A Social Psychological Approach To The Study of Organizational Change

INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality o f the material subm itted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T he sign or target for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is Missing Page(s) . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black m ark, it is an
indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials th a t should no t have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed,
a definite m ethod o f sectioning the material has been followed. It is
custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued againbeginning below the first row and continuing on
until com plete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Custom er Services D epartm ent.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
8417134
M ic h a e l, R o b e rt 0 .
A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
G e o r g ia Sta te Universi:/ College o f Ed u c atio n
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
Copyright 1984
by
M ichael, R obert O.
All Rights Reserved
Ph.D.
1984
PLEASE NOTE:
In all c a s e s this m aterial h a s been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy.
Problems encountered with this do cu m en t have b een identified here with a check mark V
1.
Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______
2.
Colored illustrations, paper o r prin t______
3.
Photographs with dark b a c k g ro u n d ______
4.
Illustrations a re poor c o p y ______
5.
P a g e s with black marks, not original copy_______
6.
Print show s th rough as there is text on both sid e s of p a g e ______
7.
Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages
8.
Print ex ceed s margin req u irem en ts______
9.
Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______
10.
Com puter printout p ag es with indistinct p rint______
11.
P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or
author.
12.
P a g e (s )____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows.
13.
Two pages num bered
______ . Text follows.
14.
Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______
15.
O ther_________________________________________________________________________
University
Microfilms
International
A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE

STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
by
ROBERT 0. MICHAEL
A DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational
Administration and Supervision
in the College of Education
Georgia State University
Atlanta, Georgia
1984
ACCEPTANCE
This dissertation, A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH
TO THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE by ROBERT 0. MICHAEL,
was prepared under the direction of the candidate's
dissertation committee.
It has been approved and accepted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Education, Georgia
State University.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
:m b e r
/ 'd. /f<?l/
DATE
Copyright by
Robert 0. Michael
1984
In presenting this dissertation as a partial fulfillment

of the requirements for an advanced degree from Georgia
State University, I agree that the Library of the Univer
sity shall make it available for inspection and circulation
in accordance with its regulations governing materials of
this type.
I agree that permission to quote from, to copy
from or to publish this dissertation may be granted by the
author or, in his absence, the professor under whose direc
tion it was written or, in his absence, by the Director of
Graduate Studies, College of Education.
Such quoting,
copying or publishing must be solely for scholarly purposes
and will not involve potential financial gain.
It is
understood that any copying from or publication of this
dissertation which involves potential financial gain will
not be allowed without written permission of the author.
Signature of Author
VITA
ROBERT 0. MICHAEL
Address:
2336 Briarwood Hills Drive

Atlanta, GA 30319
Education:
B . A . , Washington University
1970
(Psychology),
M.Ed., Georgia State University (Educa

tional Administration), 1978
P h . D . , Georgia State University (Educa
tional Leadership), 1984
Professional
Experience:
1970-1977
Teacher, The Galloway School, Atlanta,

Georgia
1977-1978
Teacher, The Saint Francis School, Atlanta,

Georgia
1979-1980
Degree Program Specialist, College of Urban

Life, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
Georgia
1980-1984
Special Project Coordinator, Georgia Career

Information System, Georgia State Univer
sity, Atlanta, Georgia
Professional
Organizations:
American Educational Research Association

Association for Institutional Research
Southern Association for Institutional
Research
Publications:
The Practice-Theory-Practice Model: The

Establishment of the Theoretical Bases
of a Case Study (with Richard H. Barbe),
Paper Presentation, Annual Conference,
Research, October 1981
Sudden Organizational C h a n g e , Paper P r e
sentation, Annual Conference, Southern
Association for Institutional Research,
October 1982
Fulfilling the University Mission Through
a Computer-based Career Information System
(with Kay L. Shaffer), Paper Presentation,
Annual Forum, Association for Institu
tional Research, May 1983
Toward the Development of Social Psycho
logical Profiles of Organizational Change
Paper Presentation, Annual Conference,
Research, October 1983
ABSTRACT
A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE
STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
by
Robert 0. Michael
Chairperson: Richard H. Barbe
Conceptual Basis
Organizational change theory and its related research
are generally focused on the evolutionary alteration of a
limited number of structure and process variables analyzed
at an individual (micro) or organizational
(macro)
level.
Often missing in organizational change inquiry is analysis

at what represents a social psychological level.
Such
analysis would serve as a bridge between these micro and

macro levels.
Purposes
This research had two purposes directed toward the
analysis of organizational change at this social psycho
logical level.
Methodologically,
the research attempted
to assess individual perceptions of and emotional reactions

to organizational change.
Analytically,
the assessment data
were aggregated for the development of social psychological

profiles of organizational change.
Methods and Procedures
Organizational change was defined as an impending,
occurring or completed alteration of organizational policy
or structure of which organizational members had knowledge.
A total of 106 faculty,
staff and administrators at
five institutions participated in this study of organiza

tional change.
The sites included four postsecondary
institutions involved in mergers and a public hospital

involved in organizational restructuring.
Response data were used to develop statistical profiles
of each institution.
In addition,
the dimensions of institu
tional type, change event type, and change event timing were
applied as analytic categories for examining the effects of
these dimensions on the social psychological profiles.
Individual response data were also analyzed through the
application of the Sudden Change Model.
Results
The social psychological profiles of organizational
change were generated from the individuals'
perceptions of
personal and professional loss and gain, their perceptions
of the positive personal value of the change, their percep

tions of the magnitude of the change, and their emotional
reactions to the change.
Additionally, partial validation
of the Sudden Change Model was obtained.

Conclusions
The different analytic formats revealed that social
psychological profiles of organizational change can be
developed from the research variables.
A broader view of
the social psychology of organizational change, however,

appears to be dependent upon situational factors
(e.g.,
organizational culture, values, history, environment) not

addressed in this research.
Table of Contents
Page
List of T a b l e s ........................................
List of F i g u r e s ........................................
vi
ix
CHAPTER
1
CONCEPTUAL BASIS
.............................
Introduction
...............................
Research Purposes ...........................
Operational Definitions ....................
Research Sites
.............................
Data A n a l y s i s ...............................
Limitations .................................
.................................
Conclusion
1
5
6
8
8
8
9
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE LITERATURE
...........
Introduction
...............................
Traditional Organizational Change
M o d e l s ....................................
Organizational Life Cycle and
Developmental Change Models ............
Revolutionary Change Models ...............
A Social Psychological Perspective
. . . .
3
METHODOLOGY
11
11
11
15
17
24
....................................
27
Introduction
...............................
Instrumentation.... ..........................
Adjective Checklist Review Panel
..........
Pilot T e s t .................................
Pilot Instrument Distribution ..............
Instrumentation and Methodological
C h a n g e s ....................................
Site S e l e c t i o n .............................
Site V i s i t s .................................
Data A n a l y s i s ...............................
Alternative Data Analysis ...................
27
28
29
34
38
iii
38
40
44
44
49
CHAPTER
4
Page
F I N D I N G S ......................................
51
...............................
Introduction
The Pilot Site--The College of Public
and Urban A f f a i r s .........................
General Background
......................
Descriptive Statistics
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
Loss and Gain I t e m s ......................
...........................
Merger Reasons
Emotional Responses ......................
University of West F l o r i d a ................
General Background
......................
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
. . . .
Loss and Gain L i s t s ......................
Reasons for M e r g e r ......................
Pensacola Junior College
..................
General Background
......................
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
. . . .
Reasons for M e r g e r ......................
Cooper Green Hospital ......................
General Background
......................
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
. . . .
Reasons and Justifications for
Resignation of the B o a r d .............
Albany Junior College ......................
General Background
......................
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
. . . .
Merger Reasons and Justifications . . . .
Alternative Analysis Formats
.............
S u m m a r y ......................................
51
iv
51
51
52
54
56
59
61
62
65
65
67
69
73
76
77
78
82
82
83
85
87
90
92
93
97
97
98
101
104
106
108
109
113
113
114
116
118
124
126
127
131
139
Page
CHAPTER
5
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES
........................
141
Introduction
...............................
141
Format 1
...................................... 142
..................
142
T - V a l u e s .................................... 144
Pearson, Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
147
151
Implications for Instrument
A l t e r a t i o n s ................................ 155
Format 2
...................................... 157
Introduction to the Sudden Change
M o d e l ......................
157
174
S u m m a r y .......................................179
C o n c l u s i o n .................................... 180
6
CONCLUSIONS
....................................
181
Introduction
...............................
181
Methodological and Conceptual Concerns
. .
182
Alternative Analysis and Applications . . .
184
C o n c l u s i o n .................................187
R E F E R E N C E S ............................................... 188
A P P E N D I C E S ............................................... 192
List of Tables
Adjective Checklist Review Panel Return

R a t e s ............................... ..
31
Adjective Checklist Grief Categories
. . .
32
Research Sites: Institutional Type and

Specific Time-Referenced Change Event . . .
42
Change Assessment Package Return Rates and

..................
Research Site Interviews
45
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain

Questionnaire Variables/College of Public
and Urban Affairs ...........................
53
T-Values--College of Public and Urban

Affairs ......................................
55
Intercorrelation Matrix--College of Public

and Urban Affairs ...........................
57
Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations

College of Public and Urban Affairs . . . .
63

Questionnaire Variables/University of
West Florida
...............................
68
T-Values--University of West Florida
. . .
70
Intercorrelation Matrix--University of West

Florida ......................................
74

University of West Florida
................
79

Questionnaire Variables/Pensacola Junior
College ......................................
84
T-Values--Pensacola Junior College
86
vi
. . . .
Table
15
16
17
Page
Intercorrelation Matrix--Pensacola Junior
C o l l e g e ........................................
88

....................
94

Questionnaire Variables/Cooper Green
H o s p i t a l ......................................
99
18
T-Values--Cooper Green Hospital
..............
102
19
Intercorrelation Matrix--Cooper Green

H o s p i t a l ......................................
105

Cooper Green Hospital ........................
110

Questionnaire Variables/Albany Junior
C o l l e g e ........................................
115
22
T-Values--Albany Junior College ..............
117
23
Intercorrelation Matrix--Albany Junior

C o l l e g e ........................................
119

Albany Junior College .........................
128
25
132
26
Format 1 Means Comparison--Loss and Gain

Questionnaire Variables/Individual Sites
20
21
24
27
28
29
30
................
. .
133

Questionnaire Variables/Generic Institu
tional T y p e ....................................
134

Questionnaire Variables/Specific Institu
tional T y p e ....................................
135

Questionnaire Variables/Change Type .........
136

Questionnaire Variables/Change Event
T i m i n g ........................................
137
vii
Table
31
Page
Questionnaire Values/Total Research Site
S u b j e c t s ..................................
32
T-Values--Total Research Site Subjects
33
Intercorrelation Matrix--Total Research Site

S u b j e c t s ..................................
143
. . .
148
34
Adjective Checklist Responses--Total Research

152
Site S u b j e c t s ..............................
35
Sudden Change Model Descriptive Statistics

Current Time F r a m e .......................
36
37
38
39
165

......................
Anticipated Time Frame
Combined Current and Anticipated Time
F r a m e .......................................
145
166
167
Analysis of Variance and Scheffe Procedure

Summaries for Loss and Gain Questionnaire
Variables/Single Time Frame Analysis
Sudden Change Model ...........................
168

Summaries for Loss and Gain Questionaire
Variables/Comparison Between Time Frames
. .
171
40

Summaries for Loss and Gain Questionnaire
Variables/Sudden Change Model/Total Combined
173
R e s p o n s e s ..................................
41
Adjective Checklist Nominations/Sudden

Change Model Cells
...........................
viii
175
List of Figures
Figure
Page
Time, Level and Variable G r i d ................
Sudden Change Model
............................
ix
4
159
Chapter 1
CONCEPTUAL BASIS
Introduction
Organizational change theory, borrowing heavily from
the early agricultural innovation studies, generally focuses
on change in the structure of an organization or shifting
of groups within an organization over an extended period
of time.
These theories have guided research toward a
clearer understanding of the stages of structural change

and their effects on an organization's constituent groups.
These theories have also led to some understanding of the
variety of individual reactions to change.
Organizational change theory and its related research
are thus directed by a paradigm which allows for the study
of the evolution of change as the alteration in a limited
number of variables
an organizational
level.
(e.g., structure, processes)
(macro)
level or an individual
on either
(micro)
Generally missing is the study of organizational
change at what represents a social psychological level

which bridges the gap between the levels in the current
paradigm.
To accomplish this,
inquiry needs to be directed
2
to a more comprehensive concept of organizational change.
The necessary components to be altered, at least, are the
time frame of the change event,
the level of analysis,
and the variables utilized for analysis.

Basic change models such as complex organization,
diffusion, planned change and conflict theory (Dill &
Friedman,
1979)
traditionally examine the evolution of
organizational change from conception or inception of a

change event to its implementation or completion.
While
the more recent life cycle model and developmental theories

have been directed toward a somewhat more immediate, crisiscentered approach,
they also posit organizational crises
as part of the basic evolution of organizations.
They
do not view change as a sudden or abrupt phenomenon.

Only recently have efforts been directed toward the
study of abrupt,
sudden or cataclysmic organizational change.
Adaptation of Catastrophe Theory models

and the Sudden Change Model
(Zeeman, 1976)
(Michael, 1982) hold promise
for altering the use of time as a dimension in organizational

change theory.
They have yet to withstand, however, rigorous
empirical verification.
Organizational change inquiry
requires greater flexibility in the time dimension to in

clude events as single, abrupt entities, as evolutionary
processes,
or as organizational evolutionary events.
A second component which needs re-examination is the

level of analysis used in change research.
Many studies
examine change as it affects the entire organization using
variables such as structural configuration,

ductivity-- the macro level of analysis.
Other studies of
organizational change focus on individuals'

micro level of analysis.
size, or p r o
responses--the
Few efforts have been made to
analyze change at an encompassing or what is analogous to

a social psychological level.
At this level, organizational
change would be examined in terms of organizational members'

combined psychological reactions to change as they are
shaped, defined or molded by membership in the organization.
In addition to modifying the time dimension and analytic
level, the specific variables studied also need re-examination.
At the organizational
(macro) level, the study of change
often focuses upon its effects on structure, products or

clients.
Alternatively, but at the same macro level, it
examines the processes of the event itself and the con

comitant adaptations or adaptation processes of the organiza
tion and its members.
At the individual (micro)
level, the
effects of the change are examined as separate, almost

atomistic, psychological or emotional reactions of individ
ual members.
a general,
These variables are seldom combined to create
social psychological overview of the organization
in change.
The components of time, level and variable are depicted
in the three-dimensional grid in Figure 1.
The X-axis
represents the time dimensions from an abrupt change event

or one event at one moment in time, to the evolution of a
change event, to the total evolution of the organization,
16
Macro
-Individual
^^Organization
Single
Event
Event
Evolution
Organiza
tional
Evolution
I
12
Social
Psycho
logical
/V individual
-Organization
/ A Single
i
Event
Event
Evolution
Organiza
tional
Evolution
Micro
Individual
-Organization
X
Single
Event
Event
Evolution
Organizational
Evolution
X Time Dimension
Y - Analytic Level
2 - Variable Types
Figure 1. Time, Level and Variable Grid
5
including the change event as a portion of the complete
institutional history.
micro,
The Y-axis segments represent the
social psychological, and macro levels of analysis
of the variables.
The Z-axis segments represent organiza
tional structure and individual variables.

To bridge the gap between the macro and micro levels
of the current paradigm in terms of the components of time
dimension, analytic level, and research variable, organiza
tional change inquiry should concentrate on psychological
variables analyzed at the social psychological level for
all time frames of a change event.
Following the 3X3X2
grid in Figure 1, focus would be on cells 10, 11, and 12.

It is probably impossible to incorporate all of these
cells in a single research effort or theoretical model of
organizational change.
For example, measures of organiza
tional variables are properly analyzed on an organizational

level, while measures of individual perceptions are analyzed
on micro and social psychological levels.
The development
of concepts and methodologies for examining organizational

change in terms of cells 10, 11, and 12, however,
could be
used to extend the knowledge of organizational change to

establish the paradigmatic bridge.
Research Purposes
The two main purposes of this research addressed a por
tion of these methodological and conceptual components of
Methodologically,
this research
6
attempted to develop or adapt research techniques and instru
ments to assess individual perceptions of and emotional
responses to organizational change.
Once established,
these
instruments and methods were directed to the development of

social psychological profiles of organizations in change,
the second purpose of this research.
Both purposes repre
sent an effort to analyze organizational change on a social

psychological l e v e l , thus moving toward a span connecting
the micro and the macro levels of analysis.
This change
analysis used psychological variables rated by individuals

whose responses were inexorably shaped by their membership
in the social abstraction and structural confines of their
organizations.
Operational Definitions
According to Mills
(1967), the social psychology of an
organization is derived from an aggregation of the organiza

tional members'
behaviors, perceptions and emotions.
For
the purposes of this study, the social psychology of organi

zations in change was created from individuals'
perceptions
of personal and professional loss and gain resulting from a

change event,
their perceptions of the positive personal
value of the event,
their perceptions of the magnitude of
the event, and their emotional responses to the event.

Organizational change was defined as an impending,
occurring,
or completed alteration of organizational policy or
structure of which organizational members had knowledge.
While this research addressed the analytic level and

variable components discussed above, the time dimension was
focused primarily on a single event as constituted at the
moment of study (Cell 10).
Measures of a change event as
an evolutionary process or as the part of the entire organi

zational evolution require longitudinal research.
In this
study, measures of the evolution of the change event were

obtained by means of participant responses to the current
status of the change and recollections or projections of the
event to another point in time.
No attempt was made to track
the change throughout its evolution or within a larger

evolutionary history of an organization.
Obtained, then, were measures for developing social
psychological profiles of individual reactions to and per
ceptions of a change event in its current state and as re
called to a time when the event was first announced, or as
projected to a time when the change would be completed.
Cell 10 of the time,
level and variable grid (Figure 1)
contains the basic conceptual parameters of this research:

a single event at one moment in time measured by individual
perceptions and emotional reactions analyzed on a social
psychological level.
The study of change using this
particular combination of the three components suggests

the possibility of achieving a more comprehensive concept
of organizational change.
Research Sites
Five different organizations participated in this study,
including a public and urban affairs college within an urban
university, a senior college,
lic hospital.
two junior colleges and a p u b
The four postsecondary institutions were
involved in merger proceedings.
The public hospital was in
the midst of restructuring processes resulting from the

resignation of its board of trustees.
Data Analysis
The response data for each of these organizations were
used to develop individual site profiles.
In addition, the
dimensions of institutional type, change event type, and

event time status were used as analytic categories for
examining the possible effects of these dimensions on the
profiles of organizational change.
Finally, the individual
response data were analyzed through the application of the

Sudden Change Model
(Michael,
1982).
Limitations
While this research attempted to contribute to areas
of research methodology and theory of the social psychology
of organizational change,
it was subject to the following
limitations:
1.
The measures of the social psychology of organiza
tional change were derived from participant ratings on

variables of personal and professional loss, personal and
professional gain, positive personal value of the change
event, and perceived magnitude of the change, and emotional

reactions to the change.
These ratings were collected on
the Loss and Gain Questionnaire and Adjective Checklist

(Langston, 1977; Sullivan & Michael,
2.
1982).
Measures of perceptions and emotions were collected
at only one point in time.

sures were collected.
No longitudinal or repeat m e a
Perceptions of and emotional reactions
to the past history or projected future of an event were

obtained through recall or projection responses given simul
taneously with measures of the current change situation.
3.
study.
Two basic types of institutions were used in this

One type consisted of higher education institutions,
and the other type was a public hospital.

