had experienced large-scale organizational change, and (b) identifying the unique and meaningful set of adaptive responses within these critical incidents. The objective was to identify a comprehensive set of adaptive responses taken in response to changes following a large-scale organizational change. Method Participating Organizations  The research involved collection of data from four organizations between December 2002 and May 2003. The University of British Columbia's Behavioural Ethics Review Board provided their approval of the research project. The author sent research proposals to six  Adaptation to Organizational Change 44 organizations that had been through a large-scale organizational change in the past four years. The changes these organizations experienced included mergers, organizational restructuring, and an acquisition. Four organizations expressed their interest in participating in all studies related to the project. Of these organizations, all had seen their management group downsized, three had been through a merger and one had experienced a significant organizational restructuring. The particular organizational changes considered in this research included mergers, organizational restructuring, and downsizing. Given the scope of the changes considered, the research will not necessarily describe adaptation to other forms of organizational change, such as for example, relocation, acquisition, or business process reengineering. The author presented the proposal to the senior executives in each organization. The organization was offered three incentives in return for its support: (a) individual management feedback reports for participating managers, profiling their unique adaptation strategy (see Appendix A), (b) a report to the organization describing the organization's standing on the adaptation dimensions relative to other participating organizations (see Appendix B), and (c) a professional development workshop on adaptation to change for managers. All four organizations agreed to support the project. The four organizations are described next. Organization A is one of Canada's leading telecommunications companies. It faced increased competition following the deregulation of the telecommunications industry in Canada in 1997. In 1999, the organization merged with another telecommunications organization in Alberta. Since then, several acquisitions, an expansion of services and infrastructure across Canada, and substantial downsizing of its management ranks occurred between the merger in 1999 and November 2003.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 45 Organization B is a public healthcare organization that was formed in December 2001 from the merger of eight healthcare facilities in British Columbia. The merger was followed by an organizational restructuring, redesign of service delivery, and 14% reduction in management employees. Organization C is a public healthcare organization that was formed in December 2001 from the merger of 13 healthcare facilities in British Columbia. The changes that followed the merger included an organizational restructuring, staff reductions, systems integration, and redesign of clinical and shared service delivery. Organization D is a division of a public Canadian post-secondary institution. Between August 1999, and November 2002, the organization experienced new leadership, significant restructuring, and several business process reengineering initiatives. Participants  The author and the organizations decided that only employees excluded from unionized positions would be invited to participate in the three phases of the present research. This decision was made to alleviate the organizations' concerns with asking employees in unionized positions to carry out work that is unrelated to their job tasks. Forty-seven incumbent managers participated in focus group workshops. The sample included 15 men and 32 women (age: M = 44.13, SD = 9.20) from the four organizations described in the previous section. The majority of participants were Caucasian (43 Caucasian; 4 Asian) and all participants indicated that English was their best language. The Vice President, Human Resources (HR) or Director, HR in each organization selected managers to participate in focus group workshops if s/he knew them: (a) to have maintained their employment during and after an organizational change, (b) to have  Adaptation to Organizational Change 46 demonstrated good job performance and a sense of well-being during and after the change event, and (c) to have been involved in work that allowed them to observe the behaviours of other members of the organization during and after the organizational change. Procedures  The objective of the focus group workshops was to obtain a broad and comprehensive set of responses that represent adaptation to organizational change. The adaptive responses would serve as the foundation for a self-report inventory to measure adaptation to organizational change. These adaptive responses were identified using the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954). Using the critical incident technique, participants who were aware of adaptation to organizational change and who have seen people adapt to change on a frequent basis described incidents of effective and ineffective adaptation that they have observed over the past year. The critical incident technique is regarded as a useful way to understand performance from the perspective of the individual, particularly when the performance is complex and context-specific (Anderson & Wilson, 1997; Chell, 1998). It provides an understanding of the specific elements of performance, unconstrained by models or ideas about behaviour. While the technique captures aspects of performance relevant to a critical event, it may be less sensitive to aspects of ordinary experiences. Because of the advantages to its use, however, the critical incident technique has been used in a variety of ways, including the development of performance measurement instruments, personnel selection tests, curricula, and performance requirements for certification and licensure tests (Anderson & Wilson, 1997). Participants were convened in one of nine 2-hour workshops, which took place at their work location from December 2002 to February 2003. The author introduced the research  Adaptation to Organizational Change 47 project and agenda for the workshop. Participants gave their consent to participate by signing consent forms (see Appendix C) and provided some background demographic information (see Appendix D). The workshops included a 30-minute training module on the critical incident technique, a 75-minute period of describing critical incidents in writing, and a 15-minute group discussion and closing, based on the instructions provided by Chell (1998) and Latham (1981, pp. 48-51). In the training module, the author provided a definition of adaptation to organizational change, described organizational change initiatives that may require adaptation, and discussed examples of adaptive responses. She then provided the directions for writing critical incidents and outlined some guidelines. After participants had the opportunity to ask questions, they were given a time line on which to note changes that had occurred at work over the previous three years. The purpose of the time line was to trigger participants' memories for change events and provide the situations based on which they would describe their adaptive responses. Participants were given 75 minutes in which to describe five critical incidents related to change at work. There were three parts to each critical incident description. First, participants described a situation they encountered involving a change. The description of the situation allowed the researcher to ensure that it involved change and that subsequent responses referred to the change event. In the second part of the critical incident, participants described specifically what responses were made. The responses in the second part were specific, concrete and based on actual experience and observations, rather than impressions about underlying traits or abilities. In the third part, participants described the outcomes of the responses and rated how helpful the response was to them in the situation. The third part provided the basis for inferences about the  Adaptation to Organizational Change 48 effectiveness of the response and the skills needed in its performance. The material provided to participants is given in Appendix E. The author revised the critical incidents to yield usable adaptive responses, following the recommendations of Anderson and Wilson (1997). Responses were revised in order to: place each incident in a standard, readable format; clarify the content by correcting spelling, grammar, and punctuation; ensure a comparable level of detail across incidents; and rephrase or eliminate jargon. Responses were eliminated if they were unrelated to the change event or not reasonably within the control of the participant. The 773 adaptive responses derived from the critical incidents were then further reduced by eliminating redundant responses and grouping similar responses. Several attempts to group similar responses were required to yield the final set of 126 unique adaptive responses. Results  Focus group participants provided 773 responses to 186 situations that involved change at work. These situations are presented by organization in Appendix F. The set of 773 adaptive responses that corresponded to these situations were reduced to a final set of 126 unique adaptive responses. Phase II: The Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Adaptation to Organizational Change Overview  A questionnaire to measure adaptation to organizational change was developed based on the adaptive responses identified in the previous section. The development of the questionnaire involved: (a) pretesting the items to ensure they were meaningful and that the response scale was appropriate, and (b) pilot testing the items to ensure the adequacy of the item properties.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 49 Method Participants  The pretest panel described below involved two managers from Organization A and two managers from Organization B (1 male, 3 females; age: M- 36.75, SD = 12.20). The pilot test involved 15 managers from Organization A (4 male, 9 females; age: M = 38.00, SD = 8). Procedures  The 126 unique adaptive responses from the previous section formed the basis for questionnaire items that were developed to measure adaptation to organizational change. Questionnaire items were written from the adaptive responses using guidelines provided by Sudman and Bradburn (1985). The items were scripted in the first person and written so that: (a) the language would be specific, nonevaluative, and understandable among managers in any North American organization; (b) the items would be short and refer to only one response; and (c) managers would have the information required to respond to each item. Several item stems and response scales were considered. The item stem used in the questionnaire was: "In the past year, to what extent did you engage in the following activities." A frequency-based response scale requires participants to consider how often they engaged in an activity. It was chosen because it requires the participant to give more thought to an item than a Likert response scale. By giving more thought to each item, it was expected that respondents would be more likely to give an accurate response and avoid rating errors such as sociallydesirable responding, leniency errors, extreme responding, and central tendency errors. Pretest. The next step in developing a self-report questionnaire to measure adaptation to organizational change involved pretesting the items. Pretesting items is recommended by Sudman and Bradburn (1982, pp. 122-123) to ensure that items are understandable and  Adaptation to Organizational Change 50 meaningful for a given sample of participants. Four managers who participated in the pretest indicated: (a) how often they thought most managers would have engaged in the activity within the past year, and (b) how items could be reworded to make them understandable and meaningful within the organization. The Pretest Questionnaire is given in Appendix G. The frequency with which most managers would have engaged in each activity was obtained to ensure that the items were placed on a frequency-based response scale that had: (a) scale points that were reasonable for the performance of the activity, and (b) the mean response at the midpoint of the scale. On the basis of the pretest, three response scales with different response frequencies were developed for three sets of items. The lowest frequency response scale included items that could reasonably be performed only infrequently, for example, "discussed my career aspirations with my boss."  For these items, the response scale ranged from I or 2 times in the past year to once a month. The medium frequency response scale included items that could be performed somewhat more frequently, for example, "identified the skills I needed to develop next." The response scale for these items ranged from / or 2 times in the past year to once a week. The highest frequency response scale included the items that could be performed most often, for example, "took the time to reflect on what I had accomplished recently." The highest frequency response scale ranged from 2 or 3 times in the past year to 2 or 3 times a week. Pilot test. Before obtaining the final version of the questionnaire, the 126 items were  pilot tested with a sample of 15 managers. These managers were invited to complete the questionnaire by the Director of HR in Organization A. The pilot questionnaire was provided online and managers accessed the site and provided their responses using a website address and password.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 51 Results  A final version of the questionnaire to measure adaptation to organizational change was developed based on the results of the pilot test. Several items were moved from one response scale to another and seven items were discarded because their means were extreme. The final 119 items of the developmental version of the questionnaire are given in Appendix H. These items are presented along with the item stem and the response scale for each set of items. Phase III: The Structure of Adaptation to Organizational Change and the Development of Adaptation Scales Overview  Data from 553 incumbent managers were collected on the questionnaire developed in the previous section. The structure of adaptation to organizational change was identified by: (a) a common-factor analysis, (b) consultation from experts to label and describe the factors, and (c) a second-order factor analysis. The development of adaptation scales was achieved by reducing the number of items and identifying the items belonging to each scale. Method Participants  Participation by managers from the four organizations described previously, was solicited by e-mail by the Vice President or Director of HR. Participants were asked to complete a 30minute online confidential and anonymous questionnaire in return for: (a) the opportunity to win one of eight prizes, (b) an individual feedback report describing the extent to which they use different approaches to adapting to change relative to other managers, and (c) the opportunity to participate in a professional development workshop on adapting to change at work. The prizes  Adaptation to Organizational Change 52 offered included two $50 gift certificates to a local restaurant, one prize of two tickets to a wine tasting, one $50 gift certificate to a bookstore, one prize of four tickets to an improvisational theatre production, one gift certificate for a massage and spa treatment, and one prize of two tickets to a movie cinema. In total, 2,554 managers were invited to complete the questionnaire. Recruitment by organization was as follows: 1,500 managers from Organization A were invited to participate of which 20% responded, 560 managers from Organization B of which 25% responded, 454 managers from Organization C of which 27% responded, and 40 managers from Organization D of which 43% responded. The somewhat low response rate may be accounted for by the lack of time that managers described having following their organizational change. In total, 583 managers, directors, and executives completed the questionnaire. Participation rates for each company, broken down by gender were as follows: (a) 156 men and 144 women from Organization A, (b) 37 men and 105 women from Organization B, (c) 30 men and 94 women from Organization C, and (d) 5 men and 12 women from Organization D. The relatively higher proportions of women than men in Organizations B, C, and D resulted from their workforces being predominantly female. Data were collected from February to May of 2003. Participation involved completing a questionnaire online during work hours. The invitation sent to managers by e-mail included a link to the online questionnaire and password to access the site. To participate in the questionnaire, participants were required to give their consent by clicking on a link on the website after reading a description of the project and its requirements. Participants were not required to provide their names to participate.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 53 Procedures  The analyses performed included two primary and related objectives: (a) the identification of the structure of adaptation to organizational change, and (b) the development of scales of items to measure different ways of adapting to change at work. The first objective was achieved by a factor analysis of the data collected on the 119-item questionnaire. The second objective was met by identifying and retaining items within each factor that demonstrated desirable psychometric characteristics. Structural analysis. Structural analysis required complete data for participants on all 119  items of the questionnaire. Twenty four participants who were missing data on five or more items were excluded from subsequent analyses. In the remaining data set, missing data were replaced with the predicted values from the multiple regression of the missing response on all other items. Two participants with less than one year of work experience with the organization were also excluded from subsequent analyses. Since the response scale for questionnaire items included frequencies in the past year, it was decided that participants with less than one year of experience with the organization would have incomplete information on which to base their responses. The final data set to be analyzed included responses from 553 managers as follows: (a) 277 managers (147 males, 130 females) from Organization A, (b) 141 managers (36 males, 105 females) from Organization B, (c) 119 managers (27 males, 92 females) from organization C, and (d) 16 managers (4 males, 12 females) from Organization D. The mean age among participants was 44.31 years (SD = 8.68). The mean length of employment among candidates with their current employer was 12.82 years (SD = 9.36). Participants described themselves as belonging to one of eight racial groups. There were 476 Caucasian, 48 Asian, 4 Middle Eastern,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 54 5 Indo/Pakistani, 3 Aboriginal/First Nations, 1 South/Central American, 6 African, and 3 Caribbean managers. In order to pool the data from four organizations and the two genders, the scores were mean-deviated within each organization and gender group, in order to eliminate the possibility of between-groups correlation. The first step in the structural analysis was to identify the correct number of factors to extract, which involved three different analyses. First, scores on the items were subjected to a principal component analysis in order to obtain the eigenvalues needed for making a decision on the number of factors to be retained using a scree test and the KaiserGuttman rule of retaining as many factors as the number of eigenvalues of R greater than one. The second approach was to perform a likelihood ratio significance test to identify the optimal number of common factors to extract. A third set of analyses to identify the correct number of factors was performed. Two randomly-selected subsets of the data were prepared. The common-factor solutions with 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 factors extracted were obtained by the unweighted least squares (MINRES) method, and transformed to oblique simple-structure by the HarrisKaiser procedure (Harris & Kaiser, 1964; Hakstian & Abell, 1974) for each of the subsets separately. The final solution was chosen on the basis of the similarity between the two factor pattern matrices and the interpretability of the factors from the two subsets of data. The similarity between factor pattern matrices was examined by computing congruence coefficients (Tucker, 1951) between the corresponding factors in the two subsets of data. After the number-of-factors issue had been resolved, the component in the Harris-Kaiser procedure (1964) that controls the degree of interfactor correlation (see Hakstian & Abell, 1974) was varied until an optimal factor pattern matrix was achieved. An optimal pattern matrix is one that best exemplifies Thurstone's (1947) definition of simple structure, in which there is minimal  Adaptation to Organizational Change 55 factorial complexity, maximal hyperplanar values (0±.10), and relatively low interfactor correlations. Separate factor analyses for different subgroups were carried out to provide justification for pooling data from different gender groups and types of organizations (public sector versus private sector). Within each subgroup, five common factors were extracted using unweighted least squares estimation and transformed to oblique simple structure by the Harris-Kaiser procedure. To provide evidence to justify pooling data from men and women, the two factor pattern matrices were compared. To provide evidence to justify pooling data from public sector organizations (Organizations B, C, & D) and private sector organizations (Organization A), the two factor pattern matrices were compared. The factor pattern matrices were compared by examining the congruence coefficients and comparing the interpretation of the factors in each subgroup separately. The full set of items was reduced in order to obtain a set with less redundancy among the items and lower interfactor correlations. Items were chosen for the smaller set on the basis of having (a) salient loadings on a factor, and (b) desirable psychometric properties. A series of steps were taken in choosing items for each factor. Items were eliminated if they did not have a salient loading on any factor. Factorially-complex items were identified and retained on the factor where they had the highest loading and made the most conceptual sense. Item-scale correlations were considered to maximize internal consistency of the scale. Finally, items were examined for conceptual clarity and considered for elimination if they appeared to be inconsistent with the underlying theme among the items. A factor analysis of the reduced set of items was performed to ensure that these items produced the same factor solution. A factor analysis of the reduced set of items was also carried  Adaptation to Organizational Change 56 out in separate groups to check that the factor solutions were the same for men and women, and in different types of organizations (public and private sectors). Congruence coefficients between the pattern matrices of (a) men and women, and (b) public and private organizations were computed to examine the similarity of the solutions.  Conceptualization of the factor structure. A panel of eight subject matter experts assisted  in labelling and describing the five factors that resulted from the factor solution. The panel included faculty members in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Personality Psychology, Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources, and Psychiatry, as well as senior doctoral students in Social Psychology, Clinical Psychology, and Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources. These panel members were chosen because of their breadth of expertise and knowledge of organizational phenomena. Each panel member was presented with the list of items for each factor having salient factor pattern coefficients, in descending order of magnitude. They were asked to provide a label for the factor and a short description of the label. Second order factor analysis. A second-order factor analysis was undertaken. The 5x5  interfactor correlation matrix from the reduced set of items was subjected to a principal components analysis to obtain the eigenvalues. The eigenvalues were used to make a decision about the number of factors to retain. An unweighted least squares common-factor analysis was then performed with 2 and 3 factors extracted and rotated to oblique simple structure with a Harris-Kaiser transformation. Scale development. Once the factor structure of the questionnaire items was established,  a series of analyses was performed to identify a subset of psychometrically-sound items to measure each factor. The objective was to identify and obtain a smaller set of items to use to  Adaptation to Organizational Change 57 measure adaptation to organizational change. Items were eliminated on the basis of having less salient loadings than other items for the scale, poor contribution to the internal consistency of the scale, and strong relationships with items belonging to other scales. The psychometric properties of the scales were examined. Scales were computed by summing the scores for the reduced set of items associated with each factor. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were computed to measure the internal consistency of each scale. The internal consistency estimates of each scale for men and women were compared. Correlations between the scales derived from a smaller number of items, on the one hand, and the true factor scores from the factor analysis of the larger set of items, on the other, were calculated to ensure that the scales adequately represented the derived factor structure. Normative data were provided for men, women, and a pooled-gender sample. Differences in demographic variables on the five scales were examined. Differences in age on the five scales were examined by means of correlational analyses. A 2 x 3 MANOVA with gender and age was performed to identify an interaction between gender and age. In this analysis age was trichotomized by creating three equal-sized groups of managers who ranged in age from 18 to 41 (young), 42 to 48 (middle aged), and 49 to 66 (old). Equal proportions of men and women were created within each age group by deleting 31 cases at random from the young male group, middle aged female group, and old female group. Differences in length of employment with the organization for each scale were examined with correlational analyses. Differences on the five scales by organization type (public sector versus private sector) were examined with a Hotelling's T analysis. The main effects and interaction between gender and 2  racial groups were examined with a 2 x 2 MANOVA on the five adaptation scales. Equal  Adaptation to Organizational Change 58 proportions of Caucasian and Asians were created for each gender group by deleting 122 cases at random from the group of female Caucasians. Results The Factor Solution  Several pieces of information were considered to select the number of factors to retain in the factor solution. Cattell's (1966) scree test of the data on all 119 items was inconclusive, indicating 5, 6 and 8 factors. The Kaiser-Guttman rule indicated 27 factors. A maximumlikelihood solution was not possible because the correlation matrix could not be inverted, and so a likelihood ratio significance test could not be conducted to examine the optimal number of common factors to extract. The number of factors retained in the factor solution was chosen on the basis of the third set of analyses described in the Method section. For each of two randomly-selected subsets of data, common-factor solutions for 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 factors were obtained by unweighted least squares estimation, and each was rotated with a Harris-Kaiser transformation. The primaryfactor pattern matrices for each solution in the two subsets were compared by means of congruence coefficients. These values are reported in Appendix I. The five-factor solution was the only solution where all congruence coefficients exceeded .80. The mean congruence coefficient in this solution was .87. Although there are no definitive rules to guide the interpretation of congruence coefficients, some general guidelines exist. Harman (1976) suggested that congruence coefficients in the range of .86 to .98 indicate good congruence. Hakstian and Vandenberg (1979) characterized a high congruence as falling within the range of .77 to .95. In addition to coefficients in the five-factor solution indicating good congruence, each of the five factors was meaningful, homogenous, and distinct from the other factors. In the four-  Adaptation to Organizational Change 59 factor solution, on the other hand, there was confusion between the third factor in one subset of the data and the first and fourth factors in the other. Additionally, the four-factor solution showed confusion between the fourth factor in the one subset and the third and fourth factors in the other. With more than five factors in the solution, meaningful factors were split apart into less interpretable ones suggesting factor fission. These results indicated that the optimal number of factors underlying the data on the questionnaire items was five. The degree of interfactor correlation in the Harris-Kaiser transformation was varied to achieve the solution that best epitomized simple structure. To vary the degree of interfactor correlation, three degrees of obliquity in the Harris-Kaiser transformation of five common factors were used (c = 0, .25, .50). The solution with c = .50 was optimal in the sense that it had the lowest mean interfactor correlation (r = .23), most hyperplanar values (265), and fewer factorially-complex items (19) among the three different solutions. To provide evidence for the justification of pooling data by gender groups and by organization, the pattern matrices for these subgroups were compared. The five-factor solution appeared to be the optimal solution for men and women taken separately, as indicated by the largest congruence coefficients of any solution (M = .87). The interpretation of the five factors was the same in both gender groups. The five-factor solution was also the optimal solution for public and private sector organizations. The congruence coefficients for the five-factor solution were the largest among the solutions, with a mean of .86. The interpretation of these factors was the same, and identical to the factors derived from the full sample. The final five-factor solution with Harris-Kaiser transformation was chosen as the optimal solution. The factor pattern and primary-factor intercorrelation matrices for the initial set of 119 items appear in Appendix J. The mean item communality estimate was .34. The  Adaptation to Organizational Change 60 optimal resolution occurred with a moderate degree of obliquity. Among the 119 questionnaire items, 14 items failed to load on any of the five factors. All inter-factor correlations were positive, ranging between .16 and .39, with a mean of .23. The full set of 119 items was then reduced. The factor loadings of each item on five factors were examined. Factorially-complex items were assigned to the factor for which they had the highest loading, and/or for which they were conceptually most related. An item with a salient loading that seemed to represent the core theme of the factor on which it loaded was retained. Each item was also examined with respect to its item-total correlation, with a high value indicating a desirable item because of its contribution to scale reliability. Finally, the meaning of each item was considered. Items were retained for the final scale from a conceptual perspective if they represented the core theme of the factor and were not redundant with other items on the scale. On the basis of these criteria, 75 items were retained. A common-factor analysis of the 75-item version was performed using the same techniques described in the Method section for the original factor solution. The factor pattern and primary-factor intercorrelation matrices for the set of 75 items appear in Table 3.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 61 Table 3  Primary Common-Factor Pattern Matrix for the 75-Item Adaptation to Organizational Chan Inventory and the Related Primary-Factor Intercorrelation Matrix  Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  1 .62 .58 .61 .53 .59 .55 .59 .49 .55 .40 .46 .51 .46 .33 .35 .40 .37 .34  -.23 .10 .12 .02 -.05 .32 .11 .01 .03 .13 .06 -.16 .27 -.04 -.07 .09 .25 .29 .18 .20 .02  2 -.11 .12 -.08 .09 .04 .04 .18 .05 .08 -.01 -.23 -.02 .07 .17 -.22 .14 .05 .07 .60 .56 .57 .54 .56 .50 .50 .52 .53 .46 .42 .45 .42 .43 .41 .39 .38 .31  -.11 -.07 .13  Primary factor 3 .06 -.03 .16 .02 .02 -.03 .00 .12 .02 -.13 .05 .00 .08 .14 .03 .07 -.03 .16 -.02 -.03 .00 -.01 .27 -.01 .19 -.08 -.01 -.01 .06 -.04 -.03 .30 -.01 .15 .11 .01 .58 .53 .49  4  .07 .18 .03 .12 .18 .25 .04 .13 .14 .30 .26 .06 -.08 .01 .12 .05 -.03 .01 .10 -.01 .10 .12 .00 -.04 -.04 -.03 -.03 .08 .09 .10 .17 .06 .20 .00 .01 -.11 .04 .14 .09  5 .06 .07 .05 .02 .02 .01 -.05 .01 -.03 .19 .08 .05 .16 .04 .17 .08 .03 .10 .10 .07 -.08 .02 -.22 .10 -.14 .15 .06 -.09 .19 .20 -.07 -.17 .05 . -.17 -.13 .13 .12 .06 .07  h Al  2  .52 .47 .39 .49 .47 .42 .38 .40 .40 .43 .31 .29 .21 .26 .27 .14 .23 .39 .34 .39 .33 .44 .40 .34 .27 .28 .26 .29 .25 .35 .32 .23 .22 .27 .22 .49 .47 .35  Adaptation to Organizational Change 62 Table 3 (Cont'd)  Primary Common-Factor Pattern Matrix for the 75-Item Adaptation to Organizational Cha Inventory and the Related Primary-Factor Intercorrelation Matrix  Item 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  1 .00 -.06 .26 -.01 .24 .03 .02 .28 -.07 .48 .16 .08 .14 .04 .03 .25 .14 .16 .14 .06 -.08 .21 .07 .03 .07 .03 .11 .08 .15 .18 .04 .06 .14 .14 .35 .01  2 .08 .38 -.02 .20 -.06 -.12 -.11 -.02 .30 .02 -.06 .08 .12 .02 .25 .05 .01 -.02 .32 .22 .06 .17 .00 .05 .09 .02 .05 .06 -.10 .06 .12 -.13 -.01 -.05 -.02 -.03  Primary factor 3 .45 .51 .42 .49 .42 .40 .35 .33 .39 .29 .32  .09 .02 .08 .03 .06 .17 .02 -.10 .12 .05 -.18 .27.12 -.02 .00 .05 .14 .10 .05 .09 .19 .12 .02 .07 .10  4 .10 -.08 .16 -.12 .27 .03 .15 .15 -.02 -.06 .35 .54 .54 .46 .41 .46 .45 .46 .34 .30 .35 .38 .35  -.12 -.19 -.07 .27 .08 .12 .22 .19 .05 .25 .19 -.29 .30  5 .16 -.03 .06 .03 .07 .25 .23 .02 -.03 .08 .12 .01 .10 -.08 -.10 .04 .09 .10 .12 .00 .35 .18 .20 .54 .58 .55 .48 .50 .45 .41 .33 .31 .32 .30 .33 .24  ti  .33 .42 .41 .29 .49 .28 .28 .31 .26 .40 .42 .39 .47 .24 .28 .41 .40 .34 .34 .23 .32 .35 .38 .32 .33 .29 .47 .38 .37 .40 .26 .20 .34 .23 .27 .22  Adaptation to Organizational Change 63 Table 3 (Cont'd)  Primary Common-Factor Pattern Matrix for the 75-Item Adaptation to Organizational Cha Inventory and the Related Primary-Factor Intercorrelation Matrix  1 2 3 4 5  1 1.00 .13 .27 .38 .27  Primary factor intercorrelations 2 3 4 1.00 .15 .17 .02  1.00 .25 .24  1.00 .27  5  1.00  Adaptation to Organizational Change 64 Common factor solutions for 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 factors were obtained in each of two randomly-selected subsets of data by unweighted least squares estimation, and rotated with a Harris-Kaiser transformation. The same common factor analyses for 4, 5, 6,7, and 8 factors were carried out in different gender groups and types of organizations (public sector versus private sector). The primary-factor pattern matrices for each solution in the pair of subgroups (i.e., random subsets, men and women, and public and private sector organizations) were compared. The congruence coefficients appear in Table 4. The five-factor solution was the only one in which all congruence coefficients met or exceeded .80. The mean congruence coefficients were .89 between the random subsets, .88 between the gender groups, and .89 between the public and private organizations. The item content of the five factors in the 75-item version was compared with the item content of the same factors in the 119-item version and was found to yield the same factor interpretation.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 65 Table 4  Congruence Coefficients Among the Pattern Matrices of Two Randomly-Selected Subsets, M and Women, and Public and Private Organizations with 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Factors with H Kaiser Transformation  Factors Solution 1 2 3 4 5 4-Factor Solution Random Subsets .90 .92 .66 .66 Gender Groups .93 .93 .85 .90 Type of Organization .90 .96 .85 .91 5-Factor Solution Random Subsets .95 .95 .88 .80 .89 Gender Groups .93 .93 .84 .87 .85 Type of Organization .91 95 .94 .84 .82 6-Factor Solution Random Subsets .93 .87 .89 .67 .71 Gender Groups .93 .94 .83 .67 .75 Type of Organization .82 .91 .92 .77 .64 7-Factor Solution Random Subsets .91 .86 .87 .71 .70 Gender Groups .94 -81 .59 .74 .70 Type of Organization .74 .91 .92 .77 .28 8-Factor Solution Random Subsets .91 .69 .68 .66 .52 Gender Groups .91 .75 .74 .67 .73 Type of Organization .77 .80 .88 .79 .62 Two randomly-selected groups of participants Males and females Participants working in public and private sector organizations  6  7  8  a  b  0  a  b c  .33 .77 .21 .63 .76 .53  .75 .80 .73  .09 .74 .49  .73 .79 .61  .77 .41 .04  Adaptation to Organizational Change 66  The five-factor solution yielded the most similar factor pattern matrices among different groups of participants. It was the only solution in which all of the congruence coefficients for the different pairs of groups were above .80. The mean congruence coefficient for the five-factor solution in different groups was .89 for the randomly selected subsets, .88 for the gender groups, and .89 for the organizational types (public and private sector). Between the gender groups, the items loadings on each factor were salient in both groups with few exceptions. In both gender groups, 17 of 18 first factor items were salient, 16 of 18 second factor items were salient, 9 of 14 third factor items were salient (with all nine being the highest loading items for the factor overall), 11 of 12 fourth factor items were salient, and 7 of 13 fifth factor items were salient (with the six highest-loading items salient for both gender groups). On this basis, it was determined that the meaning of the first-order factors was the same for both men and women. Interpretation of the First-Order Factor Structure  The factor labels and descriptions provided by the panel members were pooled and common themes identified for each factor. The information provided by panel members, along with the author's interpretation of the factors, was used to identify factor labels and factor descriptions. Table 5 presents the label for each factor, the different labels provided by panel members, a description of the factor, and representative items. The labels are described below.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 67  e o  % o  Q  © So  a e fa cc U  Adaptation to Organizational Change 68  Adaptation to Organizational Change 69 Supporting Change. Five interrelated themes run through the factor. The first theme is  represented by items that refer to taking a positive approach to change by emphasizing positive aspects of change, thinking about the benefits to the organization and oneself from the change, trusting those responsible for the change, and remaining composed. The second theme involves making sense of change, which includes gaining information about the change, thinking about what is in the best interests of the organization, and understanding and accepting the reasons for the change. Making sense of change is a necessary condition for supporting the change because it involves aligning one's perceptions of work and the organization with the direction the organization is taking through its changes. Solving problems related to change is a third theme among the items. It involves solving problems that arise from change, removing obstacles to change, and finding alternate ways and means to achieve the organization's objects. The fourth theme is promoting the change to others, which involves speaking positively about the change, and promoting the change to colleagues and clients. The fifth theme running through the items represents keeping oneself and others focused on work that supports change. Focusing on work involves supporting others in making change happen and setting objectives related to changes. Employees who focus on work support change by taking action in the service of a change, and by keeping themselves and others from ruminating about change or engaging in counterproductive behaviours. It is important to note that the adaptive responses that constitute Supporting Change primarily involve cognitions. They include thoughts about change, making plans, positively appraising information, and solving problems. These cognitions focus largely on the change itself and the factors that may influence the success of the change.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 70 Resisting Change. The activities described in the second factor represent a set of  activities that relate to resisting change. Activities such as avoiding work, distancing oneself from change and the organization, and disaffection may represent a means of protecting oneself from the perceived negative consequences of change. A more active form of resistance involves criticizing and debating changes. The passive and active forms of resistance do not suggest that change has been poorly understood or misunderstood, but rather that the change is perceived as a threat or a potential loss. Most of the items that represent Resisting Change deal with negative perceptions of change and with distress. The focus of many activities in the factor is the negative emotions that result from one's experience of change. Items that represent these negative perceptions and subsequent distress include rumination about change, criticism of change, and worrying about change. A theme underlying Resisting Change is a lack of commitment to the organization. This lack of commitment is expressed in terms of thinking about leaving the organization, detaching oneself from the organization, and emphasizing how much better the organization used to be before changing. Career Development. Three themes run through the items representing Career Development. Managers who engaged in these activities were planning and developing their own skills in anticipation of what would be required of them as a result of a change. These activities related to increasing their value to the organization and ensuring their competent performance at work. The second theme among the items involves professionally benefiting from the change. Several activities related to looking for opportunities arising from a change to gain experience or skills that would further one's own career development. The third theme  Adaptation to Organizational Change 71 among the items is one of identifying career goals and actively pursuing them. The focus on career development in the third theme involves taking advantage of opportunities created by the change and looking for new opportunities. Some of the new opportunities exist outside the organization. Initiating Effort. There are two themes underlying the factor labelled Initiating Effort.  