4.
Sample sizes for each site were small and included
only administration, faculty, and/or staff.
Furthermore,
participant selection was controlled by the chief administra

tive officer of each institution.
Conclusion
The development of social psychological profiles of
organizational change was an attempt to generate an expanded
concept of organizational change.
These profiles demon
strate that the variables used in this research, when a n a

lyzed on a social psychological level, expand the parameters
of organizational change inquiry to bridge the gap between
organizational
analysis.
(macro) and individual (micro) levels of
With profiles and comparisons based upon the
variables of personal and professional loss and gain,
10
positive personal value of a change event, the perceived
magnitude of a change event, and emotional response to the
change, organizational planners and decisioners have a data
set upon which to perceive, guide or allow organizational
change.
Furthermore,
students of organizational change
can use the research variables to continue the expansion

of organizational change theory to include an encompassing
social psychological configuration.
Chapter 2
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE LITERATURE
Introduction
While theories and supporting research approach organi
zational change along one of the dimensions discussed as
missing in the analytical model of Chapter 1, organizational
change theory and its related research does not generally
focus on the effects of change on the social psychology of
an organization as defined by individuals'
and emotional reactions to the change.
perceptions of
Additionally,
theory
and research are generally limited to the study of the

evolution of the event or the organization.
Little atten
tion is given to the change event either at one point in

time in its evolution or to its place in the evolution of
the organization.
To understand these difficulties,
some
of the major organizational change perspectives are reviewed

in terms of time dimension,
the level of analysis,
and the
variables to be examined.
Traditional Organizational Change Models
Dill and Friedman (1979) analyze four organizational
change models used in higher education research in order to
develop "prototypic models fchich would) emphasize the
11
12
variables that influence change and innovation and deemphasize the events of the process itself"
{p. 425).
These
models specify change process variables and their inter

relationships, rather than demonstrate "conformity to a
particular longitudinal process"
(p. 425).
Although they do
not expand upon this expressed need for reconstruction of

traditional process-oriented change models, Dill and Friedman
provide an overview of these four main change frameworks,
which they label "complex organization," "conflict,"
"diffusion," and "planned change."
They compare the frame
works in terms of research methodology, unit of analysis,

research intent
(i.e., descriptive, prescriptive),
variables, and loci of impetus for change.
dependent
Analysis of the
foundations of these frameworks reveals that while each has

a different focal point,
they all use independent variables
which inherently require an evolutionary or longitudinal

perspective or analysis.
The complex organization framework,
including the works
of Hage and Aiken, Hage and Dewar, Zaltman, Duncan and

Holbeck, and Blau (Dill & Friedman,
1979),
is focused on
the correlation of social system structural characteristics

with organizational or system innovativeness.
Structural
variables such as size, complexity and centralization are

analyzed at an organizational level to determine their
effect on an organization's rate of adoption of one or more
innovations.
Because adoption rate for innovations can be
13
determined only after institutionalization occurs, an
evolutionary approach is essential in the complex organiza
tion framework.
The social and organizational conflict models developed
by Dahrendorf, Coser, Baldridge and Linquist form the basis
of the conflict framework analyzed by Dill and Friedman.
this framework,
In
social inequality and political interaction
provide the basis for conflict and change.
Process variables
such as organizational power bloc or group formation and

interaction are examined, with special emphasis on policy
development and implementation.
Study of organizational
change through this perspective requires examination of the

socio-political dynamics of the organization throughout the
natural history of the change process or event.
Similar to the original diffusion model developed in
rural sociology, the diffusion framework focuses upon the
psychological characteristics of the adopter groups and the
properties of the innovation in order to explain the differ
ential adoption rates among individuals or groups
Friedman, 1979).
(Dill &
Analysis is conducted on individual,
group and social system levels.
Psychological,
structural
and/or process variables such as cosmopolitanism, previous

innovativeness,
social structure,
change agent contact, and
communication dynamics are utilized in this analysis.
While
the diffusion framework encompasses variables analyzed on

different levels, Dill and Friedman note that the social and
14
organizational change research of Rogers and Shoemaker and
of Evans are representative of an emphasis on the trajectory
of one or more innovations proceeding from introduction to
complete adoption.
The planned change framework discussed by Dill and
Friedman examines the effectiveness of innovation strategies
designed to implement organizational change.
This framework
directs the analysis of the process outcome variable of

intervention strategy effectiveness.
Similar to the three
other change frameworks analyzed by Dill and Friedman, the

planned change framework generally tracks organizational
change from introduction through to its last-felt effects.
Although the planned change model and the conflict
framework utilize group level analysis,
the social political,
social psychological and psychological variables are often

confined by existing theoretical parameters and research
definitions.
These boundaries certainly provide conceptual
guidelines for organizational change inquiry, but they also

limit the range of research and theory activities.
More
direct measures of the social psychological state of organi

zations and individuals could be obtained through more openended assessment of individual perceptions and emotional
reactions to a change event.
These measures may serve to
validate current social psychological constructs and to

generate new ones.
15
Organizational Life Cycle and Developmental Change Models
Similar to the four planned change models reviewed by
Dill and Friedman, the organizational life cycle
1980) and developmental change models
(Kimberly,
(Shrieve, 1981) view
change as the evolutionary alteration of structure or process

variables analyzed at an organizational level.
Whether
organizational change is seen as a progression from creation,

to transformation, to decline and possible death (Kimberly,
1980),
or as a set of "qualitatively different periods which
describe how an organization changes over time"
(Shrieve,
1981, p. 3), it is often analyzed as a portion of the general

life stages or evolution of an organization.
This view
generally excludes the study of a single and/or sudden change

on a social psychological level.
Shrieve (1981)
categorizes the developmental models as
linear progressive, recurring life cycle, and uncertainty

factors.
According to Shrieve,
the linear-progressive cate
gory includes Griener's concept of change as the structural

differentiation of an organization experiencing economic
growth.
Also placed into this category is the work of
Lippitt and Schmidt, which relies upon psychological analogy

predicating change on organizational crisis experienced
over time.
The recurring life cycle theory views organizational
change in terms of attempts of an organization to constantly
address enduring (recurring) difficulties.
Although change
is cyclical instead of linear in nature in this view, the
16
importance of discernible stages and patterns which reflect
long-term change prevails.
Here, too, emphasis is on struc
tural and process variables reflecting developmental altera

tions of an entire organization.
The uncertainty factors category discussed by Shrieve
is similar to the recurring life cycle model in its view that
organizational change is precipitated by an organization's
attempt to deal with uncertainties or enduring difficulties
alluded to in the recurring life cycle category.
(Shrieve, 1981)
Tichy
identifies eight events which precipitate
organizational uncertainty causing developmental change in

an organization.
These events include environmental and
technological c h a n g e s , shifts in agreement over goals and

methods, and external technical, political and cultural
changes.
Although these events are also capable of generat
ing uncertainty among organizational m e m b e r s , the focus in

this category also remains on the analysis of the change
in organizational structure and process variables.
The concept of evolution included in the developmental
and life cycle models of organizational change is the guid
ing principle for Bigelow's
(1978)
study of change in the
Peace Corps growth policy from 1961-1971.
From a process-
centered perspective, Bigelow notes that organizations

adapt to their environments through the evolutionary p r o
cesses of variation, selection and retention.
Unlike the
developmental and life cycle frameworks, however,
this
purely evolutionary theory is used to analyze organizations
17
primarily in terms of their ability to adapt and survive in
an environment which is constantly changing.
Understanding
of organizational change is obtained through examination of

both the organization as it adapts to its environment and
each specific incident which precipitates the adaptation
processes of variation,
selection and retention.
As with
the organizational life cycle and recurring life cycle

models,
events which precipitate organizational change and
adaptation also most certainly precipitate organizational

members' reactions.
These reactions, however, often are
not considered or analyzed at an individual or social

psychological level.
Revolutionary Change Models
Similar to the evolutionary models of Bigelow and
Kimberly, Miller and Friesen (1980) develop an organizational
change model describing organizational adaptation in terms
of environment,
structures and strategies.
The difference
in the Miller and Friesen model is its emphasis on adapta

tion as a series of revolutionary shifts in the momentum of
organizational strategy and structure.
In a longitudinal
study of changes in strategy and structural variables in 26

companies, Miller and Friesen observed two adaptation ex
tremes entailing "periods of momentum in which little or no
trend is reversed and dramatic periods of revolution in
which a great many trends are reversed"
(p. 591).
Although
Miller and Friesen focus on adaptation at the organizational
level, the significance of this model lies in its assumption

that organizational revolution or abrupt change is essential
for adaptation and survival.
Furthermore,
such change
events, which may have far-reaching effects on the develop

ment of the organization and its members, can direct research
attention to immediate organizational and individual reac
tions, as well as to long-term organizational adaptation.
This would also help define more clearly the stages of an
adaptation process on an individual and an organizational
level.
While these evolutionary models of organizational change
acknowledge the importance of the organization's coping with
revolutions or crises, the magnitude and direction of these
events are often lost when absorbed into a larger evolu
tionary process.
Additionally,
the psychological measures of
emotional and perceptual assessments of change processes and

events often remain at the individual level of analysis and
application,
instead of being aggregated to a group or
organizational level.
Although organizational structure and process variables
remain the focal point for Miller and Friesen, these authors
do provide direction in expanding the theory of organiza
tional change to include events or processes which are not
confined by an evolutionary perspective.
For Miller and
Friesen, revolution implies significant magnitude of change

vis-a-vis the past history of organizational momentum.
Miller and Friesen found that organizational revolution
19
occurs only when the organization encounters specific pres
sures such as "shifts in power that allow (for) the emer
gence of a new organizational ideology and strategy (and)
significant performance deteriorations that provoke encom
passing remediability"
(p. 606).
They note that organiza
tional adaptation based upon organizational momentum

reversals, breaks or revolution is similar to the breaks
described by Thomas Kuhn as necessary for the development
of scientific knowledge.
As with the adaptation of organi
zations, Kuhn sees the growth of scientific knowledge as a

"succession of tradition-bound periods punctuated by noncumulative
(revolutionary) breaks (p. 208).
Imershein (1977) also follows this description of

organizational revolution in his discussions of organiza
tional change.
Imershein states that change occurs w h e n
ever the knowledge base of organizational members changes

in a manner similar to the Kuhnian notion of paradigm shift
or revolution.
The abrupt or revolutionary change events stressed by
Miller and Friesen and by Imershein are often de-emphasized
or ignored in the traditional change models generally
emphasizing global or evolutionary change.
The development
of Catastrophe Theory, however, provides alternative con

ceptual and mathematical models of both evolutionary and
revolutionary changes which may have either positive or
negative impacts.
20
Developed by the French mathematician Rene/ Thom,
Catastrophe Theory provides mathematical and conceptual
models for depicting discontinuous changes in seemingly
continuous variables.
Thom derives much of the basis for
Catastrophe Theory from topology, the area of mathematics

concerned with properties of surfaces in many dimensions
(Zeeman, 1976).
This topological approach attempts to
describe the
underlying forces of nature in terms of smooth
(geometrical) surfaces of equilibrium, and the
potential breakdown of the equilibrium--or the
abrupt departure from equilibrium--that gives
rise to a catastrophe (Zeeman, 1976, p. 65).
Thom develops seven elementary catastrophe models to
qualitatively describe these smooth surfaces and their
catastrophes, discontinuities whose changes may have either
positive or negative effects on the behavior variable.
In addition to providing models of abrupt or catas
trophic change in otherwise generally continuous variables,
Catastrophe Theory models include the dynamics of a partic
ular change process.
Furthermore,
bounded by three-dimensional space.
the models are not

This creates theoret
ical models which cannot be graphically depicted in their

entirety and whose mathematics are highly complex and often
unapproachable.
Thom advises that
we endeavor (through Catastrophe Theory) to free

our intuition from three-dimensional experience
and to use much more richer, dynamical concepts,
which will in fact be independent of configural
21
spaces.
In particular, the dimension of the
catastrophe model space and the degrees of
freedom of the local system are quite arbitrary-in fact, the universe model of the process is
imbedded in an infinite-dimensional state.
(p. 6)
Organizational studies have begun to include Catastrophe
Theory models, generally emphasizing the graphic represen
tation of organizational phenomena in a state of flux.
These models have been developed to describe variables such
as employee turnover rates
bargaining behavior
(Sheridan, 1980), collective
(Oliva, Peters,
& Murthy,
1981),
institu
tional financing (Newbould, 1980), and work shift produc

tivity (Guastello,
1982).
In higher education research
specifically, catastrophe models have been produced to

explain the periodic changes in curriculum philosophy (i.e.,
integrated,
collective)
(Thompson, 1979), to assist in
administrative problem solving through graphic representa

tion of problem variables
(Zeeman, 1980), and to serve as a
common qualitative language through which institutional

researchers can share institution-specific data and research
findings
(Duckwall & Johnson,
1982).
What is generally
lacking in any of these studies, however,
is the direct
conceptual application and empirical validation of Catas

trophe Theory to higher education change.
John Bigelow (1982) has developed one of the few
Catastrophe Theory models of organizational change, thus
providing a model of both smooth and abrupt change processes.
In this cusp catastrophe model an organizational practice
22
is dependent upon the interaction of the pressure for change
and the resistance to change within an organization.
The
practice is defined as "any activity carried out by the

organization members and which is sanctioned by the organiza
tion"
(p. 32).
These independent variables of pressure and
resistance are defined in terms of individual

tional members'
organiza
support for the organizational practice.
Bigelow uses the cusp model to graphically depict the

possibility of both smooth and abrupt changes in adopted
practices resulting from different measures of the pre s
sure for change and the resistance to change.
Another effort to describe both smooth and abrupt
organizational change using a catastrophe model is provided
by Scapens, Fletcher and Ryan (1981) in their study of cor
porate failure.
Scapens et a l . use catastrophe models as
a possible "basis for explaining why creditors suddenly

withdraw credit"
(p. 6) from their borrowing companies in
terms of the "relationship between the credit granting

policy of a company's creditor and its reported financial
performance"
(p. 6).
Despite the conceptual clarity of the Bigelow and

Scapens models, two major problems are inherent in the
production of these catastrophe models
Ryan, 1981).
(Scapens, Fletcher &
The first problem lies in the difficulty of
identifying those variables which can be posited as control

ling the change process of the organization.
The second
obstacle to catastrophe model construction is the difficulty
23
in measuring the variables used in the catastrophe models,
Scapens et al.
state that "in the social sciences it is
sometimes logically or empirically impossible to quantita

tively measure phenomena of particular interest"
Loren Cobb
(p. 5).
(personal communication, July 1982), who
has some recognized expertise in the mathematics of

Catastrophe Theory, provides further support for this
second point in stating that if catastrophe models are
to be used to explain or describe any phenomena,
the model
building must involve large samples or even entire popula

tions of the subject under study.
Thus, the use of Catas
trophe Theory in the study of organizational change should

involve groups of organizations,
instead of only one or two
organizations which are undergoing similar changes.

While the difficulty in developing catastrophe models
of organizational change can be partially explained by the
difficulty of identifying independent and dependent vari
ables which can be applied simultaneously to large groups
or populations of organizations,
the Bigelow and Scapens
models offer conceptual tools for enhancing the description

and understanding of both smooth and abrupt change processes.
They also point to the need for continued development of
abrupt organizational change models which are intellec
tually rigorous and empirically testable
& Ryan,
1981).
(Scapens, Fletcher,
24
Another attempt to describe abrupt organizational
change is the Sudden Change Model
{Michael, 1982).
This
model was developed as a conceptual tool for analyzing

sudden organizational change as an event in and of itself
while accepting the placement of the event as part of a
larger organizational evolution process.
In addition, the
Sudden Change Model shifts the focus of organizational

change research from the study of organizational structure
or process to the study of change based upon the percep
tions and values of the change held by the organizational
members.
A Social Psychological Perspective
Katz and Kahn (1978) view the social psychological
approach to organizations and other social systems as u s e
ful in the analysis of individual behaviors and attitudes.
Although the data of social psychology are the thoughts
and actions of individuals, Katz and Kahn note that social
psychology has traditionally ignored the facts of social
life in its emphasis on clinical or experimental research.
Similarly, they state that psychology has also taken a
much too isolationist approach in its view of the indi
vidual as separate from social events.
Clarification and
resolution of this problem can come wit h an understanding

that while the psychological
(micro) approach provides
data on individual behavior and attitude, the analysis of

these data on a social system level informs social
psychological theory (Katz, Kahn & Adams, 1982).
25
The sources of measures upon which social psychology is
based are also troublesome to Katz and Kahn.
They note that
many of these measures are derived from secondary sources

such as organizational records and expert opinion.
Further
more, the measures of the social psychology of organizations

are generally confined to constructs such as climate, leader
ship, roles, group processes and similar concepts which
generally define the parameters of social psychology.
Although there is no clear body of criticism of this
apparently limiting effect of the predominant variables in
social psychology, Kahn
1983) and Adams
(personal communication, November
(personal communication, November 1983) note
that the expansion of the base of social psychological vari

ables is certainly appropriate and warranted.
There appears
to be little effort directed toward examining the emotional

and perceptual responses of individuals to organizational
change events within social systems which help shape or con
figure social and psychological identities and behaviors.
The personal and professional loss and gain measures,
the perception of positive personal value of a change
event, the perception of the magnitude of the change event,
and emotional responses to a change event were used in
this research in an attempt to expand the list of v a r i
ables describing the social psychology of organizations.
These measures were generated also in an attempt to
more directly assess the perceptions and emotions of
individuals in an organization undergoing a structural

change.
In addition,
instrumentation was adapted to col
lect data using a combined scalar and open-ended response

format, thus allowing for broader response options than
found in current instrumentation.
These variable data
were collected on an individual level and analyzed on a

group or organizational level, thus providing a social
psychological description or profile of human perceptions
and emotional impact resulting from structural organiza
tional change.
The remainder of this text presents the
methodology, analysis and discussion of this research.
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Three basic topical areas guiding this research were
organizational change,
individual perceptions of organiza
tional change, and individual emotional reactions to

Organizational change was defined
as impending, occurring or completed structural alteration

of an organization.
The change events to which research
participants reacted were public knowledge and had been

announced through a medium such as newspaper articles,
public hearings or governing board publications.
Individual perceptions of organizational change in
this research were defined as ratings of the change event
in terms of personal loss, professional loss, personal
gain, professional gain, positive personal value of the
change event, and perceived magnitude of the change event.
Measures of these loss and gain variables were obtained
using the Loss and Gain Questionnaire.
Emotional responses
to organizational change were operationally defined by
27
28
selection of one or more items on the Adjective Checklist.
The remainder of this chapter provides discussion of these
instruments and the data collection and analysis procedures.
Instrumentation
The Loss and Gain Questionnaire and the Adjective
Checklist are based on instruments developed by Langston
(1977) to assess faculty reactions to organizational change.
Langston measured individual perceptions of loss through a
series of structured questions about a change which the
individuals'
organizations were experiencing.
Individual
emotional responses to the change were collected through a

self-assessment adjective checklist of emotions felt during
the change process.
These estimations of loss and self-
assessed emotional reactions were compared to determine

the relationship between personal and professional loss
and the emotional responses associated with the change.
Attention was paid to the emotional responses which
described emotional reactions generally experienced in the
grieving process as outlined by Kiibler-Ross and others.
Langston's questionnaire and checklist were modified
by Sullivan and Michael
(1982) in their study of the m e r
ger of three academic units into one college at Georgia

State University in Atlanta, Georgia.
These researchers
extended the Langston instrument to include measures of

gain, communication, participation, politics and produc
tivity, but the general emphasis on perceptions of loss and
29
emotional reactions remained.
Although the Sullivan and
Michael study has not been released, preliminary results

have demonstrated that individual perceptions of loss,
gain and emotional reactions to a change situation can be
collected through the instruments as adapted from the
Langston research.
Since a longitudinal study was not possible in their
original study, Sullivan and Michael structured the Loss
and Gain Questionnaire and the Adjective Checklist to
obtain responses to a change event at two points in time.
One point was the current time at which the instruments
were administered,
and the second was the past time when
the change was first announced.
This second time frame
was adjusted in the current research to obtain data for

either the past or the future of a change event.
Because Langston noted that individual emotional
responses to organizational change may follow the stages
of grief, her original adjective checklist included terms
reflecting emotional reactions in each of the grief
stages of Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and
Acceptance
(Kubler-Ross, 1969).
In an attempt to cate
gorize the adjectives according to the grief stages,
the
Adjective Checklist revised by Sullivan and Michael was

reviewed by graduate psychology students and professors
familiar with the grief process.
This review panel
30
consisted of the Graduate Studies Chairperson of the Depart
ment of Psychology at Georgia State University, along with
10 other professors and 13 graduate students nominated by
the chairperson on the basis of their knowledge of the
grief process and their ability to complete the Adjective
Checklist review process.
Each reviewer received a cover letter explaining the
review process, a stamped return envelope, and a review
form (see Appendix A).
The reviewer was instructed to
place each adjective in the grief stage or stages in which

the emotional reaction could be found.
In addition,
the
reviewers were to add words not on the list but which they
believed belonged in one or more of the grief categories.
The complete tally of the review panel responses is listed
in Appendix B.
Because one student called for a clarification of
the review process,
all students on the panel were phoned
to discuss any problems experienced in completing the

review forms.
No professors were called, but each professor
and student not returning the review form within one week
of its mailing received a follow-up letter and a replacement
copy of the form.
Table 1 lists the response rates for
these review instruments.