These themes are (a) taking on extra work, and (b) demonstrating flexibility. Items that represent taking on extra work refer to working longer hours, working to the point of being exhausted, and taking on someone else's work. In addition, there is a theme of flexibility underlying these items. Effort is taken in the context of making new decisions, bending the rules, and shifting priorities at work. Initiating Effort is similar in some ways to Supporting Change in that both are activities that serve the achievement of change objectives and organizational goals. Initiating Effort, however, is primarily behavioural and active, whereas Supporting Change is primarily cognitive. Building Social Capital. The relational imperative of organizational life is captured in  the factor, Building Social Capital. The items that represent Building Social Capital refer to (a) building and maintaining social relationships at work, and (b) using these relationships to increase one's own influence in the organization. The term capital was chosen to highlight the value of social networks during change in organizations. High scorers would be expected to be effective not only in building relationships with colleagues, but also in using these relationships to exert greater influence within the organization. Second Order Factor Analysis  In the second-order factor analysis, the number of factors chosen was based on several analyses. The Kaiser-Guttman number of eigenvalues greater than unity rule suggested one  Adaptation to Organizational Change 72 factor, although the second eigenvalue was very close to one (eigenvalues of R: 1.91, .99, .78, .71, .62). The scree plot of eigenvalues suggested two factors. The likelihood ratio test indicated one factor, %(5) = .11, p > .05. The results of these tests were inconclusive, although a 2  single-factor solution seemed to be indicated. A common-factor analysis using unweighted least squares estimation and Harris-Kaiser transformation (c = .50) was used to obtain the primary factor pattern matrices for one, two and three factors. In making a decision on the number of second-order factors, factorial complexity and the meaning of the second-order factors were considered. In the three-factor solution, Building Social Capital had salient loadings on all three factors. This factorial complexity was an obstacle to factor interpretation and to the development of second-order scale construction, in that the complex factor would be included in all three scales. In the two-factor solution, Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital loaded on one factor and Resisting Change loaded on the other. The two-factor solution had no factorial complexity. It was decided that the two-factor solution yielded the most interpretable and interesting results for the data. The primary-factor pattern matrix for the two-factor second-order structure is presented in Table 6.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 73 Table 6 Second-Order Factor Pattern Matrix for the Five First-Order Factors  First-Order Factor 1  2 3 4 5  Factor I II .60  .06  .44 .58 .49  .04 .99  .08 .07 -.06  Adaptation to Organizational Change 74 Interpretation of the Second-Order Factor Structure  The two second-order factors can be distinguished on the basis of their focus for adaptation. These two factors were conceptualized by the author in consultation with two Professors working in the areas of Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Clinical Psychology. The first second-order factor, which includes Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital, refers to attempts to manage the source of new demands arising from organizational change. These adaptive responses include problem solving, supporting change, developing new skills, pursuing career goals, taking on extra work, demonstrating initiative, and building social relationships. On this basis, it was labelled, Solving the Problems of Organizational Change. On the other hand, the second second-order factor, comprising only Resisting Change, refers to attempts to manage one's internal experience, given that change has happened. These adaptive responses include distancing oneself from change, worrying about a change, criticizing the change, and thinking about leaving one's job. This factor was labelled, Managing the Experience of Organizational Change. While Managing the Experience of Organizational Change consists of only one first-  order factor, it is a meaningful second-order factor because it can be meaningfully distinguished from Solving the Problems of Organizational Change on the basis of being emotion-focused, rather than problem-focused. The second-order factor analysis draws out the distinction between Resisting Change and the other first-order factors in a way that the first-order factor analysis did not. Development of Scales Based on the Factors  A further refinement of the 75-item version was warranted on the basis of further reducing the number of questionnaire items and reducing the interscale correlations. The goal  Adaptation to Organizational Change 75 was to develop scales of items to represent the underlying factors. While the factor scores were derived from an optimal weighting of all the items, the scale scores were derived by summing the items associated with a given scale. The interscale correlations in the 75-item version ranged from .38 to .64 and it was felt that these correlations could be further reduced. Five items were identified and eliminated because they were found (a) to have less salient loadings on their respective factors than other items, (b) not to contribute as well to the internal consistency of the scale as other items, and (c) to be strongly related to scores on other factors. The final set of scales comprised 70 items. The means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients of the scales comprising the 70-item version of the questionnaire are presented in Table 7 separately by gender. The alpha coefficients ranged from .79 to .90, with a mean of .85. The mean alpha coefficients for pooled gender groups, weighted by sample size, were .89 for scale 1, .85 for scale 2, .85 for scale 3^ and .83 for scale 4. Using a significance test developed for testing the difference between independent alpha coefficients (Hakstian & Whalen, 1976), a statistically-significant difference was found between the alpha reliability estimates for men (amaie  = .85) and women  (af  e m a  ie  = .79) on scale 5, %(1) = 6.79, p < .01. 2  Adaptation to Organizational Change 76  00  in 00  00  ro 00  CN  0  s  s^ o Q  in  r-  OS  Vi  C C  so  —1  o os  OS  in co ro  Os  ro  in ro  OS  in 00  00  ro 00  OS  00  CN  00  OS  CN  so  CN  J3  .fi  OS  s  r-  c S  g  Q 00  o  OS  >n  ro  Os  00  SO  T-H  s  00  ro  ro  O Os  SO  00  in 00  •«t 00  SO  O o o  Os  •<*  •tf  SO  in ro  ro  >  ""I  CM  a  Tiro ro  SO  Os  OS  Os  00 r~  CN  OS  T-H  ro  CN  I o  CS  « -5 x> °-  to  o ll <  03  in 00  U  c  •2  a  t  a  Q  —1  Vi  in CN  00  •s 00 00 T-H  I a,  SO  T-H  O  Os  O © ro  .0  s  o  u  00  cN  SO  o o (Zl  CN  ro  Adaptation to Organizational Change 77 The 75-item version was then compared with the 70-item scale version to ensure that the shorter version did not depart to a great extent from the 75-item version. Optimally-weighted true factor scores (based on all 75 items) from the 75-item version were compared with unitweighted scale scores (based on the smaller number of items rated) on the 70-item version to ensure that the scales accurately represented the corresponding underlying/actors. The factorscale correlations are presented in Table 8. The factor-scale correlations ranged from .93 to .97, with a mean of .95. An element by element comparison of the factor-scale correlations by gender group showed that not one of the correlations was significantly different between genders, providing further justification for pooling gender groups. Given the high degree of similarity in the factor structure and psychometric characteristics between the 75- and the 70item versions, the decision was made to create scales based on 70 items. Differences in scale scores on the basis of age, gender, length of employment with the organization, organization type (public sector or private sector), and racial group are described next.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 78 Table 8 Correlations Between the 75-Item Factor Scores and 70-Item Scale Scores  75-Item Factor Scores 1 2 3 4 5  70-item Scale Scores 1 .97 .20 .39 .58 .42  2 .29 .96 .31 .32 .07  3 .50 .24 .94 .51 .45  4 .55 .37 .39 .93 .39  5 .48 .11 .44 .53 .93  Adaptation to Organizational Change 79 Comparative Analysis Using the Five Scales  Age. On the basis of correlations between age and scale scores, it was found that among both males and females, older managers were less likely to adapt to change by means of Career Development (males: r = -.39, p < .001; females: r = -.20, p < .001). Among males only, older managers were less likely to adapt to change by means of Building Social Capital, r = -.24, p < .01). Differences in age on the five adaptation scales were also examined by means of a 2x3 MANOVA with gender and age to identify any interaction. The assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices among the groups was met, F(75,344772) = .94, p > .50. The MANOVA confirmed that the three age groups (recall that age had been trichotomized) had different scores on the five adaptation scales, F(10,1018) = 8.21, p < .001. Differences among age groups on the five scales were examined with ANOVA procedures. Given the number of analyses performed, Type I error rate was a concern. The probability of committing a Type I error per hypothesis test was set to p = .01 (nondirectional). The only differences occurred in Career Development, where the highest scores were obtained by the young managers (M = 37.63, SD = 8.02), followed by the middle-aged managers (M = 34.72, SD = 7.09), with old managers having the lowest scores (M = 32.79, SD = 7.31). This result replicated the correlational result and confirmed that the effect of age was linear. Differences in age did not interact with gender groups, F(10,1018) = 1.09, p > .10. Gender. The MANOVA with age and gender also identified differences between males  and females on the five adaptation scales, F(5,509) = 4.32, p < .01. In univariate follow-up ANOVAs, with a conservative alpha level of .01, the only difference between gender groups occurred in Initiating Effort where males had higher scores (M = 34.57, SD = 7.52) than females (M = 32.82, SD = 7.22).  Adaptation to Organizational Change 80 Length of employment. Differences on the five adaptation scales among managers with  different years of experience were examined with correlational analyses. Managers with more experience with the organization were less likely to adapt to change by engaging in Career Development (r i = -.20, p < .01; r ma es  fenmles  = -.17, p < .01).  Public and private sector organizations. A Hotelling's T analysis revealed differences 2  between managers in public and private sector organizations on the five adaptation scales, F(5,547) = 7.69, p < .001. The assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices did not need to be tested because the sample sizes were equal. Using the conservative alpha level of .01, the only adaptation scale on which managers in these two groups differed was in Career Development. Managers in the private sector organization were more likely to adapt by engaging in Career Development (M = 35.97, SD = 7.94) than managers in public sector organizations (M = 34.10, SD = 7.39). Race. Differences between Caucasian and Asian managers on the five adaptation scales,  and the interaction of gender and racial group were examined with a 2 x 2 MANOVA. The assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was met, F(45,17101) = .725, p > .50. Caucasians and Asians differed on the five adaptation scales, F(5,394) = 4.25, p < .01. There was no interaction between gender, and racial group, F(5,394) = 1.22, p > .10. In comparing the differences between Caucasians and Asians on the five scales with a conservative level of alpha of .01, two of the scales were very close to statistical significance with probability values of .01. To avoid the possibility of Type II errors, these two results were regarded as statistically significant. Caucasian managers had higher scores than Asian managers on Supporting Change (Caucasians: M = 63.24, SD = 11.30; Asians: M = 58.94, SD = 11.48),  Adaptation to Organizational Change 81 Initiating Effort (Caucasians: M = 33.77, SD = 7.453; Asians: M = 31.27, SD = 6.91), and Building Social Capital (Caucasians: M = 30.35, SD = 7.40; Asians: M = 25.60, SD = 6.74). Discussion The structure of adaptation to organizational change was identified in this study. The dimensions of adaptation to organizational change will now be discussed with respect to the existing research literature. This discussion is intended to (a) further explore the meaning of adaptation to organizational change, and (b) place the results in the context of research in psychology and organizational behaviour. The meaning of the first order factors will be discussed next, followed by a discussion of the second order factors. Finally, the structure of adaptation to organizational change will be compared to the only other empirically-derived structure of adaptation to change at work. The implications and limitations of these results will be described in the General Discussion that follows the three studies in this thesis. The Structure of Adaptation to Organizational Change First-Order Factors Supporting Change. Supporting Change consists of making positive appraisals of  change, making sense of change, solving problems related to change, and keeping oneself and others focused on work that supports change. These themes are described below. Adaptive efforts that refer to making sense of change include activities described in the following questionnaire items: "thinking about processes that did not work well before a change" and "thinking about what is in the best interest of the organization." In the tasks of adaptation described by Ashford and Taylor (1990), sensemaking involves the recognition that adaptation is required, interpretation of information about work situations, and feedback to reduce errors. The purpose of making sense of change is to reduce uncertainty in the face of change (Ashford &  Adaptation to Organizational Change 82 Taylor, 1990; Louis, 1982). Uncertainty following large-scale organizational changes can arise from new and ill-defined problems (Chan, 2000a). Several adaptive activities that represent Supporting Change are related to coping. Coping is defined as a person's constantly changing efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the person's resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The two major functions of coping are to regulate stressful emotions (emotionfocused coping) and to alter the source of the distress (problem-focused coping; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Planful problem-solving is a dimension of problem-focused coping that refers to deliberate attempts to alter the situation, coupled with an analytic approach to solving the problem (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). Adaptation that reflects planful problem-solving includes the activities described in the following questionnaire items: "making a suggestion to one's team to solve a problem related to a change," "finding a way to solve a problem that resulted from change," "preventing an obstacle from interfering with a change," "finding a new way to obtain information and resources," and "taking part in designing or implementing a change." Folkman et al. (1986) found that problem-focused coping, such as planful problem-solving, is used more often in situations that are appraised as changeable, rather than having to be accepted. In organizations, large-scale organizational changes are rarely single episodes, but rather a series of related changes. Within the set of related changes, there are many opportunities to influence the outcome of a change. When these situations are perceived as changeable, problem solving is likely to occur. Positive reappraisal is a dimension of emotion-focused coping that refers to efforts to create positive meaning by focusing on personal growth (Folkman et al., 1986). Items that describe adaptive activities within Supporting Change that represent positive appraisal include:  Adaptation to Organizational Change 83 "keeping focused on new possibilities, rather than on what might have been," "thinking about the processes occurring before the change that did not work well," and "thinking that a change is in the best interest of the organization." Like planful problem-solving, positive reappraisal is used more often in situations that are seen as changeable (Folkman et al.). A strong positive relationship between problem-focused coping and positive reappraisal has been previously established (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), and Folkman et al. have suggested that positive reappraisal may facilitate problem-focused forms of coping. Self-control is a dimension of emotion-focused coping that describes efforts to regulate one's own feelings and actions (Folkman et al., 1986). "Remaining composed in front of others during a difficult situation," "keeping separate one's thoughts about the impact of a change on the organization from concerns about the personal impact of change," and "keeping focussed on the client, rather than thinking about a change" are questionnaire items within Supporting Change that describe activities that reflect self-control. Folkman et al. found that situations that involved delaying or inhibiting action were associated with efforts to demonstrate self-control. These authors suggested that in situations where more information is required, self-control facilitates problem-focused coping. Many of the demands that arise from large-scale organizational change cannot be dealt with immediately. Resolution of these demands may require more information, assistance from other people, and influence over other people within the organization. In these situations where the demands cannot be met immediately, self-control may contribute to planful problem-solving. Planful problem solving, positive reappraisal, and self-control are all aspects of Supporting Change. The problem-solving aspect of the dimension suggests that employees who engage in Supporting Change see situations related to large-scale organizational change as  Adaptation to Organizational Change 84 changeable. Given the problem-focused aspect of this dimension, employees who engage in Supporting Change are more likely to focus their efforts on influencing the source of the demands that arise from organizational change. Resisting Change. Resisting Change is a dimension of adaptation to organizational  change that refers to avoiding work, distancing oneself from changes and the organization, disaffection, and criticizing and debating changes. Resisting Change as a form of adaptation assumes that not all changes are in the best interests of the organization. There may be proposed changes that unwittingly threaten the future of the organization. For example, if the decision is made to relocate a service unit to another geographic area without consideration of the impact of the relocation on local service, individual resistance to the change may be beneficial to the organization and/or those employees involved. By criticizing the change and distancing oneself from it, the individual may be providing valuable information to the organization regarding the risk involved and protecting him/herself from the negative consequences of the change. While on the surface, Resisting Change may seem like an undesirable response, it may have value both for the organization and the individual. Thus, Resisting Change is an integral aspect of adaptation to organizational change. The responses involved in Resisting Change, however, are unlikely to be associated with solely positive outcomes for the individual and the organization, or, indeed, for either. While avoiding work may offer an individual some relief from the pressure of changes occurring at work, it is counterproductive for the organization to have absent employees. Further, if the individual who avoids work also ruminates about the change while away from work, s/he may experience no relief from the pressure and his/her efforts to adapt by withdrawal may not bring about any positive consequences for him/herself or the organization. Some of the responses  Adaptation to Organizational Change 85 involved in Resisting Change in some situations may lead to positive outcomes for the individual and/or the organization (e.g., criticizing a poorly-conceived change, protecting one's area of work from being disrupted by a change that would threaten core service delivery), while others may not (e.g., ruminating about a change, avoiding new undesirable tasks). It is likely that the situation determines whether the response elicits a negative or positive outcome. For example, in a culture where employees are encouraged to question how work is done and offer their ideas, criticizing a change may be valuable to the individual and the organization. In a culture that  operates by chain of command, on the other hand, such a response may be less desirable and may not have the intended outcomes. While the responses that lead to positive and negative outcomes may appear similar, thus, yielding one factor rather than two, they may differ by nature. This characteristic of coping categories was identified by Skinner et al. (2003) and labelled functional heterogeneity. The responses associated with positive outcomes may be intended by the individual to appropriately challenge change and protect his/herself emotionally from being overwhelmed by the pressure of change. The responses leading to negative outcomes, on the other hand, may stem from an individual's cynicism, reluctance to cooperate, or resistant stance towards all forms of change. All of the responses associated with Resisting Change, regardless of their nature, are considered to represent adaptation to organizational change, because they are all attempts by people to manage the internal and external demands that arise from changing and uncertain work situations. The ultimate value of these responses to the individual and organization does not define what is considered adaptation in this research. Referring to responses as adaptive where their outcomes may not be seen as positive for the individual or the organization is consistent  Adaptation to Organizational Change 86 with several coping strategies involved in the stress and coping literature (e.g., escape-avoidance, confrontive coping, distancing). Resisting Change is a dimension of adaptation that can be understood with respect to perceived control within the organization. Research on psychological reactance suggests that threats to freedom or the loss of freedom can produce arousal, hostility, and efforts to restore those freedoms (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). These characteristics are similar to the activities described within the following questionnaire items associated with Resisting Change: "criticizing a change," "reminding people of the way it used to be in the organization before a change," "debating a change that is already decided," and "thinking that one could have done a better job of the change oneself." Psychological reactance occurs when the loss of freedom is introduced. A perceived loss of freedom, or loss of control that results from losing the freedom to choose, may be experienced among employees if organizational changes are introduced with little consultation or participation among employees. In the case of large-scale organizational changes, such as mergers and acquisitions, executives may be limited in the extent to which they can legally share information about a change, such as a merger or acquisition, before it is introduced. In these cases, where change may be perceived as a foregone conclusion and the employee has little control or freedom, Resisting Change is a potential adaptive response. Resisting Change is also related to several dimensions of coping. Confrontive coping is an emotion-focused strategy that refers to aggressive efforts to alter the situation (Folkman et al., 1986). It often involves hostility and risk-taking behaviour. Activities that represent confrontive coping within Resisting Change include the responses described in the following questionnaire items: "expressing criticisms of a change," "debating a change that is already decided," "thinking that one could have done a better job of the change oneself," and "wondering whether one's boss  Adaptation to Organizational Change 87 knows more about a change than s/he is letting on." Distancing is an emotion-focused coping strategy that describes efforts to detach oneself and take a serious situation lightly (Folkman et al.). Activities of Resisting Change that reflect distancing are involved in the following items: "distancing oneself from a difficult situation," "reminding oneself not to get too attached to the organization," and "going along with a change at work even though one did not agree with it." Escape-avoidance is another emotion-focused coping strategy that describes wishful thinking and behavioural efforts to escape or avoid a difficult situation. Escape-avoidance relates to the activities described in the following items that are associated with Resisting Change: "reminding people of the way it used to be in the organization before a change," "avoiding a difficult person," "avoiding a new task one does not like doing," "waiting for formal authority to take action on a change," and "thinking about what would stay the same at work, despite a change." Confrontive coping, distancing, and escape-avoidance are three dimensions of emotionfocused coping that relate to Resisting Change. In a study of the outcomes of different coping strategies, Folkman et al. (1986) found that confrontive coping and distancing were associated with unsatisfactory outcomes, as opposed to planful problem-solving and positive reappraisal (see Supporting Change), which were associated with satisfactory outcomes. This evidence suggests that Resisting Change may be associated with less satisfactory outcomes than Supporting Change. In the same study, these authors found that confrontive coping was used when the situation was seen as changeable, while escape-avoidance was used with the situation was seen as having to be accepted. It may be that in situations at work where the change is a foregone conclusion, escape-avoidance is a more likely response, whereas when the change is seen as malleable, confrontive coping is used.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 88 Research on adaptation to job dissatisfaction is relevant to a discussion of Resisting Change. Adaptation to job dissatisfaction is conceptualized as a process of reducing one's relative dissatisfaction with work through behavioural and cognitive means (Rosse & Miller, 1984). The evaluation of one's degree of job satisfaction is believed to be triggered by an organizational event. Large-scale organizational change is an event that may trigger the evaluation of one's work situation. One subset of adaptation to job dissatisfaction is withdrawal (Rosse & Hulin, 1985). Recall from the literature review that withdrawal refers to behaviours that are intended to place physical or psychological distance between employees and aversive work environments. Withdrawal is similar to avoiding work and distancing oneself from change and the organization. This literature suggests that dissatisfaction with one's job is associated with engaging in Resisting Change. Resisting Change may be further explained by a threat-rigidity effect in individual behaviour in the context of threatening environments (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). The threat-rigidity effect is a general tendency for individuals to behave rigidly in threatening situations, which results in two effects: (a) a restriction of information processing, and (b) a constriction in control. If an organizational change is appraised as threatening, employees may respond by reducing the amount of information considered and relying on dominant responses. These responses may account for adaptation by Resisting Change. If employees see a change as threatening they may quickly reduce the information about the change they will consider and respond with routinized behaviour. The outcome of the process is an avoidance of work, distancing from changes and the organization, disaffection, and challenging changes. Staw et al. (1981) suggested that if a routinized, dominant response is appropriate, the threat will be reduced, while if a new response is required, the threat will intensify. Organizational change is  Adaptation to Organizational Change 89 characterized by new and ill-defined problems that require a different response than would previously have been successful (Chan, 2000b). In this case, routinized behaviour would likely be inappropriate and intensify the threat. This information may, in part, may explain why the emotion-focused dimensions of Resisting Change that were described earlier, lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. The research discussed sheds some light on Resisting Change. Employees may engage in Resisting Change if they perceive a lack of control or a loss of freedom following organizational change. The perception of threat arising from a change may also account for activities that reflect Resisting Change. Resisting Change may also lead to unsatisfactory outcomes for the employee, given the evidence provided by Folkman et al. (1986). Among the different activities that constitute Resisting Change, criticizing and debating change may be more likely when the situation is seen as changeable, and avoidance, distancing, and disaffection may be more likely when the situation is seen as having to be accepted. Career Development. Activities that represent Career Development include planning and  developing one's skills, professionally benefiting from the change, and identifying career goals and actively pursuing them. Large-scale organizational change creates new demands for employees. Continuous learning is a process in which one acquires knowledge, skills, and abilities in reaction to, and in anticipation of, changing performance requirements (London & Mone, 1999). The continuous learning dimensions of development planning, learning, and applying new knowledge and skills to changing organizational conditions are similar to planning and developing one's skills. Career Development, however, extends beyond continuous learning to include seeking opportunities created by the change to benefit professionally and identifying and pursuing career goals.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 90 Career Development is similar to the concept of personal development that was suggested by Nicholson (1984) to account for the behaviour of employees during transitions at work. Nicholson proposed that personal development occurs during transitions when the situation is new and the employee desires feedback on his/her performance. Organizational change makes personal development more likely, because the changes involved are often regarded as novel. The activities involved in Career Development reflect problem-focused coping. Activities, described in questionnaire items such as "planning how to develop one's skills in preparation for a change," "identifying another employment opportunity that would enhance one's career," "thinking about what one wants to gain for oneself from one's work," and "letting senior people know what work one wants to do" refer to efforts to directly affect a source of stress following large-scale organizational change. The source of stress may be a lack of promotion opportunities, threat of downsizing, or lack of fulfillment in one's work. Results presented earlier provided evidence that the extent of engagement in Career Development declines with age. This finding makes sense, given that young people have longer careers ahead than older people. There are further explanations for this effect. Organizational restructuring often involves reductions in orientation and training, which leads to a generation of young employees who are not properly socialized to the organization and who lack knowledge about organizational procedures (Feldman, 1996). Restructuring may also obscure or eliminate opportunities for promotion. The careers of young employees may be in greater jeopardy than those of older employees if their skills and experiences do not keep pace with their age. The extent of career development activity differed between participants in public and private sector organizations. Managers in the private sector organization engaged in more career development activities than those in the public sector organizations. This difference may be  Adaptation to Organizational Change 91 accounted for by the increase in focus on leadership development activities in the private sector organization during the merger and subsequent restructuring. In the earlier-mentioned focus groups, participants from the private sector organization mentioned the significant investment their organization had made in career development opportunities during the merger, such as, for example, a new performance management system, increased opportunities for training and coaching, and an emphasis on internal promotions and transfers. The public sector organizations, on the other hand, had made no similar increase in leadership development activities during the same period. Leadership development opportunities would likely encourage greater career development activity among managers. Another variable that may have influenced the extent of career development activity in the two types of organizations is the rate of unionization. In the public sector organizations, the average rate of unionization was 96%, whereas in the private sector organization the rate was 74%. With a larger proportion of internal positions excluded from unions, there are more opportunities for internal promotion and transfer within the private sector organization. These opportunities may account, in part, for the greater extent of career development activity in the private sector organization than in the public sector organization. Initiating Effort. The dimension of Initiating Effort involves taking on extra work and  demonstrating flexibility in one's work. The activities that reflect taking on extra work are described in the questionnaire items: "working more hours than usual," "working to the point of exhaustion," and "taking on extra work in a new area." Initiating Effort, however, refers not only to increasing one's effort, but also to taking initiative and acting flexibly. Taking initiative is represented in activities described in items such as, "taking the initiative to make a decision that one would not otherwise have made," "initiating a meeting with someone one did not know  Adaptation to Organizational Change 92 in the organization," and "bending the rules." Actingflexiblyis described in items such as "adjusting one's personal schedule to accommodate a change at work," "changing one's priorities at work because of a change," and "changing one's work style to fit the style of others at work." Initiating Effort is much more than simply working harder. Taking charge at work is a concept proposed by Morrison and Phelps (1999) to refer to discretionary behaviour that is intended to effect organizationally functional change. It is not possible to determine from the results of the present study whether or not the activities involved in Initiating Effort are intended to effect organizationally functional change (they may be intended to increase one's status within the organization); nevertheless, the effect of these behaviours is that they likely bring about organizationally functional change. Morrison and Phelps suggest that taking charge at work may be a form of leadership behaviour. If taking charge at work, and Initiating Effort, are regarded as informal leadership within the organization, these behaviours may increase employees' eligibility for leadership opportunities in the future. The increased effort involved in Initiating Effort is borne out by the current trend toward working longer hours. Bell and Hart (1999, as cited in Feldman, 2002) noted that the number of hours worked each week by managers has increased in the past 20 years, a period during which organizational change has become much more common. Feldman (1996) suggested that employees who remain in the organization after layoffs occur are more likely to encounter increased work responsibilities that create the opportunity to increase one's effort at work. The activities involved in Initiating Effort are largely behavioural, rather than cognitive. These behaviours are all directed at influencing the source of stress, and so, represent a problemfocused coping strategy. It is interesting to consider what may motivate an employee to influence the source of their stress by going to such lengths as working longer hours,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 93 demonstrating increased initiatives, and exerting increased effort. It is not possible to determine the motivation from this research, but several possibilities suggest themselves from the previous discussion of the related literature. It may be that Initiating Effort is a response to the anxiety that arises from the perceptions of job insecurity or overwhelming job demands. Working longer hours and taking on more work may be an attempt by the employee to exert control over the environment in order to reduce their distress. Another possibility is that change offers employees the opportunities they may be waiting for to advance their careers through informal leadership roles. Employees may demonstrate informal leadership by taking on some of their boss's work and by influencing their peers to work toward the organization's new objectives. A third possibility is that some employees are in positions that simply demand that they work these longer hours if they wish to remain employed. In discussions between the author and focus group participants, the primary reason these individuals gave for working longer hours was the need for more work to be done by fewer people. For example, following the change in their organization, these managers were asked to carry a pager and respond to calls 24 hours a day; work that previously had been performed by their direct reports who had lost their jobs. Building Social Capital. Activities that involve building and maintaining social  relationships at work, as well as using these relationships to increase one's influence within the organization represent Building Social Capital. Building Social Capital may be an important dimension of adaptation because of the potential for organizational change to deplete social resources and disrupt social networks through downsizing and restructuring. Fugate et al., (2002) found that social resources decreased during a nine-month period following a merger. Employees may seek to build and maintain social relationships at work in order to receive affective support, confirmation, or direct help (Frese, 1999). It is interesting to note, however,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 94 that age was negatively related to Building Social Capital among men. A possible explanation for this finding is the "old boys network" that may be a sufficient source of social relationships for older men to endure large-scale organizational change without needing to build new relationships within the organization. Relationship-focused coping refers to efforts to manage, regulate, or preserve relationships during stress (Coyne & Smith, 1991; DeLongis & O'Brien, 1990). The interactional context of stress and coping processes, however, has not received much attention in the research literature. Building Social Capital may have emerged as a dimension of adaptation to organizational change because of the strong social context of work in organizations. The concept of Building Social Capital, however, extends beyond social support to include increasing one's influence in the organization through social relationships. The agentic aspect of social relationships, however, was not considered in the original conceptualizations of relationship-focused coping or social support. It may be in the context of work, where achievement and influence are valued, that using relationships to increase one's influence emerges. Second Order Factors Solving the Problems of Organizational Change. The first second-order factor relates to  and organizes first-order factors that reflect problem-focused coping. Supporting Change can be considered to be a problem-focused coping strategy because the activities involved directly influence problems that arise from organizational change. Career Development activities, such as planning and developing one's skills and pursuing career-related opportunities and goals, directly influence career barriers after an organizational change. Initiating Effort involves increasing one's effort, initiating action, and acting flexibly, which meet new work demands  Adaptation to Organizational Change 95 following organizational change. Finally, activities within Building Social Capital repair depleted social resources and damaged social networks following organizational change. In addition to the problem-focused nature of these first order coping strategies, the underlying activities are more active than passive. These activities are taken when the situation is seen as changeable.  