and 9 of the 13 students
Six of the 11 professors
(54.5%)
(69.2%) returned review forms
which could be used in the data analysis.
31
Table 1
Return Rates
Number
returned
Number
sent
Number
used
Professors
11
8(72.7%)
6(54.5%)
Students
13
9(69.2%)
9(69.2%)
Total
24
17(70.8%)
15(62.5%)
Words placed in a particular grief category by at least

50% of the reviewers were designated as an emotional re
sponse indicative of that category.
Any words added into
a category by more than 25% of the respondents were to be

included in the category and added to the adjective check
list.
Only one word, however, was nominated twice for one
category, and 20 different words were each nominated once

for one or more categories.
Table 2 lists the words in those grief categories in
which they were nominated by 50% or more of the review
panel respondents.
The number of respondents is listed in
parentheses next to each word.
Words in more than one
category are listed on the same line across all categories

in which they appear.
For example,
the word "fearless" was
selected by ten respondents for Denial and by eight respon

dents for Acceptance.
Thus, the word "fearless" is listed
32
Table 2
Adjective Checklist Grief Categories
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Apathetic(9)
Cheerful(9)
Cool(ll)
Disbelieving(1A)
Fearless(10)
Indifferent(ll)
Numb(12)
Unconcemed(ll)
Depression
Acceptance
Apathetic(10)
Fearless(8)
Agitated(12)
Angry(1A)
Bitter(13)
Complaining (12)
Contrary(1A)
Cross(lA)
Fearful(8)
Furious(13)
Hostile(1A)
Jealous(9)
Ma d (13)
Mean(12)
Tense(8)
Threatened(9)
Upset(12)
Complalnlng(9)
Fearful(10)
Fearful(8)
Tense(10)
Threatened(B)
Upset(8)
Afraid(9)
Anxious(8)
Desperate(12)
Insecure(8)
Nervous(10)
Panicky(8)
Serious(B)
Uneasy(8)
Worrying(9)
Insecure(lO)
Serious(9)
Depressed(lA)
Discouraged(1A)
Frightened(8)
Gloomy(13)
Grim(13)
Guilty(10)
Helpless(lA)
Hopeless(lA)
Lonely(13)
MlserabledA)
Overwhelmed(12)
Sad(lA)
Solemn(9)
Calm(12)
Contented(11)
Easy-going(lO)
Kindly(8)
Peaceful(13)
Secure(8)
Steady(11)
Thoughtful(12)
Warm(9)
8
10.88
15
12
18
11
It - 11.80
X - 9.0
X - 11.50
X - 10.09
33
twice along the same line, once in the Denial category and
once in the Acceptance category.
At the bottom of each column in Table 2 is the number
of words nominated for that category, ranging from a low of
8 for Denial to a high of 18 for Depression.
Also listed
for each category is the average number of nominations

for the words in the category, ranging from a low of 9 for
Bargaining to a high of 11.8 for Anger.
While these results cause speculation about the balance
among the categories and the level of reviewer agreement,
the review was established to determine if each category
was represented and if any additional words were needed on
the Adjective Checklist.
Using these criteria,
it was
found that each category was represented by at least 8 of

the total 69 words, and that there was no need to add words
to the list.
The Adjective Checklist contains several terms denoting
emotions which could be expected in a non-grieving situation
or in a gain situation.
Also,
the words categorized accord
ing to the review panel responses are not necessarily indic

ative of grief.
Eight of the adjectives were placed in two
of the grief categories, and the word "fearful" was placed

in the three categories of Anger, Bargaining and Depres
sion.
This overlap between and among different categories
reinforces the warning that the grief stages are not clearly
defined
(Konner,
1982; Bowlby,
1980).
Additionally,
the
sequential movement from one stage to the next through the
34
five stages of grief does not always occur, and the dura
tion of each of these stages differs among individuals.
Thus, while the review panel provided a set of adjectives
for each of the grief categories, these categories do not
necessarily define the emotional constellation or configura
tion of each stage.
They also do not point to sequential
emotional movement from one stage to the next.

Pilot Test
The Adjective Checklist and the Loss and Gain Question
naire were combined with a demographic sheet and accompany
ing directions to form the Change Assessment Package
(Appendix C ) .
This package was pretested to ensure the
validity of the Loss and Gain Questionnaire and to identify

any inherent administrative and completion problems.
The first page of the Change Assessment Package con
tained general demographic questions pertaining to position
type, rank, tenure and duration, as well as a question p e r
taining to the respondent's primary allegiance in the job
(e.g., personal, position, institution, discipline).
These
data were collected as additional information for the

Sullivan and Michael study.
For the pilot study, the Adjective Checklist assessing
past emotional reactions was the second page of the Change
Assessment Package.
Listed as Adjective Checklist I, this
page was headed with an introduction, a change statement

and directions.
35
Following this page was the introduction to the Loss
and Gain Questionnaire.
This page defined terms, provided
examples of the loss and gain variables, and listed instruc

tions for completing the instruments and mailing them to the
researcher.
After this instruction page,
scales for rating
personal loss, professional loss, personal gain, and p r o

fessional gain were listed separately for each variable on
the next four pages.
Each page was introduced with the change statement to
which participants responded on the four loss and gain
scales for both the current state of the merger and the
past time of merger completion.
This was done to eliminate
the need to refer to an introductory page.
The merger
statement was repeated also to increase the likelihood that

respondents would react to the same statement for each page
of scales instead of to what they recalled--possibly
erroneously--to be the statement.
Ratings were indicated by circling a number on a
9-point scale ranging from 0 to 8.
Each loss and gain
scale had rating descriptors of "No (loss/gain)

score of 0, "Minor"
"Moderate"
for the
(loss/gain) for the score of 1,
(loss/gain) for the score of A, and "Considerable"
(loss/gain) for a score of 7.

In addition to rating loss and gain perceptions,
participants were asked to state what they believed were
their current and past personal and professional losses
and gains.
These loss and gain lists provided the
36
respondents the opportunity to qualify their numerical
ratings.
These lists were also a mechanism for deter
mining the respondents'
interpretation of and differentia
tion between losses and gains on both the personal and

professional levels.
Furthermore,
these lists gave an
overview of the range of personal and professional items

or concepts which the members of the organization believed
that they were losing or gaining.
The next page, also headed with the change statement,
asked the respondents to list what they believed to be the
reasons for the merger at the current time and at the time
that the merger became official.
These questions were
included as a vehicle for confidential discussion of the

merger situation.
Sullivan and Michael
(1982) found that
individuals welcomed this opportunity to discuss their

feelings, which had often gone unexpressed throughout the
turmoil of the merger process.
In addition to the cathartic value of these two ques
tions, it was assumed that they would serve a purpose
similar to the response space for loss and gain items.
The perceptions of the reasons for merger could be used
to develop an overview of the various reasons which organi
zational members attributed currently and in the past to
the merger of the three units.
These data, as well as the
loss and gain items, could also be compared between the two
time frames to determine if perceptions had altered since
the merger was officially enacted.
37
Also introduced by the change statement, page 6 of the
Loss and Gain Questionnaire elicited separate ratings on
perceptions of positive personal value and the size or
magnitude of the changes brought about by the merger.
These rating scale numbers ranged from 0 to 8.
of "No"
Descriptors
(value/magnitude) for the score of 0, "Minor"
magnitude)
for the score of 1, "Moderate"
for the score of 4, and "Extensive"

the score of 7 were included.
(value/
(value/magnitude)
(value/magnitude)
for
While ratings for both
current and past perceptions were elicited for the value

and magnitude dimensions, no space was given for the
respondents to explain or justify their responses.
This
was done to keep the Change Assessment Package completion

time under 20 minutes.
Adjective Checklist II followed the value and magnitude
rating page.
This checklist was structured in the same
manner as the Adjective Checklist I, except that the intro

duction and the directions were worded to reflect the cur
rent time frame.
The last page of the Change Assessment Package used in
the pilot study was a comment sheet for reactions to the
ease and clarity of the instruments and their instructions.
The responses on this sheet, combined with comments which
some individuals wrote directly at the point of concern,
provided guidance in altering the questionnaire and the
methods of distribution and collection.
38
Pilot Instrument Distribution
Upon approval by the dean and the assistant dean of
the College,
the Change Assessment Packages were distributed
through the campus mail.
Only faculty and exempt staff who
had not participated in the original Sullivan and Michael

study were included in this mailing.
received an introductory letter,
A total of 48 people
the Change Assessment
Package with the comment sheet, and a self-addressed return

envelope marked "confidential."
One week after the packets
were distributed, a follow-up letter was sent to the sub

jects thanking them for their cooperation and asking them
to complete the instruments if they had not already done so.
Of the 48 original research subjects,
instruments
(62.5%).
30 returned the
Only the 22 instruments which were
completed on all scale ratings were used for data analysis,

thus reducing the return rate to 45.8%.
The findings of the pilot site research are discussed
in the next chapter, along with the findings for the other
sites.
What is instructive here is to discuss the changes
made in the instruments as a result of the pilot research.

Instrumentation and Methodological Changes
The demographic data sheet of the Change Assessment
Package was reduced to questions about the position held
by the respondent and the length of service to the institu
tion.
(See Appendix D for the basic instruments resulting
from the pilot study revisions.)
This was a result of
39
several comments from pilot site subjects about the speci
ficity of the demographic questions.
The demographic sheet
led one subject to return the unanswered package with the

comment that the data could be easily used to identify the
research subjects who were completing the questions under
the assumption of confidentiality.
While this type of data
was helpful for the Sullivan and Michael study, it was

determined to be unnecessary for the current research proj
ect.
Another significant alteration was the reordering of
the loss and gain questions.
Questions pertaining to cur
rent loss, gain, value and magnitude were placed after the
first Adjective Checklist eliciting responses of current
emotional reactions and before the second Adjective Check
list.
The loss, gain, value and magnitude questions for
the past or future were placed after the second Adjective

Checklist eliciting emotional reactions for either the
past or the future of the change event.
This restructuring
of the questionnaire eliminated the need to continuously

move between two different time frames, a situation which
some respondents in the pilot study found to be quite
confusing.
The descriptors for scale points 0, 1, 4, and 7 were
retained, but the rating point of 8 was inadvertently
dropped from the loss and gain scales through a proof
reading oversight.
This mistake may be seen as fortuitous
since a score of 0 or 7 and its respective descriptor
40
implies lower or upper limit of the scale, but the score
of 8 could then be seen as extraneous.
It could be argued
that the descriptor for 7 initially should have been used

for a score of 8, but this would have disrupted the scale
balance in which the scores of 1 and 4 and 7 each have a
2-point interval between them.
In addition to these major changes in the assessment
package, minor ones reflecting the specific nature of the
change event were made for each site used in the study.
Since all sites selected for the final study were under
going or anticipating change e v e n t s , the time frames used
were the current status of the change and the anticipated
final outcome of the event.
Only the pilot site had com
pleted an organizational change upon which the subjects

could reflect.
Because the researcher was familiar with the general
background of the change events at the pilot site, no
interviews were completed at this site.
however,
It was determined,
that a series of interviews with administrators
at each of the final research sites would be necessary in

order to obtain a general understanding of each site and
its change event.
Site Selection
The selection of sites for this research revealed a
reluctance on the part of some higher education administra
tors to permit their institutions to participate in research
41
examining change at their schools.
For example,
three of
the five institutions proposed as study sites refused to

endorse the research project.
The president of each institu
tion noted that while the concepts of the proposed research

had merit,
the change event proposed for study was still
far too sensitive to allow external intrusion having the

potential for creating new institutional turmoil.
Although
this argument was similar for all three sites, one institu
tion had completed a merger begun in 1979, while the other
sites were under consideration for merger at the time of
request for participation.
Four institutions agreed to participate in the research.
These sites were Albany Junior College, Cooper Green H o s
pital, Pensacola Junior College, and the University of West
Florida.
These institutions represent different organiza
tional types experiencing different change events at dif

ferent points in the change process
(see Table 3).
The
background of each change situation at each institution is

discussed in the findings section for each site presented
in Chapter 4.
The presidents of the three higher education institu
tions and the administrator of the hospital were sent a
letter requesting their participation and an outline of the
research purpose and procedures
(see Appendix E ) .
Each of
these contact persons was asked to develop a list of at

least three to six individuals who had a good understand
ing of the change event.
These individuals and the contact
Table 3
Research Sites: Institutional Type and Specific
Time-Referenced Change Event
Site
Institutional
type
Past change
event
Current change
event
State Board of Regents
announcement of pos
sible merger of
Albany Junior Col
lege with Albany
State College
(February 1983)
Anticipated
change event
Albany Junior College

(Albany, Georgia)
Junior College
College of Public and

Urban Affairs
(Atlanta, Georgia)
Unit of Georgia
State Univer
sity
Cooper Green Hospital

(Birmingham, Alabama)
County-operated
Public Hospital
Resignation of the
Hospital Board of
Trustees (March
1983)
Uncertain possible
takeover by a
private health
care management
firm

(Pensacola, Florida)
Junior College
Withdrawal of proposal
for unification (mer
ger) with the Univer
sity of West Florida
(March 1983)
Merger with the

University of
West Florida

(Pensacola, Florida)
Senior College
Withdrawal of proposal
for unification (mer
ger) with Pensacola
Junior College
(March 1983)
Merger with
Pensacola Junior
College
Merger of the College

of Urban Life, Col
lege of General
Studies, and Insti
tute of Governmental
Administration (July
1981)
Merger with Albany

State College
Current status of
merged units
(April 1983)
43
person were to be interviewed separately by the researcher
in on-site interview sessions.
These confidential inter
views followed a schedule of questions
(see Appendix F)
designed to obtain responses providing an overview of the

organization and its members as they had approached and
experienced the change event.
Each contact person agreed to supply a list of partic
ipants, a set of mailing labels, and assistance in package
distribution through the interoffice mail system.
return,
In
the researcher agreed to provide a report of
findings for each site once the research was completed and
published in the dissertation.
Faculty members of the higher education institutions
and the medical staff and administration of the hospital
were originally designated to receive the questionnaire.
Administrative personnel at the higher education sites were
scheduled to be involved only in the interview sessions.
Because of a rapid change of events at Pensacola Junior
College and the University of West Florida between the time
of agreement to participate in the research to the time of
interviews and questionnaire distribution, participant
designation could not be followed.
The change event to
be studied at these sites was the proposed merger of the

two institutions.
This proposal was withdrawn jointly by
the presidents of both schools approximately one month

before the scheduled site visit.
Because they perceived
44
this to be a very sensitive situation, both presidents
requested that interviews and package distribution be
limited strictly to administrative personnel.
Site Visits
The research site visits were structured the same
for each institution.
Thirty to 60 minute personal inter
views with the site contact person and the persons selected
by the contact person were conducted.
The Change Assess
ment Package was distributed to the interviewees and other

organizational members approved by the contact person, and
a follow-up letter was given to the contact person for
distribution one week after the assessment package was
sent out.
The number of interviews conducted and the
Change Assessment Package return rates are listed for each

site in Table k.
(The individuals interviewed at each
site are listed in Appendix G.)
The instrument return
rate for each site was adjusted by eliminating those

questionnaires on which at least one of the variables was
not rated by the respondent.
Data Analysis
Chapter 4 presents the individual site results.
Qualitative data for individual sites consisted of the
respondents'
listings of what they perceived as their
current or anticipated personal and professional losses

and gains,
the reasons for the change, and the possible
Table 4
Change Assessment Package Return Rates
and Research Site Interviews
Site
Albany Junior
College
Number of
interviews
College of Public
and Urban Affairs
(Pilot Site)
Number of
packages sent
Number of
packages received
Number of
packages used
in data analysis
85
60 (70.6%)
45 (52.9%)
48
30 (62.5%)
22 (45.8%)
Cooper Green
Hospital
20
17 (85.0%)
16 (80.0%)
Pensacola Junior
College
16
13 (81.3%)
12 (75.0%)
University of West
Florida
17
13 (76.5%)
11 (64.7%)
24
186
133 (71.5%)
106 (57.0%)
Totals
46
justifications in the need for change.
These responses
were grouped in categories suggested by duplicate or

similar items.
This grouping made the single responses
more manageable and provided a general framework for

determining organizational members'
concerns during the
change process.
The Adjective Checklists for each site were analyzed
in a manner similar to the other qualitative data so that
a general overview of the emotional responses could be
obtained.
A frequency count is provided for each item
selected by the site respondents.
In addition,
emotional
responses were compared with the adjectives identified

by the review panel as representing one or more of the
five grief stages of Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depres
sion, and Acceptance.
Through this procedure it was
determined if the emotional responses were similar to one

or more of the grief stages.
In addition, the adjective
lists for the two time frames were compared to determine

the difference in emotional response patterns.
Should
the responses be different between the two time dimensions,

grounds were available for speculating on the movement
over time from one emotional response pattern to another.
The 12 variable ratings for respondents at the same
site were analyzed through three statistical subprograms
on the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences-Version 9 at Georgia State University.
were as follows:
These 12 variables
47
1.
Current Personal Loss.
2.
Current Professional Loss.
3.
Current Personal Gain.
4.
Current Professional Gain.
5.
Current Positive Personal Value Imputed to the
Change Event.
6.
Current Estimation of the Magnitude or Size of
the Change E v e n t .
7.
Past or
Anticipated Personal Loss.
8.
Past or
Anticipated Professional Loss.
9.
Past or
Anticipated Personal Gain.
10.
Past or
Anticipated Professional Gain.
11.
Past or Anticipated Positive Personal Value
Imputed to the Change Event.

12.
Past or Anticipated Estimation of the Magnitude
or Size of the Change Event.

The CONDESCRIPTIVE subprogram generated the descriptive
statistics reported for each variable at each site.
The
T-TEST subprogram determined the level of statistical

significance of the difference between two means for all
possible pairs of the 12 variables.
The strength of the
relationship between each of these pairs was determined by

the third SPSS subprogram, PEARSON CORR.
In Chapter 4, also, the variable mean data for each
site was compared with each of the three other sites used
in the final research.
This comparison was conducted for
48
determining the similarities and differences among the
four sites.
Furthermore,
individual site data were com
bined according to several different analysis formats.

While the individual site data provide a social psycholog
ical profile of each site,
the combining of the site data
according.to categories of type of institution,
type of event
and time of the event generates a broader social psycholog

ical profile of changing organizations along these different
categories.
The grouped site data means were analyzed as
indicators of the categorical similarities and differences

between and among the sites used in this study.
The data from the pilot project were not used in any
of these combined site analyses.
As discussed above,
the
Loss and Gain Questionnaire used in the pilot study was

structured differently from the questionnaire used with
the four sites.
Additionally,
the final research sites
were all involved in ongoing change situations requiring

responses for current and anticipated time points.
The
pilot site instruments, on the other hand, required

responses to a merger which had occurred almost two years
before the study.
In the pilot study, the current change
measures were for a completed change event in its current

state or configuration, while the current measures at the
final research sites were for change events which were
either in process or which were enacted less than two
months before instrument distribution.
49
Alternative Data Analysis
Chapter 5 presents two different data analysis formats
used for the combined responses from the four final research
sites.
One format tested the relationships among the Loss
and Gain Questionnaire variables and Adjective Checklist

responses.
Change Model
The other analysis format applied the Sudden

(Michael, 1982) to the questionnaire and check
list responses.
In the first format,
the descriptive statistics,
t-values and Pearson correlation coefficients were computed

for the combined responses.
These computations were ne c e s
sary for determining possible alterations to the Loss and

Gain Questionnaire.
Furthermore,
these statistics could
eventually suggest additional analytic or profiling tech

niques leading to expanded conceptualization of the social
psychology of organizational change.
The Sudden Change Model
(Michael, 1982) described
and applied in the second analysis format was developed as

an attempt to conceptualize sudden or abrupt organiza
tional change.
The model postulates that sudden or abrupt
organizational change occurs when there is a shift in the

relationship between the individual and the organization.
These relationships are described by nine model cells
formed from the interaction between an individual's assess
ments of the positive personal value of the organizational
change and the perceived magnitude of the change.
Because
the Loss and Gain Questionnaire contains value and magnitude

scales similar to value and magnitude dimensions of the
Sudden Change Model,
these scales were used as a framework
for analyzing the loss, gain and emotional response data

according to the structure of the Sudden Change Model.
These data for all respondents were placed into the cell
which corresponded with the questionnaire value and m a g n i
tude ratings.
This application provided a means for de
scribing the composition of each model cell and for

partially validating the structure and labeling of the
Sudden Change Model.
Chapter A
FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter the findings from the pilot site and
the four research sites are presented in the order in
which they participated in this study.
The general b a c k
ground of the change event, the results of the statistical

procedures, and the qualitative lists are discussed for
each site.
Also presented are the results of comparing
response data using five different analytic formats based

on individual sites,
institutional types, change event
types, and change event timing.

The Pilot Site--The College of Public and Urban Affairs
General b a c k ground.
In early spring of 1980 it was
decided at Georgia State University that enrollment

problems, programmatic and philosophical similarities,
and general administrative and financial difficulties
experienced by three university units warranted considera
tion of merger
(Sullivan & Michael,
1982).
On July 1,
1981, the College of Urban Life, College of General

Studies, and Institute of Governmental Administration
51
were officially merged to create the College of Public

and Urban Affairs.
Because a portion of the n e w college's faculty and
administration had participated in the Sullivan and
Michael study, only those faculty members and staff who
had not participated in the earlier study were included.
Twenty-two
(45.8%) of the 48 instruments sent to these
faculty and staff members were fully completed and thus

included in the data analysis procedures.
The change
statement used for the Change Assessment Package for the

College of Public and Urban Affairs was as follows:
On July 1, 1981, the College of Public and
Urban Affairs was created as a result of the
merger of the College of General Studies, the
College of Urban Life, and the Institute of
Governmental Administration.
Descriptive statistics.
Table 5 lists the descrip
tive statistics for each variable of the questionnaire.

The left half of the table lists these statistics for the
current time frame, and the right half lists the statis
tics for the past time frame.
Perusal of the means reveals apparent relationships
between and among the 12 variables.
The four loss
means were all smaller than any of the gain means.
In
addition, each current personal and professional loss

mean was lower than its past counterpart.
The current
gain means, on the other hand, were both higher than

either of the past gain means, as well as higher than
53
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
College of Public and Urban Affairs
(N = 22)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Past
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
1. 591
4.729
7.0(0,7)
1.727
4.303
6.0(0,6)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum,Maximum)
1.091
4.468
7.0(0,7)
1.455
5.022
6.0(0,6)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Ran g e (Min i m u m ,Max i mum)
2.318
7.465
8.0(0,8)
1.955
7.569
8.0(0,8)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
3.364
10.147
8.0(0,8)
2.364
9.004
8.0(0,8)
Positive Personal Value

Mean
Variance
3.182
8.156
8.0(0,8)
2.545
6.450
7.0(0,7)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
R a n g e (Minimum,Maximum)
4.545
5.212
8.0(0,8)
4.500
5.786
8.0(0,8)
54
all four of the loss means.
Similar to the gain means,
the current value mean was greater than the past value
m e a n , and the current magnitude mean was greater than the
past magnitude mean.
This broad reading of the means demonstrates that as
the merger of the three units progressed over time, the
respondents on average perceived an increase in their per
sonal and professional gain and a decrease in their p e r
sonal and professional loss resulting from the change.
Furthermore,
they viewed the merger as having greater
positive personal value at the time that they completed

the Assessment Change Package than at the time the college
became an official entity.
They also rated the change as
being of greater magnitude in the current time frame than

when it was first enacted.
While it is likely that the
respondents' perceptions have changed over time, it is

also highly possible that the size of the changes has
increased over time.
T-Values.
with the _t-test.
These relationships were further explored

Table 6 presents the _t-test statistics
for the 66 possible pairs of the 12 variables.
(Because
no hypotheses predicting the relationship between each of

these means were generated,
the two-tail probability was
computed for each pair.)

Twenty-eight of the 66 variables pairs had means which
were statistically significantly different
(p = .05).
Table 6
T-Values--College of Public and Urban Affairs
N = 22
Degrees of Freedom = 21
Current
Current
VI
Fast
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
1.15
=.264
-.99
=.333
-2.07
-.051
-2.21
=.038
-5.10
=.000
-.45
=.658
.30
=.764
-.47
=.640
-.97
=.344
-1.50
=.148
-4.80
-.000
V2
--
--
-1.47
=. 156
-2.39
=.026
-2.49
=.021
-4.70
=.000
-1.81
=.085
-.82
-.422
-1.02
=.320
-1.45
-.162
-2.06
=.052
-.460
=.000
V3
-2.08
=.050
-2.12
=.046
-4.61
=.000
.81
=.428
1.08
=.292
1.40
=.176
-.10
-.925
-.50
=.691
-4.06
-.001
V4
--
--
.3B
=.710
-2.35
=.029
1.96
=.064
2.02
=.057
2.64
=.015
3.17
=.005
1.58
-.128
-1.96
=.063
V5
--
--
-3.01
=.007
1.95
=.065
2.10
=.048
3.59
=.002
1.70
-.104
1.91
-.069
-2.48
-.022
--
4.47
=.000
4.44
=.000
5.43
=.000
4.61
-.000
4.64
=.000
.15
-.883
V6
V7
--
--
--
.84
=.409
-.29
=.772
-.81
=.427
-1.26
=.222
-4.13
=.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
-.63
=.539
-1.04
=.311
-1.37
=.184
-4.31
=.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.95
=.352
-1.48
=.153
-4.81
=.000
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.42
=.676
-3.85
=.001
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-3.88
=.001
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 - Personal Gain
Vi Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 - Change Magnitude
V7 51 Personal Loss
V8 85 Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
V10 = Professional Gain

Vll = Positive Personal Value
V12 = Change Magnitude
Ln
Ln
56
The past magnitude score mean was statistically signif
icantly greater than the means of every other variable
except current professional gain and current magnitude.
The current magnitude mean was statistically significantly
greater than every other variable mean except past change
magnitude.
Similarly,
the past change magnitude mean was
statistically significantly greater than every other mean

except current professional gain and current magnitude.
While the loss scores were less for the current time
frame than for the past, the gain, value and magnitude
scores were all greater for the current time frame than
for the past.
The t-values, however, reveal that only the
professional gain score differences were statistically

significant.
All other variable differences for their
counterparts in the opposite time frame were not statis

tically significant.
Pearson correlation coefficients.
The strength of
the correlation between the variable pairs indicates the

degree to which the rating on one scale affects the rating
on another.
The Pearson correlation coefficient and
probability level for each pair of the 12 variables are

listed in Table 7 by present and past time frames.
Coefficients which were statistically significant at the
.05 level of probability are discussed below.
Thirty-four correlation coefficients for the variable
pairs were statistically significant
(jj = .05).
Twenty of
Table 7
Intercorrelation Matrix--College of Public and Urban Affairs
(N = 22)
Current
Current
VI
V2
Past
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
.5472
= .008
.0310
=.891
-.0875
=.699
.1199
=.595
.2581
=.246
.7763
=.000
.5481
=.008
-.0510
=.822
-.0199
=.930
.2061
=.357
.2321
=.299
V2
--
--
-.2938
=.184
-.3871
=.075
-.2395
=.283
-.2279
=.308
.6902
=.000
.5438
=.009
-.3268
=.138
-.2757
=.214
-.0008
-.997
-.1780
=.428
V3
--
.6919
=.000
.7673
=.000
.6045
=.003
-.0008
=.997
-.1259
=.577
.9015
=.000
.6996
=.000
.6806
=.000
.5253
=.012
V4
--
--
.7252
=.000
.6721
=.001
-.0708
=.754
-.3178
=.150
.6540
=.001
.8872
=.000
.6630
=.001
.5593
=.007
V5
--
--
--
--
.6779
=.001
.0168
=.941
-.1326
=.556
.8375
=.000
.7032
-.000
.8392
=.000
.5615
-.007
V6
--
.0832
=.713
-.0415
=.855
.6182
=.002
.6787
= .001
.6525
=.001
.8151
=.000
V7
--
.7553
=.000
-.1107
=.624
-.0216
=.924
.1380
=.540
.0191
=.933
V8
--
--
--
--
--
-.1201
=.595
-.2099
=.349
-.2130
=.341
-.0177
-.938
V9
--
--
--
--
--
.7577
=.000
.7534
=.000
.5433
=.009
V10
--
--
--
--
--
.7475
=.000
.5542
=.007
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.5456
=.009
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V3 - Presonal Cain
V5 = Positive Presonal Value
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain

=J
58
the 34 statistically significantly correlated pairs were
combinations of current and past variables.
The past
personal gain, past professional gain, past change value

and past magnitude variables were statistically signif
icantly correlated with each of the current personal gain,
current professional gain, current value and current
magnitude variables,
thus accounting for 16 of these pairs.
Two significant correlation coefficients were obtained

for the combination of current personal loss with past
personal loss and with past professional loss.
The
remaining two significant correlation pairs between cur

rent and past variables were the combination of current
professional loss with past personal loss and with past
professional loss.
What is striking about these significant correlation
coefficients is the fact that the loss variables were
significantly correlated only with other loss variables
and that the gain, value and magnitude variables were
significantly correlated with each other.
Similarly,
although none of the negative correlations were statis

tically significant, all negative correlations were ob
tained in the pairing of loss scores with gain, value
or magnitude scores--variables which tend to reflect
perceptions opposite of loss.
The _t-test and the Pearson correlation statistics
are open to a broad range of interpretations.
Fairly
59
strong and consistent relationships between past and cur
rent value, magnitude and gain and current and past loss
variables were obtained.
Regardless of the size of the
means or the difference between the mean pairs,

dents'
the respon
recollections of the past change event were some
what related to their assessments of the current state of

the change event.
It is possible that the respondents
accurately reflected upon their past perceptions of the

change event, but it is highly unlikely that these reflec
tions were unencumbered by their current assessments of the
event.
The current and past assessments could have become
somewhat melded through the process of time and selective

r ecall .
It is possible, however,
measures were accurate,
that these current and past
thus reflecting expectations borne
out as the change event progressed.
Although this specula
tion can only remain as such, it does point to the need to

track a change event over its full life cycle to determine
the true relationship between these variables.
Loss and gain it e m s .
The loss and gain items listed
by the respondents represent at least a portion of the

basis for the different scale ratings.
Additionally,
these items reflect the respondent's definition of loss

or gain and serve as a measure of the consistency between
the loss and gain items across personal and professional
60
dimensions.
Appendix H lists these items according to the
current and past status and in categories developed to

facilitate item review and to maintain respondent anonymity.
As with the loss and gain scores, a relationship b e
tween the loss and gain items from current to past time
frames existed.
There was also similarity or duplication
in some cases between the personal and professional loss

items and between personal and professional gain items.
This overlap apparently occurred for methodological and
perceptual reasons.
On the methodological level, respon
dents were only given blank lines for listing current or

past losses and gains.
The lack of structure provided
the opportunity for presentation of a broad range of items,

as opposed to a forced response to a predetermined list of
items.
On the psychological level, the open-ended q ues
tions allowed for the possible difficulty in separating

the personal from professional dimensions.
The repetition
between the personal and professional loss and gain items

seems to confirm this possibility.
One subject even noted
that personal and professional were inseparable.
The
effect of this overlap on the strength of the variable

score is undetermined, but the duplication increases the
breadth of the different personal and professional loss
and gain lists.
The respondents at the College of Public and Urban
Affairs described their past and current personal losses
in such terms as the general atmosphere of their old units,
61
the close contacts,
the esteem of peers, and the emphasis
on academic quality and autonomy.
On a professional level,
the respondents noted their current and past losses occurred

in such areas as salary, tenure and promotion opportunities,
recognition,
identity, and academic quality.
Although some respondents noted personal and profes

sional contacts as a loss, others listed new and better
contacts as current and past personal and professional
gains.
Also noted as personal gain items were job changes,
new leadership,
increase in or attainment of departmental
status, and curricular or program changes.
Professional
gain items included new job, increased program acceptability

or status, better work environment, and greater organiza
tional strength, autonomy and efficiency.
Merger reasons.
In addition to the loss and gain
items, respondents listed what they perceived to be the

current and past reasons for the merger.
These reasons
were also collected in an open-ended manner similar to the

loss and gain items, and are reported in Appendix I by
categories suggested by related or identical items.
As
with the loss and gain items, the current and past merger
reasons were quite similar to each other.
Mostly,
the
items listed as reasons for the merger pointed to organiza

tional effectiveness and leadership factors, economics and
organizational politics.
Emotional responses.
The current and past emotional
responses to the merger is the final data set reported for

this site.
Table 8 lists each item of the Adjective Check
list, the number of times it was selected, and the change

in the number of nominations from the past to the current
time frame.
Also listed in parentheses next to each work
are code numbers representing grief categories in which

each of the adjectives was placed as a result of the r e
view panel process.
The adjectives give a general picture of the range of
the emotional reactions at each time period.
This emo
tional range was similar between the two time frames.
It
included negatively connotative emotions such as "helpless,

"mad," "mean," or "hostile," neutrally connotative emotions
such as "indifferent," and positively connotative emotions
such as "happy" or "light-hearted."
The change in the frequency of nomination of an adjec
tive from one time period to another indicates a possible
shift in emotions over the duration of the change.
College of Public and Urban Affairs,
At the
16 adjectives had
fewer nominations in the current time frame than for the

past.
Fourteen of these adjectives represented grief stage
of Denial, Anger, Bargaining and Depression.

Nineteen of the adjectives had more nominations in the
current time frame than in the past.
Fourteen of these
adjectives represented the grief stages of Denial, Depres

sion and Acceptance.
63
Table 8
(N = 22)
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Current
nominations
Past
nominations
Difference
(current-past)
2
2
1
2
-1
2
3
5
0
-1
-4
3
13
9
3
3
8
6
0
5
3
-6
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool (1)
Cross(2)
Depressed(4)
8
3
1
-
1
1
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
4
8
-
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(1,4)
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
Fearless(1,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
8
1
-1
-1
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
7
9
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,4)
2
1
1
3
-
1
1
-3
-1
table continues
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Jealous(2)
Joyful
Kindly(5)
Light-hearted
Lonely(4)
Mad(2)
Mean(2)
Miserable(4)
Nervous(3)
Numb (1)
Overconcerned
Overwhelmed(4)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
S a d (4)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Serious(3,3)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(4)
Steady(5)
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcerned{1)
Uneasy(3)
Upset<2,4)
Warm(5)
Worrying(3)
*1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Current
nominations
Past
nominations
Difference
(current-past)
4
4
5
-
1
4
1
3
-
-1
0
3
2
-
2
1
3
1
-1
0
3
-
-3
-
1
8
10
_
2
4
1
6
6
1
9
-
1
7
1
_
0
2
-1
4
1
4
1
0
0
9
2
1
4
3
-1
5
-1
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
-1
0
2
-1
65
These differences in frequency of nomination of the
adjectives seem indicative of a general movement from
the stages of Denial, Anger, Bargaining and Depression to
the stage of Acceptance.
Furthermore, while it appears
that the adjectives categorized as representative of the

Denial stage had more nominations in the current time
frame than the past,
these adjectives could also be seen
as reflecting a lack of emotional involvement or concern.

If this is the case,
these respondents possibly perceived
no personal or professional effects of the event and thus

selected the adjectives denoting disinterest.
General b a c k g r o u n d .
The University of West Florida,
established in 1963 as a senior- and graduate-level institu

tion, graduated its first students in 1967.
It is currently
a member institution of the Board of Regents of Florida and

maintains satellite campuses at Panama City and ElginFt. Walton Beach (University of West Florida,
1982a).
The presidents of both the University of West Florida

and Pensacola Junior College advocated the unification of
these schools in order to expand the educational services
to the west Florida area.
sive regional university,
In their call for a comprehen

campus leaders established a
joint planning committee which produced a formal merger

planning document in October 1982
Florida, 1982b).
(University of West
66
This merger plan was rejected by the Postsecondary
Planning Commission of Florida because of fear that the
open access philosophy and services inherent in Pensacola
Junior College would not be vigorously protected in the
institution produced from the merger.
This apprehension
was also reflected in the tremendous rivalry between the

community and junior colleges, operated by the Florida
Board of Education, and the senior level colleges, o per
ated by the Florida Board of Regents
(W. Wharton, personal
communication, January 1983).

In January the Florida Board of Regents granted lower
division status to the University of West Florida.
This
status change was to be superseded by the merger proposal

upon its approval by the Board of Regents and the Florida
legislature.
Realizing that the necessary support from
the Board and the legislature would not be forthcoming,

however, the presidents of the two schools jointly w i t h
drew the merger proposal in March 1983.
Because the proposal for merger was withdrawn approxi
mately one month before the scheduled distribution of the
Change Assessment Package to the entire faculty, the pr e s i
dent of the University felt that the merger issue was far
too sensitive to risk the possibility of heightened turmoil
precipitated by the proposed research.
As a compromise, the
president agreed to permit the University's administrators

to participate in the study.
Of the 17 questionnaires sent
to these administrators, 11 (64.7%) were used for the p u r

poses of analysis.
67
The change statement used in the Change Assessment
Package for the University of West Florida reflected the
withdrawal of the unification proposal.
It was listed as
follows:
In October 1982 a formal plan for the unifica
tion of the University of West Florida and
Pensacola Junior College was co-operatively
produced by these two schools.
In early 1983
the unification proposal was withdrawn due to
lack of support.
The unification proposal withdrawal also altered the
change situation to which the respondents were to react
for the two different time periods.
responses,
For the current time
individuals assessed their perceptions of and
emotional reactions to the withdrawal of the unification

proposal.
For the second time frame, the respondents
anticipated their perceptions of and emotional reactions

to the unification of the University with Pensacola Junior
College,
should it ever become a reality in the unspecified
future.
Table 9 presents the descrip
tive statistics for the 12 variables for the Loss and Gain
Questionnaire.
The left half of the table lists the
statistics for the current withdrawal of the merger p r o

posal.
The right half presents the statistics for the
anticipated merger.
The variable means indicate that while the respon
dents viewed the withdrawal of the unification proposal
as a greater personal and professional gain than personal
68
Table 9
(N = 11)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Min i mum,Max imum)
.091
.091
1.0(0,1)
1.636
5.255
6. 0(0,6)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
1.091
4.891
6.0(0,6)
1.727
7.218
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
2.636
8.255
7.0(0,7)
.636
2.455
5.0(0,5)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum.Maximum)
3.091
8.291
7.0(0,7)
1.545
4.673
6.0(0,6)

Mean
Variance
Range (M in imum .Maximum)
2.545
8.473
8.0(0,8)
2.455
7.673
7.0(0,7)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum .Maximum)
4.909
8.891
8.0(0,8)
6.818
1.164
4.0(4,8)
69
and professional loss, just the opposite was the case for
their feelings of anticipated loss and gain.
The antic
ipated personal and professional loss means were greater

than the anticipated personal and professional gain means.
Furthermore,
the personal and professional loss means
were smaller for the current time frame than for the antic
ipated time frame.
Conversely,
the gain means were larger
in the current time frame than the anticipated time frame.

Although all of these means fell almost one point or more
below the moderate rating on each scale,
they apparently
point to a general interest in maintaining institutional

status quo.
The largest of the means
(6.818) was obtained for
the anticipated magnitude of the merger, with the current

magnitude of the proposal withdrawal yielding the next
largest mean (A.909).
While these mean scores were above
the moderate level on the magnitude scale,
the mean rat
ings for the positive personal value of the current and

anticipated time frames indicated that the respondents
attached somewhat less than moderate value to either of
the two change event configurations.
T-Values.
Table 10 presents the results of the t-test
computed for the 66 possible pairings of the 12 variables.