Managing the Experience of Organizational Change. The second second-order factor, on  the other hand, reflects emotion-focused coping. Resisting Change, described earlier, involves three forms of emotion-focused coping (distancing, escape-avoidance, and confrontive coping). The activities within Resisting Change are largely an attempt to manage one's experience of the change, rather than influence it directly. These activities are more passive than active, and may be taken when the situation is seen as unchangeable. Summary. Solving the Problems of Organizational Change and Managing the Experience  of Organizational Change differ in their function and in the underlying perception of the work situation arising from change. The purpose of Solving the Problems of Organizational Change is to deal directly with the source of problems that arise from change. Employees who engage in this set of responses likely see the problems as changeable and are active in their adaptation. The purpose of Managing the Experience of Organizational Change is to deal with distress related to uncertainty, new work demands, and disrupted social networks. This passive approach is likely to be used when the situation is seen as having to be accepted, rather than acted upon. The firstorder factors organized by the second-order factors are presented in Table 9. The greater number of first order factors organized by Solving the Problems of Organizational Change than by Managing the Experience of Organizational Change is consistent with work by Fugate et al. (2002) who found that managers engage in more problem-focused  Adaptation to Organizational Change 96 coping strategies than emotion-focused strategies following a merger. One possible reason for the greater number of problem-focused than emotion-focused dimensions is that organizational change is more amenable to co-authoring by the employee than are other events that require adaptation, such as, for example, death of a loved one or illness. Another possibility is that employees who tend to rely on emotion-focused dimensions left the organization during or immediately after the change, leading to an attrition of emotion-focused activities being performed within the organization.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 97 Table 9 First-Order Factors Organized by Second-Order Factors  Solving the Problems of Organizational Change  Managing the Experience of Organizational Change  Supporting Change  Resisting Change  Career Development Initiating Effort Building Social Capital  Adaptation to Organizational Change 98 Comparison to Pulakos' Adaptive Performance  There have been numerous attempts to conceptualize different ways in which employees adapt to change at work, but few attempts to examine the underlying structure of adaptation. The various conceptualizations of adaptation were related to the structure of adaptation to organizational change in the previous section. In the psychology and organizational behaviour research literature, there has only been one attempt to identify the structure of adaptation using empirical procedures (Pulakos et al., 2000). The present structure of adaptation to organizational change will now be compared with Pulakos' structure of adaptive performance. In the following discussion, the present model of adaptation to organizational change will simply be referred to as  the present model, and Pulakos' structure of adaptive performance will be referred to as Pulakos' model.  The core difference between the present model and Pulakos' model (Pulakos et al., 2000) is the nature of the change considered. The structure of Pulakos' model was derived from incidents in which individuals modified their behaviour to meet the demands of a new situation, event or environment. The present model, on the other hand, refers to changes that arose following large-scale organizational change. These two types of changes are referred to by Burke (2002) as evolutionary change and revolutionary change, respectively, described in more detail in the literature review. Although Pulakos et al. did not specify the changes associated with adaptation in their model, they are likely to be evolutionary changes. This assumption is made because no large-scale organizational change was noted and approximately 95% of changes within organizations are evolutionary in nature (Burke, 2002). These changes include improvements in work processes, incremental steps to solve a problem, and modifications to one part of the organization. The revolutionary change involved in adaptation associated with the  Adaptation to Organizational Change 99 present model, on the other hand, involves a change that affects the whole organization. While the individual changes encompassed by revolutionary change may be similar to evolutionary changes, they differ in that they are linked to a series of changes across the organization and occur against a backdrop of uncertainty facing the organization as a whole. There are several differences in the population characteristics and research design between Pulakos' model and the present model. Pulakos' model was based primarily on a population of nonmanagerial employees from a single private-sector organization across a range of occupations. The present model, on the other hand, was based on a population of managers from four different organizations from both the public and private sectors. The instrument development procedures in both studies included the critical incident technique. However, Pulakos' Job Adaptability Inventory involved retranslation of the items onto rationally-derived dimensions and a response scale that included importance and time spent on each activity. By starting with a rational model and only including items that adequately retranslate onto these rationally-derived dimensions, it is more likely that the researchers will artificially constrain the number and nature of dimensions that emerge. On the other hand, the dimensions in the present model emerged on a purely empirical basis. In addition, in Pulakos' model, time spent on each  activity was measured by how much less or more time was spent on this than other things I do on my job, whereas in the present study, time spent was absolute, rather than relative. By specifying time spent on each activity in an absolute way, it is less likely that the responses would be subject to bias. Finally, Pulakos' model was derived by principal component analysis, whereas the present model was derived from common-factor analytic procedures. The dimensions of Pulakos' model (Pulakos et al., 2000) converge to some extent with the dimensions of the present model. The dimensions from Pulakos' model that were associated  Adaptation to Organizational Change 100 with managerial jobs included: Learning Work Tasks, Technologies, And Procedures; Dealing With Uncertain/Unpredictable Work Situations; Solving Problems Creatively; Demonstrating Interpersonal Adaptability; and Demonstrating Cultural Adaptability. Supporting Change is similar to Solving Problems Creatively in that both dimensions involve solving problems. However, making sense of change, taking a positive approach to change, and thinking about the positive consequences of change are not represented in Pulakos' model. Career Development is similar to Learning Work Tasks, Technologies, and Procedures in that both involve preparing one's skills to meet new work demands. However, Career Development extends beyond Pulakos' model to include seeking opportunities to benefit from the change and pursuing career-enhancing work opportunities. Initiating Effort relates to Dealing with Uncertain and Unpredictable Work Situations in that both involve demonstrating effort, taking initiative, and acting flexibly. Building Social Capital relates to Demonstrating Interpersonal Adaptability and Demonstrating Cultural Adaptability in that both involve developing and maintaining relationships with other people and other groups, however, Building Social Capital goes beyond these themes to include increasing one's influence in the organization. Although the dimensions of the present model converge to some extent with those of Pulakos' model (Pulakos et al., 2000), they also extend beyond these findings to include other aspects that were not captured in Pulakos' model. These aspects include: making sense of change, taking a positive approach to change, thinking about the benefits of the change, benefiting professionally from the change, pursuing new work opportunities, and using relationships to increase one's influence in the organization. These aspects of adaptation, along with Resisting Change, which was also not identified in Pulakos' model, add meaningful insights into the construct of adaptation to organizational change.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 101 Chapter 5 Study 2: The Relationship Between Adaptation to Organizational Change and Personality Dimensions, Work Attitudes, And Job Stress Overview  The purpose of the second study was to identify the relationships between the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change from Study 1, on the one hand, and personality dimensions, work attitudes, and job stress, on the other. The approaches used to identify these relationships involved correlational and multiple regression analyses among scores on measures of these variables. These relationships were of interest for three reasons. First, the personality dimensions associated with adaptation to organizational change would reveal, to some extent, how individuals differ in their level of adaptability on each of these dimensions. Second, the associations between work attitudes and adaptation to organizational change would suggest how different approaches to adaptation relate to employees' experience of their work and the organization. Third, the relationships between job stress and adaptation to organizational change would indicate the implications of different forms of adaptation for health and well-being. Method Participants  The participants from Phase III of Study 1 also provided data on several measures that were given along with the questionnaire described in that chapter. Data from these additional measures were used to examine the relationships between adaptation to organizational change, on the one hand, and personality dimensions, work attitudes, and job stress, on the other. To review, data were collected from February to May of 2003. Participants completed a questionnaire online that included several additional measures that were involved in this study.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 102 In order not to exceed a 30-minute time limit for each manager's participation in the study agreed upon by the author and the organizations, one subset of participants was given personality measures and a second independent subset was given measures of work attitudes and job stress (described in detail below). Of the 553 participants in the sample, 309 managers (133 males, 176 females) completed personality measures, and 244 managers (81 males, 163 females) completed measures of work attitudes and job stress. The demographic characteristics of the sample are provided in Phase III of the previous chapter. Measure of Adaptation to Organizational Change  The questionnaire developed in the previous chapter was used to measure adaptation to (  organizational change. Scores for each participant were computed for each of the five primary factors of adaptation to organizational change—Supporting Change, Resisting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital—on the basis of the scales that were developed in Phase III of the previous chapter. These scores were mean-deviated by gender to eliminate the possibility of between groups correlation. Personality Measures  Measures of the Big Five dimensions of personality, along with three additional personality dimensions were included in the study. The personality dimensions measured included (a) Big Five measures: openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion, and (b) additional measures: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, and internal locus of control. The three additional personality dimensions were combined with emotional stability to form the composite dimension of positive self-concept. The personality measures were developed from items taken from a new personality instrument, the BIODATA 250 (Hakstian, 2003). This instrument was chosen because of the  Adaptation to Organizational Change 103 desirable psychometric properties of its scales and the work-related content of its items. The items used in the present research were, in some cases, subsets of the full-length versions from the BIODATA 250. The Big Five measures used in the present research were shortened versions of these scales, except for self-esteem and locus of control, which were given in the full-length version. The shortened versions were used to adhere to constraints on the participating managers' time. Items were selected for the shortened version on the basis of their high itemtotal correlations with the full-length version and non-redundancy with other items in the shortened version. In the present research, participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Work-Related Measures  Work-related variables were measured in the present study by five widely-used instruments. The measures of work-related variables administered to participants included (a) work attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization, and (b) job stress. The instruments chosen to measure these variables were selected on the basis of several meta-analytic reviews (Brown, 1996; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Bozeman & Perrewe, 2001), a compendium and review of measures of work attitudes (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981), and an in-depth review by the author of assessments used in published studies during the period 1996 to 2001 in Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Academy of Management Journal. Based on this review, the following measures were chosen. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured with a 3-item scale from the  Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 104 1979; Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1982). The items were developed based on responses from several thousand employees. This assessment of overall job satisfaction was most frequently used of any such measure in published empirical research in the past two years. Job involvement. Job involvement was measured with a 6-item short form of Lodahl and  Kejner's (1965) Job Involvement Scale. This scale is the most commonly used measure of job involvement in the research literature (Brown, 1996; Cook et al., 1981). Brown's (1996) metaanalysis and review of research on job involvement demonstrated that using the shorter 6-item scale rather than the longer 20-item scale had a negligible effect on the internal consistency reliability. Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured with a 9-item  version of Mowday, Steers & Porter's (1979) Occupational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). The OCQ has been used in over 90 published empirical studies (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Intent to leave the organization. Intent to leave the organization was measured with a  5-item scale based on items from Mowday, Koberg, and MacArthur (1984) and Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978). Overall measure of work attitudes. An overall measure of work attitudes was created to  provide a summary of the work attitudes examined in the study. Scores on job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization were subjected to a principal component analysis. Component scores from the first principal component were computed for each participant to represent the core of the four different work attitudes—job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization. High scores indicated positive work attitudes and low scores indicated negative work attitudes.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 105 Job Stress Measure. Job stress was measured with a 9-item version (Jamal & Baba, 1992) of the Job Stress Scale (Parker and Decotiis, 1983). The items refer to anxiety and the experience of being under pressure. Data Analysis  Correlational analyses were performed to examine the relationships between adaptation to organizational change and personality, work attitudes, and job stress. Bivariate correlations were computed among scores on the personality, work attitude, and job stress measures. Then, bivariate correlations were computed between the dimensions of adaptation to organizational  change, on the one hand, and (a) personality dimensions, (b) work attitudes, and (c) job stress, "on the other. Given the large number of bivariate correlations that were computed, Type I error rate was a concern. The probability of committing a Type I error per hypothesis test was set to p = .01 (nondirectional); thus, only 1% of the 70 correlations computed between the adaptation scales and personality, work attitude, and job stress measures (fewer than 1) could be expected to be statistically significant, purely by chance. Multiple regression analyses were performed to obtain the optimal linear combination of personality scales to predict each adaptation scale. Multiple regression analyses were also performed to obtain the optimal linear combinations of adaptation scales to predict the overall measure of work attitudes, and each work attitude and job stress separately.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 106 Results Correlational Analyses Involving Adaptation to Organizational Change and Personality, Work Attitudes, and Job Stress  Scores were computed for participants on the personality measures, work attitude measures, and job stress measure. Means, standard deviations, and internal consistency reliability estimates for scores on these measures are reported in Table 10 for the total sample and separately by gender. The internal consistency reliability of these measures for the total sample estimated by Cronbach's alpha ranged from .64 to .88, with an average of .76. Intercorrelations among scores on the personality measures are presented in Table 11 for the total sample only, because there were no significant differences between men and women on any of these measures. The high correlations (rs ranged from .62 to .82) between positive selfconcept and emotional stability, internal locus of control, self-esteem, and self-efficacy exist because scores on these latter measures constitute the positive self-concept measure, as described in the Method section. Moderately high correlations (rs ranged from .48 to .55) also existed among emotional stability, openness, and extraversion, and between emotional stability and agreeableness.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 107 Table 10  Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates for Personality Measu Work Attitude Measures, and Job Stress Measure  Total Sample Dimension Personality Openness Emotional Stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Internal Locus of Control Self-Esteem Self-Efficacy Positive SelfConcept Work Attitudes" Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Organizational Commitment Intent to Leave the Organization Job Stress  k  M  SD  Males a  M  SD  Females a  M  SD  a  3  b  15 15  56.99 50.42  7.15 .79 7.82 .78  56.28 50.23  7.89 .83 8.03 .80  57.52 50.56  6.51 7.68  .75 .78  15 20 14  53.63 71.85 53.35  9.25 .85 8.71 .74 5.78 .64  53.48 71.23 51.56  9.18 .86 8.78 .73 5.97 .64  53.74 72.31 54.70  9.32 8.65 5.25  .85 .76 .61  11 8 10  37.94 25.38 40.61  5.33 .64 4.58 .67 5.64 .77  37.68, 24.66 39.83  5.65 .69 4.39 .65 6.03 .77  38.17 26.02 41.29  5.05 4.66 5.21  .60 .67 .77  44 154.30 17.56 .82 152.37 17.97 .83  156.00 17.08 .80  3 6 9  12.10 17.48 31.63  2.41 .81 3.47 .58 6.12 .88  11.99 17.56 30.93  2.15 .73 3.84 .68 6.50 .89  12.05 17.39 31.86  2.62 3.28 5.97  .84 .52 .88  5  11.57  4.76 .86  11.32  4.45  .87  11.66  4.89  .86  9  26.39  6.38 .81  26.91  5.84 .77  26.03  6.62  .82  Notes, k = number of items; a = internal consistency reliability estimated by Cronbach's alpha. a b  Total sample n - 309, male sample n - 133, female sample n = 176. Total sample n = 244, male sample n = 81, female sample n= 163.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 108 Table 11 Correlations Among Personality Dimensions  Personality Dimension Openness (O) Emotional Stability (ES) Extraversion (E) Conscientiousness (C) Agreeableness (A) Internal Locus of Control (LOC) Self-Esteem (SES) Self-Efficacy (SEF) Positive Self-Concept (PSC)  O  ES  E  C  A  .53 .48 .24 .47 .22 .34 .62 .61  .55 .30 .50 .24 .54 .45 .82  .22 .44 .24 .43 .54 .62  .32 .14 .25 .38 .37  .28 .33 .41 .55  LOC SES  .34 .35 .62  SEF PSC  .45 .75  Notes, n = 309. All correlations greater than or equal to .15 are statistically significant (p < .01).  Adaptation to Organizational Change 109 Intercorrelations among scores on the work attitude and job stress measures are presented in Table 12 for the total sample only, because there were no significant differences between men and women on these measures. As the table shows, the correlations among work attitudes ranged from .14 to .52 in absolute value. More specifically, relatively high correlations (rs ranged from .45 to .52 in absolute value) resulted among job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization. Job stress was negatively correlated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and positively correlated with intent to leave the organization.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 110 Table 12 Correlations Among Work Attitudes and Job Stress  Dimension Work Attitude Job Involvement Organizational Commitment Intent to Leave the Organization Job Stress  Job Satisfaction . 18 .48 -.52 -.41  Job Involvement  Intent to Organizational Leave the Commitment Organization  .33 -.14 .07  -.45 -.23  .26  Notes, n = 244. All correlations greater than or equal to .16 are statistically significant (p < .01).  Adaptation to Organizational Change 111 Bivariate correlations between scores on the personality, work attitude, and job stress measures, on the one hand, and the five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change, on the other, are presented in Table 13. Among the Big Five personality dimensions, openness, emotional stability, and agreeableness positively correlated with four of the five adaptation dimensions. Openness was the only dimension to be significantly and positively correlated with all of the first-order dimensions that constitute the second-order dimension of Solving the Problems of Organizational Change. Interestingly, extraversion was strongly related to Building Social Capital, as well as Supporting Change and Career Development to a lesser extent. Among the additional personality measures, internal locus of control, self-esteem, and self-efficacy were all positively correlated with Building Social Capital. Self-esteem and selfefficacy were positively correlated with four of the five adaptation dimensions, and self-efficacy was the only dimension to be significantly and positively correlated with the dimensions that constitute Solving the Problems of Organizational Change, but not those constituting Managing the Experience of Change. Positive self-concept was positively correlated with all adaptation dimensions except Initiating Effort, which failed to reach statistical significance.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 112 Table 13 Correlations Between Dimensions of Adaptation to Organizational Change and Personality Dimensions, Work Attitudes, and Job Stress  Adaptation Dimension Dimension Personality Openness Emotional Stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Internal Locus of Control, Self-Esteem Self-Efficacy Positive Self-Concept Work Attitude Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Organizational Commitment Intent to Leave the Organization Job Stress  Initiating Supporting Resisting Career Change Development Effort Change  Building Social Capital  3  .38 .31 .31  .12  .33  .14  -.08  -.32  -.09  -.21 -.25 -.16 -.29  .36 .25 .31 .16 .26  .26  .29 .28 .40  .16  .14  .28 .18 .27 .31 .35  .07 .07  .14 .13 .14 -.06 -.02  .03  .10 .13 .03  -.02 .07  -.30  .21 .35 .29  .01 .00 .15 -.04  -.39  -.16  -.38 .36  .23  -.08 .13, .05 .05  .06  .42  .04  .33  .19 .37 .35  -.09  .24  .07  13  b  -.10  Note. Correlations significant at p < .01 (two-tailed) are presented in bold face. n = 309. All correlations greater than or equal to .15 are statistically significant (p < .01). n = 244. All correlations greater than or equal to .16 are statistically significant (p < .01). 3 b  Adaptation to Organizational Change 113 Among the work attitude measures, only job satisfaction and intent to leave the organization related to more than one adaptation dimension; the other work attitudes were only related to Resisting Change. Participants with low scores on job satisfaction or high scores on intent to leave the organization were more likely to engage in Resisting Change and Career Development. All of the work attitudes correlated in the expected direction with Resisting Change, with the exception of job involvement, which failed to reach statistical significance. Job stress was significantly and positively correlated with Resisting Change and Initiating Effort. People with high scores on Resisting Change and Initiating Effort had higher job stress scores. In summary, four of the five adaptation dimensions were associated with openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive self-concept. Surprisingly, conscientiousness was related only to two adaptation dimensions. Work attitudes were most strongly related to Resisting Change. Finally, managers who engaged in Resisting Change and Initiating Effort tended to obtain high scores on job stress. Optimal linear combinations of personality dimensions were examined in the prediction of each adaptation dimension. The results of these multiple regression analyses are shown in Tables 14 to 18.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 114 Table 14 Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Supporting Change  Predictor r P .38 <.001 Openness Emotional Stability .31 <.001 Extraversion .31 <.001 Conscientiousness .12 <.05 Agreeableness .33 <.001 Internal Locus of Control .14 <.05 Self-Esteem .19 <.05 Self-Efficacy .37 <.001 R = .45; ft = .42; F(8, 237) = 7.46, p.< .001 shrunken  3  .18 .08 .04 -.05 .11 -.01 -.04 .20  P  <05 >.10 >.50 >.10 >.10 >.50 >.50 <.05  Adaptation to Organizational Change 115 Table 15 Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Resisting Change  Predictor Openness Emotional Stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Internal Locus of Control Self-Esteem Self-Efficacy R = .43; R  shrunken  r  -.08 -.32 -.09 -.21 -.25 -.16 -.29 -.09  = .40; F(8, 237) = 6.75, p < .001  P  >.10 <.01 >.10 <.01 <.01 <.05 <.01 >.10  3 .07 -.27 .17 -.08 -.19 -.07 -.19 .12  P  >.10 <.01 <.05 >.10 <.05 >.10 <.05 >.10  Adaptation to Organizational Change 116 Table 16 Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Career Development  Predictor Openness Emotional Stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Internal Locus of Control Self-Esteem Self-Efficacy R = -44; R  shmnkeD  r .36 .25 .31 .16 .26 .03 .21 .35  = .41; F(8, 237) = 7.16, p < .001  P  <.001 <.001 <.001 <.01 <.001 >.50 <.05 <.001  3 .15 -.06 .15 .02 .12 -.14 .05 .17  P  >.05 >.10 >.05 >.05 >.10 <.05 >.10 <.05  Adaptation to Organizational Change 117 Table 17 Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Initiating Effort  Predictor Openness Emotional Stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Internal Locus of Control Self-Esteem Self-Efficacy R = .33;  Shrunken = .29;  F(8,  r  .26 .10 .13 .03 .16 -.02 .07 .24 237) = 3.72,p< .001  P  <.001 >.05 <.05 >.50 <.01 >.50 >.10 <.001  3 .23 -.06 -.08 -.09 .08 -.13 .00 .22  P  <.05 >.10 >.10 >.10 >.10 >.50 >.99 <.05  Adaptation to Organizational Change 118 Table 18 Multiple Regression Analysis with Personality Variables Dependent Variable: Building Social Capital  Predictor r P Openness .29 <.001 Emotional Stability .28 <.001 Extraversion .40 <.001 Conscientiousness .07 >.10 Agreeableness .28 <.001 Internal Locus of Control * .18 <.01 Self-Esteem .27 <.001 Self-Efficacy .31 <.001 R = .44; fl = .41; F(8, 237) = 7.25, p < .001 shrunken  3  .03 -.06 .27 -.08 .13 .04 .11 .09  P  >.50 >.10 <.01 >.10 >.05 >.50 >.10 >.10  Adaptation to Organizational Change 119 The multiple correlation coefficients for each adaptation dimension regressed on the personality dimensions were statistically significant (/^shrunken ranged from .29 to .42). Among the adaptation dimensions, Initiating Effort had the lowest shrunken multiple correlation (R = .29) with personality dimensions, while the other dimensions had shrunken multiple correlations ranging from .40 to .42. It appears that every adaptation dimension can be predicted on the basis of different linear combinations of the personality dimensions considered. Not all personality dimensions were statistically significant in predicting each adaptation dimension. Those that were statistically significant at p < .05 in predicting the different adaptation dimensions are presented in Table 19.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 120 Table 19  Personality Traits that Predict the Adaptation Dimensions" (sign of the beta weight is given parentheses)  1. Supporting Change Openness (+) Self-Efficacy (+) 2. Resisting Change Emotional Stability (-) Extraversion (+) Agreeableness (-) Self-Esteem (-) 3. Career Development Internal Locus of Control (-) Self-Efficacy (+) • 4. Initiating Effort Openness (+) Self-Efficacy (+) 5. Building Social Capital Extraversion (+) Personality predictors with statistically significant beta weights (p < .05, nondirectional) for each adaptation dimension are listed. a  Adaptation to Organizational Change 121 Optimal linear combinations of adaptation dimensions were examined in the prediction of work-related variables. The results of multiple regression analyses of (a) each work-related variable on the adaptation dimensions, and (b) the overall measure of work attitudes on the adaptation dimensions are presented in Tables 20 to 25. As shown, the shrunken multiple correlations for each work-related variable on the adaptation dimensions were statistically significant, ranging from .24 for job involvement to .54 for job stress. It is interesting to note that the bivariate correlations between scores on the overall measure of work attitudes and Resisting Change (r = -.45) and Building Social Capital (r = .16) were statistically significant. This finding replicates the negative relationship found between Resisting Change and three of the four work attitude dimensions, and suggests that Building Social Capital may be positively related to work attitudes. Not all adaptation dimensions were statistically significant in predicting the work attitude and job stress variables. Those that were statistically significant at/? < .05 are presented in Table 26.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 122 Table 20 Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction  Predictor r p Supporting Change .01 >.50 Resisting Change -.39 <.001 Career Development -.16 <.05 Initiating Effort -.08 >.10 Building Social Capital .14 <.05 R = .49; /g = .47; F(5, 238) = 15.03, p < .001 shrunken  (3 .13 -.43 -.20 .00 .29  p >.10 <.001 <.01 >.90 <.001  Adaptation to Organizational Change 123 Table 21 M u l t i p l e Dependent  Regression  A n a l y s i s  of  V a r i a b l e : Job  /^shrunken = -24;  F(5,  D i m e n s i o n s  Involvement  Predictor Supporting Change Resisting Change Career Development Initiating Effort Building Social Capital R = .27;  Adaptation  r .00 -.10 .07 .13 .13 238)  = 3.87,  p < .05  p >.99 >.10 >.10 <.05 <.05  (3 -.20 -.22 .07 .28 .10  p_ <.05 <.01 >.10 <.01 >.10  Adaptation to Organizational Change 124 Table 22 Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment  Predictor Supporting Change Resisting Change Career Development Initiating Effort Building Social Capital  r  P  .15 <.05 -.38 <.001 .07 >.10 .05 >.10 .14 <.05 R = .53; /^shrunken = -52; F(5, 238) 18.57, = p<. 001  3  .20 -.59 .11 .12 .08  P  <.05 <.001 >.10 >.10 >.10  Adaptation to Organizational Change 125 Table 23 Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Intent to Leave the Organization r Predictor P Supporting Change -.04 >.50 Resisting Change .36 <.001 Career Development .23 <.001 Initiating Effort .05 >.10 Building Social Capital -.06 >.10 R = .48; fl = .47; F(5, 238) = 14.48, p < .001 shrunken  3 -.21 .41 .31 -.09 -.17  P  <.05 <.001 <.001 >.10 <.05  Adaptation to Organizational Change 126 Table 24 Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Overall Work Attitudes  Predictor Supporting Change Resisting Change Career Development Initiating Effort Building Social Capital R = .57; R  shmnken  r  .07 -.45 -.10 .00 .16  P  >.10 <.001 >.10 >.99 <.05  = .56; F(5, 238) = 23.157, p < .001  3 .16 -.59 -.13 .14 .23  P  <.05 <.001 >.05 >.05 <.05  Adaptation to Organizational Change 127 Table 25 Multiple Regression Analysis of Adaptation Dimensions Dependent Variable: Job Stress  Predictor Supporting Change Resisting Change Career Development Initiating Effort Building Social Capital R = .55; Shrunken = .54;  r P .06 >.10 .42 <.001 .04 >50 .33 <001 -.02 >.50 F(5, 238) = 20.85, p < .001  3 -.23 .38 -.16 .48 -.20  P  <.05 <.001 <.05 <.001 <.01  Adaptation to Organizational Change 128 Table 26  Adaptation Dimensions that Predict Work-Related Variables" (sign of the beta weight is giv parentheses)  1. Job Satisfaction Resisting Change (-) Career Development (-) Building Social Capital (+) 2. Job Involvement Supporting Change (-) Resisting Change (-) Initiating Effort (+) 3. Organizational Commitment Supporting Change (+) Resisting Change (-) 4. Intent to Leave the Organization Supporting Change (-) Resisting Change (+) Career Development (+) Building Social Capital (-) 5. Overall Work Attitudes Supporting Change (+) Resisting Change (-) Building Social Capital (+) 6. Job Stress Supporting Change (-) Resisting Change (+) Career Development (-) Initiating Effort (+) Building Social Capital (-) a  '  Adaptation dimensions with statistically significant beta weights (p < .05, nondirectional) for each work-related variable are listed.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 129 Discussion  The relationships among adaptation to organizational change, personality, work attitudes, and job stress were examined in this study. As expected, openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive self-concept were positively related to adaptation to organizational change. These dimensions were positively related to at least four of the five adaptation dimensions. Contrary to the hypothesized positive relationship between conscientiousness and adaptation to organizational change, conscientiousness was only modestly related to two of the five adaptation dimensions. An unexpected finding was the moderate relationships between extraversion and three of the five adaptation dimensions. The hypothesized positive relationships between adaptation to organizational change and work attitudes were partially supported by the results. Work attitudes were found to be moderately related to Resisting Change, but not the other four adaptation dimensions. The hypothesized relationships between adaptation to organizational change and job stress were also partially supported. Job stress was found to be related to two of the five adaptation dimensions. The correlates of adaptation to organizational change will now be discussed in light of past research to gain a greater understanding of these dimensions. There were two types of analyses performed in Study 2: bivariate correlational analyses and multiple regression analyses. The relationships discussed among adaptation dimensions, personality traits, and work-related variables will be based on the associated bivariate correlations. On the other hand, the discussion of one variable's ability to predict another will be based on the statistical significance of beta weights from the multiple regression analyses. In other words, when one variable is said to relate to another, this comment is based on correlational results, whereas when one variable is said to predict another, it is based on the significance of the beta weight in the multiple  Adaptation to Organizational Change 130 regression analysis. First, the personality dimensions associated with adaptation to organizational change will be discussed. Then, the relationships between work attitudes and adaptation will be described. Finally, adaptation will be considered with respect to job stress. Personality Traits  The positive intercorrelations among emotional stability, openness, and extraversion, and between emotional stability and agreeableness were compared with results obtained by Costa and McCrae (1992) and found to be moderately higher. In the present study, the correlation between emotional stability and extraversion was .55, which is larger than previous research (r = .21). Similarly, the correlation found between emotional stability and agreeableness (r = .50) is larger than the result found previously (r = .25). The relationship between emotional stability and openness (r = .53) is much larger than the same result obtained by Costa and McCrae (r = -.02). On the other hand, the relationship obtained between openness and extraversion (r = .48) is similar to the correlation obtained previously (r = .40). The moderate intercorrelations among these personality dimensions are larger than those reported by Costa and McCrae. These differences may be due to differences between managers, the population of interest in the present study, and the population examined in previous research, which consisted primarily of white males from a wide range of occupations. Openness was found to have moderately positive relationships with Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital (rs ranged from .26 to .38, see Table 13). Pulakos et al. (2002), however, did not find a relationship between openness and adaptive performance (r = .07). The inconsistency between these findings may be due to differences in the population characteristics and nature of change examined. The present  Adaptation to Organizational Change 131 research examined the relationship between personality and adaptation among managers following a large-scale organizational change, whereas Pulakos et al. examined change at work that did not follow a large-scale organizational change, and involved nonmanagerial employees instead of managers. It is possible that there was more variability in openness among managers in the present study than among nonmanagerial employees in the study by Pulakos et al. It is also possible that openness is associated with adaptation during periods of intense change, such as after a large-scale organizational change, but not during periods of relative stability. Within the stress and coping literature, openness was found to have only a modest relationship with coping (O'Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). It is interesting to note that the adaptation dimensions related to openness in the present study are problem-focused in nature, constituting the second-order factor Solving the Problems of Organizational Change. Openness may be an important variable associated with adaptation at work during periods of intense change and may relate to problem-focused efforts in coping, in particular. Emotional stability had moderate relationships with Supporting Change, Resisting Change, Career Development, and Building Social Capital (see Table 13). The relationships between emotional stability and the adaptation dimensions (rs ranged from .25 to .32) are similar to the relationship Pulakos et al. (2002) found between emotional stability and supervisory ratings of adaptive performance (r = .18). These relationships are also similar to results obtained by Vickers, Kolar, and Hervig (1989; as cited in Watson & Hubbard, 1996) within the stress and coping literature. These authors found the relationships between emotional stability and different forms of coping ranged from r = .16 to r = .37, in absolute value. Watson and Hubbard (1996) suggested that emotional stability is the most important predictor of coping, based on their review of the literature and their finding that emotional stability had the highest multiple  Adaptation to Organizational Change 132 correlation with different forms of coping (R = .63) among the Big Five personality dimensions. When each adaptation dimension was regressed on the personality traits, emotional stability only had a significant beta weight in the prediction of Resisting Change, an emotion-focused strategy. This finding is consistent with past research showing a positive relationship between emotional stability and emotion-focused coping, but not problem-focused coping (O'Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). It appears that while openness may predict problem-focused efforts in adaptation, it is emotional stability that predicts the emotion-focused efforts. Extraversion was positively related to Supporting Change, Career Development, and Building Social Capital. These findings were not hypothesized, although there is some evidence in the stress and coping literature to support the positive relationship between extraversion and problem-focused coping, positive reappraisal, and social support seeking (Amirkhan, Risinger, & Swickert, 1995; Hooker, Monahan, Shifren, & Hutchinson, 1992; Vickers et al., 1989). In the multiple regression of adaptation dimensions on personality dimensions, extraversion was a significant predictor of Building Social Support, and, to a lesser extent, Resisting Change. While the beta weight of extraversion in predicting Resisting Change is positive (J3= .17, p< .05), the correlation between these two variables is small and negative (r = -.09, p > .05). The ability of extraversion to predict Resisting Change in the multiple regression equation, while yielding only a small bivariate correlation with the variable, suggests that extraversion is acting as a suppressor variable. That is, while extraversion does not account for variance in Resisting Change it contributes to the ability of a set of personality traits to predict Resisting Change. Extraversion also predicts Building Social Capital and there are at least two reasons why this may be so. People with high scores on extraversion are more likely to seek out social interaction in stressful situations (Watson & Hubbard, 1996), such as organizational change. In addition, extraversion  Adaptation to Organizational Change 133 is related to positive affect, but unrelated to negative affect (Costa & McCrae, 1980). The tendency to experience positive emotions may make people with high scores on extraversion more attractive to other people and facilitate positive social interactions. Extraversion is an important variable associated with adaptation to organizational change because of the interpersonal nature of work and the importance of social networks in the performance and enjoyment of work. Conscientiousness did not bear a strong