Twenty-four of these pairs were comprised of variables
which had statistically significantly different means
( = .05).
Of these 2k pairs, the anticipated change
Table 10
T-Values--University of West Florida

N 11
Degrees of Freedom * 10
Current
VI
VI
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
va
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
-1.45
-3.09
=.011
-3.32
=.008
-2.98
=.014
-5.17
=.000
-2.19
=.053
-1.96
=.078
-1.11
=.294
-2.14
-.058
-2.76
-.020
-22.11
-.000
-1.17
=.268
-1.69
=.122
-1.16
=.273
-3.97
=.003
- .49
=.635
- .53
=.608
1.24
=.242
-1.05
=. 320
-2.30
=.044
-7.27
=.000
Current
d -,176
Anticipated
Anticipated
V2
--
V3
--
--
= .33
=.749
.21
=.839
-1.74
=.113
1.55
=.153
.77
=.461
1.75
=.111
.94
=.367
.14
=.888
-4.53
=.001
V4
--
--
--
.41
=.689
-1.42
=.185
1.31
=.218
1.81
=.101
2.57
=.028
1.27
=.233
.48
=.641
-3.60
=.005
V5
--
--
--
--
--
-1.90
=.087
1.18
=.264
.71
=.493
1.75
=.111
.83
=.424
.07
-.944
-4.72
=.001
V6
--
--
--
--
--
3.03
=.013
2.89
=.016
4.88
=.001
3.59
=.005
2.27
=.047
-2.01
-.072
V7
--
--
--
- .11
=.914
1.05
=.319
.09
=.928
- .66
=.522
-6.09
=.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
1.04
=.323
.15
=.887
- .50
=.629
-5.32
=.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-2.32
=.043
-2.96
=.014
-10.57
=.000
V10
--
--
--
--
-~
--
--
--
-1.99
=.074
-7.13
-.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-4.86
=.001
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V5 Positive Personal
V6 ^ Change Magnitude
Value
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 - Personal Gain

V12 - Change Magnitude
vj
71
magnitude variable mean was statistically significantly
greater than the mean of every other variable except cur
rent change magnitude.
The current change magnitude
variable mean was statistically significantly greater than

the current personal and professional loss means, and all
anticipated variable means except for change magnitude.
As noted above, the current loss means were smaller
than the anticipated loss means, and the current gain
means were larger than the anticipated gain means.
Only 3 of the 28 pairs of these 8 different variables,
however, had means which were statistically significantly
different.
Current personal loss was statistically signif
icantly less than both current personal gain and current

professional gain.
Also, current professional gain was
statistically significantly greater than anticipated

personal gain.
These three pairs point to a perception of the current
merger proposal withdrawal as a greater gain than personal
or professional loss, and that the gain from the proposal
withdrawal was statistically significantly greater than
the gain anticipated from the merger of the two schools.
Another interesting aspect of the t:-test results
was the fact that of the six possible pairs of the four
loss and gain variables for the current time frame and the
six possible pairs for the anticipated time frame, two of
the six current pairs and one of the anticipated pairs
72
were significantly different.
These differences between
the means of the current personal loss and current personal

and professional gain seemingly indicate that a general
difference between loss and gain perceptions of the current
proposal withdrawal was not maintained for loss and gain
perceptions of the anticipated unification.
In addition to these loss and gain pair differences
within each time frame for each event, all four of the
loss and gain variables for the anticipated time frame were
statistically significantly less than the mean score rating
of the magnitude of the change event for the current time.
Although the majority of the means for all 12 v a r i
ables were low, the differences between the current loss and
gain variable pairs suggest that the proposal withdrawal
was seen more clearly as a personal and professional gain
than loss, but that these differences did not obtain with
the variables for the anticipated merger.
These findings,
combined with the fact that the anticipated magnitude mean

was statistically significantly greater than the means of
every other variable except the current magnitude variable,
are open to several interpretations.
In the first place,
these differences can be attributed to the fact that the

current and anticipated change events were quite different.
The current proposal withdrawal preserved the basic status
quo of the institution.
The anticipated merger promised
tremendous institutional change.
73
From another standpoint,
it is possible that the
differences obtained were due partially to the unknown c o n

figuration of the proposed merged institution.
This con
figuration had been developed jointly by both institutions,

but questions pertaining to the items such as promotions,
tenure, office space, leadership and student quality could
not be answered until the merger was actually completed
and its long-term effects could be assessed.
Even if the outcomes of the merger could be accurately
predicted, the lack of statistically significant different
means for the pairs of anticipated variables could indi
cate an inability to make loss and gain determinations
clearly until the event becomes a closer or clearer
reality.
It may also be the case that the event was in
and of itself not as qualitatively different and,
thus, not
as clearly negative or positive as was the proposal w i t h

drawal.
Alternatively,
the withdrawal of the proposal
could have precluded any serious effort on the part of the

respondents to separate out their losses and gains for an
event which they believed might never happen.
Table 11 presents
the intercorrelation matrix for the 12 variables of the

Loss and Gain Questionnaire.
Of the 24 pairs of variable
combinations which obtained statistically significant

difference < = .05), three of these pairs also had Pearson
correlation coefficients which were statistically
Table 11
Intercorrelation Matrix--University of West Florida
(N = 11)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
-.1636
-.631
.5037
-.114
-.3560
=.283
.6215
=.041
-.3236
=.332
-.0921
=.788
-.2132
=.529
-.1347
=.693
-.2371
=.483
-.1742
=.609
.3634
-272
V2
--
-.4664
=.148
-.1742
-.609
-.3036
=.364
.2743
=.414
.3479
=.294
-.3152
=.345
.8475
=.001
.7835
=.004
.7108
=.014
-.1600
-.638
V3
--
--
-.2736
=.416
.8751
=.000
-.0976
=775
.6764
=.022
-.0012
=.997
-.4100
=.210
-.1420
-.677
-.1028
=.764
.0088
=.980
V4
--
--
--
-.1497
=.660
-.0455
=.894
.0055
=.987
.5981
=.052
.0746
=.828
-.2658
=.429
-.2063
-.543
-.3805
=.248
V5
--
--
--
--
--
.0178
=.959
.5423
=.085
.0721
=.833
-.2372
=.482
-.2109
=.534
-.0958
-.779
.0984
=.773
V6
--
--
--
--
.0971
=.776
.1714
=.614
.3133
=.348
.3032
-.365
.2234
-.509
.0254
-.941
V7
--
--
--
--
.4045
=.217
-.3190
=.339
-.0771
=.882
-.3021
=.367
-.3125
=.349
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.2872
=.392
-.4367
=.179
-.5729
=.065
-.2949
=.379
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.8026
= .003
.6871
=.019
-.0430
=.900
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
.8396
=.001
-.0390
=.909
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.0030
=.993
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V4 - Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal
Value
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
VI0 - Professional Gain

VI2 = Change Magnitude
75
significant
(jd = .05).
These variable pairs included cur
rent personal loss and current positive personal value

current professional loss and anticipated positive personal
value, and anticipated personal gain and anticipated p r o
fessional gain.
Six other pairs of the total 66 variable pairs were
also statistically significantly correlated.
Current
professional loss was statistically significantly corre

lated with anticipated personal gain and with anticipated
value.
Should the respondents in the future assess the
proposal withdrawal as having a greater impact on profes

sional loss than previously assessed,
these same people
would possibly see the merger as having greater prof e s

sional gain and greater positive personal value than
previously assessed.
Should the respondents assess the situation in the
opposite manner, the reverse situation would occur as
indicated by the strength of the correlation coefficient
and as supported by the correlation of current personal
gain with current positive personal value and with antic
ipated personal loss.
It is expected that a future in
crease in the personal gain ratings associated with the

withdrawal of the unification plans would tend toward
increase in the assigned value of the merger proposal
withdrawal and increase in the perception of personal loss
in anticipation of the merger.
76
The remaining statistically significantly correlated
variable pairs were all within the anticipated time frame.
Anticipated personal gain was positively correlated with
both anticipated professional gain and anticipated positive
personal value.
Anticipated positive personal value was
also positively correlated with anticipated professional

gain.
The relationship among these variables indicates
that as the respondents'
assessment of personal gain,
professional gain, or the value of the merger change,
the
other two variables should tend to change in the same

direct i o n ,
Loss and gain li s t s .
A clearer understanding of the
perceived differences between the two change time situa

tions is obtained by examining the respondents'
gain lists.
loss and
Despite the overlap in items for the personal
and professional lists for the same dimensions of time,

these items represent the concerns the respondents had
about each change situation.
Appendix J contains the
specific current and anticipated loss and gain items

grouped by categories suggested by identical or similar
it e m s .
In evaluating the withdrawal of the merger proposal,
respondents recorded the items of professional contacts
and competition,
the opportunity to expand student ser
vices, and the possibility for professional advancement

as lost.
Gained on personal and professional levels were
77
job security, commitment to the university status of the
institution, retention of current leadership, maintenance
of the status quo, reduction in stress, and the develop
ment of a working relationship with Pensacola Junior College
during the creation of the merger proposal document.
What the respondents perceived as personal and profes
sional gains vis-a-vis the withdrawal of the merger p r o
posal were generally listed as anticipated losses should
the two institutions merge.
In addition to the elimination
of the status quo, the subjects anticipated that merger

would also mean a reduction in free time, the loss of the
vision and identity of the University, and loss of adminis
trative positions.
In a similar pattern, the current loss items were
generally included as potential gains should the merger
become a reality.
Subjects assessed the merger as promis
ing new contacts, new responsibilities and positions, and

opportunities for staff and program development.
Reasons for m e r g e r .
In their assessments of the
reasons for the proposal withdrawal and for the merger,

respondents tended to note that while the merger would
seem to promise educational, political and organizational
gains, the political climate dictated the proposal w i t h
drawal.
As listed in Appendix K, many of the reasons for
the unification included the development of a lower

division at the University,
the enhanced power of a larger
78
institution,
the goal of better service to students of the
local community and the Florida panhandle region, and in

creased efficiency through the elimination of unnecessary
program and service duplication.
According to the respon
dents, this proposal for merger, with its generally positive

possibilities, was withdrawn because merging a senior
institution and a junior or community college was in direct
conflict with the state educational and political norms,
that the legislative delegation from the Pensacola area
lacked the necessary political alliances to win approval
for the plan, and that the plan itself was poorly written
and promised to be too costly.
Emotional r e s p o n s e s .
The emotional responses tend to
support the loss and gain trends found in the respondents'

consideration of both events.
Table 12 lists these
responses by their frequency of nomination for both the

proposal withdrawal and the possible merger outcome.
In
the parentheses next to each item is the grief category

for the item as determined by the review p a n e l .
The adjectives with a frequency difference between
the time frames point to a possible emotional trend from
the withdrawal of the merger proposal to the possible
merger of the two institutions.
Eighteen of the adjec
tives had more nominations for the merger possibility than

for the proposal withdrawal,
seven adjectives had the
opposite pattern, and eight adjectives had an equal number

of nominations for both change situations.
79
Table 12
(N = 11)
Item {grief stage '

Current
code number*)
nominations
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(1,4)
Anticipated
nominations
Difference
(antic.-curr,)
-2
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(4)
-2
-1
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
-1
1
Fearless(1,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
3
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,4}
3
-
table continues
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Jealous(2)
Joyful
Kindly(5)
Light-hearted
Lonely(4)
M a d (2)
Mean(2)
Miserable(4)
Nervous(3)
Numb(1)
Overconcerned
Overwhelmed(4)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
Current
nominations
1
-
1
1
2
-
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(4)
Steady(5)
1
1
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcerned(1)
*1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
__
1
-
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
0
-
_
-
.2
1
-1
-1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
3
-
Rattled
Restless
Sad(4)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,4)
Warm (5)
Worrying(3)
Anticipated
nominations
2
_
3
-
4
-
1
2
1
0
1
1
_
1
2
-1
81
Twenty-two of the 33 adjectives nominated represent the
five grief stages.
Twelve of these adjectives had more
nominations for the merger possibility than for the proposal

withdrawal,
seven had fewer, and three had no difference.
Application of the grief stages reveals that should the

merger be enacted, the respondents would move from a general
feeling of Acceptance of the proposal withdrawal into the
different grieving stages of Denial, Bargaining and Depres
sion.
Further evidence for this is seen in the 11 nominated
adjectives not categorized in any of the grief stages.
The
four adjectives of "rattled," "shocked," "sentimental," and

"concerned" reflecting emotional states involving loss or
trauma had more nominations for the anticipated merger than
for the proposal withdrawal.
On the other hand, four of
these uncategorized adjectives had no difference between

the two lists, and only the adjectives of "friendly" and
"pleasant" had more nominations for the anticipated merger
than for the proposal withdrawal.
Because the adjective differences between the two
change situations were generally quite small, any statement
of trend is tentative, at best.
When combined with the
general loss and gain score relationships between the two

time periods,
the adjective differences suggest, however,
that the University of West Florida respondents had a

greater commitment to maintaining the University as a senior
institution than they did to merging with Pensacola Junior
College.
82
General background.
Pensacola Junior College was the
first junior college established in Florida under the

Junior College/Community College Board of Education.
It
was operated by the Escambia County Board of Education until

1968, when it came under the control of the newly-created
community college district made up of Escambia and Santa
Rosa counties.
Under the direction of this community col
lege district board, Pensacola Junior College has added two

satellite campuses at Milton and Warrington
Junior College,
(Pensacola
1982).
Because Pensacola Junior College was involved in the

merger proceedings with the University of West Florida,
the president of the College requested that the proposed
research follow the same terms agreed upon at the Univer
sity of West Florida.
Thus,
instrument distribution was
limited to 16 administrators at Pensacola Junior College.

Twelve
(75.0%) of these instruments were used for data
analysis.
The change statement used in this Change Assessment
Package was similar to the University of West Florida
statement.
It was listed as follows:
In October 1982 a formal plan for the unifica

tion of Pensacola Junior College and the
University of West Florida was co-operatively
produced by these two schools.
In early 1983
the unification proposal was withdrawn due to
lack of support.
83
Table 13 lists the descrip
tive statistics for each of the 12 variables of the Loss

and Gain Questionnaire.
The left half of the table lists
these statistics for current withdrawal of the merger p r o

posal, and the right half lists the statistics for antici
pated merger of the two institutions.
The bulk of the variable means were at the lower end
of the scale below the scale of 4 (moderate).
The 10
variables which fell below the moderate point on the scale

had means ranging from .583 for the current personal gain
to 3.250 for the current change magnitude.
The two
variables of anticipated change value and anticipated

magnitude had means above the moderate point on the sc a l e .
Despite these generally low m e a n s , the means for the
current time frame reveal that the 12 respondents generally
perceived the proposal withdrawal as a greater loss than
gain on both the personal and professional levels.
For
the anticipated merger, on the other hand, the respondents

rated the merger as a greater gain than loss on both the
personal and professional levels.
The value and magnitude variable means for the two
change events also support the interpretation that the
respondents generally saw the proposal withdrawal as p r e
cipitating less gain and greater loss than the anticipated
merger of the two institutions.
The respondents on average
rated the proposal withdrawal as a less than moderate
84
Table 13
(N = 12)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
1.833
3.970
5.0(0,5)
1.083
2.992
5.0(0,5)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,M a x i m u m )
2.167
4.879
6.0(0,6)
.750
2.205
5.0(0,5)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
.583
2.265
5.0(0,5)
2.667
4.424
6.0(0,6)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
.917
4.992
7.0(0,7)
2.917
3.720
6.0(0,6)

Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum, Maximum)
1.167
3.061
4.0(0,4)
4.500
7.727
8.0(0,8)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
3.250
7.477
7.0(0,7)
5.833
3.788
7.0(1,8)
85
change (x = 3.25) having minor positive personal value.

The anticipated merger, however, was rated on average as
almost halfway between a moderate and a considerable change
having more than moderate positive personal value.
reflected in these ratings,
As
the withdrawal of the merger
proposal was apparently an unacceptable event when com

pared to the possibilities the respondents perceived would
occur should the two institutions merge.
T-Values.
The observed differences and interpreted
preference for merger are further supported by the t^-test

results presented in Table 14.
Twenty-six of these 66
pairs contained means which were statistically significantly

different from each other
( = .05).
Ten of these pairs
contained the variable of anticipated change magnitude,

which was statistically significantly greater than the
means of every other variable except anticipated positive
personal value.
The anticipated positive personal value
mean was the statistically significantly greater mean in

7 of the 26 p a i r s , but was not statistically significantly
different from the means of the current and anticipated
change magnitude, and anticipated personal and professional
gain.
Four of the nine remaining statistically significantly
different variable pairs provide further justification for
speculating that the respondents were more inclined to
support the merger of the two institutions than they were
Table 14
T-Values--Pensacola Junior College
N - 12
Degrees of Freedom = 1 1
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
-.59
=.570
1.67
=.124
1.02
=.330
.85
=.412
-1.79
=.101
1.04
=.319
1.44
=.178
-1.60
=.137
-2.00
=.071
-2.86
=.015
-4.38
=.001
V2
--
1.97
=.074
1.29
=.224
1.20
=.256
-1.50
=.162
1.17
=.266
1.71
=.116
-.75
=.470
-1.19
=.258
-2.76
=.019
-4.63
-.001
V3
--
--
-.80
=.438
-1.13
=.281
-3.55
=.005
-1.20
=.256
-.62
=.551
-2.57
=.026
-2.95
=.013
-3.74
=.003
-9.07
-.000
V4
--
--
--
--
-.56
=.586
-2.95
=.013
-.30
=.772
.38
=.713
-1.76
=.106
-2.03
=.067
-2.86
-.015
-7.49
=.000
V5
--
--
-2.77
=.018
.15
=.884
.89
=.392
-1.70
=.118
-1.99
=.072
-3.10
-.010
-8.02
-.000
V6
--
--
--
2.29
=.042
3.04
=.011
.75
=.472
.40
=.698
-1.18
-.263
-3.26
-.008
V7
--
--
1.30
=.220
-1.74
=.109
-2.03
=067
-2.90
=.014
-5.74
-.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
-2.21
=.049
-2.55
-.027
-3.42
=.006
-7.88
-.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
-1.00
=.339
-1.98
=.074
-4.36
=.001
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-1.70
=.118
-4.10
=.002
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-1.37
=.197
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain

CO
O'
87
to support the withdrawal of the proposal.
The antic
ipated personal and professional gain scores were both

statistically significantly greater than the current p e r
sonal gain score and the anticipated professional loss
scores.
In the intercorre
lation matrix in Table 15, only 9 of the 66 variable pairs

contained means which were statistically significantly
correlated
( = .05).
Eight of these pairs were positive,
and a ninth variable pair of anticipated personal loss and

anticipated positive personal value was negative.
None of
the eight positively correlated pairs obtained statistically

significantly different means, but the negatively corre
lated pair means were also statistically significantly
different
( = .014).
The strength and the sign of the correlation coeffi

cients provide still further support of the difference
between the two change events.
Furthermore,
several of
these pairs point to a somewhat strong relationship between

the personal and professional dimensions of the separate
loss and gain variables.
Four of the statistically significant correlation
pairs consisted of one current time frame variable and one
anticipated time frame variable.
Current personal loss
and anticipated personal gain were positively correlated.

In addition, current personal gain was positively
Table 15
Intercorrelation Matrix--Pensacola Junior College
<N = 12)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
V2
Anticipated
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
VB
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
--
.5646
=.056
-.0859
=.791
-.0851
=.793
-.0435
=.893
.3588
=.252
.1099
-.734
-.1076
=.739
.6146
=.033
.5402
=.070
.1149
=.722
-.2891
=.362
V2
--
-.0866
=.789
-.1443
=.655
-.0549
=.865
.5042
=.095
-.3133
=.321
-.1802
=-575
.4240
=.170
.4517
=.140
.3257
=.302
.1339
-.678
V3
--
.7727
=.003
.4086
=.187
.3590
=.252
.6082
=.036
.8035
=.002
-.1914
=.551
-.2636
-.408
-.3803
=.223
.3466
-.270
V4
--
--
.7248
=.008
.4055
=.191
.5429
=.068
.7330
=.007
-.2579
=.418
-.3393
-.281
-.4903
=.106
.4146
-.180
V5
--
--
--
--
--
.3896
=.211
.3855
=.216
.5075
=.092
-.2553
=.423
-.3727
=.233
-.3178
=.314
.4094
-.186
V6
--
--
--
--
-.0240
=.941
.1959
=.542
.3951
=.204
.2629
-.409
.1136
=.725
.3502
=.264
V7
--
--
.8583
=.000
-.3415
=.277
-.4610
=.132
-.6144
=.034
-.2115
=.509
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.3784
=.225
-.4841
=.111
-.5396
=.070
.1730
=.591
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
.9113
=.000
.1555
=.629
.2295
=.473
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.0933
=.773
.1897
=.555
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
.0168
=.959
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain

00
00
89
correlated with both anticipated personal loss and antic
ipated professional loss.
Finally, current professional
gain and anticipated personal loss were positively

correlated.
The statistically significant correlations indicate
that should the respondents change their estimates of
loss and gain in the current change status, those antic
ipated time frame variables with which they are statis
tically significantly correlated would tend to be rated
in the same direction, the size of the rating depending
upon the correlation coefficient.
Because the current
personal l o s s , current personal gain and current profes

sional gain variables were positively correlated with
anticipated loss and gain variables,
the two change events
can be said to be viewed by the respondents as different

and somewhat opposite in attractiveness as measured by the
loss, gain and value variables.
Change in a perception of
loss vis-a-vis the proposal withdrawal would be accompanied

by a proportionate change in the perception of gain vis-avis the merger.
Similarly, change in the perception of
gain in terms of the proposal withdrawal would be accom

panied by a proportionate change in the perception of loss
vis-a-vis merger completion.
The remaining five statistically significantly
correlated variable pairs each contained means within the
same time frame.
Current professional gain was positively
90
correlated with current personal gain and with current
positive personal value.
Anticipated personal loss was
positively correlated with anticipated professional loss,

and negatively correlated with anticipated positive p e r
sonal value.
Also, anticipated personal gain was pos i
tively correlated with anticipated professional gain.

These positive correlations may be symptomatic of
the inability of some respondents to distinguish between
the personal and professional levels of what they p e r
ceived they were losing, what they were gaining, or
between what they perceived they gained and what they
estimated as the positive personal value of the change
event.
Loss and gain items.
The loss and gain means for
both change situations demonstrated that the proposal w i t h

drawal was generally seen as a greater loss than gain,
and that the merger was seen as a greater gain than loss.
Additionally, the merger was seen as a greater gain and
a lesser loss than the proposal withdrawal.
The loss and
gain items of the respondents reflect this numerical

trend, particularly since the loss and gain items for
the proposal withdrawal were often listed in opposite
categories for the anticipated merger time frame.
These
loss and gain items are listed in Appendix L in categories

suggested by the items which were duplicated or closely
related.
91
The similarity between the personal and professional
items generally held for the loss and gain lists, possibly
indicating a difficulty in separating out loss and gain
along personal and professional dimensions.
The clearest
separation between personal and professional items was

found for those items pertaining to the status of the
institution and its involvement with the community and the
Florida higher education system.
Personal losses resulting from the proposal w i t h
drawal were in terms of lost opportunities for greater
financial reward,
experiences.
for advancement in jobs, and for new
On the professional level, similar losses
were listed, including the opportunities for increased

authority and prestige, for university status and the
attendant advancement potential, and for intellectual
stimulation and pursuit.
Personal gains obtained with the occurrence of the
proposal withdrawal were the status quo for roles, respon
sibilities and positions, as well as community recognition
for the unification efforts.
Professional gains were in
terms of continuation of viable vocational p r o g r a m s , p r o

fessional opportunities, and professional rank and status.
Should the merger of the two institutions become a
reality, the personal and professional gains obtained
from the proposal withdrawal were, for the most part,
listed as losses, just as the personal and professional
92
losses obtained in the proposal withdrawal were listed as
gains.
On a personal level, respondents listed involvement,
position comfort and their positions as potential loss items

should the merge occur.
On the professional level, losses
were anticipated in the areas of position security and flexi

bility, the functions of the college, and the college staff.
While some respondents assessed the merger in terms
of potential loss of position, others saw it as an oppor
tunity for personal gains in status, income and employment
level.
Included in these professional gain items were
anticipated increases in prestige and position, position

status and salary, a unified approach to higher education
in the West Florida area, and better utilization of the
facilities and faculties of the two institutions.
Reasons for m e r g e r .
reasons for the merger
Participants listed a variety of
(Appendix M ) .
Included were items
such as the attempt to create a university in the northwest

Florida area and all the enhanced opportunities which that
implies, the solution of enrollment problems at both
institutions,
the broadening of program offerings
(espe
cially those typically based at a community or junior

college), and the general economic and programmatic
efficiencies anticipated from the merger.
Respondents often cited political, economic and
conceptual problems as reasons for the merger proposal
93
withdrawal.
The lack of community and legislative support,
the economic constraints of the local and state environ

ments , and the unprecedented proposal for merger of two
units of two structurally and ideologically separate higher
education systems were seen as causing the withdrawal.
Also cited were leadership problems, lack of institutional
commitment, and an ill-conceived plan.
Emotional r esponses.
The patterns apparent in the
variable means for both time periods were not as clear for
the emotional responses.
Table 16 presents the Adjective
Checklist, the grief category, the frequency of nomination

for each adjective for each time frame, and the frequency
difference between the two time frames for each item.
Because 29 of the 36 adjectives selected by the respondents
were also in at least one of the grief categories, these
categories were useful in guiding the examination of the
emotional response patterns.
Respondents nominated more adjectives in the first
four grief stages of Denial, Anger, Bargaining and Depres
sion for the anticipated merger than for the proposal
withdrawal.
While this apparently reflects movement into
the grief stages should the merger occur, the adjectives

nominated in the Acceptance stage, the word "cheerful" in
the Denial c a t e g o r y , and the items not categorized paint
a slightly different picture of the situation.
The great
est differences between the two time frames were found for
94
Table 16
(N = 12)
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(1,4)
2
-
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(l)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
7
1
3
6
5
5
-1
4
2
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(A)
.
1
3
-
3
-1
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
Fearless(l,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
_
-
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,4)
1
1
-1
1
-
1
-
1
-
-1
-
-1
2
table continues
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Jealous(2)
Joyful
Kindly(5)
Light-hearted
Lonely ( A)
M a d (2)
Mean(2)
Miserable(A)
Nervous(3)
Numb(1)
Overconcerned
Overwhelmed(A)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
2
-
i
i
-
_
-
A
2
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(A)
Steady(5)
1
5
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcerned(l)
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
_
-
1
-
i
6
-3
1
1
1
1
8
-
*1.
2.
3.
A.
5.
-1
1
-
Rattled
Restless
Sad(A)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,A)
Warm(5)
Worrying(3)
_
i
-
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
-A
2
1
5
1
1
0
1
5
-
1
1
-
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
0
A
-
96
these adjectives.
For example,
the adjective "secure"
was nominated eight times for the proposal withdrawal, and

was nominated four times for the merger.
Similarly,
the
adjective "peaceful" was nominated four times for the w i t h

drawal and once for the merger.
Conversely,
the Acceptance
adjectives of "warm" and "contented" were each nominated

three times for the merger, but received no nominations
for the proposal withdrawal.
Despite the review panel placement of the adjective
"cheerful" in the Denial category,
its nomination five
times for the merger as opposed to once for the proposal

withdrawal could indicate genuine delight in the prospect
of merging the two institutions.
Furthermore,
the majority
of the nominated adjectives not categorized by a grief

stage were positive
(e.g., "happy," "glad") and had gener
ally more nominations for the merger than for proposal

withdr a w a l .
These seemingly contradictory differences between the
two adjective lists apparently indicate that should the
merger be enacted as proposed, a greater sense of grieving
would occur than existed with the withdrawal of the m e r
ger proposal.
Simultaneously, however, there would be a
greater acceptance of the merger plan.
While it may be
true that there was greater acceptance for the merger plan
than for its withdrawal,
was unknown.
the final outcome of the merger
Merger would mean elimination of the status
97
quo, which for some respondents was described as a definite
loss.
It would also portend situations which could have
both beneficial and detrimental consequences as yet unde

fined.
These situations were probably seen in the current
time frame as traumatic because of their ambiguity.

General b a c k g r o u n d .
In 1965 the Alabama legislature
passed the Indigent Care Act creating the Indigent Care

Fund.
Based on county sales and liquor tax revenues,
this
fund provided the financial base for public health care

in Jefferson County (Birmingham).
By October 1972 the
Cooper Green Hospital was opened for operation under the

auspices of the Jefferson County Commission.
In 1973 a panel on hospital administration recommended
administrative changes in order to protect the hospital
from politicization by the county commission.
to this report,
In response
the commission approved the establishment
of the Cooper Green Hospital Board of Trustees to oversee

the hospital's daily operations.
By 1980 highly sensitive and controversial political
and economic issues began to emerge.
Accordingly,
several
studies of the hospital were sponsored by different groups

interested in the control, philosophy and financial w e l l
being of the hospital.
Over the next 3 years a series of
complex events led the county commission to decide that

the only way to control what it perceived as spiraling
98
costs,
increasing debts and management problems of the
hospital was to either regain control of its medical ser

vices or to divest itself of any interest in the hospital.
In a move to regain control in March 1983, the county com
mission voted to abolish the Board of Trustees of Cooper
Green Hospital.
In protest of this vote and in anticipa
tion of its implementation,
the Board of Trustees resigned
(Charles Breaux, personal communication, April 1983).

Sixteen of the 20 (85.0%) instruments distributed to
the administration and staff at Cooper Green Hospital
were used for data analysis.
The change statement for
this site was as follows:

Several weeks ago the Cooper Green Hospital
Board of Trustees resigned in response to a
decision by the county commission to dis
solve the hospital corporation.
tive statistics for each variable for the 16 completed

questionnaires from Cooper Green Hospital.
The left half
of the table lists these statistics for the reactions to

the current resignation of the hospital's board of trustees.
The right half presents the statistics for the reactions
to the projected final outcome of the board's action.
The respondents on average rated the board's resigna
tion as a greater personal loss and professional loss than
personal gain or professional gain.
They also rated the
future anticipated outcome of the board's resignation as a

greater personal loss and professional loss than the current
99
Table 17
(N = 16)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
2.313
4.496
5.0(0,5)
3.875
7.850
7.0(0,7)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
3.563
6.396
7.0(0,7)
4.250
6.733
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Rang e (Min i m u m ,Max imum)
.688
1.829
4.0(0,4)
1.750
5.533
7.0(0,7)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
.750
2.333
5.0(0,5)
1.875
4.783
7.0(0,7)

Mean
Variance
1.250
5.133
8.0(0,8)
2.625
6. 783
8.0(0,8)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
4.625
7.317
8.0(0,8)
6.063
2.462
5.0(3,8)
100
situation.
Similarly,
they viewed the anticipated outcome
of the change as promising greater personal gain and pro

fessional gain than the current gains resulting from the
resignation.
All of the current and anticipated gain means, however,
were lower than the smallest loss mean, possibly reflecting
the strong negative short-term and long-term effects of the
board's resignation.
On the other hand,
the anticipated
gain means were larger than the current gain means, possi
bly denoting a perception that despite the estimated larger
future losses,
some gains might be realized, which would
make the current board's resignation more palatable.

This possibility of an encouraging future at the h o s
pital is reflected further in the differences between the
value and magnitude means.
The respondents on average
rated the board's resignation as having approximately

minor positive personal value and as being a slightly more
than moderate change.
In their projections of the out
comes of the resignation,
the participants on average
anticipated the results as having a positive personal

value as almost halfway between minor and moderate, and
as being a change with a magnitude rating almost halfway
between moderate and considerable.
The larger anticipated variable means scores are open
to several interpretations.
On the surface, the means
might mirror a general sense that any future situation,

despite its increased losses, would bring greater gain
101
and positive personal value than the current situation.

This interpretation is strengthened in considering the
possibility that respondents may have viewed the unknown
future as more attractive or promising than the turmoil
and uncertainty surrounding the recent resignation of the
board of trustees.
Furthermore, because the participants
were asked to rate an anticipated future outcome which

was partially a product of their own imagination,
the
larger scores for the anticipated variables may reflect

a future in which the respondents would accept an increase
in losses to obtain the greater gain promised from what
they imagined as a greater structural change.
T-Val u e s .
The interpretation that the future of the
hospital as imagined by the respondents was more accept

able than the present is not clearly defensible, however,
in light of the t-test results presented in Table 18.
The 37 variable pairs which were statistically significantly
different from each other
( = .05) are discussed below.
In 11 of these 37 pairs,
mean was the larger mean.
the anticipated magnitude
The current magnitude mean,
the second largest mean of the 12 variables, was statis

tically significantly greater than the means for current
personal loss, current personal and professional gain,
current positive personal value, and anticipated personal
and professional gain.
Of the remaining 21 variable pairs, current personal
gain was statistically significantly less than current
Table 18
T-Values--Cooper Green Hospital
N = 16
Degrees of Freedom = 1 5
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
V12
VI
-1.85
=.083
3.10
=.007
2.82
=.013
1.42
=.177
-3.20
=.006
-2.09
=.054
-2.28
=.037
.88
=.392
.68
=.504
-.38
=.712
-7.44
=.000
V2
--
--
4.60
=.000
4.63
=.000
2.32
=.035
-1.48
=.158
-.38
=.707
-.92
=.371
2.08
=.055
1.93
-.073
.90
=.381
-3.60
-.003
V3
--
-.14
=.887
-1.01
=.327
.584
=.000
-3.70
=.002
-4.14
=.001
-2,35
=.033
-2.89
=.011
-3.34
=.005
-10.60
-.000
V4
--
--
--
--
-.66
=.517
-5.35
=.000
-4.10
=.001
-5.27
=.000
-1.46
=.164
-1.75
-.101
-2.37
-.031
-10.17
-.000
V5
--
--
-4.01
=.001
-2.51
=.024
-2.93
=.010
-.83
=.422
-1.00
-.333
-2.76
=.015
-6.85
=.000
V6
--
--
--
--
.85
=.409
.38
=.710
3.11
=.007
2.98
=.009
1.95
=.070
-2.30
=.036
V7
--
-.68
=.509
2.22
=.042
2.00
=.064
1.10
=.289
-3.45
=.004
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2.60
=.020
2.33
=.034
1.44
=.172
-2.75
=.015
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.42
=.684
-1.96
=.069
-7.23
=.000
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-1.73
-.104
-7.32
=.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-4.29
=.001
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain

102
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
103
personal and professional loss, current change magnitude,
and all six anticipated time frame variables.
Current pro
fessional gain was statistically significantly less than

the same variables except for anticipated personal and
professional gain.
Anticipated personal loss, on the other hand, was
statistically significantly greater than anticipated per
sonal gain.
Anticipated professional loss was statistically
significantly greater than current personal loss and antic

ipated personal and professional gain.
Thus, while it
appears that the unknown outcomes of the change processes

seemed to hold promises of greater gains than the current
change situation,
the future gains were generally signif
icantly less than both the anticipated personal and profes

sional losses associated with the change outcomes.
The future of Cooper Green Hospital held significantly
greater value and gain than the current value and gain, but
the projected losses were statistically significantly
greater than the current or projected gains.
These antic
ipated losses, however, generally were not statistically

significantly greater than the current losses.
These
statistically significantly different mean pairs seem to

indicate a dilemma or ambivalence inherent in the respon
dents' assessments of the current situation.
While the
respondents scored the board's resignation as a statis

tically significantly greater loss than gain, the future
held a promise for losses and gains which were both seen
104
as greater than the current change situation.
The differ
ence between these means could be
terms of the
explained in
realization that despite the perceived loss with the board's

resignation,
the situation may have been necessary for in
creased gain in the future.
Other explanations could be
the turmoil of the current situation,
the uncertainty of
the future, or the combination of
both factors which p r e
vented a clear differentiation in
the minds of
the
respondents.
Of the 66 variable
mean pairs presented in Table 19, eight had statistically

significant Pearson correlation coefficients
( = .05).
Three of these eight pairs add support to the argument

that the current change may have been necessary for the
future progress of the hospital.
More specifically,
these
statistically significant correlated pairs indicate that

as the perceived value and perceived personal gain of the
current situation change,
the anticipated personal and
professional gain and value ratings would change propor

tionately in the same direction.
The five remaining statistically significant correla
tion pairs were within the anticipated time frame.
Statis
tically significant positive correlations were obtained

for personal and professional loss, personal and profes
sional gain, personal gain and positive personal value,
and professional gain and positive personal value.
Additionally, a relatively strong negative correlation
Table 19
Intercorrelation Matrix Cooper Green Hospital
(N = 16)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
.3380
=.200
.3385
=.200
.2933
=.270
.0659
=.808
.3008
=.258
.2876
=.280
-.0273
-.920
.3509
=.183
.2965
=.265
.0226
=.934
.4345
=.093
V2
.2887
=.278
.3667
=.162
-.3869
=139
.4032
=.121
.2552
=.340
.3225
=.223
-.0196
=.943
-.0949
=.727
-.3100
=.243
.1417
-.601
V3
--
--
.2824
=.289
.3318
=.209
.2574
=.336
-.2925
=.272
-.4702
=.066
.6444
=.007
.6621
-.005
.4566
=.075
.0412
=.880
V4
--
--
-.2312
=.389
.1533
=.571
.1013
=.709
.2523
=.346
.0557
=.838
.0698
-.797
-.1089
=.688
.0904
=.739
V5
--
--
--
--
--
.0925
=.733
-.3518
=.181
.4196
=.106
.4503
=.080
.3700
-.158
.6722
=.004
-.0422
.877
V6
--
--
--
--
--
--
.1781
=.509
-.1187
=.661
-.0681
=.802
-.1324
=.625
-.1916
-.477
.4142
=.111
V7
--
--
--
.6648
=.005
-.0961
=.723
-.2747
=.303
-.4180
=.107
.4416
=.087
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.2075
=.441
-.4523
=.079
-.5179
-.040
.2742
=.304
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
.8617
=.000
.7454
=.001
.3115
=.240
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.7520
=.001
.2938
=.269
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.1244
=.646
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
V10 - Professional Gain

105
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
106
was obtained for anticipated value and professional loss.
The relationship between each of these variable pairs
could be a result of such factors as the unclear future
of the hospital,
the control which the respondents have
over their projected scenarios, or the inability to

separate out personal and professional levels of loss
or gain.
These relationships may also reflect close
statistical, conceptual and psychological interdependence

of professional and personal levels of each variable and
of gain and value variables.
Loss and gain it e ms .
by the respondents for both time frames are presented in

Appendix N in categories suggested by identical or similar
items.
Compared with the gain items,
the current and
anticipated loss items indicate a relatively greater sense

of loss than gain in both time frames.
Respondents gener
ally noted that the commitment to quality health care for

indigent patients and the quality of the work environment
in general suffered in both situations.
More specifically, Cooper Green respondents listed
their current and anticipated personal and professional
losses in generally the same areas of career,
homes,
income,
indigent care services and ideals, quality medical
personnel, and professional contacts with the University of

Alabama Medical School house staff and the Cooper Green
Hospital peers.
107
The anticipated loss items were quite similar to the
current loss items in their content and the overlap of the
personal and professional categories.
Respondents pro
jected that the final outcome of the resignation would

result in losses in jobs, friends, hospital funding and
staff, the commitment and service to indigent care, the
elimination of the private clinic, and the personal and
professional contacts w i t h the hospital and with the
medical school house staff.
Many of the personal and professional gain items also
overlapped somewhat,
including items such as less structure
required for decision making, removal of the hospital from

the supervision of the county personnel board, and the sug
gestion by the medical school of the teaching value of the
hospital.
Current gains were listed in terms of the improvement
of the group cohesiveness in the approach to the common
problem of the b o a r d s dissolution.
were projected in peer relationships,
Anticipated gains
salary, position,
the possible association with a large national health care

organization, re-evaluation of personal and professional
commitments, and the possibility that the continued r e
study of the hospital would emphasize its past accomplish
ments and thus create a greater chance that recommendations
would be heeded in the f u t u r e .
108
Anticipated personal and professional gain categories
also overlapped.
These gain items included n e w fields of
study and academic concentration, more money, and n e w pos i

tions.
These gains were listed also by some respondents
as losses, as was the anticipated association with a large

private hospital management corporation.
Reasons and justifications for resignation of the board.
Appendix 0 lists the respondents'
reasons for the resigna
tion of the board of trustees and their perceptions of the

justifications for the reasons.
Items which were identical
or similar were grouped according to a common theme or topic.