relationship with adaptation to organizational change. Conscientiousness was only modestly related to Resisting Change and Career Development, and was not a significant predictor of adaptation dimensions in the multiple regression analyses with the full set of personality traits. These findings differ from the strong relationship found between conscientiousness and coping in previous research. Vickers et al. (1989) found moderately strong relationships between conscientiousness and problem solving (r = .44), positive reappraisal (r = .39), and support seeking (r = .23). Similarly, Hooker et al. (1992) found a strong relationship between conscientiousness and problem-focused coping (r = .35) and emotion-focused coping (r = -.32). Watson and Hubbard (1996) also found solid relationships between conscientiousness and planning (r = .33), active coping (r = .37), and positive reinterpretation and growth (r = .18). Two possible reasons for the lack of a relationship between conscientiousness and adaptation to organizational change in the present study are (a) the nature of the stressful situation, and (b) the measurement of conscientiousness. Adapting to change and uncertainty that arises from large-scale organizational change may not require the dependable, deliberate, and consistent performance that individuals high on conscientiousness demonstrate. While stress and coping research has focused on responses to a stressful event, the stressful events following organizational change may be more ill-defined, varied, and ongoing,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 134 requiring moreflexibleresponses. The lack of a relationship between conscientiousness and adaptation to organizational change may also be due to the breadth in measurement of conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is regarded as a combination of dependability and achievement motivation (Hough, 1992; Mount & Barrick, 1995). While the achievement motivation component of conscientiousness was found to be related to adaptive performance (Pulakos et al., 2002), the dependability component of the measure used in the present study may have obscured this relationship. Agreeableness was found to be related to all five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change, but only predicted Resisting Change in the multiple regression analyses of the adaptation dimensions on the full set of personality dimensions. The relationship of agreeableness to Resisting Change is consistent with the relationship found between agreeableness and confrontive coping (r = -.14; O'Brien & DeLongis, 1996) and between agreeableness and the emotion-focused strategies of mental disengagement (r = -.12) and behavioural disengagement (r = -.15). Finally, positive self-concept was found to be related to the dimensions of adaptation, with the exception of Initiating Effort, which failed to reach statistical significance. Among the multiple regression analyses of the adaptation dimensions on the full set of personality dimensions, self-efficacy predicted Supporting Change, Career Development, and Initiating Effort; whereas, self-esteem predicted Resisting Change. This result may suggest that selfefficacy predicts the problem-focused strategies of adaptation to organizational change, whereas self-esteem predicts the emotion-focused strategies. As hypothesized, positive self-concept emerged as an important predictor of adaptation to organizational change. In summary, adaptation to organizational change can be predicted on the basis of  Adaptation to Organizational Change 135 personality dimensions. The different sets of personality dimensions that predict each adaptation dimension provide further support for the multidimensional nature of adaptation to organizational change. Openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive self-concept predicted more of the adaptation dimensions than conscientiousness and extraversion. It appears that individuals who adapt to organizational change are intellectually-curious and broad-minded, even-tempered, cooperative, and regard themselves and their capacity to function at work positively. Work Attitudes  Overall, work attitudes were most strongly and consistently related to Resisting Change. Job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization correlated with Resisting Change in the expected direction, although job involvement failed to reach statistical significance. While the negative correlation between job involvement and Resisting Change was not statistically significant, the beta weight for Resisting Change in predicting job involvement was significant and in the expected direction. It appears that less activity in the area of Resisting Change is associated with more positive work attitudes. The reason for this relationship may lie in the nature of both work attitudes and Resisting Change. The work attitudes considered in the present study have in common the characteristic of involving affective reactions to work. Resisting Change was described in the previous chapter as involving activities to manage emotions that arise from dealing with change and uncertainty. The finding that those who engage in Resisting Change also experience poorer work attitudes may be for a number of reasons. One the one hand, employees may be more active in Resisting Change when they are overwhelmed by distress, which gives rise to poorer work attitudes. On the other, it is possible that Resisting Change does not effectively reduce distress, and therefore  Adaptation to Organizational Change 136 does not give rise to more positive work attitudes. The link between the affective reaction involved in work attitudes and the management of affective reactions involved in Resisting Change may account for the moderate relationship between these two sets of variables. Job Stress  In the present study, job stress was related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) reported a relationship between job stress and job satisfaction (r = -.29) that is similar to the result found in the present study (r = -.41). The relationships found between job stress and organizational commitment (r = -.23) and between job stress and intent to leave the organization (r = .26) are  similar to those reported by Jamal and Baba (1992; r = -.22 and r = .18, respectively). It appears that job stress is associated with low job satisfaction, low organizational commitment, and an intent to leave the organization, and these results replicate previous research. Job stress was related to Resisting Change. Activities involved in Resisting Change, such as debating changes and ruminating about change, are likely to be experienced as stressful, which may account for this relationship. Alternatively, it is possible that job stress leads one to confront the change and ruminate about it. Another explanation of this relationship is that it can be accounted for by the third variable of psychological symptoms. Dohrenwend, Dohrenwend, Dodson, and Shrout (1984) suggested that the relationship between stress and health outcomes is confounded by psychological symptoms. These authors argue that items from scales measuring these variables represent, to varying degrees, symptoms of psychological disorder and suggest measuring stress objectively to avoid the overlap. In response, Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman, and Gruen (1985) mentioned the futility of separating one's subjective reaction from the measurement of stress, because of the relational, cognitive definition of stress. These authors  Adaptation to Organizational Change 137 argue that stress does not exist in the absence of the person-environment relationship. In the present research, several of the items used to measure Resisting Change appear to overlap with job stress, for example, "worried about a change at work" and "described the negative effect of a change on my well-being to others at work." While these items are conceptually related to job stress, Resisting Change is considered to be a meaningfully distinct scale because its definition extends beyond responses to. distress to include attempts to challenge the change. Nevertheless, it is important to note the affective element of Resisting Change and its conceptual similarity to job stress. Job stress was also associated with Initiating Effort. Many of the activities involved in Initiating Effort, such as working longer hours, working to the point of exhaustion, and adjusting one's personal schedule to accommodate change at work, may be experienced as stressful. Alternatively, job stress may drive employees to work these long hours and take on extra work. Given that Resisting Change and Initiating Effort were the only correlates of job stress among the adaptation dimensions, these activities were carried out following large-scale organizational change by people who were experiencing greater job stress than others. It is interesting to consider why individuals would engage in stressful activities to adapt to change at work, when the presumed function of adaptation is to manage the stressful demands that arise from change. In the case of Resisting Change, challenging change may be carried out in the service of expressing deeply-held values or providing information that is believed to be in the best interest of the organization. In the case of Initiating Effort, working longer hours and taking on more work may be required by the situation or may be consistent with one's work ethic. Despite the stress associated with Resisting Change and Initiating Effort, these activities appear to be important ways in which individuals adapt to organizational change.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 138 Chapter 6 Study 3: A Taxonomy of Adaptation Strategies Following Organizational Change Overview  The purpose of the third study was to identify a taxonomy of strategies for adapting to organizational change. The strategy used by an employee to adapt to change is defined here as the extent to which they use each of the five different adaptation dimensions relative to the others. The use of this term, however, does not imply that the employee chose deliberately among the adaptation dimensions. A taxonomy of adaptation strategies was of interest because managers do not rely solely on one adaptation dimension; Their combination of efforts to adapt to change provides information about how individuals differ in their approach to change and reveals more about the adaptation dimensions, themselves. A taxonomy of adaptation strategies was achieved by a cluster analysis of the data provided by managers in Phase III of Study 1. The profiles of these clusters on the personality, work attitude, and job stress variables measured in Study 2 were then examined. Method Participants. Data provided by participants in Phase III of Study 1 were used to identify  a taxonomy of adaptation strategies following organizational change. To review, 553 managers (214 males, 339 females) from four organizations that had experienced a large-scale organizational change in the past four years provided responses to an online questionnaire between February and May of 2003. The demographic characteristics of the sample are provided in Phase III of Study 1. Data Analysis. A taxonomy of adaptation strategies that managers use following a large-  scale organizational change was identified by cluster analysis. The data from the five adaptation  Adaptation to Organizational Change 139 scales were rendered commensurable (extending over the same score range) by dividing the scores on each scale by the number of items on that scale. In order to pool the data from the two gender groups, the scores were then mean-deviated within gender to eliminate the possibility of between-groups correlation. Thus, the cluster analysis was performed using only the five adaptation dimensions. The first step in the cluster analysis was to choose a clustering algorithm to form clusters of participants on the basis of their scores on the adaptation dimensions. A combination of hierarchical and non-hierarchical procedures was chosen to gain the benefits of each. First, the clusters were created in a hierarchical process of combining observations, in order to identify the number of cluster, to profile the cluster centres, and to identify outliers. Described later in this section is a refinement of the cluster analysis using non-hierarchical procedures. A hierarchical procedure to form clusters of participants was the first step in the cluster analysis. With a hierarchical procedure, the two most similar observations not already in the same cluster are combined. This rule is applied repeatedly until all observations are in the same cluster. Each time the rule is applied, an agglomeration coefficient is calculated to indicate the distance between the two observations being combined. An agglomeration schedule lists the agglomeration coefficient associated with each combination of clusters. Since the goal is to create clusters that minimize the distance between the observations within each cluster, large agglomeration coefficients are undesirable. Ward's hierarchical method was chosen for clustering the data to minimize within-cluster differences and because of its well-established usage as a clustering algorithm (Milligan, 1980). Ward's method uses the squared Euclidean distance as its similarity measure in forming clusters. This distance is the sum of squares between the two clusters summed over all variables. Outliers were examined in the  Adaptation to Organizational Change 140 agglomeration schedule. Given that no individual's score joined a cluster in the last 20 steps of the cluster analysis, it was determined that outliers did not influence the data. The next step was to identify the optimal number of clusters. The agglomeration coefficients were examined at each stage of the hierarchical clustering process. Given that larger agglomeration coefficients indicate the merging of heterogeneous clusters, the agglomeration coefficients were examined for large increases between stages in the process. There were large increases in the agglomeration coefficients from five to four clusters (10% increase) and from two to one cluster (62% increase). This finding suggested that either two or five clusters would be optimum. To assist in selecting the final cluster solution, the interpretability of the solutions was examined by profiling the two- and five-cluster solutions. The results of the hierarchical cluster analysis were then refined by non-hierarchical techniques. The initial seed points used in the non-hierarchical cluster analysis were the cluster centroids taken from the hierarchical results. The final centroid values and cluster sizes from the non-hierarchical refinement corresponded well to the hierarchical results. The next step in the cluster analysis was to interpret the clusters. For each cluster, the mean on each adaptation dimension was computed, and a MANOVA was carried out to determine whether these means differed across clusters. In addition, differences in age, work experience with the organization, and gender on these dimensions across the five clusters were examined by MANOVAs and followed up with multiple comparisons. To determine if the clusters differed by gender, an analysis of variance of proportions (Marascuilo, 1966) was performed. A process of validating the clusters was then carried out. The validity of the solution was examined in three ways. First, the solution was compared with another solution that emerged  Adaptation to Organizational Change 141 from an alternative method. The alternative method used was a non-hierarchical cluster analysis with the initial seed points selected at random. Second, the validity of the solution was assessed by examining whether or not the cluster means differed on the overall work attitude and job stress variables. The validity was examined by performing ANOVAs with cluster membership as the independent variable and work attitudes as the dependent variable in one analysis, and job stress as the dependent variable in the other. The third stage in providing evidence of the validity of the cluster solution involved a comparison of the results of identical cluster analyses in two randomly-selected subsamples of data. The cluster analysis performed in both subsamples involved a hierarchical solution, followed by a non-hierarchical refinement using the hierarchical cluster centroids as initial seed points. The logic was that if the cluster solutions in the subsamples were similar, then the common solution would be an accurate portrayal of the clusters. On the basis of these analyses, evidence was provided to support the final cluster solution. After the cluster solution was determined, the clusters were profiled with respect to personality. A MANOVA was used to examine the differences among the clusters on nine personality dimensions. This analysis was followed up with ANOVAs to examine differences among the clusters within each personality dimension. Finally, the ability of the personality dimensions to discriminate between two interesting clusters was examined using discriminant function analysis. The standardized discriminant function coefficients were examined to identify the personality dimensions that were best able to discriminate between the clusters.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 142 Results Identification and interpretation of the clusters. Two- and five-cluster solutions were  suggested on the basis of relatively large increases in the agglomeration coefficients in going from two to one cluster and five to four clusters. The profiles of both cluster solutions on the five adaptation dimensions were identified to aid in selecting the final cluster solution. These profiles are presented in Table 27. In the two-cluster'solution, the results of a MANOVA suggested that the differences between the clusters on the five adaptation dimensions were statistically significant, F(5,547) = 206.84, p < .001. Similarly, the results of a MANOVA with the five-cluster solution showed that the five clusters differed on the adaptation dimensions, F(20,1805.19) = 85.43, p < .001. An examination of the two-cluster solution revealed that the two clusters were mirror images of each other. The first cluster showed high scores on the five adaptation scales, while the second cluster showed low values on these scales. The consistently high versus low scores on the adaptation dimensions in the two-cluster solution provided limited conceptual information about the clusters. An examination of the five-cluster solution, on the other hand, provided more interesting variation in levels of the five adaptation scales among the clusters. The two-cluster solution obscured these interesting profiles on the five adaptation dimensions. On this basis, the five-cluster solution was chosen. The hierarchical cluster solution for five clusters was then refined by non-hierarchical techniques. The five-cluster non-hierarchical cluster solution, with initial seed points taken from the centroids of the hierarchical analysis is presented in Table 28. The results of a MANOVA indicated that the means of the five clusters on the adaptation dimensions differed, F(20,1805) = 111.90,/?<.001.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 143 Table 27 Adaptation Profiles for the Two- and Five-Cluster Hierarchical Cluster Solutions  Cluster Variable Mean Values Supporting Resisting Career Initiating Cluster Change Change Development Effort Two-cluster solution 1 .34 .21 .32 .42 2 -.45 -.28 -.42 -.56 Five-cluster solution 1 .38 -.21 .37 .36 2 -.33 -.23 -.36 -.42 3 .71 .83 .81 .93 4 .13 .49 .05 .27 5 -.97 -.52 -.72 -1.15 Statistical significance of differences between cluster centres: Two-cluster solution F value 322.82 110.52 346.00 604.96 Significance <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 Five-cluster solution F value 131.56 115.90 146.62 273.83 Significance <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 Note, n = 553  Building Social Capital  Cluster Size  .35 -.46  315 238  .45 -.38 .72 .06 -.83  149 193 50 116 45  406.07 <.01 163.07 <.01  Adaptation to Organizational Change 144 Table 28  Adaptation Profiles for the Five-Cluster Solution from the Non-Hierarchical Cluster Analysis with Initial Seed Points Taken from the Hierarchical Centroids  Cluster  Supporting Change  Resisting Change  M  M  SD  SD  Career Development M  SD  Initiating Effort M  SD  1 .46 .39 -.29 .36 .32 .47 .32 .38 2 -.22 .38 -.24 .42 -.26 .38 -.30 .39 3 .72 .37 .69 .47 .71 .41 .82 .35 4 .08 .38 .51 .39 .13 .43 .28 .46 5 -.89 .42 -.48 .40 -.69 .33 -.91 .38 Statistical significance of differences between cluster centres: F value 233.71 159.15 159.28 255.49 Significance <.Q1 <.Q1 <.Q1 <01 Note, n = 553  Building Social Capital M  SD  .53 -.24 .71 -.10 -.69  .42 .39 .38 .43 .41  182.32 <.Q1  Cluster Size 110 159 75 119 90  Adaptation to Organizational Change 145 The next step in the cluster analysis was to obtain an interpretation of the five dimensions. To guide the interpretation of the profiles of the clusters on the adaptation dimensions, the cluster variable mean values were portrayed in graphical form. The results are presented in Figure 1. Cluster 1 had moderately high means on Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital, and a moderately low mean on Resisting Change. Recall from Chapter 4 that these first four dimensions are primarily problemfocused in nature, while Resisting Change is primarily emotion-focused. This unique pattern of peaks and valley was labelled strategy 1. Cluster 2 showed means slightly below average across all dimensions. This indicates that participants in cluster 2 are using all of the adaptation dimensions indiscriminately and slightly less than average. Since scores on the dimensions are based on the frequency with which the activities are performed, a label was chosen to reflect the level of activity across dimensions. Cluster 2 was labelled moderately responsive. Cluster 3, on the other hand, had very high means across all adaptation dimensions. Again, participants in this cluster were using the adaptation dimensions indiscriminately, but their level of activity was much higher. Thus, cluster 3 was labelled highly responsive. Cluster 4 had a high mean on Resisting Change, average means on Supporting Change, Career Development, and Initiating Effort, and a slightly lower than average mean on Building Social Capital. This cluster appeared to be a mirror image of strategy 1, and so was labelled strategy 2. Cluster 5 had very low scores on all adaptation dimensions, with a slightly higher score on Resisting Change. Another cluster suggesting indiscriminate use of the adaptation dimensions, this cluster engaged in adaptive activities much less than average. On this basis, cluster 5 was labelled unresponsive. Strategy 1 and 2 were labelled with numerals rather than descriptive words to avoid assigning an evaluative label, which would not have been supported without criterion data.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 146  Adaptation Dimensions Cluster profiles for the five-cluster non-hierarchical solution with initial seed points from the hierarchical results. Adaptation Dimension 1 = Supporting Change, 2 = Resisting Change, 3 = Career Development, 4 = Initiating Effort, 5 = Building Social Capital. Figure 1.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 147 The clusters did not differ in age, F(4,545) = .501, p > .50, length of experience with the organization, F(4,455) = .602, p > .50, or gender, %(4) = .1326, p > .99. 2  Validation of the clusters. The validity of the cluster solution was examined in three  ways. The first approach to providing evidence to support the validity of the cluster solution involved a comparison between the cluster solution and a second solution achieved by an alternative method. The five-cluster non-hierarchical solution with initial seed points taken from the hierarchical results was compared with the non-hierarchical cluster solution with initial seed points selected at random. The results are presented in Table 29 and the graphs of both solutions are shown in Figure 2. The results of the two solutions are very similar. Not only are the means of each cluster on the five adaptation dimensions between the two solutions similar, but also the cluster sizes between the two solutions are similar. There were more participants in clusters 1, 2, and 4 than in clusters 3 and 5 in both solutions. The stability in the results between two different cluster solutions indicates that the same five-cluster solution emerges even when using different methods. The second approach to establishing the validity of the cluster solution involved examining the differences among the clusters on scores on the overall work attitude and job stress variables. Recall that the overall work attitude variable is the component scores from the first principal component of scores on job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization. The results of a MANOVA indicated that the clusters had different scores on the overall work attitude and job stress variables, F(8,474) = 7.12, p <.001. The univariate analyses of variance results are presented in Table 30. The cluster using strategy 1 had the highest mean on overall work attitudes (M = .53), and the cluster using  Adaptation to Organizational Change 148 strategy 2 had the lowest mean on this variable (M = -.58). Using Tukey's method of multiple comparisons, the difference between these means was found to be statistically significant, #(239,4) = 5.83, p < .001, as was the difference between the means of the strategy 1 and highly responsive clusters, #(239,4) = 3.61, p < .001. It is also interesting to note that the strategy 1 cluster had the lowest mean on job stress (M = 23.54). Recall from Chapter 5 that job stress was measured by a 9-item scale with a mean of 26.39 and a standard deviation of 6.38 in the sample of 553 managers. The difference between the mean of those using strategy 1 on job stress and the means on job stress of those using the highly responsive strategy and strategy 2 were statistically significant comparisons, #(239,4) = 4.53, p < .001, and #(239,4) = 4.15, p < .001, respectively. The evidence that strategy 1 was associated with the most positive work attitudes and the lowest level of job stress is consistent with the interpretation of this strategy as one where participants use problem-focused approaches to adaptation. The high levels of problemfocused adaptive behaviours and low level of emotion-focused adaptation would be expected to be associated with positive work attitudes and low job stress. Given the high level of Resisting Change associated with the strategy 2 cluster and highly responsive cluster, it is no surprise to find that participants in these clusters experience negative work attitudes and high levels of job stress. The high levels of Resisting Change in both of these clusters would suggest poor work attitudes and high job stress. The relationships between the clusters and work attitudes and job stress suggest that the clusters differ in meaningful ways..  Adaptation to Organizational Change 149  N CO  s  s 3  t-l O  ON  3 H—' "o co 3 CO  m •tf  so  in  ON  T-H  <D  u .2  PS ca S  <p  ON in  ON  o  ON  i n -tf 0 0 T - H N PQ •<* •<* c o -tf h  O _ CO eg OX) •? OJ  co  o  co  m  CA VO  CO  [—  cn o m  00  O  Tt  3  o  '3  <;in^rCNcnr--ro-H-tfso-tf  PQ  s - . s o m c N s o c o O N r - ^ c N i n O N  a  <+H  w  3 a  •5  N M O C M N i n O O S D H O O < £ c o c o c o c o o o c o c N - t f O N c o  «  .' r  S  IJ s  •2 *  PQ c o T > \0 •tf CO  ca  Q  3 »'  '  ' f  H  00  n co CN woo rt « O co  CO  f  CO  CN h  co  «  00  H  - i CO CO ON CO  Ci  ^ -.  c  *  '-TH  u  P  «  ca  ONSOTrcNONt^T-HONOOO  „ O O O O C N O O O - t f C O  PQcocococot^xt^  OXM  £ OS *•*  O CO  60  co  ^ 8  >—iCNCOt^COCNON'-HCNOO P Q C N T f C N C O O O T f - T j - C O i n . CO  o 3  11 O  '  & <2 3  &o cu  •S a  " '  if-  o  ON -tf  o  co  CO  ^VOONCNOOCNr^OOOOCNCN ^ • t f c o c N c o r ^ c o o c o o o - t f  •Q ^ Q ^ Q Co ~* c n ^  ca  &o  co in m  •2 2 a  f l  3£  ^  co  3  u  T-H  CN  CO  in  s <5  Adaptation to Organizational Change 150  . — -  ___  B - ^ ^ s ^  *  •  «  ---^Cluster 3 Cluster 1  _3> C^ <  —  1  ":™  A  —-~-^Cbister 4 i  4 —  Cluster 2  jjlf. (^uster 5  Adaptation Dimensions 2. Comparison of cluster profiles for the five-cluster non-hierarchical solution with initial seed points from the hierarchical results (above) and the non-hierarchical cluster solution with initial seed points selected at random (below). The means of each cluster on the five adaptation dimensions from the two solutions are similar. Adaptation Dimension 1 = Supporting Change, 2 = Resisting Change, 3 = Career Development, 4 = Initiating Effort, 5 = Building Social Capital.  Figure  Adaptation to Organizational Change 151 Table 30 Mean Values of the Clusters on Overall Work Attitudes and Job Stress  Cluster  3  F  1 M  2 SD  M  3 SD  M  4 SD  M  5 SD  M  ratio SD  Overall Work Attitudes .53 .90 .14 .93 -.22 .96 -.58 1.05 -.02 .80 9.43 Job Stress 23.54 5.51 25.82 5.14 29.63 6.31 28.67 7.22 24.78 6.58 7.67 5  Note, n = 553. All F ratios are statistically significant, p < .001. 3  b  Cluster 1 = Strategy 1,2 = Moderately Responsive, 3 = Highly Responsive, 4 = Strategy 2, 5 = Unresponsive. Component scores from the first principal component of scores on job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the organization (see Work Attitude Measures within the Method Section of Study 2.)  Adaptation to Organizational Change 152  The final approach to establishing the validity of the clusters was to examine the cluster solutions from data in two independent subsamples. The five-cluster non-hierarchical cluster solutions, with initial seed points taken from the centroids of the hierarchical analysis, for both subsamples are presented in Table 31. The corresponding graphs showing the cluster variable mean values are given in Figure 3. The differences in the adaptation dimensions between the corresponding strategy 2 clusters from two independent subsamples were not statistically significant, F(5,97) = 1.39, p > .10. The differences between the corresponding unresponsive clusters were also not statistically significant, F(5,80) = .929, p > .10. The differences in the adaptation dimensions between the corresponding highly responsive clusters, however, were statistically significant, F(5,101) = 8.89, p < .001. Differences existed in Resisting Change, Career Development, and Building Social Capital. The differences between the corresponding moderately responsive clusters were also statistically significant, F(5,127) = 2.51, p < .05, with a difference in Resisting Change. Finally, the differences between the corresponding strategy 1 clusters were statistically significant, F(5,118) = 1.35, p < .001. Differences existed in Resisting Change and Building Social Capital. Although some differences did exist between the two subsamples on the five clusters, the overall profiles of these clusters on the adaptation dimensions showed the same pattern in both subsamples, and showed a similar pattern to the full sample.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 153 Table 31  Adaptation Profiles for the Five-Cluster Non-Hierarchical Solutions with Initial Seed Points Taken from the Hierarchical Results, Obtained in Two Independent Subsamples  Cluster 1 2 3 4 5  M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD  Supporting Change Subsample 1 2 .29 .29 .35 .38 -.26 -.22 .45 .39 .59 .73 .39 .36 -.17 -.13 .42 .34 -1.02 -1.01 .41 .29  Note, n = 553  Career Initiating Resisting Change Development Effort Subsample Subsample Subsample 1 2 1 2 1 2 -.36 .02 .58 .22 -.03 .25 .43 .49 .46 .34 .40 .41 -.37 -.37 -.32 -.41 -.29 --.59 .37 .50 .40 .40 .47 .41 .54 .34 .42 .80 .64 .81 .58 .57 .43 .39 .37 .36 .39 .27 -.04 -.21 .12 .08 .40 .37 .40 .41 .43 .43 -.47 -.50 -.65 -.71 -1.03 --.86 .38 .32 .31 .31 .29 .38  Building Social Capital Subsample 1 2 .50 .21 .47 .38 -.23 --.39 .48 .39 .46 .85 .48 .34 -.18 --.26 .42 .45 -.81 --.62 .28 .43  Cluster Size Subsample 1 2 56 68 70  63  65  42  49  54  36  50  Adaptation to Organizational Change 154  * A-—  4 T^w"  4  2  ^  ^  -  ^  Cluster 3 Cluster 1 ^Cluster 4  b u t t e r 5  -1.5 Adaptation Dimensions  Figure 3. Comparison of cluster profiles for the five-cluster non-hierarchical solution with initial seed points from the hierarchical results in subsample 1 (above) and subsample 2 (below). The profiles of the strategy 2 and unresponsive clusters did not differ between the two subsamples. The profiles of the strategy 1, highly responsive, and moderately responsive clusters were different between the two subsamples. Adaptation Dimension 1 = Supporting Change, 2 = Resisting Change, 3 = Career Development, 4 = Initiating Effort, 5 = Building Social Capital.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 155  The bulk of the evidence provided by (a) alternative cluster solutions, (b) relationships between the clusters, on the one hand, and work attitudes and job stress, on the other, and (c) a comparison of cluster solutions in two independent subsamples supported the validity of the cluster solutions. It appears that the five clusters are meaningfully different in their adaptation strategy across the five dimensions. Cluster profiles on personality dimensions. The clusters were profiled on nine  personality dimensions: openness, emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, internal locus of control, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and positive self-concept (for a complete description of these measures see the Methods section of Study 2.) The means and standard deviations of the five clusters on these personality dimensions are presented in Table 32, along with the results of the analysis of variance of each personality dimension across the five clusters. A multivariate analysis of variance indicated that the means of the five clusters differed across the personality dimensions, Wilk's A = .67, F(28,849) = 3.60, p < .001. The assumption of homogeneity of variance covariance matrices was supported, F(112, 83114) = .999, p > .10, thus ruling out bias due to the Behrens-Fisher problem. Differences between the clusters on each personality dimension were examined first by univariate ANOVA, and then with Tukey's method of multiple comparisons. Given the number of multiple comparisons performed, Type I error rate was a concern. The probability of committing a Type I error per hypothesis test was set to p = .01 (nondirectional). Those using strategy 1 had a higher mean score on openness than the moderately responsive cluster, #(4,304) = 3.17, p < .01, strategy 2 cluster, #(4,304) = 4.11, p < .001, and unresponsive cluster, #(4,304) = 5.63, p < .001. Similarly, the highly responsive cluster had a higher mean score on openness than the strategy 2 cluster, #(4,304) = 3.57,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 156 p < .01), and unresponsive cluster, #(4,304) = 4.98, p < .001. The five clusters had different mean values on emotional stability. Those using strategy 1 had a higher mean score on emotional stability than the moderately responsive cluster, #(4,304) = 3.39, p < .01, strategy 2 cluster, #(4,304) = 5.48, p < .001, and unresponsive cluster, #(4,304) = 4.04, p < .01. The highly responsive cluster had a higher mean score on emotional stability than the strategy 2 cluster, #(4,304) = 3.59, p < .01. On extraversion, those using strategy 1 and the highly responsive strategy had the highest mean scores. The mean for strategy 1 was higher than the means for the strategy 2, #(4,304) = 5.47, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 4.77, p < .001, clusters. Similarly, the highly responsive cluster had a higher mean on extraversion than the moderately responsive, #(4,304) = 3.53, p < .01, strategy 2, #(4,304) = 5.59, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 4.98, p < .001, clusters. The differences between the means of the five clusters on conscientiousness were not statistically significant. The clusters did not differ from one another on conscientiousness. The mean scores on agreeableness were higher for those using strategy 1 than for the moderately responsive, #(4,304) = 4.33, p < .001, strategy 2, #(4,304) = 5.61, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 4.75, p < .001, clusters. The highly responsive cluster also had a higher mean score on agreeableness than the strategy 2 cluster, #(4,304) = 3.63, p < .01.  Adaptation toOrganizational Change 157  CO  o  o o  o m A  o  in  00  O  ON NO  CO  NO NO  ON  CO  d  CO  in  V  o  o  in l-l r H  rH  co Tf  T-H  o o  r~-  r-  r-H  OO  p  00  co oo 00 Tf in  d  m  o V  V  p  OO  o  o  rH ©  o  o  o  CO m NO CO CN ON H ON r H i n m  o  00 NO i n oo CN o  O  m  o V  o V  o V  co  CN  NO  NO i-H r-H  CN  r-H  CD _ >  CN OO  in in vq CN T f T f CN r-; T f od i n T f T f r-* NO* ON T f r H CO CN co ON  c o PH a II  Tf  VO CN O T f CN co vq ON co p r- o i n VO ON ON d Tf Tf in  co T f CN CN T f r H CO T f CO co ON VO VO i n >n co  CN CO  oo  ON  o  in O  O N  C N  Tf  -H  C N  oo  co T f 00 CO CN  too <u  ^H  2  -r-»  CO  CO  o  in 00  CO 00  00  O  m  CN CN co T f in in CN r H r H ON co CN 00 NO NO ON r~ r H CO in T f ON T f d in CN m m CO NO rm ON  Tf  00  ON NO  Tf  Tf  in in in  in co co CO Tf  CN  II  CO rNO  Tf  <u >  rH  • rH  c o C/l  OH W2  CU  T f oo ri n CO oo CO ON vq CN CN NO vd d VO co 00 m rin in  o  NO  Tf  00  r-  CO o r- ON O VO CO VO T f CN ON ON Tf in Tf d Tf CN T f co Tf in CN  ON NO VO  m  ON  >> 60  ON ON  CO CO i n rH  II  CO CU >n  CO  Tf  Tf  d  vd  NO  ON  o  CO00CO Tf  m  in 00  00  P ^ Q ^5  5 COvd o  CO  in  m  VO  00  in  ON NO  COi n  in  ON  rH  VO  in  Tf  i>  m  >  c o  CO C N iC nOi n CO  in  Tf Tf  Tf Tf  VO  NO  OH  CD  rH  Q Q ^ co Q co ^ co  8  C o C o  CO  O o  CO CN  Q ^ Q ^ Q  tO  H  CD  •a  o  CN  s c o  •4—<  c c OH  »  o E W  o  a \X W  •H  nscienti  IX  c  versii  CO  C w  no  •§ •*-»  S  Uo  PH  CD  U  cao  -*H  ional  C N  05"  C/3  <D  C C  ^<D  on oo  rl  c o  U  6<u  o  CD  CO  CD  H  a too <  e  <D  bO  CD  o  IX  W <u  CO  CU  CO  tX  O  OH  CO £  CO  II  Adaptation to Organizational Change 158 There were some differences among the clusters on the personality dimensions related to positive self-concept. On internal locus of control, the differences among the clusters were statistically significant, although none of the pairs of clusters was significantly different. On self-esteem, those using strategy 1 had a higher mean score than both the strategy 2, #(4,304) = 4.44, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 3.60, p < .01, clusters. On self-efficacy, those using strategy 1 had a higher mean score than both the strategy 2, #(4,304) = 4.50, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 5.41, p < .001, clusters. Similarly, the highly responsive cluster had a higher mean on self-efficacy than the strategy 2, #(4,304) = 4.12, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 4.97, p < .001, clusters. On the positive self-concept dimension itself, those using strategy 1 had a higher mean score than the moderately responsive, #(4,304) = 3.61, p < .01, strategy 2, #(4,304) = 6.21, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 4.95, p < .001, clusters. The highly responsive cluster also had a higher mean score than the strategy 2, #(4,304) = 4.56, p < .001, and unresponsive, #(4,304) = 3.44, p < .01, clusters. The personality dimensions associated with strategy 1 and 2, in particular, were examined in greater detail. The assumption that the variance-covariance matrices of the two clusters are the same in the population was supported by the results of a Bartlett Box Test, F(36,32206) = .911, p > .50. The discriminant function successfully discriminated between the two strategies on the basis of weights applied to scores on the personality dimensions, D = 2.10, F(8,94) = 2  2.973, p < .01. The standardized and normalized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 33.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 159 Table 33  Standardized and Normalized Discriminant Function Coefficients Accompanying the Person Dimensions in the Discriminant Analysis of the Strategy 1 and Strategy 2 Clusters  Personality Dimension Openness Emotional Stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Internal Locus of Control Self-Esteem Self-Efficacy  Discriminant Function Coefficient .0212 .4341 .4096 -.2828 .6228 .0483 .0142 .4157  Note. Strategy 1 cluster n = 47, Strategy 2 cluster n = 56.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 160 The results of the discriminant function analysis suggest that agreeableness, emotional stability, extraversion, and self-efficacy carry a large amount of weight in discriminating between strategy 1 and 2. It is interesting to note that conscientiousness had a moderately negative discriminant function coefficient. Managers using strategy 1 have a somewhat lower level of conscientiousness than those using strategy 2. It may be that while individuals with a higher level of conscientiousness demonstrate better task performance, they do not use strategy 1. More than managers using strategy 2, managers using a strategy 1 are more good-natured and cooperative, even-tempered, outgoing and talkative, and have a strong sense of their capacity to function at work. Discussion  Five strategies for adapting to organizational change emerged from managers' scores on the five adaptation dimensions. These strategies were labelled: strategy 1, strategy 2, highly responsive, moderately responsive, and unresponsive. The extent of use of the different adaptation dimensions within each strategy was meaningfully different across the adaptation strategies and provided further insight into adaptation to organizational change. Participants in the five clusters differed in work attitudes, jobs stress, and underlying personality dimensions. Whereas in Studies 1 and 2 the adaptation dimensions were considered in isolation, the dimensions were considered in combination in Study 3 with the goal of developing a taxonomy of adaptation strategies among managers following organizational change. The five strategies of adapting to organizational change will be discussed next in light of results provided by Study 3. Strategy 1 was marked by a high level of Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital, and a low level of Resisting Change, relative to other managers. This strategy is unique in that it draws on the four problem-focused approaches  Adaptation to Organizational Change 161 to adaptation (described in Study 1) and involves little use of the emotion-focused approach. Not surprisingly, managers who use this strategy experience more positive work attitudes and less job stress than other managers. Strategy 1 was associated with higher levels of openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and positive self-concept than both strategy 2 and the unresponsive strategy. Strategy 2, on the other hand, was indicated by a high level of Resisting Change, and lower levels of Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital, relative to other managers. This strategy appears to be the mirror image of strategy 1 in that it is marked by more emotion-focused approaches to adaptation and fewer problem-focused efforts. Consistent with this interpretation of strategy 2, managers who used this strategy experienced the most negative work attitudes among the different strategies, and had higher levels of job stress than three of the four other strategies. Managers who use strategy 2 have lower levels of openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and positive self-concept than those using both strategy 1 and the highly responsive strategy. There is a clear difference between managers who use strategy 1 and 2 to adapt to adaptation to organizational change. In addition to a substantial difference in their tendency to engage in Resisting Change, these two groups also differed in their tendency to engage in Building Social Capital. Managers who used strategy 1 engaged more in Building Social Capital than those who used strategy 2. Managers who used strategy 2, on the other hand, engaged in a low level of this activity relative to their other efforts to adapt to change. Both Resisting Change and Building Social Capital are important ways in which strategies 1 and 2 differ. The difference between strategies 1 and 2 is associated with underlying individual differences in personality. On the basis of personality dimensions alone, it was possible to  Adaptation to Organizational Change 162 predict group membership in these two adaptation strategies. This finding highlights the relatively stable aspect of adaptation to organizational change. Adaptation to organizational change is not solely a function of the change itself, but also depends on the personality characteristics of the individual.. The remaining three adaptation strategies—highly responsive, moderately responsive, and unresponsive—were characterized by a consistent level of performance across all five approaches to adaptation, but different mean levels of activity. Managers who used these three adaptation strategies differed in their personality, work attitudes, and job stress and were different from those managers using strategies 1 and 2. The highly responsive adaptation strategy was characterized by consistently higher levels of activity in all five approaches to adaptation to organizational change. Managers who used this strategy experienced more negative work attitudes and a higher level of job stress than those using strategy 1. While their poor work attitudes and high job stress were similar to those using strategy 2, their personality profile was more similar to strategy 1. Managers who used the highly responsive strategy had higher levels of openness, emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, self-efficacy, and positive self-concept than those who use strategy 2. The similarity in personality dimensions to those using strategy 1, on the one hand, but similarity in  work attitudes and job stress to those using strategy 2, on the other, may be the result of engaging in a high level of Resisting Change. It may be that the use of Resisting Change among those using a highly responsive strategy that is associated with their poor work attitudes and high level of job stress. It appears that managers who are highly responsive do not discriminate among their approaches to adaptation, and consequently suffer poor work attitudes and high job stress associated with Resisting Change.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 163 The moderately responsive strategy characterized managers who were slightly below average on all five adaptation dimensions. Like the managers who use a highly responsive strategy, these managers did not discriminate among adaptation dimensions in their approach to organizational change. Another group of managers who did not discriminate in their approach to adaptation was the group who used an unresponsive strategy. These managers engaged in very little activity to adapt to change at work. Managers who used the unresponsive strategy did not have particularly positive or negative work attitudes, but they did have lower job stress than managers who used the highly responsive strategy and strategy 2. These managers were also marked by lower levels of openness, emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and positive self-concept than those using strategy 1. While they are similar to managers who use strategy 2 in terms of their personality, interestingly, they do not suffer the poor work attitudes and job stress that these managers do. One explanation for this difference is that they simply engaged less in Resisting Change than the managers who use strategy 2. Another possible explanation is that the situations in which these managers found themselves did not involve as much change as the situations experienced by those who used strategy 2. This interpretation will be discussed next. During the feedback workshops that the author delivered to managers in the participating organizations after the completion of the research, several managers raised the issue of having consistently low scores on the adaptation dimensions. The author probed into their experiences of change over the past year and discovered that they had experienced less change than most managers within their organizations. Despite the massive change the organizations had been through, these managers had been buffered from the changes and protected from the potential for  Adaptation to Organizational Change 164 layoffs by the nature of their position and department within the organization. For example, a medical records manager had not been greatly affected by a merger of eight hospitals because she had been overseeing the medical records departments of these hospitals before the merger took place. On the other hand, a laboratory manager in the same hospital experienced tremendous change when his lab was merged with eight others that had substantially different processes, equipment, and work culture. Given that the participating managers had been asked to report on the frequency of engaging in activities associated with adaptation over the past year, and some managers had not experienced a great deal of change in the past year, it was not surprising that their scores would be consistently lower than those of other managers. This phenomenon highlights the fact that differences in adaptation to organizational change may be constrained by the situation. For managers who did not experience a great deal of change, there would have been a lesser requirement to adapt and perhaps less opportunity to do so. This idea may explain why managers using an unresponsive strategy are similar to managers using strategy 2 in terms "of their personality, but show more positive work attitudes and less job stress. Perhaps if these unresponsive managers were in a situation where there were a great deal of change, their approach to the change would resemble strategy 2 because of the similarity in the personality profiles of these two groups. On the basis of the results of Study 3, two factors may be at play in determining how one adapts to organizational change: (a) individual differences in personality, and (b) situational constraints. Differences among managers in personality may lead them to choose different strategies of adapting to organizational change. For example, individuals with a low level of emotional stability may tend to choose emotion-focused strategies, such as escape and avoidance, to deal with change and then find that many of the problems associated with the  Adaptation to Organizational Change 165 change are unresolved; an outcome that in turn leads to the experience of distress. The situation, however, may also affect what activities are possible (e.g., there are fewer opportunities to build social relationships for individuals who work from home) and what activities are required by the situation. For example, for managers who are required to be on-call after hours following a change, their likelihood of engaging in Initiating Effort may increase because of the nature of the change. In summary, it appears that individuals use different adaptation dimensions in varying degrees. Among many different combinations of these adaptation dimensions, five distinct and meaningful strategies of adaptation to organizational change were identified. These five strategies were associated with different personality profiles, work attitudes, and job stress. The strategy one uses to adapt to large-scale organizational change may be influenced by both stable individual differences in personality and the context of change in which one is required to adapt.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 166 Chapter 7 General Summary And Conclusions The purpose of the present research was to examine how individuals adapt to change and uncertainty at work following large-scale organizational change. An empirically-based structural model was developed in Study 1, in which five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change were identified. In Study 2, the personality, work attitude, and job stress correlates of adaptation to organizational change were explored. Finally, a taxonomy of styles of adapting to organizational change was identified to examine how individual differ in their use of the five adaptation dimensions in combination. The purposes of this chapter are to summarize the main findings of the three studies, discuss their conceptual implications, identify limitations to the present research, and offer suggestions for further research. The interpretation of the results and their relationships to previous research were dealt with previously in the Discussion sections within each study. Study 1  The goal of the first study was to identify the structure underlying adaptation to organizational change. Five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change emerged and were labelled Supporting Change, Resisting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital. The results support the conclusion that adaptation to organizational change is a multidimensional construct. Efforts to manage internal and external demands that arise from changing and uncertain work situations can be organized into a number of distinguishable dimensions. The five adaptation dimensions were empirically derived from a comprehensive set of responses to organizational change. These dimensions replicate previous research on adaptation  Adaptation to Organizational Change 167 to change at work, as well as including adaptive themes that were not previously identified. These new themes include: making sense of change, taking a positive approach to change, thinking about the positive consequences of change, seeking opportunities to benefit from change, pursuing other job opportunities, and using relationships to increase one's influence within the organization. These themes represent important ways in which managers adapt to organizational change and extend previous research on adaptation to change at work. Managers may face three challenges that arise from organizational change. They may be required to deal with (a) increased uncertainty, (b) disrupted social networks, and (c) challenges to their competence. The five adaptation dimensions developed in this study describe behaviours that logically appear to meet these challenges. In an attempt to deal with increased uncertainty, managers may seek to create meaning from the change, selectively focus on the positive aspects of change, promote the change to others within the organization, avoid work and distance themselves from change protectively, and focus on their career development. In an attempt to manage disrupted social networks, managers may build new relationships at work with people in other areas of the organization, take part in social activities, and network with people who have influence within the organization. In an attempt to meet the challenges to their competence, managers may solve problems and remove obstacles to change, develop their skills, gain new experience, and take on extra work. The adaptive responses identified through the model of adaptation to organizational change relate to three core challenges that can arise from organizational change. Study 2  The goal of the second study was to identify the relationships between the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change, on the one hand, and personality dimensions, work attitudes,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 168 and job stress, on the other. The research demonstrated that adaptation to organizational change can be predicted from stable personality dimensions, which include openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive self-concept. Selection on the basis of these personality dimensions is valuable in identifying individuals who will display greater adaptability to organizational change. Individuals who are intellectually curious and broadminded, eventempered and free from disruptive emotions, cooperative, and who regard themselves and their ability to function positively are likely to be more active in their attempts to adapt to change than individuals who do not possess these traits. Individuals who are stable and dependable, however, do not appear to be more adaptable to organizational change than those who are less stable and dependable. On this basis, there is value in considering personality dimensions other than those dimensions traditionally associated with job performance (i.e. conscientiousness) in predicting adaptability to organizational change. Partial support was provided for the relationship between adaptation to organizational change and work attitudes. It is possible to conclude from these results that work attitudes are associated with adaptation to organizational change, and to emotion-focused adaptive responses (i.e., Resisting Change), in particular. People who rely on emotion-focused adaptive responses are more likely to experience poor attitudes toward work. Given the relationship between negative affect and both emotion-focused adaptation (Watson & Hubbard, 1996) and poor attitudes toward work (Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986; Watson & Clark, 1984), negative affect may account for the relationship between these two variables. The research provides preliminary evidence for the relationship between some forms of adaptation to organizational change and job stress. People who experience job stress following organizational change are more likely to adapt to change at work by resisting, avoiding, and  Adaptation to Organizational Change 169 confronting change, increasing one's effort at work, and accommodating one's work priorities and personal interests to change at work. Study 3  The goal of the third study was to identify a taxonomy of styles of adapting to organizational change. These styles were interpreted and labelled: strategy 1, strategy 2, highly responsive, moderately responsive, and unresponsive. The results support the conclusion that individuals differ in meaningful ways in their level of activity in five different adaptation dimensions. The way in which an individual combines different adaptive responses is a meaningful way to understand how individuals adapt to organizational change. This approach has not been considered in previous conceptual and empirical research on adaptation to change at work. Conceptual Implications  Despite calls for the development of adaptation to change at work as a performance construct (Campbell, 1999; Chan, 2000a; Hesketh & Neal, 1999; London & Mone, 1999; Murphy & Jackson, 1999), there have been relatively few attempts to provide empirical evidence for such a conceptualization. The only previous model of adaptation to change at work to be empirically derived found evidence of eight dimensions (Pulakos et al., 2000). The finding in the present research of five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change confirms the multidimensional nature of this construct. The present research provides preliminary evidence that the dimensions of adaptation to organizational change represent both problem- and emotion-focused efforts to adapt. A secondorder factor representing problem-focused adaptation and another representing emotion-focused adaptations were empirically derived from a second-order factor analysis of the data. The  Adaptation to Organizational Change 170 distinction between problem- and emotion-focused adaptation dimensions is valuable in academic research on adaptation to change at work, because it offers a way to organize adaptation dimensions, and sheds light on the function and outcomes of different adaptive responses. The adaptive responses associated with change at work may appear to be a laundry list of adaptive responses without a meaningful way to understand how they differ. The five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change differ as to whether they represent problemfocused or emotion-focused efforts to adapt. While the function of problem-focused adaptive responses is to alter the source of distress, the function of emotion-focused adaptive responses is to regulate stressful emotions. An individual's choice to attempt to alter the source of distress suggests that s/he perceives the situation as changeable, whereas his/her attempt to regulate distress suggests that the situation is perceived as beyond control (Folkman et al., 1986). This distinction between problem- and emotion-focused adaptive responses may shed light on how an individual perceives organizational change. Individuals who adapt to organizational change using responses within a problem-focused dimension (e.g. Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital) may perceive the change as within their control, whereas individuals who use emotion-focused adaptive responses (e.g. Resisting Change) may perceive the change as beyond their control. The outcomes of problem- and emotion-focused adaptive responses may also differ in important ways. In general, problem-focused adaptive responses may be associated with more satisfying outcomes than emotion-focused responses (Folkman et al., 1986). The present research suggests that Supporting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital may be related to better outcomes than Resisting Change. Research on the outcomes of adaptation to organizational change may be guided by the nature of adaptive  Adaptation to Organizational Change 171 responses as either problem- or emotion-focused. It is important to note the greater number of problem-focused than emotion-focused dimensions of adaptation to organizational change that were identified in the present research. Previous research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, has focused almost exclusively on emotion-focused adaptive responses, such as, for example, job withdrawal and work withdrawal (Hulin, 1991; Miller & Rosse, 2002, Rosse & Hulin, 1985). These adaptive responses are believed to function by reducing dissatisfaction at work (Hulin, 1991). The present research offers four problem-focused dimensions of adaptation, which focus on influencing the source of distress rather than reducing dissatisfaction. It would be worthwhile for research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology to shift from a focus on job and work withdrawal to a focus on problem-focused responses in order to gain a more complete understanding of adaptation to change at work. Limitations  The results of this research were-limited by several characteristics of measurement and research design. The first of three limitations associated with measurement involves the collection of data on adaptation to change at work by self-report. Self-reports of thoughts and behaviours may be inflated by socially-desirable responding. Attempts to reduce sociallydesirable responding were made by: (a) using a frequency-based response scale, rather than a Likert scale, (b) assuring participants that their responses would be anonymous and confidential, and (c) ensuring that the questionnaire was administered by the author instead of by a member of the organization. A second limitation to the measurement in the present research is the use of retrospective self-reports of adaptation. The more time that passes between a response and its assessment, the  Adaptation to Organizational Change 172 more likely the response will represent a dispositional, rather than situational, report of the behaviour (Moore, Sherrod, Liv, & Underwood, 1979). This effect can lead to overestimating the relationship between personality and coping responses. Attempts were made in this research to avoid dispositional reports of behaviour by specifying the previous year as the period within which to base one's responses, and by using a frequency-based response scale rather than a Likert scale. A third limitation in the measurement involved in this research is the measurement of several variables with the same method. The effect can be an inflation of the relationship between variables by common-method variance. It is possible that the relationships among the adaptation dimensions, personality dimensions, work attitudes, and job stress may have been inflated because they were measured by the same procedures and at the same time. To limit the influence of common-method variance on measurement of these variables, only measures with optimal psychometric properties were used. While this approach does not prevent commonmethod variance, it ensures that the measurement of these variables is as solid as possible. There were five limitations to the results associated with the research design. First, participants selected themselves for Study 1. By allowing participants to self-select, the results may be influenced by the unique characteristics of the group who chose to participate. This group may differ from the rest of the organization in important ways, such as, for example, being more interested in personal development, taking an interest in research and psychology, and being willing to take the time to participate. It is not known whether the characteristics of the participants differed in important ways from the rest of the organization. To encourage participation by everyone in the organization, a number of incentives were offered to provide different reasons to participate. Participants were offered the chance to win one of several  Adaptation to Organizational Change 173 prizes, the opportunity to take part in a workshop on organizational change, and individual feedback on their approach to adaptation relative to other managers. It was felt that these incentives would entice participants on the basis of their desire to win a prize, gain knowledge, contribute to non-profit research, or receive feedback on their performance relative to other managers. The second limitation of the research design is related to the first and involves a relatively low response rate. The response rate ranged from 20% to 43% across four organizations, with an overall response rate of 23%. A low response rate may indicate that the results do not adequately represent the population of managers in large organizations. Many individuals who were invited to participate indicated that their increased workload arising from change at work prevented them from spending 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. One of the drawbacks of studying organizational change is that the organization and many of its employees may be too busy to participate. Attempts to increase the response rate included the incentives described above. In addition, employees within these organizations were reminded twice over a three-week period to complete the questionnaire. A third limitation of the results attributed to the research design is the cross-sectional nature of the studies. Cross-sectional research provides a snap-shot of adaptation within the organization and may obscure important processes that occur over time. Chan (2000b) noted that static models of performance fail to consider developmental and temporal dimensions, which may influence adaptation to change at work. In this research, the participants experienced a large-scale change approximately three years ago, with ongoing changes related to this event. It is not known how the relative importance of the adaptation dimensions changed within and across individuals over time. Given the breadth of changes that participants were dealing with in  Adaptation to Organizational Change 174 the past year (see Appendix F), it is expected that their responses are comprehensive enough to ensure a stable structure of adaptation to organizational change over time. A fourth limitation in the research design is the inclusion of only management employees from large organizations in the research. There is no evidence to suggest that the results would generalize to non-management employees, to managers in a smaller organization, or to managers in an organization that had not been through a large-scale organizational change. The exclusion of non-management employees was made because of the concern that the unions representing bargaining-unit employees would object to their members being asked to participate in a project unrelated to their work tasks. Although the research was limited to managers, the questionnaire items did not refer to management activities, such as hiring, planning, and managing others. Focus group responses that referred to management activities were excluded. While the sample in this research represents managers, the adaptation dimensions refer to activities that anyone in the organization could engage in to deal with change at work. Further research, however, would be required to generalize these findings to a non-management population, small- or mediumsized organizations, and organizations that did not experience a large-scale organizational change. A fifth limitation in the research design is the collection of data on different variables from different participants. Approximately half of the participants were measured on the personality traits and adaptation dimensions. The other half were measured on the adaptation dimensions and work-related variables. A time limit on the participation of the managers in the study imposed by their organization prevented data being collected on all variables. This characteristic of the research design prevented a full modelling of the structure of these variables that some readers would expect.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 175 Areas for Future Research  Five areas of further research would be important extensions of the present research on adaptation to organizational change. First, the first- and second-order factor structure of adaptation to organizational change should be replicated in a sample of non-management employees who have experienced a form of large-scale organizational change other than a merger or restructuring. Second, the criterion-related validity of the first- and second order factors should be examined to understand the relative effectiveness of the adaptation dimensions. Third, cognitive abilities and motivational characteristics should be examined as a complement to personality dimensions in the prediction of adaptation to organizational change. Fourth, the direction of the relationships among personality dimensions, adaptation dimensions, work attitude variables, and job stress should be explored. Fifth, an examination of the process of adaptation over time following a large-scale organizational change is needed. These five proposed areas of research are described in greater detail below. The goal of deriving a stable and generalizable structure of adaptation to organizational change was pursued by drawing a large sample from four different organizations, and comparing the structure in two random sub-samples of the data to ensure that the same structure emerged. The next step would be to replicate the factor structure in a sample of non-management employees. Although the adaptive responses that constitute the five adaptation dimensions were developed to be unrelated to management tasks, a replication of Phase III of Study 1 is needed to establish that the same factor structure underlies data provided by non-management employees. It would be desirable to include other forms of measuring adaptation to organizational change, such as peer and supervisory reports, to examine their convergence with self-reports and to determine whether or not the same structure of adaptation emerges. The factor structure also  Adaptation to Organizational Change 176 needs to be replicated in an organization that experienced a large-scale organizational change other than a merger or restructuring to ensure that the structure is not specific only to responses to mergers and restructuring. Examples of other large-scale organizational changes that would be worthwhile to examine include: relocation of an organization's operations, divestiture of core parts of the business, and significant change to an organization's technology. The emergence of the same structure of adaptation to organizational change among non-management employees, using different measurement techniques, and in organizations that had experienced different large-scale organizational changes would be compelling evidence for the generalizability of the dimensional structure reported in Study 1. The criterion-related validity of the first- and second-order factor structure needs to be examined to determine the relative effectiveness of the adaptation dimensions. What makes this research more challenging is the lack of an accepted definition of the criterion of effective adaptation. The ultimate criterion described by Thorndike (1949) is a single measure that optimally summarizes all relevant performance requirements. Wortman (1983) suggested several variables that may represent successful adjustment, in general, which include: absence of extreme emotional distress, good physical health, a positive quality to life, effective functioning, and self-reports of effective coping. Other criteria to represent successful adjustment to change at work, in particular, may include: supervisory, peer, and subordinate ratings of successful adaptation and job performance. The relationships between the adaptation dimensions, on the one hand, and a linear combination of the criterion elements, on the other, would provide evidence of the relative effectiveness of the adaptation dimensions. Further research is needed to identify other individual difference dimensions that predict adaptation to organizational change. A comprehensive examination of the personality  Adaptation to Organizational Change 177 dimensions that predict the adaptation dimensions was undertaken the present research, which included the Five Factor Model of personality, as well as three additional personality dimensions that are not captured in this taxonomy (i.e., self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, internal locus of control). An examination of the relationships between general and specific mental abilities, on the one hand, and the adaptation dimensions, on the other, is needed because of the suggestions that cognitive abilities may predict adaptability (P. L. Ackerman, 1987; Snow & Lohman, 1984). Research is also needed to examine the relationships between motivational characteristics and the adaptation dimensions. Motivation to adapt may account for the difference between individuals who have the ability to adapt easily to change, and those who actually do adapt easily to change. An extension to the present research on individual difference dimensions that predict adaptation to organizational change would include mental abilities and motivational characteristics. A limit on the length of time each manager could participate in the present research prevented data from being collected on all of the adaptation, personality, work attitude, and job stress variables. The time limit was imposed by the organization, and as a result it was not possible collect data from all participants on all of the variables. Does adaptation reduce job stress and lead to positive work attitudes, or do positive work attitudes and less job stress lead to greater activity in adapting to organizational change? The present research provided evidence of the relationships between these variables, but it was not possible to determine their direction. Data collected on all of these variables from the same participants would allow hypotheses about the direction of their interrelationships to be determined by structural equation modelling. Most of the research on adaptation to change at work, including the present research, has offered static models of adaptation. A dynamic model of adaptation to organizational change is  Adaptation to Organizational Change 178 needed to understand how the adaptation process unfolds over time following a large-scale organizational change. The present research examined adaptive responses over a one-year period that occurred three years after a large-scale organizational change. It would be interesting to measure how adaptive responses change over time following such an event. A challenge to such measurement is in relating adaptive responses to particular change events. In the organizations that participated in the present research, the major event (i.e., merger or organizational restructuring) was following by successive changes in different areas of the organization. For a three year period following a merger, for example, downsizing occurred in several waves, some departments were relocated, and there was a major change in leadership. Examining the process of adaptation over time across participants would likely yield unclear results. If adaptation to organizational change is to be examined over time, the changes that trigger adaptive responses need to be taken into account. It would be possible to conduct such research if each participant were to describe their responses to a single salient change event in shorter intervals, such as, for example, at the end of each week. Research, using multivariate change models, in which the change event were specified and adaptive responses were examined in frequent intervals following the event would yield valuable information about the temporal and developmental nature of adaptation to organizational change.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 179 Chapter 8 Implications For Management Practice The present research has several implications for management practice. In Nord and Durand's (1975) examination of employee reactions to organizational change, they suggested that the most crucial task of management is to cope with the differences among employees in their responses to change. Two areas where organizations can use the results of this research to improve the collective ability of employees to adapt to organizational change are personnel selection and training. Ways in which organizations can select more adaptable employees will be covered first, followed by a discussion of how the present research can be incorporated in training initiatives. Finally, an integration of practices in personnel selection and training will be described. Personnel Selection  The present research suggests that individuals differ in their ability to adapt to changing and uncertain work situations. These differences can be predicted from stable traits, which can be measured by personality inventories, situational judgment tests, structured interviews, and assessment centres. These methods of predicting adaptability among candidates for employment will be discussed next. Personality measures. Personality assessment of candidates for employment would  permit organizations to select employees who are better able to function in changing and uncertain work environments. Existing measures of adaptability include the Flexibility scale of the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987), the Change scale of Jackson's (1967) Personality Research Form, and the Change-Oriented scale of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (Saville & Holdsworth, 1993). The present research offers a method of predicting  Adaptation to Organizational Change 180 adaptability on the basis of openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive selfconcept, with adjusted multiple correlations ranging from .29 to .42 (see Tables 14 to 18). These personality dimensions were identified from data provided by managers who experienced a large-scale organizational change. Means, standard deviations, and internal consistency reliability estimates are available for these personality dimensions in a sample of 553 managers (see Table 10). It is important to note, however, that the use of the personality dimensions suggested by the present research would lead to the selection of individuals who are more likely to demonstrate only four of the five adaptation dimensions. Recall that openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive self-concept are negatively related to Resisting Change and positively related to the other four dimensions. While personnel selection based on the  personality dimensions identified in the present research would allow for the selection of a workforce with greater adaptability, on average, other selection techniques, such as situational judgment tests and work simulations, would be required to select individuals who are more likely to demonstrate Resisting Change, in particular. Situational judgment tests. The selection of individuals who have greater potential to  adapt to change and uncertainty at work would also be possible using situational judgment tests. In situational judgment tests, candidates for employment are presented with scenarios describing actual work situations and are required to choose a response from a set of alternatives. Such a test for the measurement of adaptability could be created on the basis of the work situations identified through critical incident analysis in the present research (see Appendix F). The alternative responses could be developed from items chosen from the questionnaire used in the present research. A scoring key could be developed from ratings by subject matter experts of the  Adaptation to Organizational Change 181 effectiveness of the response alternatives. The validity of situational judgment tests developed in this way ranges between .13 and .37 (Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990; Motowidlo & Tippins, 1993). On the basis of item content relevant to the five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change, a situational judgment test would allow for the measurement of these individual dimensions. With respect to Resisting Change, in particular, a situation describing a potentially harmful change could be presented, followed by response options that include an appropriate way of confronting and challenging the change, as an example of Resisting Change. Structured interview. Structured interviews provide a third way of measuring  adaptability. In a structured interview, candidates are presented with a standard set of questions and their responses are rated against a set of job-related criteria. A situational interview measuring adaptability may provide better measurement of adaptability than a patternedbehaviour description inventory, because it would require candidates to respond to hypothetical situations involving change at work, rather than to describe past experiences with organizational change. Past experience with organizational change may be limited among younger and lessexperienced candidates. The hypothetical situations involving change could be developed on the basis of the results of the critical incident analysis in the present research (see Appendix F). Assessment centres. Given the importance of assessment centres for management selection and the present research on adaptability among managers, it would be valuable to measure adaptability in assessment centres. Assessment centres involve many assessments of potential, including standardized tests, work simulations, and leaderless group discussions. It would be possible to measure the five adaptation dimensions in work simulations by presenting candidates with a change and observing in their responses how they manage the uncertainty and change. In leaderless group discussions, it would be possible to measure adaptive responses,  Adaptation to Organizational Change 182 such as, for example, promoting change, building relationships, and taking on extra work. Assessment centres provide a valuable way of measuring adaptability among managers. Training  In addition to the traits that make change and uncertainty more manageable for some individuals, skills involved in adaptation can also be developed through training. Learners can acquire skills in the adaptation dimensions (recall that these include Supporting Change, Resisting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital) if it can be assumed that these skills are malleable to some extent. It is possible that these dimensions, however, vary in their malleability. For example, it may be easier for some employees to learn to identify opportunities to gain new skills if they have spent time developing a career plan, than it may be for others to learn to seek out new relationships at work if they are not particularly sociable. Future research on the malleability of the adaptation dimensions would allow organizations to focus their training efforts on skills that can be learned more readily. Three generations of training. Approaches to training have evolved as task demands  have become less predictable and more adaptive (Ford & Kraiger, 1995). Theories on building expertise have gone through three generations (Holyoak, 1991). The first generation focused on building problem-solving skills and heuristics. This approach, however, was found to be deficient when little evidence could be produced to show that these skills transferred across content domains (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). The second generation, then, focused on developing expertise through acquiring such detailed knowledge that problems were represented and understood in terms of their underlying, structural features (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Proctor & Dutta, 1995). While this expertise allowed for efficient and automatic performance, it applied only to well-learned and familiar situations (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). The third  Adaptation to Organizational Change 183 generation in the development of expertise focused on the development of adaptive expertise. Adaptive expertise refers to the ability to invent new procedures and make predictions based on knowledge, to adapt to new problems by relying on a deeper conceptual understanding of the domain, and to understand why procedures are appropriate in certain conditions and not others (Hatano & Inagako, 1986). This approach to building expertise represented a new development because it allowed new and ill-defined problems to be solved. The solution of these problems requires both deeper knowledge structures and meta-cognitive skills, which will be described in greater detail below. Adaptive expertise may be the process underlying the development of the five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change and it will be discussed in the learning outcomes in what follows. Training needs assessment. Goldstein (1991) described three important components of any training process: needs assessment, training design, and training evaluation/transfer. Needs assessment is critical to training because it provides information about who needs training and what they need to learn. A needs assessment includes an organizational analysis to determine where training is needed within the organization, task analysis to determine what employees need to learn, and person analysis to determine the unique needs of individual employees. The structure of adaptation to organizational change in the present research could be considered to be a kind of task analysis, which specifies the performance criteria for managing change and uncertainty following large-scale organizational change. The questionnaire developed in this research could be used as a person analysis to identify who needs to develop the five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change, and which activities they most need to learn. Training design. Training design involves determining learning objectives, sequencing training material, incorporating learning principles, and identifying effective training methods  Adaptation to Organizational Change 184 (Ford & Kraiger, 1995). The five adaptation dimensions would be valuable content domains for adaptation training, given their importance to managing change and uncertainty following organizational change. Simply providing learners with information about the five dimensions to increase their knowledge, however, would be insufficient to increase their skills for managing change and uncertainty at work. The reason is that the activities within these five adaptation dimensions must be performed in new and ill-defined situations. Effective performance of the five adaptation dimensions in these situations requires adaptive expertise. The learning objectives of adaptive expertise underlying skills acquisition in the five adaptation dimensions include (a) knowledge structures (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993), and (b) meta-cognitive skills (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1985). Knowledge structures contain the relationships between a variety of problems and solutions that provide individuals with an understanding of what to do and what not to do in particular situations (Glaser & Chi, 1989). During organizational change, for example, deep knowledge structures allow individuals to know whether to approach a novel situation by seeking more information, distancing oneself from the situation, or drawing on a social relationship to deal with the situation. Meta-cognitive skills, on the other hand, refer to an awareness and control of one's cognition (Flavell, 1979), an understanding of the relationship between the task and one's capabilities (Pressley, Snyder, Levin, Murray, & Ghatala, 1987), and the ability to plan, monitor, and regulate the situation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1985). Individuals may use meta-cognitive skills in changing and uncertain work situations to recognize change, select responses, monitor progress, notice failures, modify their strategies, and discontinue ineffective strategies. Meta-cognitive skills are required to engage in the activities involved in the five adaptation dimensions because different situations will require different responses.