Many of the respondents cited political power moves by the
county board of commissioners,
escalating costs and sal
aries, and management problems as reasons for the resigna

tion of the hospital board.
Also listed were items denot
ing value changes within the county commission and bigotry,

reasons which alluded to broader social, medical and
political changes or problems in the Birmingham area.
Considering cost, politics, bigotry and value changes as
a whole,
the problem of providing public indigent health
care in an era of economic recession and political retrench

ment or conservatism becomes most clearly perplexing.
Respondents generally noted that the attempts to c o n
trol the financial problems or health care delivery struc
ture/procedures were justifiable.
So, too, was the
political posturing by the county commission designed to
109
demonstrate to the public that the county commission was
concerned about the future of the hospital.
Others
observed, on the other hand, that such posturing was not

justified, particularly when personally motivated and
socially insensitive.
In addition,
they noted that the
board of trustees had no control over the declining rev

enues and that the true costs of indigent care delivery
by Cooper Green Hospital were actually less than the
private services available in the area.
Emotional resp o n s e s .
Table 20 lists the respondents'
emotional reactions to the resignation of the board of

trustees and to what they imagined as the final outcome
of this action.
Each adjective is listed with the fre
quency of its nomination for both time periods and the

difference between the current and anticipated nomi n a
tions.
Also listed in parentheses next to each adjective
are the grief stage(s)

The majority
selected by the review panel.
(45 out of 57) of those items listed in
at least one of the two time periods fell within one or

more of the grief categories.
The Denial and Acceptance
categories generally had a larger number of adjectives

nominated in the anticipated time frame than in the
current time frame.
The nominations in the categories
of Anger, Bargaining and Depression generally had more

nominations in the current time frame than in the antic
ipated time frame.
This pattern seems to indicate that
Table 20
(N = 16)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(1,4)
4
4
7
5
1
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
2
1
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(1)
Cross(2)
Depressed(4)
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
Fearless(1,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(l)
Insecure(3,4)
2
6
2
1
Diffei
(antic.-4
-2
-1
-3
4
3
2
2
8
2
2
2
2
-6
3
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
0
3
-1
-1
14
_
1
-
1
6
1
2
3
1
_
6
2
-1
3
-
-3
_
-1
2
-3
0
1
1
2
1
-5
0
4
1
5
1
1
-2
-5
table continues
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Jealous(2)
Joyful
Kindly(5)
Light-hearted
Lonely(4)
M a d (2)
Mean(2)
Miserable(A)
Nervous(3)
Numb(1)
Overconcemed
Overwhelmed(4)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
Sad(4)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn{4)
Steady(5)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
.
1
1
2
1
-1
1
2
-2
2
1
-
1
-
2
-
2
-1
-
2
1
-1
2
1
1
3
6
1
2
-1
-4
1
1
1
2
7
5
-
1
4
2
-3
4
2
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcerned(1)
-2
9
4
1
3
2
-
-6
-2
-1
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,4)
Warm(5)
Worrying(3)
7
4
4
5
1
3
-3
1
1
-1
*1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
4
-
112
resolution of the current change situation would precipi

tate fewer emotions categorized as Anger, Bargaining or
Depression, and more emotions categorized as Denial and
Acceptance.
The Denial and Acceptance emotions may
reflect the different reactions of different respondents

to the future.
Some may accept the possible future changes,
or some may anticipate a future so traumatic that the

initial grief stage of Denial could begin.
These Denial
items, on the other hand, may reflect genuine disinterest

to the point that Denial and Acceptance adjectives were
generally interpreted as the same.
The remaining 12 adjectives which were not placed in
a grief category support the interpretation that the
respondents generally accepted the future as they imagined
it.
Positive adjectives such as "friendly," "glad," and
"joyful" had more nominations for the anticipated time

than for the current time.
Negative adjectives such as
"fretful," "concerned," and "restless" had fewer nomina

tions in the anticipated time than in the current time.
What cannot be known from these adjectives is the possi
ble movement through the grief stages should the future
imagined outcomes be realized.
113
General ba c k g r o u n d.
Albany Junior College was created
as a result of an Albany-area study and local approval

of a bond issue financing the purchase of land and the
construction of buildings for a junior college.
In April
196 3 the College was approved as a unit of the University

System of Georgia.
By September 1966 over 600 students
began classes on the new Albany Junior College campus

(Albany Junior College,
1982).
Albany Junior College is located near Albany State

College, an historically black institution in the Albany
area.
The proximity of these two schools,
the similarity
of their structures, and the continued efforts to meet

federal desegregation guidelines contributed to the con
sideration of merging these state institutions.
By February 1983 the Board of Regents of the Univer
sity System of Georgia published The Eighties and B e y o n d :
A Commitment to Excellence, a needs assessment for public
higher education in Georgia.
This report directly ad
dressed the issue of merging Albany Junior College and

Albany State College as a method for eliminating "all
unnecessary program duplication"
(p. 17).
Additionally,
a merger would be a considerably important move toward

resolving the continuing desegregation issue.
Forty-five of the 85 (52.9%)
instruments distributed
to the faculty and administration at Albany Junior College
114
were used in data analysis.
The change statement for
this site was as follows:

The Board of Reg e n t s 1983 statewide needs
assessment for public higher education (The
Eighties and Beyond: A Commitment to Excel
l e n c e ) noted that consideration should be
given to the "establishment of single
institutions (in Albany and Savannah) or
the restructuring of the present institu
tions to eliminate all unnecessary program
duplication" (pp. 16-17).
This statement points directly to the possi
bility of the merger of Albany Junior Col
lege and Albany State College with each
other to form a single institution.
tive statistics for the loss, gain, value and magnitude

variables for the current and the anticipated time frames.
The left half of the table lists the statistics for the
45 respondents'
ratings of the announcement by the Board
of Regents of its consideration of a merger between Albany

Junior College and Albany State College.
The right half
of the table lists the statistics for the respondents'

ratings of the anticipated merger of the two institutions.
The variable means indicate that the respondents p e r
ceived the current situation as a greater personal and
professional loss than personal and professional gain.
The mean loss scores approached the moderate point on
the scale, and the mean gain scores fell below the minor
point on the scale.
Should the merger between Albany Junior College and
Albany State College be completed,
the respondents
115
Table 21
(N = 45)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
2.644
7.416
7.0(0,7)
4.089
7.265
7.0(0,7)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
3.244
9.007
7.0(0,7)
4.822
5.922
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
.867
1.936
5.0(0,5)
1.422
3.931
6.0(0,6)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range (Min imum .Maximum)
.844
1.9074
4.0(0,4)
1.200
3.073
6.0(0,6)

Mean
Variance
.689
1.674
7.0(0,7)
.844
2.089
7.0(0,7)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range (Min imum, Max imum)
2.067
3.836
8.0(0,8)
5.444
7.798
8.0(0,8)
116
anticipated that the merger would precipitate approxi
mately moderate personal loss and moderate professional
loss.
These loss means were greater than the anticipated
gain means,
Similarly,
as well as greater than the current loss means.

the completed merger was anticipated to be of
greater personal and professional gain than the current

change situation, indicative of perceptions that the
merger would bring with it greater losses, but also greater
gains than existed or were possible in the current situa
tion .
The value and magnitude variable means had the same
pattern as the loss and gain scores.
They, too, were
larger for the anticipated merger than for the current

time frame.
Similar also to the loss and gain scores, the
value and magnitude scores can be interpreted as indicative

of the general perception that the currently incomplete
change was seen as a smaller change of lesser value with
fewer losses and fewer gains than the anticipated merger.
The merger completion would bring greater change of greater
value and greater gain, but would also include greater
losses than what currently existed.
T - V alues.
Table 22 presents the results of the t-tests
of the differences between each of the 66 variable pairs

formed from 12 variables.
The 16 pairs which were not
statistically significantly different

cussed below.
(jd = .05) are dis
Table 22
T-Values Albany Junior College
N = 45
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
-2.08
E -043
4.57
=.000
4.16
=.000
4.38
=.000
1.38
=.174
-4.19
-.000
-.570
-.000
2.51
=.016
2.83
=.007
3.80
-.000
-5.99
-.000
V2
--
5.22
=.000
4.91
=.000
5.02
=.000
2.35
=.023
-2.07
=.044
4.31
=.000
3.26
=.002
3.46
-.001
4.52
-.000
-4.05
=.000
V3
--
--
--
.14
=.890
.85
=.400
-4.73
=.000
-7.28
=.000
-9.38
=.000
-1.84
-.073
-1.39
=.172
.11
-.910
-10.33
-.000
V4
--
--
.82
=.419
-3.97
=.000
-6.82
=.000
-8.67
-.000
-1.86
=.070
-1.63
=.110
.00
=1.000
-10.33
=.000
V5
--
--
-4.59
=.000
-7.26
=.000
-9.35
=.000
-2.40
=.021
-2.18
=.035
-1.31
=.197
-10.85
=.000
V6
--
--
-4.52
-.000
-6.44
=.000
1.83
=.074
2.62
=.012
3.89
=.000
-7.92
=.000
V7
--
--
--
-2.83
=.007
5.20
=.000
5.33
=.000
6.53
-.000
-3.16
=.003
V8
--
--
--
--
--
7.21
=.000
6.95
=.000
8.28
=.000
-1.38
=.175
V9
--
--
--
--
--
.78
=.441
1.97
=.056
-7.74
=.000
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
1.79
=.081
-8.90
E-.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
--

117
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
-10.35
-.000
118
Thirteen of these 16 pairs indicate that while all
the variable means were greater in the anticipated time
frame than in the current time frame,
the current p e r
sonal gain, professional gain, and positive personal value

means were each not statistically significantly different
from the anticipated time frame counterpart, nor were
they statistically significantly different from each
other in either time frame.
In addition,
the variable
pairs of current personal gain and anticipated profes

sional gain, current professional gain and anticipated
personal gain, and both current personal and professional
gain means and anticipated positive personal value were
not statistically significantly different.
Each of the three remaining nonsignificant variable
pairs contained either the current or anticipated m a g n i
tude variable mean as one of the pairs.
Current change
magnitude was not statistically significantly smaller

than current personal loss, and not statistically signif
icantly greater than anticipated personal gain.
An t i c
ipated change magnitude was not statistically significantly

I
larger than anticipated professional loss,
though it was
statistically significantly larger than every other

variable mean.
The Pearson corre
lation coefficients computed for each of the 66 variable

pairs are presented in Table 23.
Thirty of the 66 pairs
Table 23
Intercorrelation Matrix Albany Junior College
(H - 43)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
V2
V3
Anticipated
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
.7756
=.000
.3351
=.024
.1179
*.440
.0195
=.899
.3156
=.035
.6361
=.000
.5115
=.000
.0663
=.665
-.1324
=.386
-.0721
=,638
.3530
=.017
V2
.1930
=.204
.0204
-.894
-.1263
=.408
.1325
=.386
.5423
=.000
.6098
-.000
-.0941
-.539
-.3422
-.021
-.1849
-.224
.2091
-.168
V3
--
--
.6986
=.000
.4562
=.002
.5287
-.000
.0517
=.736
-.0206
=.893
.3174
=.034
.4957
=.001
.5771
=.000
.1150
=.452
V4
--
--
.5447
=.000
.2728
=.070
-.1366
=.371
-.2451
=.105
.2735
=.069
.5859
-.000
.6594
-.000
.1008
=.510
V5
--
--
--
.2864
=.056
-.1353
=.376
-.1912
=.208
.2739
=.069
.4991
=.000
.8365
-.000
.1146
=.453
V6
--
--
--
.1969
=.195
.1599
-.294
.2793
=.063
.2873
=.056
.2607
=.084
.3144
=.035
V7
.7751
-.000
-.0582
=.704
-.3069
=.040
-.2239
-.139
.4506
-.002
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.0171
=.911
-.3804
=.010
-.3376
=.023
.3363
=.024
V9
--
--
--
--
--
.4787
=.001
.3724
=.012
-.0388
=.800
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
--
.6674
=.000
.0650
=.671
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.1245
=.415
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain

119
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
120
obtained correlation coefficients which were statistically

significant
( = .05).
Seven of the significant correla
tions were for pairs consisting of two current variables,

9 were for pairs consisting of two anticipated variables,
and 14 were for pairs consisting of both a current and
anticipated variable.
All of the statistically significant correlations
for the current variable pairs were positive and ranged
from a low of .3156 < = .035) for current personal loss
and current change magnitude to a high of .7756 ( = .000)
for current personal loss and current professional loss.
Current personal loss was also statistically significantly
correlated with current personal gain.
Current personal
gain was statistically significantly correlated with cur

rent professional gain, current positive personal value,
and current change magnitude.
The final statistically
significant correlation coefficient between two current

variables was for current professional gain and current
While these relationships between the personal and
professional gain, value and magnitude variables were
generally of moderate strength and indicate the degree
of predictability of similar changes in scores among
these variables,
there were weak yet significant corre
lations between current personal loss and current personal

gain, and between current personal loss and current change
magnitude.
Despite the strength of the relationships
121
between magnitude and the positive aspects of the change

(i.e., gain, value),
increases or decreases in these
variables would occur in the same direction for negative,

or loss, aspects of the current situation.
ble, however,
alence,
It is impossi
to attribute these relationships to ambiv
to the fact that the current situation contained
both negative and positive aspects, or to some combination

of these and other factors.
Six of these anticipated pairs were positive and
generally weak, and three were negative and also weak.
Anticipated personal loss and anticipated professional
loss obtained the highest positive correlation coeffi
cient of anticipated pairs
(r = .7751; = .000).
Antic
ipated personal loss was also positively correlated with

change magnitude, and negatively correlated with profes
sional gain.
Anticipated professional loss and anticipated p r o
fessional gain had the lowest correlation coefficient of
the nine anticipated variable pairs.
Anticipated p r o
fessional loss was also negatively correlated with antic

ipated positive personal value and positively correlated
with anticipated change magnitude.
The remaining statis
tically significant correlations were obtained for

anticipated personal gain and anticipated professional
gain, anticipated personal gain and anticipated positive
personal value, and anticipated professional gain and
anticipated positive personal value.
122
These statistically significant correlations within

the anticipated time frame indicate that should the merger
occur, unlike the current time frame variables,
the loss
variables and the gain variables would tend to move in

opposite directions.
In this case, a change in loss would
be accompanied by a weak, proportionate opposite change

in gain.
In the current time frame both dimensions would
move in the same direction.
What appears to be the double-
edged sword of change in the current situation was perceived

more clearly as a loss or a gain situation for the future.
The unsettled present projected into the future merger
apparently became a bit more definitely a loss or gain
situation.
The coefficients of the statistically significantly
correlated variable pairs from both time frames ranged
from a low of -.3422
( = .021) for current professional
loss and anticipated professional gain, to a high of

.8365
( = .000) for current positive personal value and
anticipated positive personal value.
Thirteen of these
pairs consisted of identical or similar dimensions and

denote a fairly strong relationship between the two time
periods.
Current personal loss and current professional
loss were each positively statistically significantly

correlated wit h anticipated loss scores on both the
personal and professional levels.
The gain scores ob
tained a similar pattern, except that current professional

gain was significantly correlated with anticipated
123
professional gain, but not statistically significantly
correlated with anticipated personal gain.
Additionally,
current positive personal value and anticipated value,

and current magnitude and anticipated magnitude were
statistically significantly correlated.
Despite the interpreted possible ambivalence reflected
by the correlations and t - values, the generally strong
relationships between the similar or identical variables
in the different time dimensions demonstrate the degree to
which the future projections of loss and gain were based
upon the perceptions of the current situation.
As the
perceptions of loss, gain, value and magnitude of the cur

rent situation change,
so, too, proportionately and
generally fairly consistently across all variables would

these same dimensions for the anticipated variables.
What
remains to be seen or tested is how these statistical

relationships change over time.
merger is completed,
Also,
in the event that
the accuracy of the loss, gain, value
and magnitude projections should be examined.

Of the remaining statistically significant correla
tions with variables in both time periods,
anticipated
professional gain was negatively correlated with current

personal loss and positively correlated with current
Additionally, anticipated posi
tive personal value was positively correlated with current

personal gain and with current professional gain.
Finally,
anticipated magnitude was positively correlated with
124
current personal loss.
These five correlations further
support the interpretation of the general dependence of

the anticipated loss, gain, value and magnitude scores on
the scores of the current time frame counterparts.
The
positive correlations between the value and gain scores

between the two time dimensions denote a moderate rela
tionship between variables which are similar in their
generally positive interpretation of the change event.
The negative, although weak, relationship between cur
rent professional loss and anticipated professional gain
supports the current and anticipated relationship between
identical or similar variables from the opposite per
spective .
Loss and gain it e m s .
for both the current announcement of the considered m e r

ger and the anticipated merger reflect the general view
that the current loss was greater than the current gain,
and that the merger would bring a greater loss than what
was currently perceived, while the anticipated gains
would remain fairly stable.
Appendix P presents the
loss and gain items according to categories suggested

by similar or identical items.
The lists of personal and professional losses were
quite similar, with the same items often listed for both
personal and professional categories.
While it can be
argued that this overlap demonstrates an inability to

separate personal and professional levels,
it is possible
125
that this was due to the respondents' perceptions of the
merger as affecting them in very broad and intertwined
terms.
In addition, the combination of the highly volatile
issues of desegregation and the merger of institutions with

separate values and missions created an event pervading
both the personal and professional lives of the respondents
to such a degree that attempts to distinguish between these
dimensions were futile.
Current personal and professional losses ranged from
loss of academic autonomy, professional relationships, and
general physical and psychological comfort,
to loss of
position, decline in academic standards and a general

demise of community prestige, reputation and status.
Current gains were either in terms of the increase in
professional contacts through newly-established relation
ships with Albany State College or a commitment to m a i n
tain institutional cohesiveness.
as increased salary,
Projected outcomes such
the prestige of being associated
with a A-year institution, and the opportunity to broaden

teaching, research and service opportunities were also
listed in the current gain lists.
The anticipated merger losses and gains were quite
similar to the current losses and gains, possibly because
of the close relationship between the two change situa
tions.
Anticipated personal and professional losses were
listed in the areas of work control, relationships,
126
positions and community and professional status.
An t i c
ipated personal and professional gain items were recorded

in the areas of increased salaries, greater free time and
work flexibility, and the broadening of research and ser
vice opportunities.
Merger reasons and justifications.
sents the respondents'
Appendix Q pre
reasons for the merger and assess
ments of the justifications of the reasons.
Listed most
frequently as merger reasons were desegregation issues

and economic rationales for eliminating program duplica
tion or decreasing higher education delivery costs in the
Albany area.
Other reasons such as improving the quality
of education at both institutions and developing more

attractive learning opportunities for the Albany area
students were listed, but not as frequently as the racial
and economic reasons.
Many respondents listing justifications stated that
they did not believe the economic, racial and political
pressures for merger were justified.
Some felt that the
merger would not solve the problems of program duplication

since these were actually manifestations of financial
mismanagement at Albany State College.
Only with the
proper leadership for the new institution would the

economic reason for merger be justified.
Others noted
that the desegregation reasons for merger were politi

cally motivated and misdirected at one of the smaller
127
desegregation problems within the state university system.
In addition, the paradox of the mandate for desegregation
and the demand for preservation of historically black
institutions could not be solved through the merger of
the two schools.
On the other hand, a few respondents noted that
economic, racial, community and similar reasons were justi
fication enough for the change to occur.
institutional leadership,
Problems such as
educational and racial equality,
and the integrity of the historically black institutions

could also be resolved.
Those who saw the merger as
justified, however, were clearly the minority in this

research.
The Adjective Checklists also
support the general impression that the negative p e r c e p

tions of the current change would be intensified should
the merger be completed.
Table 24 presents the 69 items,
the grief category for each item selected by the review

panel, the frequency of nomination for each item in both
time periods, and the difference between the frequency
of nominations for each word in the two time frames.
The nominated adjectives reflect a wide range of emotional
responses to both change events, but the frequency dif
ferences between the two time periods, when analyzed wit h
the grief categories, reflect increased negative emotional
reactions should the merger occur.
128
Table 2A
(N - A5)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(2,A )
3
7
9
21
A
8
6
10
17
2
5
-1
1
-A
-2
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,A )
Concerned
A
12
1
1
35
10
11
2
A
27
6
-1
1
3
-8
1
A
1
A
3
1
6
1
11
2
1
2
1
7
1
7
15
2
7
11
15
2
5
-1
A
0
0
-2
Fearless(l,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(A)
Furious(2)
1
A
5
1
2
1
3
9
5
5
0
-1
A
A
3
Glad
Gloomy(A)
Grim(A)
Guilty(A)
Happy
2
3
7
3
6
9
1
3
2
0 .
1A
2
3
A
11
1A
6
A
3
19
Item {grief stage

code number*)
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(A)
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(l)
Discouraged(A)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,A )
Helpless(A)
Hopeless(A)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,A)
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
0
A
1
-1
8
table continues
Item (grief stage

code number*)
Jealous(2)
Joyful
Kindly(5)
Light-hearted
Lonely(4)
M a d (2)
Me a n (2)
Miserable(4)
Nervous(3)
Numb(1)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
0
0
1
1
1
4
1
1
11
1
7
4
3
3
4
-4
3
Overconcemed
Overwhelmed(4)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
1
1
4
2
2
4
3
6
3
2
3
2
2
1
Rattled
Restless
Sad(4)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
2
3
6
2
1
3
6
10
1
-
1
3
4
-1
-1
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(4)
Steady(5)
7
1
4
5
3
9
6
13
8
7
2
5
9
3
4
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcemed(l)
6
1
17
8
2
6
2
17
7
1
0
1
0
-1
-1
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,4)
Warm(5)
Worrying(3)
12
8
1
6
14
15
2
7
2
7
1
1
*1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
7
4
130
In their emotional responses more frequently nominated
for the anticipated merger than for the current situation,
the respondents registered the greater differences for
words in the three grief stages of Anger, Bargaining and
Depression, with the considerably smaller differences in
the stages of Denial and Acceptance.
Anger, Bargaining
and Depression emotions such as "bitter," "insecure," and

"depressing" had six, eight, and seven more nominations
respectively in the anticipated time frame than in the
current time frame.
The largest differences for the
stages of Denial and Acceptance were for the terms " dis
believing" and "steady," with four each.
Although the term "concerned" received eight fewer
nominations in the anticipated than in the current time
frame, the difference of nine more nominations for "shocked"
and seven more for "upset" in the anticipated than in the
current time frame reflected the tendency to view the merger
as emotionally negative.
the respondents'
Should the merger occur and if
predictions of their emotional reactions
hold true, the completion of the merger would be viewed

as a traumatic experience precipitating emotional reactions
similar to those found in the grieving stages of Anger,
Bargaining and Depression.
131
In addition to combining individual responses to
produce site profiles, the site data were combined in
several ways for comparing the variables along the dimen
sions of institutional type, change event type, and change
event timing or occurrence.
These dimensions were used
to generate the five analytic formats listed in Table 25.