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 185 Traditional learning principles, such as, for example, over-learning, reinforcement, and feedback, may be insufficient for training in adaptation to organizational change because of their dependence on familiar situations (Smith et al., 1997). Several other learning principles, however, may be valuable in training for adaptation to organizational change. Advance organizers are materials presented at the beginning of training, which provide learners with a framework to clarify their expectations and organize the material presented (Ausubel, 1968). Guided discovery is a learning principle that allows learners to use a variety of strategies to solve a less structured problem. In guided discovery, the instructor provides leading questions and prompts to reduce the number of possible responses or introduce a problem-solving strategy. This principle is preferred for adaptation training because it provides greater transfer to complex and novel tasks (Hermann, 1969). In building meta-cognitive skills, instructors guide learners through a process of identifying goals, generating new ideas, planning, self-monitoring, and evaluating performance. This would be an appropriate way to develop skills in Career Development. Learners could identify their own career goals, identify ways to achieve these goals in their current situation, plan for their development, and monitor and evaluate their progress. Training evaluation/transfer. Training for adaptation at work should be evaluated on the  job. Criteria relevant to the five dimensions of adaptation to organizational change could be developed from the critical-incident analysis in the present research. An individual's performance on these criteria could then be rated by his/her manager, peers, subordinates, and him/herself, both before and after the training. To minimize demand characteristics in the ratings, different groups of raters could provide pre- and post-training ratings. Although the post-training raters may know that the individual experienced a training program, they would not  Adaptation to Organizational Change 186 be influenced by knowledge of pre-training ratings. The inclusion of more than one rater would reduce the influence of rating errors, such as, central tendency, leniency, and extreme responding. Integration of Personnel Selection and Training  To derive the most benefit from this research for management practice, a combination of personnel selection and training is recommended. Despite the existence of the selection/training debate, selection and training are designed to complement each other. Goldstein (1991) noted that training designs should take into account the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) on which selection is based, so that training is not focused on the KSAs that already exist among employees. Chan (2000a) noted that although selection and training disagree on the causes and malleability of adaptation, they share the same conceptualization of what constitutes adaptation. Chan advocates an integrative person-situation approach to adaptation to take advantage of the contributions of both selection and training. He points out that individual difference variables may account for variance not accounted for by situational variables, and vice versa. An integrative approach to the management of adaptation to change at work might involve three different approaches. First, employees could be selected on the basis of personality dimensions that predict adaptation. Second, the adaptation dimensions could identify employees' developmental needs. Third, training could be designed to focus on the development of skills that can be readily acquired for adaptation, rather than on the KSAs already present among employees.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 187 REFERENCES Ackerman, L. S. (1982). Transition management: An in-depth look at managing complex change. Organizational Dynamics, 11, 46-66.  Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual difference in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3-27. Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition: Dynamics of ability determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 598-614. Aldwin, C. M. (2000). Stress, coping, and development. New York: Guilford Press. Allen, T. D., Freeman, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., Reizenstein, R. C, & Rentz, J. O. (2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 145-164.  American Management Association (2001). 2001 Staffing Survey. New York: AMA. Amirkhan, J. H., Risinger, R. T., & Swickert, R. J. (1995). Extraversion: A "hidden" personality factor in coping? Journal of Personality, 63, 189-212. Anderson, L., & Wilson, S. (1997). Critical incident technique. In D. L. Whetzel & G.  R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement in industrial psychology (pp. 89-112). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Consulting Psychologists Press. Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36. Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199-214. Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative approach. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8, 1-41.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 188 Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Symbolization and symbolic thought: Response to Furth. Child Development, 39, 997-1001.  Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors vs. sculpture: The role of personality and personal control in organizations. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), The handbook of career theory (pp. 232-251).  Cambridge, England: Cambridge  University Press. Bereiter, C, & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of "inert" knowledge. In S. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning  skills: Volume 2. Research and open questions (pp. 65-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum  Associates. Borman, W. C. (1994). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D.  Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2 2 ed., pp. 271-326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. nd  Borman, W. C, & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on Organizational Commitment Questionnaire-turnover cognitions relationships.  Journal of  Applied Psychology, 86, 161-173.  Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press. Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 189 Brett, J. M. (1984). Job transitions and personal and role development. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 2, 155-185.  Brewin, C. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.  Bridges, W. (1988). Surviving corporate transition: Rational management in a world layoffs, start-ups, takeovers,, divestitures, deregulations, and new technologist.  New  Doubleday. Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255. Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Callan, V. J., & Terry, D. J. (1994). Coping resources, coping strategies and adjustment to organizational change: Direct or buffering effects? Work and Stress, 8, 372-383. Cammann, C, Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). Organizational Assessment Questionnaire.  The Michigan  Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan,  Ann Arbor, Michigan. Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the new age.  In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 399-429). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). The human effects of mergers and acquisitions.  In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior (pp. 47-61). New York: Wiley.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 190 Catalano, R., Rook, K., & Dooley, D. (1986). Labor markets and help-seeking: A test of the employment security hypothesis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 227-287. Campbell, J. J., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.  Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chan, D. (2000a). Understanding adaptation to changes in the work environment: Integrating individual difference and learning perspectives. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 1-42.  Chan, D. (2000b). Conceptual and empirical gaps in research on individual adaptation at work. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15, 143-164. Chell, E. (1998). Critical incident technique. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.),  Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 51-  Thousand Oaks: Sage. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 1-33.  Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25-45. Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work. London: Academic Press Inc.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 191 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people.  Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 38, 668-678.  Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Coyne, J. C, & Smith, D. A. (1991). Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: A contextual perspective on wives distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 402412. DeLongis, A., & O'Brien, T. (1990). An interpersonal framework for stress and coping: An application to the families of Alzheimer's patients. In M. A. Parris Stephens, J. H. Crowther, S. E. Hobfoll, & D. L. Tennenbaum (Eds.), Stress and coping in later-life families (pp. 221-239). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.  Dodgson, P. G., & Wood, J. V. (1998). Self-esteem and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and weaknesses after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 178197. Dohrenwend, B. S., Dohrenwend, B. P., Dodson, M., & Shrout, P. E. (1984). Symptoms, hassles, social supports and life events: The problem of confounded measures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 222-230.  Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596-607  Adaptation to Organizational Change 192 Feldman, D. C. (1996). Managing careers in downsizing firms. Human Resource Management, 35, 145-161.  Feldman, D. C. (2002). Managers' propensity to work longer hours: A multilevel analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 339-357. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327358. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter C, DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (2000). The dynamics of a stressful encounter. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational science: Social and personality perspectives.  Key reading in social psychol  (pp. 111-127). Phildelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Ford, J. K., & Kraiger, K. (1995). The application of cognitive constructs and principles to the instructional systems model of training: Implications for needs assessment, design, and transfer. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 1-48). Chichester: Wiley.  Freeman, S. F. (1999). Identity maintenance and adaptation: A multilevel analysis of response to loss. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 247-294. Frese, M. (1999). Social support as a moderator of the relationship between work stressors and psychological dysfunction: A longitudinal study with objective measures. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 179-192.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 193 Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (2002). Coping with an organizational merger over four stages. Personnel Psychology, 55, 905-928. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. (1989). Overview. In M. T. Chi, R. Glaser, & Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.  Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.  Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.  Goldstein, IL. (1991). Training in work organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 507-620). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gough, H. G. (1987). The California Psychological Inventory Administrator's Guide.  Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Hakstian, A. R. (2003). The Biographical Inventory of Occupationally Descriptive Attitudes, Traits and Abilities (BIODATA 250). Vancouver, BC: HR Decisions Ltd.  Hakstian, A. R., & Abell, R. A. (1974). A further comparison of oblique factor transformation methods. Psychometrika, 39, 429-444. Hakstian, A. R., & Vandenberg, S. G. (1979). The cross-cultural generalizability of a higher-order cognitive structure model. Intelligence, 3, 73-103. Hakstian, A. R., & Whalen, T. E. (1976). A ^-sample significance test for independent alpha coefficients. Psychometrika, 41, 219-231.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 194 Hanisch, K., & Hulin, C. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60-78.  Hanisch, K., & Hulin, C. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110-128. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (2 ed.). Oxford, England: University of nd  Chicago Press. Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman. Harris, C. W., & Kaiser, H. F. (1964). Oblique factor analytic solutions by orthogonal transformations. Psychometrika, 29, 347-362. Haunschild, P. R., Moreland, R. L., & Murrell, A. J. (1994). Sources of resistance to mergers between groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1150-1178. Hermann, G. (1969). Learning by discovery: A critical review of studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 38, 58-72.  Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, development (pp. 21-55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 301336). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 195 Hooker, K., Monohan, D., Shifren, K., & Hutchinson, C. (1992). Mental and physical health of spouse caregivers: The role of personality. Psychology and Aging, 7, 367-375. Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables—Construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155. Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D.  Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2 2 ed., pp. 445-506). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. nd  Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press. Jamal, M., & Baba, V. V. (1992). Shiftwork and department-Type Related to Job Stress, Work Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions: A Study of Nurses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 449-464.  Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgment of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984-996. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—selfesteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 196 Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Self-regulatory skills perspective to reducing cognitive interference. In I. Sarason, G. Pierce, & B. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theory, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Kanter, R. M. (1987). Managing traumatic change: Avoiding the 'unlucky 13'. Management Review, May, 23-24.  Keenan, A. (1978). Selection interview performance and intolerance of ambiguity. Psychological Reports, 42, 353-354.  Kennan, A., & McBain, G. D. M. (1979). Effects of Type A behavior, intolerance of ambiguity, and locus of control on the relationship between role stress and work-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277-285. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11. Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57, 106-114.  Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328.  Ktibler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: MacMillan. Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.  Latham, G. P. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Lau, C. M., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 537-554.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 197 Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R. (1985). Stress and adaptational outcomes: The problem of confounded measures. American Psychologist, 40,110-119. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Pub. Co. Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.  London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D.  Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, a development (pp. 119-153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Louis, M. R. (1982). Managing career transition: A missing link in career development. Organizational Dynamics, 10, 68-77.  Marascuilo, L. A. (1966). Large-sample multiple comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 280-290. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171194. McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),  Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351-1395). Chicago, IL: Rand  McNally.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 198 Miller, H. E., & Rosse, J. G. (2002).  Emotional reserve and adaptation to job  dissatisfaction. In J. M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research (pp. 205-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  Milligan, G. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 325-342. Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of the precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414. Moore, B. S., Sherrod, D. R., Liv, T. J., & Underwood, B. (1979). The dispositional shift in attribution over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 553-569. Morrison, R. F. (1977). Career adaptivity: The effective adaptation of managers to changing role demands. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 549-558. Morrison, R. F., & Hall, D. T. (2001, April). adaptability.  A proposed model of individual  Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational  Psychology, San Diego, CA. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-647. Motowidlo, S. J., & Tippins, N. (1993). Further studies of the low-fidelity simulation in  the form of a situational inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 337-344.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 199 Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995).  The big five personality dimensions:  Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153-200.  Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145-165. Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & MacArthur, A. W. (1984). The psychology of the withdrawal process: A cross validation test of Mobley's intermediate linkages model of turnover in the two samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 79-94. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979).  The measurement of  organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work role performance: Challenges for twenty-first-century organizations and their employees. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos  (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, an development (pp. 325-365). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizations: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543-554. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172-191.  Noer, D. M. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Nord, W. R., & Durand, D. (1975). Beyond resistance to change: Behavioral science on the firing line. Organizational Dynamics, 4, 2-19  Adaptation to Organizational Change 200 Norman, W. T. (1963).  Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:  Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.  O'Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problem-, emotion-, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Personality, 64, 775-812  Ormel, J., & Wohlfarth, T. (1991). How neuroticism, long-term difficulties, and life situation change influence psychological distress: A longitudinal model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 744-755.  Parker, D. F., & Decotiis, T. A. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 160-177.  Piderit, S. D. (2000).  Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A  multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-794.  Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2 ed., pp.719-822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. nd  Pressley, M., Snyder, B. S., Levin, J. R., Murray, H. G., & Ghatala, E. S. (1987). Perceived Readiness for Examination Performance (PREP): Produced by initial reading of text and text containing adjunct questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 219-236. Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1995). Acquisition and transfer of response selection skill.  In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durabilit and specificity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 201 Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612-624.  Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15, 299-323.  Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R., & Porras, J. I. (1993).  Dynamics of planned  organizational change: Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 619-634.  Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C, & Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job insecurity: How does personality make a difference. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617-630. Rosse, J. G., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of employee health,  withdrawal, and change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 324-347 Rosse, J.. G., & Miller, H. (1984). An adaptation cycle interpretation of absence and  withdrawal. In P. Goodman & R. Atkin (Eds.), Absenteeism: New approaches to understandin measuring and managing employee absence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Rush, M. C, Schoel, W. A., & Barnard, S. M. (1995). Psychological resiliency in the public sector: "Hardiness" and pressure for change. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 17-39. Saville & Holdsworth Ltd. (1993). Occupational Personality Questionnaire: Concept Model Manual and User's Guide. Surrey, England: Saville and Holdsworth Ltd.  Scheck, C. L., & Kinicki, A. J. (2000). Identifying the antecedents of coping with an organizational acquisition: A structural assessment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 627-648.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 202 Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110-135. Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide tofieldpractice. New York: Wiley.  Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216-269.  Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design strategies. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace (pp. 89-118). Washington, DC: American Psychological  Association. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. L. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, Sorrentino, R. M., & Short, J. C. (1986). Uncertainty, motivation, and cognition. In R.  M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 1; pp. 379-403). New York: Guilford Press.  Sorrentino, R. M., Short, J. C , & Raynor, J. O. (1984). Uncertainty orientation: Implications for affective and cognitive views of achievement behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 189-206.  Staw, B. M., Bell, N... E., Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 203 Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Adminisrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1985). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Thach, L., & Woodman, R. W. (1994).  Organizational change and information  technology: Managing on the edge of cyberspace. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 30-46. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. (Personnel Research Section Rep. No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Vickers, R. R., Kolar, D. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1989). Personality correlates of coping with military basic training (US Naval Health Research Center Rep. No. 89-3). US: US Naval  Health Research Center. Wanberg, C. R. & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373-385. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490. Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the Five Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 64,131-11 A. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 204 Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews: Vol. 18 (pp. 1-74). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.  Weiss, H. M., & Ilgen, D. (1985). Routinized behavior in organizations. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 14, 57-67.  Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521-539.  Wortman, C. B. (1983). Coping with victimization: Conclusions and implications for future research. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 195-221.  Adaptation to Organizational Change  APPENDICES  Adaptation to Organizational Change 206  APPENDIX A MANAGEMENT FEEDBACK REPORT  Adaptation to Organizational Change 207  Management Feedback Report Participant Code: <Date> About the Organizational Change Project This Management Feedback Report contains the results of your Adaptation to Organizational Change Questionnaire. To learn the most from your profile, we recommend that you take a few minutes to read the information on which the report is based before reviewing your results. Your Management Feedback Report was developed to provide you with information on the key findings of the Organizational Change Project and the profile of your unique style of adapting to change at work. The Report summarizes the five core strategies that managers use to deal with change at work and your individual profile on these strategies. As you read your report, keep in mind that the results are based on your description from your questionnaire of how you adapted to changes at work in the past year. Your results are not necessarily an indication of your potential for success or ability as a manager. The strategies you use to adapt to change, however, are associated with your experience of work and your sense of well-being, and may influence your success as a manager. Although your organization sponsored your participation, your information is confidential and your organization will not receive a copy of your Management Feedback Report. Instead, they will receive a report that describes how managers, as a whole, deal with change at work and the implications of these strategies for the organization. If you have any questions about your Management Feedback Report, please feel free to contact us.  Copyright © 2003 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 208  Overview Your Management Feedback Report provides you with the key findings from the Organizational Change Project and your unique profile of adapting to change at work. The Organizational Change Project was developed to provide a better understanding of the different ways in which managers adapt successfully to change at work. The results of the project are based on information provided by almost 600 managers, directors, and executives from four different organizations. Your report is divided into three sections. The next section describes the five core strategies that managers use to adapt to change at work and their implications. In the following section, Your Results, your individual profile on these strategies is provided. The final section, Background to the Organizational Change Project, presents some information on the development of this project. Understanding the Core Strategies for Adaptation at Work To understand how managers adapt to change at work, you need to understand five core strategies. These are the primary ways in which managers deal with change and uncertainty at work following organizational change initiatives. These strategies were identified through purely empirical methods— i.e., they were not created from theory or from the insights of only a few people. They emerged from a systematic analysis of the data. These strategies are not equally effective in adapting to change or achieving desired outcomes. They are, however, important activities that managers undertake to improve the fit between themselves and their organization following organizational change initiatives. 1. Supporting Change Supporting Change involves taking a positive approach toward change at work. Managers who use this strategy attempt to solve problems at work, try to understand why the changes are necessary from the perspective of the organization, and consider the positive consequences of changes. The activities that represent Supporting Change are largely cognitive—thoughts, making plans, reflecting on what is in the best interests of the organization. Some of these activities include: • Making a suggestion to your team to solve a problem related to a change • Focussing on new possibilities, rather than on what might have been • Thinking about the processes occurring before the change that did not work well • Preventing an obstacle from interfering with a change 2. Initiating Effort Initiating Effort involves offering to take on extra work in the service of a change. Managers who use this strategy exert extra effort during periods of change, adjust their priorities and schedule to accommodate changes, and demonstrate flexibility in their work style. The activities that represent Initiating Effort are largely behavioural—working harder, taking the initiative in decision-making, and adjusting your work style. Some of these activities include: • Changing the priorities in your work because of a change • Working more hours than is usual for you • Taking the initiative to make a decision that you would not previously have made • Initiating a meeting with someone you did not know in the organization Despite the benefit to the organization of having managers initiate effort, this strategy for adapting to change is associated with a very high level of job stress. It is important for managers who use this strategy to ensure that it is not sustained indefinitely, either by shifting to a different strategy or by taking regular breaks from work to interrupt the stress response they may be experiencing. Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. A l l Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 209 3. Career Development  During change at work, successful managers focus on their own career development. Career Development includes reflecting on your career goals, planning how to develop your skills to meet new job demands, obtaining feedback on your performance, finding opportunities created by a change to advance in your career, and exploring new job opportunities. Some of the activities that represent Career Development include: • Identifying the skills you need to develop next • Thinking about what you want to gain for yourself from your work • Identifying other job opportunities that would enhance your career • Looking for opportunities created by a change that would allow you to develop your skills • Asking for feedback on your performance from your peers, direct reports or boss While managers with a high score on this strategy also tend to have a strong intent to leave the organization, they are just as satisfied, involved at work, and committed to the organization as the average manager. Career development is a natural part of adapting to change at work. Whether it leads to the development of a new skill set while staying in the same job, a revised career plan, or an entirely new job, Career Development ensures that managers are working towards their own professional goals and preparing themselves for changes within their organization. 4. Building Social Capital  A critical strategy for adapting to change at work involves Building Social Capital. This strategy involves building and maintaining social relationships at work, and using these relationships to build your influence within the organization. Some of the activities that represent Building Social Capital include: • Joining in social activities outside of work with people from your organization • Meeting socially with your boss • Talking to people who have influence within the organization about your ideas • Keeping in touch with people who have influence in your organization Large-scale change disrupts social networks, which are a source of trust, reciprocity, information exchange, and cooperation within the organization. Rebuilding and maintaining social networks are essential activities because they provide support, direct assistance, and information during transitions. Managers with high scores on Building Social Capital reported higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment than managers who used this strategy less often. 5. Resisting Change  Resisting Change involves avoiding change, distancing yourself from work, and challenging decisions related to the change. Managers may be using this strategy either to protect themselves from the perceived negative outcomes of change or because the change violates a deeply held value. Some of the activities that represent Resisting Change include: • Distancing yourself from a difficult situation • Expressing your criticisms of a change • Thinking about whether or not you want to stay with your organization Managers with high scores on Resisting Change, relative to other strategies, have high job stress and a very poor experience of work. They tend to have the lowest levels of job satisfaction and commitment to the organization, and a strong intent to leave the organization. Given their high job stress and poor experience of work, it may be in the interest of managers with high scores on Resisting Change to explore more satisfying ways to achieve their desired outcomes.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 210  Your Results Your scores on the five strategies for adaptation at work are presented relative to other managers, directors, and executives. This is a superior group in terms of their skills in adapting to change at work. In interpreting your scores, you should keep in mind the high standards set by this group. Your percentile score represents the percentage of managers, directors, and executives who had a lower score than you. An average score would be the 50 percentile. th  Your percentile score among managers at <company>  Your percentile score among managers across four organizations  1. Supporting Change 2. Initiating Effort 3. Career Development 4. Building Social Capital 5. Resisting Change  Are your scores on the first four strategies balanced, or do you use one or two strategies m than others? Each of the first four strategies will result in different benefits with respect to your success in dealing with change at work. A high score may indicate an area of strength that you may wish to continue to build on. A low score on the first four strategies may indicate a strategy that you may want to incorporate into your management practices. Is there a score that differs from what you would have expected? As you think about your results, bear in mind that they may have been influenced by factors beyond your control, such as: • Events outside of work that led you to respond differently to work in the past year • Situations at work that made some strategies for adaptation harder (or easier) to carry out • The particular behaviours that are rewarded within the culture of your company Beyond these factors, however, a lower score than you expected may indicate a possible "blind spot" in your perception of how you deal with change and warrant further consideration. What does your unique profile say about how you adapt to change at work? Success in adapting to change at work requires using several strategies for adapting to change, depending on the challenges you face and your work situation. Your profile is your own unique pattern of scores on the five dimensions. Managers with the lowest level of job stress and the most positive experience of work had a unique profile. These managers had a below average score on Resisting Change and higher than average scores on Supporting Change, Initiating Effort, Career Development and Building Social Capital. continued...  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 211 We identified two profiles associated with high levels of job stress and a very poor experience of work. The first profile consisted of an above average score on Resisting Change, and average or below average scores on the other four strategies. Relative to other activities, managers with this profile are dealing with change by distancing themselves, avoiding change, and taking opportunities to confront other people about the change. The second profile associated with high job stress and a poor experience of work consisted of high scores on all five strategies. Managers with this second profile may be engaging in high levels of many activities, indiscriminately, in an attempt to deal with change at work. Successfully adapting to change involves choosing to engage only in more effective strategies. Among the many ways of dealing with change at work, managers who experience less job stress and who have a more positive experience of work adapt by: •  Taking a positive approach to change  •  Initiating additional effort in the service of change  •  Considering and planning for their own career development  •  Building strong social ties at work, in particular with people who have influence within the organization  Background to the Organizational Change Project The Organizational Change Project was developed by researchers at the University of British Columbia to identify the skills that managers require to adapt successfully to change and also to provide resources to increase the capacity of managers to adapt to these changes. The project was made possible by the generous participation of four organizations and their managers, directors, and executives. The objectives of the project were to: Identify the skills necessary for successful adaptation to organizational change Develop an assessment to measure an employee's strengths and areas for skill development in adapting to change at work Find out the extent to which adapting to change improves work attitudes and well-being, thereby decreasing turnover and absenteeism during and after organizational change The project was carried out in two phases. In phase one, 48 management-level employees advised our research team on the activities they engaged in to adapt to change at work. They met in small groups with our researchers. In phase two, almost 600 management-level employees from across four different organizations completed an online questionnaire designed to measure how they adapted to change and uncertainty at work in the past year following large-scale organizational change initiatives. The five core strategies for adaptation at work were identified by statistical techniques to find the patterns among the different activities that managers engage in to adapt to change at work. The Adaptation to Organizational Change Project was performed by the Industrial/Organizational Psychology division of the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. Our team performs psychological research aimed at solving human resource challenges. The lead investigators are Dr. A. Ralph Hakstian and Ms. Seonaid Farrell. The project is part of Seonaid Farrell's doctoral dissertation. For more information about the project, please contact Seonaid Farrell by email or telephone:  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 212  APPENDIX B REPORT TO THE ORGANIZATION  Adaptation to Organizational Change 213  Research Project: Adaptation to Organizational Change Organization A  UBC  Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department of Psychology University of British Columbia July 2003 Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 214 About the Adaptation to Organizational Change Project The purpose of the project was to understand how successful managers adapt to change at work following large-scale organizational change initiatives. The project had three objectives: •  To identify the strategies that managers use to successfully adapt to organizational change  •  To provide an instrument to measure a manager's strengths and areas for skill development in adapting to change at work • To find out the relationship between each strategy and job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, intent to leave the organization, and job stress Project Structure The project was carried out in two phases. Phase 1: In January of 2003, 17 managers from ORGANIZATION A met in small groups to advise our research team on the specific activities they engage in to adapt to change at work. This information, along with information provided by 31 managers from other organizations, served in the development of a questionnaire to measure how managers adapt to change at work. Phase 2: The questionnaire was delivered online to 1,500 managers, directors and executives at ORGANIZATION A. In April and May of 2003, 300 participants completed the questionnaire. They were asked to rate the extent to which they engaged in each of the activities involved in adapting to change over the past year. Report Overview This report provides you with the key findings from the project and information on how managers at ORGANIZATION A adapt to change at work relative to other managers, directors and executives in three other organizations. First, the five strategies for adapting to change are described, along with the average percentile score for managers at ORGANIZATION A on these strategies. Next, managers at ORGANIZATION A are compared with managers across three other organizations on: (a) the strategies for adapting to change at work, and (b) work attitudes and job stress. Then, functional and dysfunctional styles of adapting to change at work are described. Finally, some implications of these results for Human Resources at ORGANIZATION A are discussed. ^  ''eport was prepared by Seonaid Farrell. Please direct questions regarding this project to:  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 215 Understanding the Core Strategies for Adaptation at Work Managers at ORGANIZATION A use five basic strategies to adapt to change at work. These strategies are the primary ways in which managers deal with change and uncertainty at work following large-scale organizational change initiatives. These strategies were identified through purely empirical methods—i.e., they were not created from theory or from the insights of only a few people. They emerged from a systematic analysis of the data. These strategies are not equally effective in adapting to change or achieving desired outcomes. They are, however, important activities that managers undertake to improve the fit between themselves and their organization following organizational change initiatives. 1. Supporting Change Supporting Change involves taking a positive approach to change at work. Managers who use this strategy attempt to solve problems at work, try to understand why the changes are necessary from the perspective of the organization, and consider the positive consequences of changes. The activities that represent Supporting Change are largely cognitive—thoughts, making plans, reflecting on what is in the best interest of the organization. Some of these activities include: • • • • •  Making a suggestion to your team to solve a problem related to a change Focussing on new possibilities, rather than on what might have been Thinking about the processes occurring before the change that did not work well Preventing an obstacle from interfering with a change Finding a new way to get the information or resources you need  The activities of managers who engage in Supporting Change are critical to the organization. These activities benefit the organization because they solve problems that arise from change and remove obstacles to change. Supporting Change also makes a difference because when managers understand why change is necessary they share their perceptions with others. These activities are also important to the organization because taking a positive approach to change at work means that less time is spent challenging and debating change. Managers at ORGANIZATION A, on average, scored at the 44 percentile on Supporting Change among managers from four different organizations. th  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 216 Understanding the Core Strategies for Adaptation at Work (continued) 2. Initiating Effort Initiating Effort involves offering to take on extra work in the service of a change. Managers who use this strategy exert extra effort during periods of change, adjust their priorities and schedule to accommodate changes, and demonstrate flexibility in their work style. The activities that represent Initiating Effort are largely behavioural—working harder, taking the initiative in decision-making, and adjusting your work style. Some of these activities include: • • • • •  Changing the priorities in your work because of a change Working more hours than is usual for you Taking the initiative to make a decision that you would not previously have made Initiating a meeting with someone you did not know in the organization Taking on some of your boss' work  Initiating Effort directly benefits the organization. Change requires hard work. Managers who take on extra work and adjust their priorities and schedules to accommodate change are critical in implementing changes. Because they are willing to take on more work, they can accommodate shifting workloads and ensure consistent service delivery. Because of the flexibility involved in Initiating Effort, a higher level of performance can be sustained during periods of transition. Despite the benefit to the organization of having managers initiate effort, this strategy for adapting to change is associated with a very high level of job stress. It is important for managers who use this strategy to ensure that it is not sustained indefinitely, either by shifting to a different strategy or by taking regular breaks from work to interrupt the stress response they may be experiencing. Managers who use this strategy exclusively, over a long period of time, are at a greater risk for stress-related problems, such as psychosomatic complaints, anxiety, depression, and physical illnesses. Ultimately, the consequences for the organization include increased absenteeism, higher health insurance premiums, reduced productivity, and attrition of productive managers. The results showed that men were engaging in Initiating Effort more than women. For some women, commitments at home may be preventing them from working even longer hours and offering to take on more work. The slightly higher proportion of men who are taking on more work may be experiencing greater stress as a result. Managers at ORGANIZATION A, on average, scored in the 48 percentile on Initiating Effort among four different organizations. th  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 217 Understanding the Core Strategies for Adaptation at Work (continued) 3. Career Development During change at work, successful managers focus on their own career development. Career Development includes reflecting on your career goals, planning how to develop your skills to meet new job demands, obtaining feedback on your performance, finding opportunities created by a change to advance in your career, and exploring new job opportunities. Some of the activities that represent Career Development include: • • • • •  Identifying the skills you need to develop next Thinking about what you want to gain for yourself from your work Identifying other job opportunities that would enhance your career Looking for opportunities created by a change that would allow you to develop your skills Asking for feedback on your performance from your peers, direct reports or boss  While managers with a high score on this strategy also tend to have a strong intent to leave the organization, they are just as satisfied, involved at work, and committed to the organization as the average manager. Career development is a natural part of adapting to change at work. Whether it leads to the development of a new skill set while staying in the same job, a revised career plan, or an entirely new job, Career Development ensures that managers are working towards their own professional goals and preparing themselves for changes within their organization. Career Development is important to the organization. Managers using this strategy are identifying the future needs of the organization and planning how they can build their skills to meet these demands. Managers who use this strategy are also taking responsibility for their own career development. The development of new leaders through succession planning, skill development, and performance feedback is a critical part of change, but may not be planned during changing times. Managers who focus on their own career development are carrying on the leadership development function informally. There was an interesting difference in Career Development among managers of different ages. Younger managers and managers with less experience with the organization were more likely to adapt to change by means of Career Development. Managers at ORGANIZATION A, on average, scored at the 54 percentile on Career th  Development.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 218 Understanding the Core Strategies for Adaptation at Work (continued) 4. Building Social Capital A critical strategy for adapting to change at work involves Building Social Capital. This strategy involves building and maintaining social relationships at work, and using these relationships to build your influence within the organization. Some of the activities that represent Building Social Capital include: • • • • •  Joining in social activities outside of work with people from your organization Meeting socially with your boss Talking to people who have influence within the organization about your ideas Keeping in touch with people who have influence in your organization Meeting for lunch with someone or a group of people from a different team  Large-scale change disrupts social networks, which are a source of trust, reciprocity, information exchange, and cooperation within the organization. Rebuilding and maintaining social networks are essential activities because they provide support, direct assistance, and information for managers during transitions. Building Social Capital offers three main benefits to the organization. Managers who use this strategy create a network for sharing information during transitions. This informal network supplements formal communications from the organization. A second benefit of Building Social Capital is the centralization of influence within the organization. Managers who increase their influence in the organization by means of their relationships have a greater capacity to make changes and get things done on behalf of the organization. Finally, the activities of managers who use this strategy create networks that increase cooperation in work processes. Managers with high scores on Building Social Capital reported higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment than managers who used this strategy less often. It appears that managers who build and maintain relationships at work have a more positive experience of work. Managers at ORGANIZATION A, on average, scored at the 49 percentile on Building Social th  Capital.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 219 Understanding the Core Strategies for Adaptation at Work (continued) 5. Resisting Change Resisting Change involves avoiding change, distancing yourself from work, and challenging decisions related to the change. Managers may be using this strategy either to protect themselves from the perceived negative outcomes of change or because the change violates a deeply held value. Some of the activities that represent Resisting Change include: • • • •  Distancing yourself from a difficult situation Expressing your criticisms of a change Thinking about whether or not you want to stay with your organization Reminding yourself not to become too attached to the organization  Managers with high scores on Resisting Change, relative to other strategies, have high job stress and a very poor experience of work. They tend to have the lowest levels of job satisfaction and commitment to the organization, and a strong intent to leave the organization. Resisting Change is particularly problematic for the organization. Managers who use this strategy are less committed than other managers to carrying out change within the organization. A possible benefit to the organization is the opportunity for problem solving that arises from legitimate criticisms that are raised with respect to a proposed change. On the whole, however, this strategy may not serve the interests of the organization. Managers at ORGANIZATION A, on average, scored at the 51 percentile on Resisting st  Change.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 224 Implications for Human Resources The results of the project may provide insights into how ORGANIZATION A can support its managers in improving their capacity to adapt to change at work. While a full analysis of the implications for Human Resources is beyond the focus of this report, three areas for further consideration are presented below. Management Selection The requirements of managers at ORGANIZATION A have changed over the past several years. To succeed at ORGANIZATION A, managers need to be able to adapt to change at work, deal with uncertainty, and meet the challenges of new work demands. Results that were not presented in this report suggest that managers vary in their underlying capacity to deal with change at work. It is possible to select managers who will be better able to adapt to change at work. Leadership Development Many activities that are relevant to leadership development are occurring informally as managers adapt to change at work. Managers are focused on developing their skills and pursuing career goals. By complementing their efforts with a succession plan, opportunities for development, mentorship, and feedback on their performance, ORGANIZATION A can ensure that its managers are prepared for the organization's future. There is an opportunity for ORGANIZATION A to manage the career development activities of its managers to ensure that the best managers are not lost to opportunities at other organizations. Wellness Organizational change increases stress among some managers. Job stress is slightly higher than average among managers at ORGANIZATION A. The managers who are most at risk for anxiety, depression and stress-related illnesses are taking on more work than other managers during times of change and accommodating their personal lives and priorities to changes. These managers will be less productive and effective in their work, unless they are supported in reducing their stress.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 221 ORGANIZATION A Management Group Results: Work Attitudes and Job Stress Work attitudes are the perceptions that people hold about their work, their job, and the organization. Our research team looked at the following work attitudes.  Job satisfaction refers to the extent to which you are satisfied with your job. It is strongly influenced by working conditions, such as organizational change.  Job involvement is the extent to which you engage core aspects of yourself in your work. It refers to how much you identify with the work you do.  Organizational commitment is the strength of your relationship with the organization. It is reflected in your acceptance of the organization's goals and values, willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and desire to remain employed with the organization.  Intent to leave the organization indicates your willingness to terminate your employment with the organization. W e also examined job stress, which is influenced by working conditions, and organizational change. The average percentile scores for managers at ORGANIZATION A on these variables are presented below relative to 550 managers across four organizations.  Percentile Scores on Work Attitudes and Job Stress Relative to Managers Across Four Organizations  ORGANIZATION A managers are more committed to ORGANIZATION A than most managers are to their organization. They do, however, experience slightly higher than average job stress and consider looking for alternative employment more than other managers.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 222 Profiles of Strategies for Adaptation to Change at Work Managers use all of the strategies for adapting to change at work to varying degrees. The extent to which they use each of the five strategies is their profile. There were several common profiles among managers at ORGANIZATION A on the strategies for adapting to change at work. Our research team looked at the work attitudes and job stress associated with these profiles. We found two profiles with implications for ORGANIZATION A. Functional Profile Managers who were satisfied with their jobs, involved at work, committed to the organization, and relatively free from job stress tended to adapt to change at work in a unique way. Their functional profile is presented below. Functional Profile of Adapting to Change at Work  The Functional Profile was marked by a higher than average degree of Supporting Change, Initiating Effort, Career Development, and Building Social Capital. Managers who adapt in this way also resist change less than the average manager. Approximately 20% of managers at ORGANIZATION A adapt to change with the Functional Profile of strategies.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 223 Profiles of Strategies for Adaptation to Change at Work (continued)  Dysfunctional Profile Managers who were dissatisfied with their jobs, less involved at work, less committed to the organization, and experiencing a high level of job stress tended to adapt to change at work in a different way. Their profile is presented below.  Dysfunctional Profile of Adapting to Change at Work 0.6 cu 0.5 O)  ra h-  > 0.4 \ < o 0.3  -0.1 -0.2  tmmmmmmmmt ;resisting  building| •careen develorjment|social capital pn  The profile was marked by a very high degree of Resisting Change, a moderate degree of Initiating Effort, only small degrees of Supporting Change and Career Development, and lower than average Building Social Capital. Approximately 20% of managers at ORGANIZATION A adapt to change with the Dysfunctional Profile of strategies.  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 225  Acknowledgements We are grateful for the generous participation of ORGANIZATION A and its managers, directors, and executives in the project. We also appreciate the HR Leadership Team for their support in carrying out the project. Research Team The Adaptation to Organizational Change Project was performed by the Industrial/ Organizational Psychology division of the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. Our team performs psychological research aimed at solving human resource challenges. The lead investigators are Dr. A. Ralph Hakstian and Ms. Seonaid Farrell. The project is part of Seonaid Farrell's doctoral dissertation. Ralph Hakstian is Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Hakstian is an expert in personnel psychology, psychometrics, and advanced statistical methods, with nearly 100 publications in the scientific literature. In addition, he has over 20 years of experience working with companies to improve and ensure legal defensibility of their personnel selection, career development, and performance appraisal systems. Seonaid Farrell is in the final year of completing her PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Ms. Farrell has published research in international journals and spoken at national conferences. She has five years of consulting experience delivering workshops on change management, assessing management performance, and coaching employees returning to work from leaves of absence. For  more  information about the project  please  contact Seonaid Farrell by email:  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change  APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM  THE  UNIVERSITY  O F B R I T Adag|atignQO]0^|ar^za^ijn^l Change 227  Department of Psychology 2136 West Mall Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z1  U B C  Consent to Participate in a Focus Group Interview: Adaptation to Organization Change Principal Investigator:  Dr. A . Ralph Hakstian, Professor Department of Psychology I Inivcrsitv of British Columbia  Co-Investigator:  Seonaid Farrell, Doctoral Candidate Department of Psychology University of British Columbia  Purpose: The purpose of the interview is to identify the characteristic behaviors and thoughts that enable employees to adapt to organizational change.  T h e research project is part o f Seonaid Farrell's  doctoral dissertation.  Procedures: The Co-Investigator will describe adaptation to organizational change, explain the procedure for participants to provide the skills they used to adapt to change at work, and discuss examples of these skills with the group. Next, participants will have an opportunity to anonymously record the skills they use to adapt to change at work on a reporting form. Finally, participants will receive a letter summarizing the objectives of the study and the Co-Investigator will invite comments and inquiries. T h e interview will take two hours to complete.  Confidentiality: A l l information resulting from this research study will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous. A l l information will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in lab space at the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. N o information identifying any individual will be collected. Participants will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study.  Version: FG-2002-07-16  Adaptation to Organizational Change 228  Voluntary Participation: Participation is completely voluntary. If you wish to stop participating in the study, for any reason, you may do so without explanation and with no consequence of any sort. Remuneration/Compensation: Participants will be provided with a copy of the overall results of the study. Contact: For further information with respect »o the or Ms. Seonaid Farrell at  stnHv  nhvise contact Dr. Ralph Hakstian  a*  For concerns regarding the treatment or rights of research - ui .sects, please contact the Director of Research Services at the University of British Columbia at Consent: I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to my employment. I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. I consent to participate in this study.  Participant's Signature  Date  Signature of a Witness  Date  Version: FG-2002-07-16  Adaptation to Organizational Change 229  APPENDIX D BACKGROUND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FORM  Adaptation to Organizational Change 230  | UBC I  Adaptation to Organizational Change Background Information Please provide the following information. This information is used to ensure the results represent an adequate cross-section of the local population. It is not associated with your responses to the interview. Gender: Age:  • Male  • Female  years  Best Language:  • English  • Other:  Position:  • Excluded  • Bargaining Unit  • Management  Adaptation to Organizational Change 231  APPENDIX E MATERIAL PROVIDED TO FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS  Adaptation to Organizational Change 232 UBC Adaptation to Organizational Change Project Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia  Definition of Adaptation to Change at Work: Adaptation is how you improve the fit between yourself and the environment, given the demands of a new role, task, event or environment at work.  Organizational Changes Require Individual Adaptation: Job Redesign New Technology Organization Redesign Changes in Leadership Self-Managed Work Teams Reengineering of Business Processes Mergers/ Joint Ventures / Spin offs Organizational changes can involve: Structure: Organization's structure and reporting relationships •  Processes: Work processes and job design  •  People: People in the organization and how they interact Place: Physical setting where work takes place  Adaptive Responses: Individuals adapt to change at work in many different ways. We are interested to know how you responded to change at work. In particular, we would like to find out what you did or thought that helped you to adapt to various changes. Adaptive responses are the behaviors and thoughts involved in your response to change. They are concrete, specific, and based on what actually happened. Your adaptive responses may refer to how you dealt with: •  Changes in work demands e.g. "I kept my skills current by taking some additional training." (behavior)  •  People you work with e.g. "I remained composed during a conflict among my colleagues." (thought)  •  Your own career development e.g. "I asked my supervisor for feedback on my performance." (behavior)  •  Feelings during the change e.g. "I kept focused on the task at hand." (thought)  UBC  Adaptation to Organizational Change Project Adaptation to Organizational Change 233 Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia  Directions: We would like you to describe your thoughts and behaviors in response to some changes you experienced at work. Tell us about the change, your responses, and their outcomes. Here is an example: The Change:  "My supervisor was laid off during the downsizing and her work was passed on to me and a co-worker." Your description of the situation reveals the context in which certain responses were or were not taken.  Your Response: "I got some training to build my skills and spent extra time planning my work." Your response is specific, concrete and based on what actually happened.  The Outcome:  "I was able to take on the added work, although I worked longer days." The outcome shows how the response was related to a change at work. Your responses may vary in how helpful they were to you in adapting to change.  Effectiveness:  How helpful was the response for you? not helpful at all 1  somewhat helpful 2  3  very helpful 4  5  to Organizational Change Project UBC Adaptation Industrial/Organizational Psychology  I P  Adaptation to Organizational Change 234  Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia  Guidelines: Describe what you did or thought in response to the change, not your traits and abilities. IHI  "I was resilient during a setback in the implementation of some new technology." This response does not specify what you did or thought, instead it refers to the trait of resilience.  0  "I dealt with my frustration by focusing on constructive solutions, instead of blaming others." Be as specific and concrete as possible.  M  "I took action to deal with new work processes." This response is vague and unclear. What actually happened?  0  "I adjusted the deadlines for projects I was working on." Refer only to your own actions and thoughts, not those of your team as a whole.  S  "My team put together a communication plan." This response is missing what you did, as an individual.  0  "I wrote a communication about the recent changes to service delivery."  UBC Adaptation to Organizational Change Project  Adaptation to Organizational Change 235  Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia  Timeline of Changes at Work: Think back over the past three years, and note changes that occurred at work on the timeline below. These changes may vary in their scope and influence.  Nov  "2002  July  -2002  Mar  -2001  Nov  "2001  July  -2001  Mar  "2001  Nov  -2000  July  "2000  Mar - T 2 0 0 0  Adaptation to Organzational Change 236  CD tf) C o  Q.  3  3  a>  CO  3  3 Q-CO  fr CD  sz  tn o .C Q.C0  CO  CM  ca  c  <U  CO  f  -t—' CO  c  o s  CM  CO  3  o  o  E o u  +•1 .  3  O a> .c  IS «>  § c *- o  O  tf)  CO Q. .C (A q>  o  Q c  > a> i_  o c o (0 (0 CD  tf) (0  ii  c c Q) c (0  o  V  •alt; 3 o  >»  3 CO  co  S  Q-co 0  CO  CM  CM  tf)  0> O) c (0  3  CM  CO  o  s  o  *- 3  Q.  <3  3  5LO CO  °  +-  tf) c  SJ  (0 tf) CD  CO  CO CO  Adaptation to Organizational Change  APPENDIX F CRITICAL INCIDENTS FROM FOCUS GROUPS  Adaptation to Organizational Change Organization A 1. Department reorganization, including firing of my VP, reassignment of my director and merger of two subsidiaries 2. Moved from company headquarters building to another location where a small independent department worked, as part of taking on a new job myself. They were hostile to outsiders and wanted nothing to do with HQ. 3. Fired employees who I had worked with for years and knew fairly well. Both managers and unionized employees. 4. Introduction of new process across several departments. This affected the deliverables from my team and the form and structure of our interactions with other department. 5. New manager appointed while my job stayed the same. New manager less experienced than the previous one and different work style. 6. I changed jobs and moved from (location) to (location) 7. I took on more responsibility by becoming a team lead in the (group) 8. Was promoted to second level manager position and changed jobs - moved from (department) to (department) 9. My Director left her position and the organization to take on a new job with another company 10. (Program) roll out - implementation resulted in another restructuring in (department) 11. (Service) was to be sold because it was not considered to be core business to the future operations of (organization) 12. My supervisor's mother, whom she was very close to, passed away and I had to take on more responsibility after three months of just becoming a manager 13. Was only in (department) for 6 months, when the decision to consolidate to (department) was decided 14. Became (position) when co-manager retired and position was not filled 15. New job in (department) but soon found out that the department may be outsourced 16. Announcement of (program) - Employees who met eligibility requirements offered voluntary departures incentive 17. Customer account base split based on client and solution customers - team split between two groups 18. Accepted job as (position) and left (department); Recruited not solicited 19. "Retirement" of (manager) 20. Process Manager for (program) retired 21. The office I was working in closed, 2 of my peers (managers) were let go 22. Was asked to relocate for indeterminate time to the (location) office after a manager (a peer) was let go with the knowledge that major changes were going to take place in the office  Adaptation to Organizational Change 239 23. Introduction of performance management to the (departments) 24. Increased focus on results, particularly sales 25. Sales compensation for managers was introduced - pay would be impacted 26.1 moved into a job that did not draw on my strengths but instead provided new learning opportunities and growth opportunities 27.1 was told I needed to relocate to protect my position within the organization 28.1 went/volunteered to go to the front line to support change because it was clearly not going to go away 29. Work team was split into two groups, which were moved into separate areas of the company 30. Whole marketing organization was merged from two separate groups into one new group, under a new VP 31. Work team I was on was reorganized by different functional capabilities 32. My very competent boss left the company and was replaced by an incompetent one 33. One of my close friends was pulled out of my group and made to join another group against his will 34.1 was requested to develop a Market Plan for (department), where my direct manager and his manager provided me with completely different direction. The situation was to satisfy both, however, the reality was being placed in a situation to work independent from my team and boss 35. Assumed new position in (department) - had to establish role, scope, deliverables independently 36. Assumed responsibility for developing implementation plan for (department). This require turning "aspirational" two year view into a 12-month real plan. 37. Took on role of (position) in (department) to establish customer focus in Marketing effort and drive growth progress 38. Leaving (organization) to rejoin (organization) in a new role - a completely different role than I had worked on before 39. Move from (department) to transitioning role on (program) and to (department). Some issues with (previous department) not wanting to release us to the new role in (new department). 40. Taking on new full time role on (department) team a couple of months into my new role, while my own group was going through significant change (closing three offices and downsizing). I had to support my team from a distance. 41. (Organization) was purchased by (organization) and merged into (organization) 42. Begin assuming broader responsibilities at (department) 43. (Department) disbanded and I am moved to the (department) 44. Move to (department) and the (group)  Adaptation to Organizational Change 45. The former (department) was shut down, along with its trial project and staff was let go. Within 2 months, the responsibility of (project) was moved to my group. I had neither extra staff or expertise to take on that work. 46. As part of re-organization work re-alignment, I moved 2 of (location) staff to a different group 47. Due to the integration of (service), which used to be arms length, back into (organization), I was to report to a different director. When mapping my previous (service) responsibilities into the (organization), my new role had decreased scope, but more depth, and also added responsibilities of looking after the (program). 48. Implementation of a new service development process for my group. My group used to do service development end-to-end. The new process divides up the front end work such that another group does it 49. Restructure into client, business, (department) organization 50. (Program) kicked off 51. Downsizing (program) in (department) 52. Implementation of the (program) 53. Changed positions within the company after 10 years in one department 54. Closing of (location) office 55. Began leading the (team) for various areas of (department) 56. Began training for the (department) 57. (Department) reporting structure changed from (position) to (position) post-merger. This was a significant shift in management styles and focus. 58. (Department) structured into (department) and (department). This would require groups to focus on a subset of products and services. 59. (Department) structure changed again from (department) to (department) 60. Significant downsizing of group (30% reduction) complete change of management. This was an unforeseen change. New manager was not technical but was leading a group of technical professionals. 61. Introduction of (department)—3rd major restructure in 2 years—and became (position) 62.1 was informed of a reorg to (department) and our work group would be closed and work moved to (location) 63.1 took a new position in (department) in a completely different role than I had experience in 64. Introduced (program) and (program) into a union charged workforce 65. Several managers were let go from the company who were personal friends of mine, due to a reorg 66. Increasing pressures for better sales results in 2002  Adaptation to Organizational Change 241 67. In the summer it was announced that the (location) office will amalgamate with the (location) office in (location). It was supposed to happen in November, but has been delayed to March 2003. 68. Rapid change that's happening in (department) with regards to moving to a high performance culture, increased productivity. Let's say specifically the targets changing in October to make difficult targets for the rest of the year. 69. Since (person) joined us there has been an increase in workload though it would have happened anyway. (Period of time) was the first month this year that I did not get everything done I was supposed to get done. Organization B: 70. Current management team disbanded when other directors assigned to different teams 71. Informed that my position was responsible and accountable for rural areas 72. (Group) formed to look for efficiencies and cost savings 73. (Program) announced and my direct report changed again within 4 weeks 74. The government made a decision to restructure the regional boundaries for Health Region. Result was 52 health regions to 6 large health authorities 75. As a result of the Health Authority realignment, new structures were adopted and in addition, health care was facing some huge financial pressures. Health Authorities were asked to cut budget and wthout cutting services. This resulted in less resources and increased workload 76. Change in my direct report 77. Installation of a new business system 78. Working with small communities in terms of adapting to changes 79. (Program) startup: portfolio redistribution communicated by new leader to new direct reports 80. CEO and boss decided to leave organization 81. Management Team reorganized by people applying for new "regional" positions - incl. outplacements and new hires 82. Boss/CEO moved from one organization to another 83. Process mapping 84. Promoted from Acting to Permanent position 85. The dissolution of (department) and amalgamation in a large health authority 86. Change of reporting lines to new people - unclear reporting details and scope. Nothing in writing. Mostly management by heresay and rumour 87. Open positions due to maternity leave that were unable to be filled due to shortage of qualified applicants 88. Increasing the stipend for (position) from 50% to 85% but not having the money to do so  Adaptation to Organizational Change 242 89. Within a three week period moved from (location) to (location), started a new job as a manger (other manager off on stress leave) with job action in place, sold home, bought a new place and moved in 90. Proposal submitted to change (department) from a 150 bed immediate care facility to 90 beds of intermediate care and 30 assisted beds; therefore change in focus and then decrease in staff 91. With reorganization manager, within one facility report out to 2-3 different directors 92. Managing a 2 manager facility for almost a year by myself and finally having another person appointed to share responsibilities 93. Expanded my portfolio to manage two site rather than one site. This role doubled the number of staff that reported to me directly and indirectly and reduced my time availability 94. Accepted offer from employer to attend (program) - this renewed my responsibility and reduced my availability 95. My direct supervisor's (VP) role expanded from 4 sites to 50 site responsibility - this made him less available 96. (Department) initiatives being discussed in many areas within my portfolio. This will ultimately dissolve my portfolio 97. Employment terminated as job came to an end 98. Hired in new position 99. Terminated (again) because of cutbacks 100. Requested to take on some of my director's work even though it is not related to mine because she has so much work 101. First reorg - with larger organization - no longer at planning and decision making table unfamiliar bosses with known conflicts with old boss who was let go - felt very unsure and unsafe 102. Major reduction based on need to meet budget and reoganization - first time I thought my job may be gone 103. Merging with (organization) that had an entirely different culture. Felt like non-hospital programs were not respected 104. Many leaders - 5 CEOs and 4 CFOs (approx) and no vision or mission communicated to organization 105. Return to manager position reporting to two Directors (one new to me) at some time as staff cutbacks being planned 106. Major cutback in management staff leading to lay-offs and reassignment of portfolio 107. Merger to one large region 108. Requested by Director to take on Co-Director role to assist her 109. My co-manager was seconded to manage another program within the organization. This became a permanent move and I inherited the program as the only manager  Adaptation to Organizational Change 243 110. Reduction in staff due to restructuring and budget constraints causing rumours that building would close and used by another program 111. Change in director 112. Merging with (organization) 113. As a result of a project charter from Senior Executive team, I was asked to assume leadership of (positions) as well as my existing team and to initiate a work redesign in the new 6 months 114.1 had a .5 position reporting ot one Director and .5 FTE reporting to another. I was asked where I wanted to go and I chose my current report on a full-time basis 115.1 was asked by my Director to reduce the existing team by 50% - 50% would stay with her group and the remainder (plus me) go to a different program 116. Asked to reassign team from one major project to an new initiative (to be up and running in a 3 wk timeframe) Organization C: 117. The health region I worked in as a (position) merged with 2 other large regions and my scope of responsibility (& geography) tripled in size, and grew exponentially in complexity 118. Implementation of a computer system 119. Merging 3 health regions - uncertainty re: job situation, organizational structure, etc. Organization D: 120. New boss began - he was new to (organization), but had 30+ years of experience at another institution -1 was frustrated because the transition did not go smoothly 121. After 6 months of concentrated effort, hardware purchases, software enhancements, etc, we rolled out a revamped (service) 122. We moved to (service) often doing due diligence to have all systems working positively. Unfortunately, performance was a major issue 123. Added 4 new staff members to my unit within a month 124. Introduced major components of the (program) including (service), (service), and (service) 125. Became (position) of (department) which, at that time, was a unit in desperate need of leadership 126. Led a (team) for (department) for 3 months 127. Implemented (program) 128. A new (person) joined our team 129. Benefits on (program) had to be paid for from new funds rather than covered centrally budgets were developed based on covered centrally as in past  Adaptation to Organizational Change 244 130. A new organization structure was put in place separating (department) into 2 groups of units, and regrouping of units within these functions as well 131. (Person) went on extended (but unknown duration) sick leave 132. New boss started 133. Hired new (position) with intent of off-loading some of my finance and budget responsibilities to this new position 134. My department was restructured and a colleague less competent than myself was promoted to a position of authority over me 135. The promoted colleague made a huge mistake and was let go 136.1 was promoted to my former colleague's position 137. Two colleagues are leaving, which means that me and my boss the only remaining people in upper management 138. My supervisor's supervisor indicated that he was not happy with our then current practices 139.1 was promoted from the staff ranks to a management position 140. A new director was hired to take charge of my Department 141.1 was asked to move laterally to a different management position, with -80% more staff to supervise, and greater responsibility in other areas as well 142. When I was asked to move laterally to a new management position, it was also required that (personal disruption from the change) 143. Several projects changed. It was necessary to change focus and plan/create 144. Additional responsibilities added in an area unfamiliar to me due to staff member leaving and position not being filled 145. Increased work load. Additional projects/events without additional help from support staff 146. Hiring of Management Position - Had a tremendous impact on staff 147. Establishment of new management team in (department) 148. Transition from (service) to (service) 149. Trusted advisor and supporter left the (department) and was replaced by someone I am not likely to work with as well and who is critical of the former employee 150. (Person) phoned in sick for (period of time) and the receptionist left at the same time 151. Reorganization of (department) into 2 families. Separation from many of the managers I felt close to and worked well with 152.1 was asked to submit a bid for (program) and had 3 weeks to prepare it. We had previously lost, the bid twice 153. A key staff member started an extended medical leave two days before the start of a major (program) that she was planning 154.1 was promoted  Adaptation to Organizational Change 155. After I was promoted, someone was hired to fill my previous position 156. We upgraded our software 157.1 was employed as the first (position) at (organization) stepping into a new position/model that was a "vision" at the time 158. My office was physically relocated. My new office is in an isolated area from the rest of my colleagues 159. The (department) opened its doors; new space to administer, new staff to get oriented 160.1 am a joint appointment (1/2 employed by (department) and 1/2 employed by (department)) my Supervisor left for study leave 2 weeks ago 161. My colleague just received a new job and will be leaving in 2 weeks 162. Reorganization of program 163. Staff changes 164. New funding sources - proposal to the VP 165. Reorganization 166. Senior administration demanding expansion of our services but not willing to pay more for the service 167. A work relationship (my assistant) became intolerable; challenges to authority, insubordination, inappropriate statements in public 168. New director hired (I was "acting" for 2 years); I then returned to my previous position 169. New technology (custom designed waiting list and fee collection process) 170. Evaluated and redesigned organizational structure to move to self managed teams 171. (Person) became (position). Some of the issues I used to deal with her boss were moved to her 172. (Boss) announced he wanted change in structure of my department - but it was vague - he saw it as a work in progress - units knew change was coming but no specifics 173. Great delay and problems with software package (>lyr) which would limit repetitive clerical tasks and errors 174. My initial boss stepped down (was removed?) and (person) took over "temporarily" as direct boss 175. Original plan was to create a (position) - position has not been offered for "budget reasons" 176. Increase of management team in my area of responsibility 177. Changing turnover process 178. New director 179. Changing (service) to a 7day/week operation from a 5 day 180. Tech change  Adaptation to Organizational Change 246 181. Became lead author to write a (program). Spent most of my days for 6 months writing instead of my usual work activities 182. Director left on sick leave and the group I worked with became a self-managed team for 6 months 183. Manager on online learning project resigned -1 took over her responsibilities 184. Director resigned and I became "manager" of a group within the department 185.2 new staff members hired -1 was responsible for their training and supervision 186.1 accepted an acting position in a related field by not my area of expertise  Adaptation to Organizational Change 247  APPENDIX G PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE  Adaptation to Organizational Change 248 XJ  a  a  '-*-»  ju  60  N  E  160  • i-H  O  cu  c  •2 «a tS 3 2 > 2, o cy b  c  c  CU  cu  OA S3 05  .C  U 13  2  XI  co  O  <U  c«  O  S  CO  S3  w  CU  o  .2  -  _  CO  •a  OA  C*-< O  cu  cd 60  E  03 -—'  cd  .s -a .5 2 s o,.2  CU  1:3  C  o o Cd  s  cd  o  §  lH  3 O >^  O  TS  CU  -4—>  CO a>  s -g 3  CL  ft CU 3  fi cd  <U  B  S  CO  CT CU "5  Z  p 2  X! •*-»  cu  JS  XJ  (U  3 O  & B  B  cu X ) tu cd X! X ~ cu CU co CU co cd ^ X J CO  B  cd S  E  _C  I*  X)  3  B O  c r *•' CU  CO  O 00 ^ 5s B B  CU  x  co  +j  O  i=  60 S  eg .fa  cd  S B cd " '3 g X <u b -e ^ _g •§  O -  C u  '  co O  JS  % Si  2 >^  -S cu > cu  3  cu  «  CU T3  H  3  |  co . S  CO  — CU CU X ! ft co X i CU 2 cu '  3 O  co  ft  o  OH  W  60  <u o  S  g  N  60 g CU  CO  T3  *-»  E • E CU 60 3 ~ ii  IS 2  ^  Si  «  O •S  M  <*z E l-l --t  Q 2 &,  cd "3  CO  CU-  fe B -B J3 60 X J co S B 60 X i 6 0 | co —  ?  o ^  3 O  f n "  0  0  B  -3 C  I P P  c  2  j)  •ft  cu CO O  §  "cd  x  H 3  M  .B <-"> co o s -a o  cu B  CO'  B  3  &,  XJ  P« . 2  2 o >  §  B  o  P  "*  Oi  s a, E •oH  S  CU  co X  6 0 co  SO o  B  B  ft  o <u cu O  O O  X  cu  U  P  &, >  3 O £  CO E O  So <U CU X*3!  '5  B §  O  OH O  o  XJ XJ E  o o  O  co , CU,  B " CU X ) <U E CO  co E O  cd o rt  3  s -  B  § ^  JS  cu  S  *H  • cd  x  « 2 .2 * co E « E ft . N CU cu  E & XJ  u  B  cd  cd  ft  \S  ia s E  CU X J  9i cd  E  u  cd 60 co  CU  WH  O -e  X ed  3  -4—*  VH  .5 8 CO 'HS ft O  E S H  60 ft 33  >  ^ jS  CJ  cu cd  §  '>  1^  <cd -> §3 S B cu cu X X cu  E xi 2 « o O3 2 >; H—»  f!  J5  cu  e  °  3 O  o  >  <->  60  ^ 6 u  ^  X  td 2  •S CO CU  td £  DO CU r-  CO  •i i  3 S  M X<U O X cd •ft • ' Si M B  *-> cj 3 o X ) x) cu M JCU ^ CO  ed CO cu cd  X  CU Si  E  Cj  ft cd 3  00  fi? o  .  cd p. cu  ?p ts ^ ed 3  •a e "3 3 O j ^ !  ^ .S u JS  x  •ft  O  -  3 O  •ft  S  60  c  S § x °"5 g  ft B  gz  co  "° E .3  s s JS  E °  cu ft  -ft o <u  E  CO  ft  cd J S cu ^ cu > s a 60cu cu  co CU  •« 5  CO CU  ^  1)  WH . JJ -5 3 o cd co cu E  ou -"7 rUj , £H" 60 co bp j ) cd E ed 60 ^ tM 7  s§ >  2  N E  x)  •«-•  co  CU •±3 •4^ co .tJ ft  3  S3  ft  o ^  WH  3 O  >~» B  23 co  E  i—i  co  >  § 5 3  C^  c  a  .2 E 'g  ^.^-^ o U  co E O  E  3  O  cu cd cd 60  4)  'H3  3  co CO >-» - cd & u XCO cd CO 60 CO OO cd O CU E cd 1 oo cd =3  ft  ~*  IS  S  ^—>  X  E O  CU OH OH CO O O  J=  x  OH  cu cu cd > cu  X  6  «>  ^ 8  o  '•ft  •s p  1  0  E  B p  3  >  co S. «  cu o cd * E cd cu _ E cd  o  2  c cu B ' O & ft O cu Xi co CU *fa CU co M ft B cu 2 ca, cd P  CU  CU  cu  JC  X)  o  -O  ft CN  5  60  E  o  3  3 >.  3  cd v-. cd -2 "o cu *a cd  E  s  'co  Xi X)  a  1  c  c  X)  CT g  E  o  60  CU  E  g  3  tS  o  •4-*  8 o  ct  N  > E  E 3  5  I  60  •a  += o 1—t  1  3  CU  cu o xi  SZ  cu cu  E  cd  a,  3  60  CU  c O cu •«  o  ^i oo  cj  co  3 O  E  u °<  JC -  >  CU  cd  "o3  - 8  cu  _ x CJ 60 -C co  '5b j2  60  cd  XI  ^ cu  O  CU  X  cu  CU co  XI  3  XJ  CU 60  »  B  O  xt  -E  X  'I  3 O  6  ^  N  c CO  x  SJ  U  cu cu  o  CO  cd  CU  CU X!  x S cu  u  « ft cd S _ 2  OH co P JCO 3  >£  p  Adaptation to Organizational Change 249 CD CDX) CDJJ  CD CO  §5  CL O OWm O 0  S^ 8  cc ca CD <ijo 5 CO CO05  0 CD  c  x: X!  CO  5 «  .§ E CD  O O V- C C.O •4-T CO O CM O CO CO c: co 1 I M_ C D CM CM"D CU — a  11  03 >>  fc:  m co g °  p  w io -  C CD CD CO C co »- E E « "SL ® O . 0)  "D  o fc .52 o co co > ^ r c CM CM O CD g c *- l l II II II II  O r O fflXI O TJ CD X ±= TJ  c o o >» E  c o o  c o c o  CD  (!) 0 CO  o c  O D) CO D)  3 O  c cu >  "O  T3  CU -4—'  'c C O cn o to i  T5 CO  0  o •*-•  o  CO CU  5 0 ^  c CO x: o  cn  CO  ra w  cn c o  O)  CO _  O  CD CD • -  t— ^ •H=  CO +-»  c cu  O ="  .>  c o  *•+-* CO  cu  (U  c  CO  o 5 c *  o cu x: CU  3  o  CO •#-» sz CO  3  o  hCM  co  CO  •o  sz  <D  cn c CO x: o  o  •+—<  'c  0  l_  CO  CD CD  VCO _N  CO N  "O  c o o  c o  CO CL  CL  c _co !5 co  E CL  o cu >  0 T3 O  o x: ~o 0 c c JO  0_ CO  CO CD  o CO  1  o §  o o CO o CL  CO 0 > CO O CL  CO  0 CL O  0  CL  -•—'  3 O  cn 3  O CO  o $ E o 3  o  XJ CO  cn 3 o  sz  0 CO  cn c CO x: o 0  •*—•  1  CO  H—  0  0  cn c  E o E o  XI "CS  0 ra 0  o  >»*  3  •c o CL CL O  c  CO  o o I— CO  CO  0  >»  0  ra  'c  CL  CO  T3 0  N  0 0  TJ CO 0  kCL  CO i  o _co o cn  ra  0 CO k_ 0 > 0 T3 0 •g  'o 0  T3 >> T3  CO 0 CO CO CO $ CO  x:  •*—<  0  cn c CO x: o  CO •a 0  co  X) 0 Q 1^  o ca 3  o  X) CO  cn c 1^ c c CO  D) O  c 0 o  0 T3 0  SZ CO Q.  E o o o ca co  xs  0  x:  ca x:  c  c o o  4-**  0  "o 0  c o CO  3  o o E CL  0 * 00  0  "k. Si  0 CL O  0 CL O  ra cn c 0  o  o c  CO  0  CL CL  0 _3  5 0 c  CO CO CO 0  cn c CO CO 3 o X) CO 0  I-  o  3  0  o o  ra  E o  o 0  0 X) CO CO  c  SZ  E  o >% C  CO  O  CO  T3  o  •*—'  o  CL  CO  o  c o  CO  c E o 0 CO  >» E  TS  0 CL  o  CL  CO  Adaptation to Organizational Change 250 CD  2 >* ECD  CD CO  CD  co CO CO  CD  £ .2  s  CD CO  CD <  o—  o  CO  o2  C  CD  O  I  I  CM CM  X)  o  c  c O CM *S O CD 2= E O CO C CO  >< fc: jx co co g CO CO CD CD  C  > >  CO  £ E "2 i= CD r r ro  CO  c3  t  5 c5  E E  ••= \= CD CO CO O CO  — p  CD  2 >* £ TJ  3 o  cO  CO CO CD CD  8 o  jx XI CD 73 CD  CO  "*—' r— > jx. 'sz  o§  o  X £  TJ  CD CO CO g CM CM XI  O  9>  TJ  5=  CO CO  0  CD  c  0  o  E  CO 0  CD  c  JZ.  0  1_ 0  TJ  CD D) CC O)  CO  E o  c  0  CD  CL O  O >.  0  CL  o -q  $  CL  CO co  O  c  w £  CD > 0 TJ  JD  CD ><  TJ C  O  CO  £  co 5 S> o c C0O CD > D ) 00 CO c Q. o  3  kCD  CO 0  c  o 0 E o  5  o x: c  o TJ 0  3  co  "c  o »  co  CO  CD  N  'c  O  CO  CO  o  x:  0  k_  0 0  CL  E o c  JX  o 0  O  E o 0  CO TJ 3  o 0 CD C  CO  x: o  0  0  DC  x:  •*—' +-« 3  o  XI CO  c  o  co N  c  CO  CD  k_  o  CO  'sz  CO O  5 CO  •'4—' CO  5 CD C  TJ O 0 TJ  c .0  o o  ICD  0 0  CL  TJ 0 +—> CO 3 CO  CO CL  LO —  CO  'c  •5 0  3  '-t—f CO ,N  0 >  x: o c  3 * •— <  c o  co  0  x:  CO  k- x:o  0 X)  CD  CO  f= CD -x= £ £ >  O  O  c  0  J=  JX  o  o  o TJ 0 ^  o  CO 0  CD  k_  CO N  0 X)  c  o  'c  CO N  o  CD  CL O CL  k.  'c  0 JO 0  CO  CD  k.  o  c  0 0 CO  k-  0  c  o 0 E o  CO  0 X5  CO  o •4—»  TJ 0 CO 3  0 > 0  o c  JX  o c  0 0  TJ TJ  CL  C0  0  c7 CL  CO  >k_  CO  o  0  c  o 0 E o  CO  s  o  co  c  o  0 CL O  CL  CO 0 i—  0  Q.  TJ 0  TJ  0  E 2  0, iz\  • CO CD  O CO  o o  c 0 0  E co  TJ 0  c 0  E 5  CO CM CM CM  «  co  TJ 0 CO 3 CO  sz X  0 ••—' 0 0  k0  0  CO CO CO CO CO  o CL 0  3 CO CO 0  CD C  CO  sz  o 0  CD  3  O  5  0 0"  CD C  CO  SZ  o CO  CO  0  CM  o o c  CD  0 0  Q o  E o  0  •4—  CO  k_  JO 3  CO  "•*—»  0  CO  •4—•  H—  CO I00— rr  o E  o  o  -g  c  c  TJ 0  JX  TJ 0  JX  CO  < CO CJ  CO  CL  JX  o o  H CM  LO CM  Adaptation to Organizational Change 251  0  co co coCD co CO CD  CD CO  § 3 Q. O ^ ' CO  2 -s co O 2.  2  g>  > t  £|  x £ x>  S t -  x: -g  2 co co $  CD  c  O  E E CD g « o O co co 2 c co H-r O co OJ CM O CM c CO II II „ _ CD CD — JJ o  g tt .2 co  XJ c co CD ci  T3  A „  CD CD  Tf. CD  CD CO  <  CD CD  CO CO CD CD  > >  II  II  CO  E E « "5 CD CD cr CM CM O k_  U  II  O TJ c  g "co N 'c CO O) k-  c  cd c CD Z3  co  w  i  CO CO  k_  (0  *-—<  CO c CO ' 3  «F TJ C -ti 0 3  o  co -5  £ o c  CO CJ) 0 C O k-  O  TJ  CO CD  CD  c  o  CO N 'c CO CJ) k_  CJ) to "c  CO  CO N 'c CO CO  '•*->  o  o  CO 0 O) XJ 0)  S o c  E > o Q.  JZ  0 Q. O CO Q.  o 3 o  XJ CO CO  Q. 0  CM  CO CM  CD *=  c  o—  o o  "•*-»  o  XJ c  co k_  o o XJ 0 ffl 0 k-  co ••-» CO  0 0 c "to  CO  o  JD  Q. 3 O  o i >^  E O  ;> o  3 XJ  9 Ct 0  CO  E  3  o  E  o  CO CO  co o E  0  o  Ct CO O) CM  Q.  JD  C O 0 k-  o •E •+—<  3 O T3 C  XJ 0  o co  c 0 3 O  k-  > o  JD  O ) co  "•s J?  CO  k_  o  E  tr  T3 c CO  _w  > ^  o °-  o  CO  CD JZ CD O)  k.  o  o o  CO CO _c  sc  c  o CO N 'c CO CO k-  o  CO  I >>  3 O  JD  CO CO 3  o  co  co c to to 3  o o  JD  0" CO c CO  to 0 CO c CO  E o k_  H—  c XJ 0 XJ  o  '> k_  0CM CO  0 CO c CO  0 CO c CO  J=  o  E o  o  CO  JZ  CO  to 0  XJ 0 3 to 0  o JD  CO  JZ  E o o» +-  g 'to  E  o  3  CO c  0 Q. 0  kH—  o  o  k-  0  o  JZ  CO c o to  JZ  3  JD CO  E  3  CO c 1^ cE  o  E  'k-  o  c 0 3 CT 0  k . H—'  CO  E  CO  c  o o 0 >  to  o  Ct  0 3  o  0 to  JD  E  JZ  CO  •  CO c 3 H— 0 > CO  -*—*  Q. 0  CO 3 O  XJ 0  CO CO  CO  LO CO  g  '£ 0 to to 0 JD 0 0 > 0  o 0  3 O  0 JD  0  Jk_ Ct CO 0  JZ  o  i  3 T3 0 JD to to O Ct 0  > o  to 0 CO c CO  0 to 3 CO o 0  JD  0 O c CO  E o tz  0 Q. c  o E  CO  to c  to c 0  •*= to CO 0  o o  9  0 3 Ct o x to 0 0  to  3  §  T3 XJ XJ 0 k0 CO 3 OJ, to ai to c CO rn 0 ? XJ o OC O < 5 f-. 00 CO CO  o  CO c 3  o  LL  CO CO  o  E o  II  Adaptation to Organizational Change 252  0 0 xi  X CO  ©  E  CO  § 5 to Tj:  §  0  CO  CO  CO  CO  i  3  0 co 0 > co  £ J! 5 _ 0E .§0 coS £O 0 CO ? 0 CO1 COI 0 *= CM CM  <P o 0 5 il -K  CO  CO  M<?  II TOJ  II CM ©  O o co c co  2=  2 m  co §  © CJ) CO  CO TJ  11  -I  fc  CO  CO  §  CO  © 0 * "5 ~E E © rr CO co 2 CO  co © cj c  C E ^ > O 52 © i cz > jx sz c CM CM O > c *- ll o •- o co 1  X  TJ  XI  O  TJ  o  c o  O  5  CD  c  C  is co  5 x: lo c x: 0  CO JO •4—•  c O  CO  TJ  0  CD  i  C  x: o CO  0  CD CD C CO  CO +^ 3 O X) CO  O "O  x: o  k_ CD  co o E  o  o E  B JO  kCD  c o  CD C J£ CO CO  o <S  CO  o  O  X3  co  co $  XJ  0 ^  E  CO 3 CO 4—'  >* E  3  o  CD sz  TJ  5 >.  CO CO TJ  O) to .  /— CO • • s o CO O ^ CD  _  o CJ  co -*—*  0)  o CO  0  CD  c CD X> TJ  co  15  CD 3  o CM Tf  0 TJ CO  o c 0 > 0  k-  o  O  CO  (D CD  c x: o x: E o CO  CD  +—>  >  *co  0 CD CO  0 CD  c x: o  ca  k_  o c o JX o o Ico  'c  JX  x: TJ 0 SZ  o  •c  0 CD  O O 0  E o o  0 X)  o O  5  TJ 0  >  4—»  Cl  0  O  CD  0 CL TJ  O ••—<  0  > T f T f  +-*  o c  +-*  "CD CO  0  0 CO  o x: O  LO  T f  k-  CO  o  CO *3 CO  o c o  ca  0 CO 0 > 0  CO  _c  4—*  CO CD  0  CO CL . 0 CO  0  o CO N  CO SZ -*—'  CO CO  CO C  CO  ^_  H— D) C  o  0  o  TJ 0 >  0 •*—< C CO  sz  TJ  CJ  c co c  TJ  CO  3  3  TJ  k-  0 3  a-  0  CO  ©  »" s  •+= 0  o  3  O) co c;'  c  $  CO  0  o  o  CD > CD  0  o o  "O  4—• CO 0 CD  TJ  >« E  TJ 0  k_ k-  o 5  E o ^—< c > CO 0  0 >_  k_  CJ CJ  ca  o i M— O 0 TJ  3  CD C  x: o ca *-* CO  CO  TJ 0 TJ  C  _3 CJ  0 SZ  o CO  "cO  c o  rr  T J  CO T f  T f  T f  0  I-  CO CD  0  <  00  c  o  3  0 CD  0 > CO  CO sz  x: o x:  c  0  E c CO  o 'c 0  0  0 CL  o 0 CL ^—' 0  _l Tf  c x: o CO  ca CD  CO  o E  c o Os  CD  'c  CO  0 •*>-» CO 3  0  0 O  0 CL  E  CO  CO N  CO I  TJ  o  4-*  O 0  C CO CD L—  5 o c JX c o  3  TJ  0  CO N  CO 4-»  CO  5  c o  CO  TJ  CO  TJ  'E  o E E o  o 4—'  o CO  "5 CO CO 0  k_  JD  CL  o 0  Q.  CD  o TJ 0  c o o LO  0  E JD Q.  E o c 'c CD  CD CO 0  CL 0  c c  o 3  o  TJ  c  t: CO  CL  CL 0  LO  JX  o o  ICM LO  Adaptation to Organizational Change 253  C D CO co co CO CO  CD CD XJ C D rO CD  CO -jr CD CD CD CO 1*1 .i § D CD c * CO cpC o c E J : -Q CM CMO CM n*ro II II <. O £: o CO JD u C DCO M- C CD => S> C^D 2E ^ &g « co g CO CO C D CO CD CD CO co E E "o <D 8 CD _co cp nz: CDgj CT O O C CDCII CIIM CIIM g. O -Q OII X> O r O C c  OT  X £ TJ  o  0  , ©  IXJ  CO  k_  CO  0 > 0 0  E o o  CO JZ  c  0  c  CL  o  JD  CO XJ CO  CD JZ  E  CO  c  CO  CD  JD  O)  CO  CO D)  CD  C  CO  CD  CO  ZJ  c  o >>  CO JZ o  TJ TJ  CO  -*—»  XI B JO  -t—« CD  TJ  CO CO  05  c g  o J5 co -5  CO  C  0 3  O) "co c-  ^ O  :=  ^  n  ;«  W  CD CD -J=  a>£> O ~ co  c  -4—*  -4—•  "g 0  1  CO LO  o  0  ZJ  0  CL  JD _CZOJ  CO XJ XJ c CO XJ i_  ca >  CO  0  o  to  c  CO  0  CO  0  JD  E o  CO CO CO  5  >» E CO  Jk_  CO >»  c o  E  co co  0  E  XJ 0 o 0  o 0_  •<*  LO  o >< E o  o o  0  c  k_  o 0 JZ -4—"  0 ZJ  o  0  CO  LO LO  c  CO JZ o  CO to c o to  CO 0  k-  0c o c g  CO £ Jw  o H—  c  Jk_  o E  JD CO  XJ  CO  c  ZJ  0  o  XJ  JZ  0  co LO  LO  h-  H—•  CO CO  •4—»  cZJ  CDCD CJ 0  0  CO  JZ  0  c ca  Jk_  JZ o ca tz o  Q.  Q. ZJ CO o  CO to o  JD O to k_  0 0  0  ZJ  -4—'  to  •4—»  ZJ  g it  Q.  XJ  E o  •*—<  - k_  "la E  o E 0  >%  c g  >k_ o _c  XJ 0  co c  ZJ  to cZJ 0 to >»  E  XJ  XJ  0_ CO LO  to Z) o LO  > o  to  to"  0 > 0 0  Q.  k-  c o ca  0  XJ  CO  c  CO JZ o  CO  **— o  to  0  E o o  ZJ o 0 >  C O CO 0 c  0  XJ 0 c 0  XJ o  CO  \  0 0  E E o  0  o c  c g  C O ZJ  •4—»  to  "5 g  xi CO CO  c  ZJ XJ 1—  0  JZ  E o x:  o  0  Q. >»  E  c o ^ o ca  JD XJ 0 0  o c o  XJ 0 CO o Q. E o o  XJ 0  XJ 0  CO  < T—  CD  ca c o  JZ  0  o 0  XJ 0 0k_•  E 0  JD O  Q. CO  to  CO  c 'ca  E 0  DC CM CO  0  CO  cz ca  to tz o  CO  JD XJ  0  CO JZ  »  >>  XJ JZ  C NO 'c CO  CO  ZJ  o  JD  g  o  CO  0  C  CO  o 0  CD  to  -4—*  to to o  o to  CO k Ct  >. E  _c to •4—* to  0Jk_ 0  4—»  c ca to  0  o  CO  E E co 0  >% E c o "to  0  CO CO  CO  c 1  0  E o  ZJ to CO o 0 XJ 0 CO CO CO  1^  g  5  co  Adaptation to Organizational Change 254 CD  CD  !§<>• co 7,5 CD  2.  if  c  >N  c  8  p co  .Q o > JC - C  3o  *  Ji.  CD  -Q  co  11  O  II  T3  l  5 co c o  CO CO c 9 CM CM O CM  ro  9-  XJ  CD CO O CD  E E  CO  g o  2 E  n  CO CO CO CO CD CD CD °H3 S (D ?  CD  CD  0  CD CD  3 §  CD CO  CO CO CD  II CD  g  co co CO CO CD CD  CO  »_ E E ™ "5 CD ' - ^ +z  CD •  c CM CM O II  o ~ o co a X £ -o  II  II  o n  CD II  u _tz XI  E  0  C  .0  o o  xi  >» E  0) D) CO O)  g CO N  g co N  'c  CD  CO  ZJ  o  CO  ~  0  co  0 3  o  CO CO CO  c  CO JZ CO »  3  o JD CO  XJ CO  => c  o—  c  0  CO CO  c  o  E 0  Ct  o  ••—<  TJ 0  hco  o 5  c'o CO  o  JD CO  E  *—  o 0  0  E  CO  CO  c  "CJ  c  ZJ  o  LL 00 CO  o c  c  0  E o  I 33  ZJ  o 5  0, 3  CO  c  0  o  CO  "CO  "  JZ  0 0  O  S  E ai  CO 0 CO  CO  0 1  CO  ••—<  o  w  0  0  3  CJ  JD CO CO  c  o  >^  E  _co 15  "E  E  CO JZ  CO  CO  I— H—'  C  CO  0  co  o  cz o  CO CO  0  c  CJ JZ  •*—' +-»  o JD CO CO  >* E T3 0  4—*  0 0  E 0 > 0  I  k_  g  'c  0 CO 0 IN.  C  JS  tz  CJ  o o hco  3  0  Ct CO CM  ,  E  CO Ct  o  o  "CO  '*  o  §1 CO N  c  CO  cn  to  JZ  Ct  0 0  Ct CO XJ  0  co  J0D CO  0  ~co  3  o  CO  0  XJ  0  CO CO  0  CO  E  c  Ct  E  +—I  0  i  0  •4—»  CO  4—•  o ll  CO  •*—'  JZ  o  c  CO JZ CJ  CO JZ  0  |XJ  CO  o  k-  0  0  o c  c  o 1-^  E  c  4-»  ZJ  CO  $  0  0  cr  CO  CO  "CO  1 c  Ct  S.8 0  c  3  0 0  Ct 0  CO  XJ  0  l_  Q. H—  JZ  CO  CO  c  .>»  ZJ  .8 5  CO CO  IX J CO  CO  o > o 0 E o h- 2 c O) CO  CO JZ  CO  CO  o  c  o  0  0  CO  0  E 0  0  o 0  0 >  H—  4—»  o Ct  c  ZJ O  >  JZ  0  0  XJ W  E  CO  CO  0  0  k_  0 >  JD  •*—'  CO  CO  •4= CD CO J Z CD  CJ  $  JZ  0 _3  0 0  i_  %  no.  CO CO . c '  CO  0 0  o  -*—'  o  £- CO > ^  CO  CO  CO  CD  CO  CO k-  o TJ  -5  CO  c  > 0  CO  'c  CO  CT  XJ  k_  o  CO N  ,  0  c  g  'c  co *  o  c  0  0  CO  JZ  "5  o o  CO  0  JD CO  c  c  co  0  'c  CO  0  o  TJ CD o <3  X  0 CO CO  0  o  V-* CO N  Ct  c  IN.  JZ  c  0  O  CO  o  O  Q. 0  X  LO  o 0  c c  o -o 0  to 3  CJ  o -*—•  Ct 0  co  JZ  > % to  XJ  3  o 4—•  CO JZ  3  o  JD CO  CO 3  o  IJZ  Adaptation to Organizational Change 255  JX  ©  CD «  CD CO  CD  § 5 a. o O" CO  CD cO O ©  E  x: xi 5 « o  CD CD CO c <  .2 co  XI  8  o  •a © 2=  5.1  ©  o c .co _ 1= *-  i  2  CO CO CO CO CD CD © CO CO O CO c . I I O CO OJ OJ O OJ C CO II II ©  -5: CD  £ | •8 e S8  O  CO CO CO CO  -  co  © ©  © E~ E^ © rr CD  ll  v v c >  CM CM O © II II II II XI O T J ©  0  c ca x: o CD  CO CO  0  i  o CJ  c o  0  co k_  3  jo  CO  0 X)  0 CD  0 0  CL CL  cz CD  o >^  T_3  CO  H->  TD +-»  o JX  k-  JX  o 5 >» E  co 5  2  o  E E o  k.  H—  CO  D)  CL  o <2  o  c  c CD  " D CD  TJ  0 CO CD TJ  O  •*—*  TJ CD  += CD CO CD +-  Jc => c  a—  k.  0 x:  -•—<  o o CO  0  3  o  X) TJ CD C  o  CO  0  o o oo  0  c o 0 E o CO JX  CD C '  o ca JD  & JX \  o  c CO x: o CD  TJ  0  c  CO  sz  o <4—  0  O  0  0 CD C  E TJ  'k.  0 t 0  c E o  k.  H—  JD O CO • CO  Xi  o c ca 0  c  00  00  CO  3  CO  c  CO  CO  3  0 > 0  o 0 'c "o  CO  k3  o sz 0  k_  o E 0  L_  CO 00  o CO  o c 0  CO N  Tf  00  0  c CL o 0 > 0 TJ  CO  c o 0 E o CO TJ  0  CD C  0  " co x:  CO CD  k.  o  0  TJ  0 0 C  JO  12 CO  0 sz TJ  0  CL  E  CO  0 SZ  o c CO  5  sz CD  3  0 CO  o o  0  TJ  c  JX  0  0  O  0 >  t0S  CO CO  o  0 ^k—-'  0  o  10 0 3  4—» I  TJ  •c w  0  .2  .9 oE l c  CO  0  sz  TJ  4 -—<  CO £  CO  0  ~  LO  00  oo  o 0  O 00  0  c  0  CO  0 > 0  CD  "co 0  0  CJ  c  CO .E 00 00  TJ CO  CO CO CO CO CO CO  o XI >> E TJ  0  JX  CO  00  CO  k.  c o  TJ  0  JX  c o  TJ  CO  -*—»  C  0 CO X ) •—  o CO  0  TJ  TJ  x7  °  5  "co TJ c CO E  O CO  CO  CO  0  TJ  CO  CO  4-J  CL  E o o  o  Q  4—'  0 '  0  JX  >  0  < CM  3  0  0_  o  ca  TJ  CO  3 TJ  3  TJ C  0  •*—<  0  4-»  E  TJ  0 co  CO  TJ  CO  3  0 jo 0  CO CO  c  0  Xl  o  k-  "k_  0  JD  CO  ^  o °-  CO CO  C CO  CO  E O) 00  L5 4—»  •*—<  CD CO >*  •-  CD  ca  CC D)  O  JX  4-*  CO  Oi  O  c •R 0 CO x: o c o CO o  TJ  CD  CO M—  <  o cn  CO  JX CO CO 4-»  0 sz CO TJ  0  TJ  'o >  <  Adaptation to Organizational Change 256  JC OJ OJ  >>2E  03 CO  OJ  § g Q . O «>•  co co8  to -j;: <D  g  © .o TJ  «  O g c  CO CO OJ OJ  CD to ? CO  29o  . 9? i §.  g 0 CO o c co I CM CM O CM o 11 II II c - JJ. O o TJ 0 *_ —  « O  co co  I  ™ tu  0  CO  $.1  £| •o c  OJ  c  to  c3  g - £ O f : X •£  ^0  ctooCOco "I E E * "c 5o 0  0  •<= -4=  0 g  0  C CM CM O i= II II II II o CO - D CJ "O -a  E o  OJ 3  3 O CJ  CD  CO  o •o OJ  •CJ  CD CO CC CO  c  CD ZJ  T3  "to  OJ CO CO OJ co to o Ct 5^ "D CO OJ k-  CO CO c  E o M—  c CO c  to CO CJ k3 o CO CO  I*  CO  o  co  >% JD  "O TJ  CO cn TJ  -»—> 0  5o  0 CO c CO JZ CJ  _pj  o c o '-t—f  CO E  CO  o  c  TJ  3 o TJ J D C CO c T> « C o .— CO CO c  0 5  c -~ o co 15 £ o  CD  Jr O  •J=  O  CO CD  3 O •C  ;«  O CO CD CD •+=  —  -6o  0  CO CO _  c-  c Oi  CO  ^ JZ  E o  CO  5  O  i l  OJ c _T3  §> CO  £f CM OO  2  OJ c I—  OJ  JZ  CO  g  CD a CO  CO  o to  LL  CO o 0  TJ  CO CJ c 0 3  32 3 o  ca 0  JC  CO E  5 CO  o  to CO o JD  -4—»  E  co to CO CO c CO JZ CJ CO  o 3  CO CO c CO JZ CJ 0  +to OJ CO > E  0 c o 0 E o CO  •5  to ~  '•E JP. " C JD CO Oi J Z to  E ~o Oi to  C O Oi 1_  o o  h- - a LO oo  Q. X LU CO O)  1 JZ  CO c "E 0 CO  a.  C O c  o Q_ Q. 3 to  k-  0 JZ  CO CO  JZ  -CJ  c 3 o  c o  0 JD  OJ CO  =3 s.  CO N 'c CO CO  o c  H—'  c •  o  ffl  OT  c o  CJ CO to CO CO CO CO  CO c o CO E o to  32  o o  >  o  Jw  co  c  0  CO » Ct CO  T3  CO  TJ  73  CO OJ  o  to 0 ca T3 0 c 0 JZ  •*—•  Q. o JZ to  0 c o 0 E o to  k_  i 0" to k3 o CJ CO  h-  CO  00 OO  o o  0 c o k^ 0 > 0  3 ca "to E  c CO >^ c CO Ct E o CJ 0  E o  0 c  to  0 JD 0  CO ca  0 c CO H—'  ca ca 0 Jk_  CO c ca JC  E  CO c CO JZ o  o  ca  M—  to  >< 0 c o  c o ca  c T3 0 k. CO JZ  CO  CD oo  JZ CO 3 o  o o  tz 0 to 0 CO c ca JZ o  c 3 0  CO 0  0 o  TJ 0 > 0 CJ 0  0  JC  CO c 0 k-  O)  Q. 0 0 <n 0  'k. o JZ  0" CO c ca JZ CJ ca  ca o 0 to 3 ca o 0 JD  c o c o  tj  "o c 'co H—'  c CO E o 4^ 3 TJ  CO  o •£ >» E c  TJ"  CO  to 0  c  ca 0  JC  k.  _c  i  'ca  'kZ o Q.  CO  o o  c OJ  0 CO >, E  0 JZ 0  S2  TJ C 3 o  LL  CM  o  0 > 0  ^  TJ 0 CO c ca JZ  o  CO  o  CO CJ 0  0 JD  T3 c ca 0 > o JD ca c 0  o  Adaptation to Organizational Change 257  0 0 xl  0  co  S CL w  o fli  CO CO  .2  -K  05  co cc  II II  H O T !  CD  CO CO  5  E E  o P C  c  co  |  II  X) CO  o co c CO  0 2=co0  0>> 2fc: co co ® 0 0 05  52  TJ  g CO O CM  COCO CN CM  < &9?  o  3  0 0 $|| E E  C"  £ .a : ° CD CO ? £ g O  *T p_  9, CO  ra co  g  *-  i-  co co •  •  CO CO T J ><  „, 0  2 -  O CD O _ CD CM CM 11 O fc 52 <D XI O T J  11  Jl  | c ^ ii  0  E  x:  O) c  3 CO  o 0  I CO  c o  co  '•*-» CO 3  D) c o  o  "O "O  CO 3 CO  x  3  "D ® o  o fc  E o  OT £  2 > o  O) to ^3 —  .>  co  o fc TJ CO  CO 0 TJ  CO 0  CO  c CO x: o CO  CO  H—  "co 3 CL  E  >.  b  LO  o  +-* 3  o 0  CO 0 •*—» CO TJ  0 CO  TJ CD O C CO +-» CO  3 TJ  c  CO  co  E c o 5 0  Q  co o  o  3  x: o +—>  TJ  CO  °->  O  4-»  3  0 13  c  CO  c  CD  k. 0  x: o c co  0  it  0  CO 0  o x: o  o  Xl  3 CO  >» E  0 CO 1  0 > 0  JX  E 0  o c TJ  TJ  c o 00 N  'c  CO  CO  o  TJ  b O  o 0  0  CO  c CO sz o CO CO 0  o c  0 3 CT 0 CO  c o o 0 3  CO  o  c o CO N  'c  CO  CO  Jk_  o  CO  x: c x:  CO CO  3  o 00  o  CO  3  o o  0  CO 0 3 CO >  0  CO  c CO x: o  "co c o  0  1  0 CL  o _co CO o  ><  E  CO  TJ 0  JX O O  CO  c o  c  CO T J 3  3  CO  ,°  TJ  3 § 0  g  CO CO  x: o  CO k0 CL 4—'  c CO x: o CO  5  3  o fc  3  CO  Xl  TJ TJ  0  TJ  '5 < CM  o CO CO  3  o x: Ico  0  E CO  k.  TJ  CO  i  E  0  CO 0  o  o  c  4—'  CO  >»  CO 0  0  3=  E  CO  co o  *-»  TJ  CO  0  CO  CL  TJ  0  0  c o  CO  CO  o o o c  CO  o  CO  k_ 0  XI  E  CO  c o  x: z c  'c  N  c o co o CL  c  CO 0  CO  CO  co  c  CO  0  o 0  'c  o  o  jx i  N  0  c o  "•*-»  c CO x: o 0  CO  _c o E o k_  CL  c •c CO CL  JX  o o  c 0  ••—•  0  CL  E o o  CO CO  co c CO x: o CO • 3  o XI  CO  c o  c + o CO^ CO x:* c N $  TJ  0 N  "co 0  DC LO  CO  E o  J™ O  CO CO  Adaptation to Organizational Change 258  c© o §g  0 C O CO TJ;  CD  g ;.og CD  CD  ©  <2 Q. O  P •«  52  CO CD  CD T J  >> t  JC  CO  CO  §  CD  5  CO CD  to >  co co y • t t— CM CM  O  II II M  H  OT3  CO  $ .1 « co 8  CD  £|  -1  IP tox: 2xi  •I g co o g  CD  2= £  CD  co to g CD CD  o"*:E g«=co£»0 rr oI o  TJ c  CD C O  C  cn O C C  _  T N  "  M  g-*fc"  X fc  _ > CD  " co co  CO T J  CM CM  CO XI O TJ  TJ  _C0  Jc Co  0 CD C CO  >»  E  c  o o  H— CD  -*—•  CO  to  o c ca E CD  O) CO  O)  c  CD  o •g 4—»  sis o £ CO  ^  2o CD  CO CD  > if OJ G O  c  o °-  "4= CO CD  CD sz i=  => C  o—  O  k_ 0  0  x: +—'  o o  i—  o  CD  CL O 0 > 0 TJ  O  O)  E  o  CD  c  t  "CO TJ 3 O  '0 XI  CD CL CO  I  "0  >» o E c ca o 'c coa o >* x: o o E c to g o o ' a . 3= o k- > "c  N  CO  CO CO  Xl  0 CD C CO  CO  > % E  CO CO  0 0  0 0  CO CD 0  to coa 0  cn c  x: o CO  0 TJ CO  oo  Jk_  >>  E  TJ 0 CO CO 3  o CO  b  C35  Xl TJ 0 CO 0 k-  0  E  3 CO 0 k.  c  x: 0  TJ 0 Xl  >»  E  0  •4—'  0  CO  o  c  TJ TJ CO 0 TJ  CO  O  0 CD C CO  XI CO  CL CL O TJ 0  0  CO TJ CL  Jo C  CM  CM CM  CM  0,  ^  c  CO  0  0 Xl  kCL 0  _lo  TJ 0 CO CO 0  CL X LU CO CM  0  CL  0  CL CO 0 k-  Xl CO CD 3 O  TJ 0  Tf  LO CM  CM  0 Xl  0 TJ CO  E  o c  c 'k-  CO CO  0  o 0  k. CD  o  0  0 TJ  CO  0 > CO  CO  0 CJ  x: o  E  3  0  >  0 0 CL  3  CO  0  o  TJ  0  O CO  O  k_  0  CO  0  JC  0 CD  ca x: E o x: xio o " t o ca u. >» ca E xto > _c c o o o to c o c 'c o co o i o E> o o c  0  V-» CO >  0  o o 5  sz  0 CD  0  CL CL 3  CO 0 CD C CO  0 CO k. 0 > 0  c  0 TJ  TJ 3 O  CO  sz  -*—'  c g  o ca CO  0 TJ 0  JC  ca E o 0 >  "•*-»  CO V1  c 0  JC  o o hC O CM  Adaptation to Organizational Change  APPENDIX H DEVELOPMENTAL VERSION OF THE ADAPTATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE QUESTIONNAIRE  Adaptation to Organizational Change 260 Item Stem: "In the past year, to what extent did you engage in the following activities?" Response Scale: Never 2 or 3 times in the past year Once a month 2 or 3 times a month 2 or 3 times a week 1. Went along with a change at work, even though I did not agree with it 2. Thought about whether or not I wanted to stay with this organization 3. Sought out people with a positive approach to work 4. Thought about how my work related to the goals of this organization 5. Kept my focus on the client, rather than thinking about a change 6. Took the time to reflect on what I had accomplished recently 7. Spoke about a change as a new opportunity to people in this organization 8. Stopped myself from trying to influence something at work that I knew was beyond my control 9. Expressed my criticisms of a change 10. Reflected on how I handled events at work 11. Talked to a trusted peer in this organization about the organization's future 12. Reminded people of the way it used to be in this organization before a change 13. Delegated responsibility for a project to someone else 14. Asked for assistance at work from a peer 15. Worked to the point where I felt exhausted 16. Embraced a change, even though the change was unpopular among other staff 17. Read to improve my knowledge about a new area of work 18. Tried to find out more about my boss' interests related to work and this organization Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 19. Thought about ways to improve the productivity of my work group 20. Kept myself from thinking too much about a change, by focussing on my work 21. Thought about the positive consequences of the change for me personally 22. Tried to have fun at work 23. Found a way to solve a problem that resulted from a change 24. Reassured our clients that they would receive the best service possible during a change 25. Remained composed in front of others during a difficult situation 26. Thought that a difficult situation related to a change would not last forever 27. Reminded myself not to become too attached to this organization 28. Monitored the progress of a change 29. Took part in designing or implementing a change 30. Trusted that the decisions related to a change were being made by competent people 31. Thought about the processes occuring before the change that did not work well 32. Expressed my confidence in my peers' ability to deal with the change 33. Tried to find more information on the reasons for a change 34. Provided information to my peers or boss to support a change 35. Used my sense of humour in a difficult situation 36. Identified the negative outcomes of a change 37. Made a suggestion to my team to solve a problem related to a change 38. Kept work from interfering with my activities and interests in my personal life outside of work 39. Talked with family or friends about a change at work 40. Worried about a change at work 41. Found a new way to demonstrate my value to this organization Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 262 42. Kept separate my thoughts about the impact of a change on the organization from my concerns about how the change would impact me personally 43. Speculated with my peers about the consequences of a change 44. Helped a peer with his/her work 45. Kept focused on new possibilities, rather than on what might have been 46. Thought about what would stay the same at work, despite a change 47. Thought that I could have done a better job of the change myself 48. Outlined for myself a detailed plan for my work 49. Prevented an obstacle from interfering with a change 50. Worked more hours than is usual for me 51. Worked closely with another team in this organization during a change 52. Set achievable short-term objectives for a project within the context of a larger change in the organization 53. Made an effort to reduce my stress through activities outside of work 54. Thought about the skills and knowledge I already possess that I could use to deal with a new work demand 55. Gained more information about a change by talking informally to someone from another team 56. Found a new way to get the information or resources I needed 57. Shared information with someone else to help him/her make a decision 58. Thought that a change was in the best interest of the company 59. Went above and beyond the call of duty to maintain client service 60. Drew on my spiritual faith to deal with a difficult situation at work 61. Described the negative effect of a change on my well-being to others at work 62. Thought about the consequences of a change for the organization  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 63. Made a point of focusing on the goals of a change when I was unsure of how the change would unfold 64. Avoided a difficult person 65. Thought about how a change fit with my personal values 66. Took part in promoting a change to staff within this organization Response Scale: Never 1 or 2 times in the past year 3 to 6 times in the past year 7 to 10 times in the past year Once a month 67. Identified another employment opportunity that would enhance my career 68. Let people more senior than me in this organization know what work I wanted to do 69. Met with a group of professionals from outside the organization who are experienced in my area of work 70. Took part in more senior-level meetings than I usually attend 71. Discussed my career aspirations with my boss 72. Planned how to develop my skills in preparation for a change 73. Protected my area of work from being influenced and disrupted by a change 74. Asked for feedback on my performance from my peers, direct reports, or boss 75. Avoided a new task that I don't like doing 76. Updated my resume 77. Did the work of my subordinates to help out during a change  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 264 Response Scale Never 1 or 2 times in the past year 3 or 4 times in the past year Once a month Once a week 78. Met with a mentor or coach 79. Kept in touch with people who left this organization 80. Spoke with my boss about this organization's goals and strategies 81. Adjusted my expectations for my own performance because of changes in my workload or resources 82. Thought about the benefits to my career from being part of a change 83. Met socially with my boss 84. Took on work arising from a change that would benefit my career 85. Invited people at work to get involved in an activity or event outside of work 86. Wondered whether my boss knew more about a change than s/he was letting on 87. Adjusted my personal schedule outside of work to accommodate a change at work 88. Joined in social activities outside of work with people from this organization 89. Kept in touch with people who have influence in this organization 90. Thought about whether or not my role was still valuable to this organization 91. Talked to people who have influence in this organization about my ideas 92. Took on some of my boss' work 93. Took part in deciding how a change would affect my job 94. Debated a change that was already decided 95. Took on work that would allow me to demonstrate my skills and knowledge to others in this organization  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 96. Thought about what I wanted to gain for myself from my work 97. Changed the way I work to fit the style of others at work 98. Adjusted my work style by acting like someone else who appeared to be successful 99. Challenged someone's competence at work 100. Identified the skills I needed to develop next 101. Asked my boss for assistance in dealing with a new demand at work 102. Took the initiative to introduce changes at work that would not be as easily accepted during stable times 103. Expressed my support for the change to my boss 104. Strengthened a relationship with someone who has influence in this organization 105. Took a course, workshop or seminar 106. Took on extra work in an area that is new to me 107. Found myself waiting to take action on a change, until I received formal authority 108. Changed the priorities in my work because of a change 109. Distanced myself from a difficult situation 110. Looked for another position within this organization 111. Provided information about a change within my team to someone in another team in this organization 112. Bent the rules to accommodate a change 113. Made changes in my work to support the organization's performance 114. Initiated a meeting with someone I did not know in the organization 115. Looked for opportunities created by a change that would allow me to develop my skills 116. Identified who was responsible for a problem arising from a change 117. Took the initiative to make a decision that I would not have made before a change  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change 266 118. Took an opportunity created by a change to lead some of my peers 119. Met for lunch with someone or a group of people from a different team  Copyright © 2004 by Seonaid Farrell. All Rights Reserved.  Adaptation to Organizational Change  APPENDIX I CONGRUENCE COEFFICIENTS AMONG THE PATTERN MATRICES OF TWO RANDOMLY-SELECTED SUBSETS WITH 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 FACTORS  Adaptation to Organizational Change 268 Congruence Coefficients Among the Pattern Matrices of Two Randomly-Selected Subsets with 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Factors with Harris-Kaiser Transformation  Solution 4-Factor Solution 5-Factor Solution 6-Factor Solution 7-Factor Solution 8-Factor Solution  1 .92 .93 .85 .86 .76  2 .91 .94 .94 .89 .84  3 .81 .81 .80 .78 .60  Factors 4 5 .73 .82 .83 .80 .79 .66 .73 .75 .68  6  7  8  .75 .66 .72  .36 .27  .74  Adaptation to Organizational Change 269  APPENDIX J PRIMARY COMMON-FACTOR PATTERN MATRIX FOR THE 119-ITEM ADAPTATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE INVENTORY AND THE RELATED PRIMARY-FACTOR INTERCORRELATION MATRIX  Adaptation to Organizational Change 270 Primary Common-Factor Pattern Matrix for the 119-Item Adaptation to Organizational Change Inventory and the Related Primary-Factor Intercorrelation Matrix Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  1 0.11 -0.07 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.39 0.56  0.24 0.13  0.39 0.34  0.00 0.24 0.24 0.04  0.36 0.35 0.32 0.45  0.17  0.46  0.27  0.58 0.50 0.51 0.56  0.08  0.55 0.51 0.38 0.60 0.64 0.55 0.62 0.41 0.44 0.63  0.26 0.24 0.12  0.45  2 0.45 0.54  0.06 0.06 0.04 -0.03 -0.14  0.38 0.57  0.18  0.33 0.51  0.17 0.14 0.25 -0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.05 0.24 0.00 -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.08 0.18  0.51  0.03 -0.02 -0.23 0.10 -0.09 0.10 -0.02 0.07  0.41  0.14 0.07 0.25  0.56  -0.03  Primary factor 3 0.01 0.26 0.16 0.23 0.02 0.30 0.16 0.16 -0.05 0.16 0.08 -0.06 -0.24 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.33  0.21 0.06 0.14  0.32  0.05 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.07 -0.24 0.01 -0.02 0.03 0.11 -0.07 0.06 -0.10 -0.11 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.29  4 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.09 -0.03 -0.14 0.14 -0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.13 -0.02 0.24 -0.03  0.45 0.32  0.05 0.07 0.25 0.07 -0.04 -0.22 0.17 0.07 0.15 0.02 -0.03 0.12 0.25 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.15 -0.05 -0.05 0.14  -0.41  -0.09 0.08 0.12  5 -0.11 -0.24 0.10 0.05 -0.02 0.04 0.08 -0.15 0.07 0.02 0.19 0.12 0.17 0.14 -0.15 -0.07 0.05 0.20 0.04 -0.19 0.05 0.31  0.00 0.02 -0.07 -0.07 -0.13 0.06 0.22 0.17 0.02 0.09 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.03 -0.10 -0.02  ti  0.25 0.41 0.23 0.31 0.12 0.28 0.50 0.28 0.36 0.26 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.31 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.39 0.16 0.40 0.20 0.46 0.29 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.44 0.49 0.28 0.41 0.45 0.50 0.58 0.25 0.39 0.54 0.17 0.21 0.38 0.43  Adaptation to Organizational Change 271 Item 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85  1 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.61 0.31  0.29 0.36 0.58  0.05 0.47 0.55  0.23 0.52 0.61 0.55 0.61 0.51 0.41  0.06 0.03 0.48 0.52  -0.01 0.36 0.50  -0.11 0.00 -0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.03 0.02 -0.21 -0.05 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.13 0.23 0.02 0.19 -0.01  2 0.15 0.53  0.18 -0.09 0.32 0.42  -0.06 0.03 0.03 -0.10 -0.05 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.06 0.15 -0.24 0.02 0.10 0.56 0.30  0.05 0.51  0.25 -0.05 0.37  0.09 0.06 -0.03 -0.11 -0.09 0.27 -0.12 0.45  0.20 0.08 -0.13 0.17 -0.09 0.12 -0.02 0.00 -0.07 0.03  Primary factor 3 0.07 -0.05 0.11 0.17 -0.01 -0.05 0.23 -0.04 0.11 -0.04 0.03 0.17 0.34  -0.03 0.13 -0.02 0.04 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.13 0.16 0.01 0.33  -0.09  4 0.02 -0.18 -0.04 0.02 -0.16 0.16 0.05 0.22 0.47  0.26 0.23  -0.31  -0.08 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.23 0.21 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.32  0.01  0.04 0.09 0.00 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 -0.06 0.29 0.02 -0.02 0.04 0.14 0.18 -0.04  0.10  -0.07  0.42 0.43  0.14 0.09 0.37 0.55  0.02 0.34  -0.02 0.41  0.07 0.19 -0.01 0.09 0.25 0.42  0.31  0.33  5 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.01 0.13 -0.09 0.02 -0.01 -0.09 0.10 0.05 0.09 -0.10 0.16 -0.01 0.01 0.07 -0.06 -0.06 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03 -0.07 0.15 0.00 0.19 0.24 0.30 0.29 0.16 0.21 0.27 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.34  0.28 0.46  0.11 0.08 0.48  0.12 0.53  h*  0.25 0.47 0.27 0.46 0.24 0.35 0.25 0.48 0.26 0.41 0.48 0.16 0.43 0.50 0.40 0.47 0.44 0.34 0.06 0.35 0.48 0.44 0.26 0.42 0.52 0.34 0.32 0.09 0.22 0.28 0.48 0.14 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.38 0.23 0.42 0.24 0.41 0.29  Adaptation to Organizational Change'272 Item 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  1 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.06 -0.05 0.19 -0.02 0.19 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.02 -0.14 0.02 0.20 0.04  0.31 0.36  0.20 0.15 0.17 -0.08 0.20 -0.27 -0.12 0.29 0.15  0.33  0.22 0.26 0.23 0.26  0.32  0.17 1 2 3 4 5  _1 1.00 .18 .31 .39 .32  2 0.39  0.08 0.06 0.04  0.42  0.03 0.05 0.00  0.45  0.00 0.14 0.23 0.23  0.30  -0.05 0.13 -0.01 -0.06 0.06 -0.08 0.03  0.42  0.14  0.60 0.30  0.17  0.32  Primary factor 3 0.14 0.12 -0.01 0.17 0.28 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.29 0.50  0.15 0.15 -0.08  0.52  0.10 -0.07 0.02 0.03 0.25 0.17 -0.02 0.01 0.00  0.32  -0.24 -0.14 0.13 0.01  4 0.06 0.56  -0.14 0.10 0.10 0.21  0.32  0.20 0.05  0.30  0.08  0.32  0.28 0.27 0.11 0.15  0.44 0.33  0.19 -0.05  0.37  0.18  0.49  0.13 0.07  0.31 0.37 0.45 0.37  0.02 -0.01 -0.04 0.37 0.22 0.29 -0.08 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.43 0.01 0.02 0.46 -0.05 0.01 0.14 Primary factor intercorrelations 2 3 4 1.00 .16 .16 .06  1.00 .20 .23  1.00 .27  5 -0.18 -0.01  0.53 0.46  -0.17  0.46 0.34 0.33  0.21 0.20 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.10  0.35  0.14 0.26  0.42  0.17 0.15 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.20 0.11 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.06 0.16  0.32  5_  1.00  ti  0.22 0.43 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.45 0.30 0.34 0.31 0.37 0.36 0.25 0.20 0.21 0.47 0.26 0.45 0.50 0.40 0.15 0.37 0.23 0.47 0.39 0.22 0.38 0.37 0.51 0.32 0.46 0.30 0.40 0.54 0.23  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091771/manifest

Comment

Related Items