Tables 26-30 present the means for these research
formats.
Because the sample sizes for each format were
quite small, comparisons were made on the basis of o b

served differences between these current and anticipated
time frame variable means.
Inspection of the variable differences shows that
all variable means generally were smaller in the current
time frame than the anticipated time frame.
This trend
was found for all research formats except in the three

instances discussed below.
For the four individual sites in Format 1, Pensacola
Junior College and the University of West Florida did not
maintain the pattern of differences.
At Pensacola Junior
College, personal and professional loss means were greater

in the current time frame than in the anticipated.
For
the respondents at Pensacola, the merger would precipitate

losses less than those estimated for the proposal w i t h
drawal.
At the University of West Florida, on the other
hand, the respondents rated the personal and professional
132
Table 25
Format 1--Individual Sites (4)

Format 2 Generic Institutional Type (2)

Postsecondary Institutions
Public Hospital
Format 3 Specific Institutional Type (3)

Junior Colleges
Senior College
Public Hospital
Format ^--Change Type {3)

Merger Proposal Withdrawal
Announced Consideration of Merger
Resignation of Board of Trustees
Format 5--Change Event Timing (2)

Recently Completed
Recently Anticipated
Table 26
Format 1 Means Comparison Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Individual Sites
Albany Junior
College (N - 45)
Cooper Green
Hospital (N - 16)
Pensacola Junior
College (N - 12)
University of West
Florida (N - 11)
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.6444
4.0889
2.3125
3.8750
1.8333
1.0833
.0909
1.6364
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.2444
4.8222
3.5625
4.2500
2.1667
.7500
1.0909
1.7273
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8667
1.4222
.6875
1.7500
.5833
2.6667
2.6364
.6364
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8444
1.2000
.7500
1.8750
.9167
2.9167
3.0909
1.5455
.6889
.8444
1.2500
2.6250
1.1667
4.5000
2.5455
2.4545
2.0667
5.4444
4.6250
6.0625
3.2500
5.8333
4.9091
6.8182

Current
Anticipated
Change Magnitude
Current
Anticipated
Table 27
Format 2 Means Comparison--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Generic Institutional Type
Public hospital (1)

(16 individuals)
Postsecondary institutions (3)

(68 individuals)
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.3125
3.8750
2.0882
3.1618
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.5625
4.2500
2.7059
3.6029
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.6875
1.7500
1.1029
1.5147
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.7500
1.8750
1.2206
1.5588

Current
Anticipated
1.2500
2.6250
1.0735
1.7500
Change Magnitude
Current
Anticipated
4.6250
6.0625
2.7353
5.7353
Table 28
Specific Institutional Type
Junior Colleges (2)

(57 individuals)
Senior College (1)

(11 individuals)
Public Hospital (1)

(16 individuals)
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.4737
3.4561
.0909
1.6364
2.3125
3.8750
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.0175
3.9649
1.0909
1.7273
3.5625
4.2500
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8070
1.6842
2.6364
.6364
.6875
1.7500
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8596
1.5614
3.0909
1.5455
.7500
1.8750

Current
Anticipated
.7895
1.6140
2.5455
2.4545
1.2500
2.6250
Change Magnitude
Current
Anticipated
2.3158
5.5263
4.9091
6.8182
4.6250
6.0625
Table 29
Change Type
Announced consideration
for merger (1)
(45 individuals)
Merger proposal
withdrawal (2)
(23 individuals)
Resignation of Board
of Trustees (1)
(16 individuals)
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.6444
4.0889
1.0000
1.3478
2.3125
3.8750
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.2444
4.8222
1.6522
1.2174
3.5625
4.2500
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8667
1.4222
1.5652
1.6957
.6875
1.7500
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8444
1.2000
1.9565
2.2609
.7500
1.8750
.6889
.8444
1.8261
3.5217
1.2500
2.6250
2.0667
5.4444
4.0435
6.3043
4.6250
6.0625

Current
Anticipated
Change Magnitude
Current
Anticipated
Table 30
Change Event Timing
Recently anticipated (1)

(45 individuals)
Recently completed (3)

(39 individuals)
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.6444
4.0889
1.5385
2.3846
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.2444
4.8222
2.4359
2.4615
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8667
1.4222
1.2051
1.7179
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8444
1.2000
1.4615
2.1026
.6889
.8444
1.5897
3.1538
2.0667
5.4444
4.2821
6.2051

Current
Anticipated
Change Magnitude
Current
Anticipated
138
gain of the proposal withdrawal as greater than the antic
ipated merger.
The University of West Florida respondents
also rated the positive personal value of the proposal w i t h

drawal as greater than the anticipated merger.
The Florida sites figured in the two other exceptions
to the general pattern of differences between the current
and anticipated time frames.
In the comparison of the
specific institutional types
(Format 3), the University
of West Florida was the single institution in the senior

college category,
thus maintaining the larger means for
personal and professional gain and positive personal value

in the current time frame.
The Pensacola Junior College
differences found in Format 1 were absorbed when combined

with Albany Junior College in the junior college category.
In the comparison of the variable means for the change
type categories
(Format 4), only the current professional
loss variable was larger in the current time frame than the
anticipated time frame.
Collectively,
the Florida schools
rated the merger of the schools as less of a professional

loss than the withdrawal of the proposal.
This difference
only appeared for Pensacola Junior College in the individual

site format, but was large enough to absorb the University
of West Florida respondents'
ratings when combined for the
change event type format.

Despite the small number of sites and respondents,
the observed relationship between current and anticipated
139
variable means suggests that the anticipated future of a
change event was perceived as promising larger structural
changes of greater positive personal value and encompassing
greater losses and gains on both personal and professional
levels.
The differences between the two Florida schools
approaching the same event at the same time at least

partially support, however,
the conclusion that the social
psychological profiles of organizational change are

dependent upon situational or site-specific factors not
identified or isolated by the different research formats.
Different organizations in change would be expected to
generate different social psychological profiles,
depend
ing upon a seemingly complex interaction of organizational

and situational variables.
Summary
The data from the Loss and Gain Questionnaire and the
Adjective Checklist were discussed through several analytic
formats.
These formats approached the social psychology
of organizational change on two basic levels.

On an individual site level, the research data were
used to develop a social psychological profile of each
site.
While the structure of these profiles was the same,
the content quality and magnitude were different.
This
profile content guided the analysis and discussion of the

change studied at each site.
140
On a different level, the site data were compared
and combined for analysis of the effects of the dimensions
of institutional type, change event type, and change event
timing.
The application of various analytic formats guided
discussion about the nature of organizational change as

described by the data.
These applications supported the
conclusion that the profile content and quality were sitespecific .

The individual site and alternative analytic formats
call attention to the situational factors affecting the
social psychological profiles of organizational change.
Measures of the effects of these factors may not be possi
ble through the variables used in this research.
Their
identification, however, could support the continued use of

these research variables in the development of social
psychological profiles of organizational change.
This
identification could also lead to development or adaptation

of new variables for broadening the study of organizational
c hang e .
Chapter 5
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES
Introduction
Chapter 4 presented the different relationships among
loss, gain, value and magnitude variables obtained through
analytic formats based on individual sites, two categories
of institutional type, type of change event, and timing
of the change event.
This chapter presents the Loss and
Gain Questionnaire and the Adjective Checklist data e xam

ined in two additional formats.
In the first analysis format, the loss and gain v a r i
able mean ratings derived from the total 84 respondents
were compared through the t_-test.
The strength of the
relationship between each of the variable pairs was c o m

puted through the Pearson correlation.
In addition, the
total current and total anticipated Adjective Checklists

were compared to determine emotional response similarities
or differences between the two time fram e s .
In the second analysis f o r m a t , the Sudden Change Model
(Michael, 1982) was applied to the 12 variables and the
emotional responses.
The nine cells of the Sudden Change
141
142
Model are formed from the interaction of value and magni
tude dimensions similar to the ones used in the Loss and
Gain Questionnaire.
Using this cell structure, the loss
and gain scores were placed into cells according to the

value and magnitude ratings.
The cell means for these loss
and gain scores were compared using the ANOVA and Scheffe
procedures.
Furthermore,
the selected adjectives were
placed into the cells according to the value and magnitude

ratings and compared to determine any emotional response
patterns for the model cells.
Format 1
In the search for patterns or relationships among the
loss, gain, value and magnitude variable measurements for
the total 84 respondents for the four sites, descriptive
statistics, _t-tests and Pearson correlation coefficients
were computed.
tive statistics for the 12 variables.
The left half of the
table lists these statistics for the current time period,

and the right half lists them for the anticipated time
period.
These statistics show that the current personal and
professional loss scores were higher than the personal and
professional gain scores for both time frames.
The antic
ipated personal and professional loss scores were higher

than the current loss scores and higher than any of the
143
Table 31
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Values
Total Research Site Subjects
(N = 84)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum.Maximum)
2.131
5.995
7.0(0,7)
3.298
7.778
7.0(0,7)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
2.869
7.826
7.0(0,7)
3.726
8.033
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
1.024
3.060
7.0(0,7)
1.560
4.274
7.0(0,7)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
1.131
3.681
7.0(0,7)
1.619
3.901
7.0(0,7)

Mean
Variance
1.107
3.615
8.0(0,8)
1.917
6.005
8.0(0,8)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum,Maximum
3.095
6.882
8.0(0,8)
5.798
5.440
8.0(0,8)
144
gain or value scores in both time periods.
Similarly,
the anticipated magnitude score was higher than the current

magnitude score, and both magnitude scores were higher than
both the current and anticipated value scores.
The pattern which these variables followed is striking.
Similar to the patterns found in the alternative analytic
formats discussed in Chapter 4, each of the six current
variable means was smaller than its anticipated counterpart.
The reasons for the differences between the current and
the anticipated variable means invite speculation.
These
patterns seem to suggest that because of the tenuous,

nebulous or undefined structure of the anticipated change
outcomes,
(or maybe just because the change was not antic
ipated) , respondents appeared to view the future as a

larger change than the current situation.
This larger
change promised larger losses than were currently expressed,

and these losses were also accompanied by greater gains.
What is impossible to tell, though, is whether these results
reflect a general tendency to anticipate change with an in
crease in gain despite an increase in loss associated with
the event.
T - V alues.
The statistical significance of the dif
ferences between the variable pairs was determined through

t^-tests for matched pairs,
sented in Table 32.
the results of which are p r e
Eighteen of the variable pairs were
not statistically significantly different
( = .05).
Table 32
T-Values--Total Research Site Subjects

N = 84
Anticipated
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
-3.18
=.002
3.53
=.001
2.86
=.005
2.92
=.005
-2.61
=.011
-4.18
=.000
-4.98
=.000
1.82
=.072
1.50
=.139
.54
=.590
-11.16
-.000
V2
5.03
=.000
4.51
=.000
4.30
=.000
-.59
=.560
-1.29
=.202
-2.64
=.010
3.57
=.001
3.21
=.002
2.26
=.026
-7.85
-.000
V3
- .49
=.625
-.46
=.645
-7.10
=.000
-6.53
=.000
-7.14
=.000
-1.88
-.063
-2.32
=.023
-2.92
=.005
-16.24
=.000
V4
--
--
--
.10
=.924
-6.38
=.000
-.565
=.000
-6.94
=.000
-1.40
=.165
-1.71
=.090
-2.36
021
-15.28
-.000
V5
--
--
-6.55
=.000
-5.67
=.000
-6.42
=.000
-1.56
=.122
-1.90
=.061
-2.94
=.004
-15.53
-.000
V6
--
--
-.49
-.626
-1.45
=.150
4.61
=.000
4.63
=.000
3.43
=.001
e -.q oq
-8.59
V7
--
--
--
-2.06
=.043
4.32
-.000
3.92
-.000
2.85
=.005
-7.24
=.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
5.30
=.000
4.67
E=.000
3.55
=.001
-5.56
-.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.33
=.739
-1.38
=.171
-12.63
=.000
V10
--
--
--
--
--
-1.42
=.160
-13.30
=.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-11.02
=.000
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V5 - Positive Personal Value
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain

145
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
--
For the differences between current variables and

their anticipated counterpart,
the loss, value and ma g n i
tude variables all obtained statistically significantly

greater means in the anticipated time frame than in the
current time frame.
Additionally,
anticipated positive
personal value and magnitude mean scores were statistically

significantly greater than the current positive personal
value and magnitude scores.
The anticipated personal and
professional gain variables,
on the other hand, were not
statistically significantly greater than the current p e r

sonal and professional gain variable means.
The undefined
outcome of the change event could be seen as promising or

positive enough for an estimate of small gain to be ob
tained.
These differences reveal that whatever the future
outcome of the change event,
the respondents'
estimated
that it would be significantly larger and more troublesome

in terms of loss than was the current case.
Any gains that
were to be made in the future would be minimal, at best,

especially when compared to the losses.
Other variable pairs not statistically significantly
different included the personal and professional gain
scores and the value scores.
In addition, the anticipated
personal gain mean was not statistically significantly

greater than the current personal gain and value m e a n s , as
well as the professional gain mean, as mentioned above.
147
The anticipated professional gain mean was also not statis
tically significantly greater than the current counterpart
and the current value means.
The strength of the
relationships among the variables of loss, gain, value and

magnitude was determined through the Pearson correlation
procedure.
The results are presented in Table 33.
Eight of the 26 statistically significant correlations

were for variable pairs which were both in the current time
frame.
Current professional loss obtained the strongest
positive correlation (i: = .6780; = .000) with current

personal loss, and the only negative correlation (r = -.2510;
=
.021) with the current positive personal value.
Cur
rent personal gain was positively correlated with current

professional gain, positive personal value, and change
magnitude.
In a similar yet weaker pattern, professional
gain was statistically significantly correlated with cur

rent positive personal value and current magnitude.
The
eighth statistically significant correlation for the cur

rent time frame was between the current positive personal
value and current magnitude variables.
Although the correlations of these variable pairs in
the current time frame were not very strong and did not
occur for each possible pairing, the strongest relationships
occurred between the personal and professional dimensions
for each of the loss and gain variables.
The lack of
Table 33
Intercorrelation Matrix Total Research Site Subjects

(N = 84)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Antic ipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
.6780
=.000
.0921
=.405
-.0627
=.571
-.0781
=.480
.1087
=.325
.5289
=.000
.3889
=.000
.1996
=.069
.0055
-.961
-.0986
-.372
.2072
-.059
V2
--
-.0412
-.710
-.0888
=.422
-.2510
=.021
.1478
=.180
.4019
=.000
.4422
=.000
.0691
=.532
-.0920
-.405
-.0754
=.495
.1196
-.279
V3
.4083
=.000
.5934
=.000
.3041
=.005
.0677
=.541
-.0935
=.398
.0729
=.510
.2049
-.062
.1382
-.210
.1518
-.168
V4
--
--
--
.2801
=.010
.2584
=.018
-.0871
=.460
-.0022
=.984
.0117
=.916
.1023
-.354
.0408
713
.1433
-.193
V5
--
--
--
--
.2757
=.011
-.1061
=.337
-.2158
=.049
.1072
=.332
.1875
=.088
.3510
=.001
.1571
=.154
V6
--
.0191
=.863
-.0645
=.560
.1678
=.127
.2163
-.048
.2299
-.035
.3281
=.002
V7
--
.7695
=.000
-.1337
=.225
-.3401
=.002
-.4335
=.000
.2464
=.024
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.1483
=.178
-.4601
=.000
-.5602
=.000
.1373
=.213
V9
--
--
--
--
.6754
=.000
.4588
=.000
.0263
=.813
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.6406
=.000
.1183
=.303
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.0898
=.417
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V7 = Personal Loss
V9 = Personal Gain

148
VI = Personal Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
149
consistently strong and significant correlations in this
time frame, however, demonstrates that the ratings for each
of these variables were somewhat independent of each other.
Despite the fact that the loss and gain items presented in
Chapter 4 were often duplicated for both personal and p r o
fessional dimensions for both time frames, the correlation
of the combined loss and gain variables in this chapter
seem to indicate that the quantitative estimations of these
items across time and personal and professional dimensions
were somewhat independent.
Nine statistically significant coefficients were o b
tained in the pairings of the six variables within the
future time frame.
Similar to the current time frame, the
strongest statistically significant correlation was obtained

between anticipated personal loss and anticipated profes
sional loss (r = .7695; = .000).
Anticipated personal loss
was also positively correlated with anticipated change m a g n i

tude.
Anticipated personal gain was positively correlated
with anticipated professional gain and positive personal

value.
Anticipated professional gain was significantly
correlated with anticipated positive personal value.

The strongest negative correlations in this future
time frame occurred between the personal and professional
loss variables and the professional gain and change value
variables.
Anticipated personal loss was negatively
150
correlated with both anticipated professional gain and
with anticipated positive personal value.
Anticipated
professional loss was also negatively correlated with these

variables.
While the vagueness of the future might force
scoring differences,
they may also cause individuals to
perceive their anticipated losses and gains in more defi

nite, polar or binary terms such as win-lose or loss-gain.
Additionally,
the apparently independent current loss and
gain ratings may become more interdependent when projected

into the future.
The last nine statistically significant correlation
coefficients were obtained for pairings between current and
future variables.
The strongest relationships between the
time periods were obtained between the personal and pro

fessional loss variable pairs.
Current personal loss was
statistically significantly correlated with anticipated

personal loss and with anticipated professional loss.
Current professional loss was also statistically signifi
cantly correlated with anticipated personal loss and with
anticipated professional loss.
Two other statistically
significant correlations were obtained in pairings between

current positive personal value and anticipated positive
personal value, and between current positive personal
value and anticipated professional loss.
The remaining
three significant coefficients were obtained in the pairings
151
of current magnitude with anticipated professional gain,
with anticipated positive personal value, and with antic
ipated magnitude.
The strongest relationship between the current variable
ratings and the future variable ratings was obtained most
notably with the loss variables.
This relationship may
indicate that the sense of current loss encumbered or

affected any rating of future loss, while the current gain
rating appeared to have no significant effect on the future
gain ratings.
Thus, the current gain ratings of loss may
provide predictive measures of future feelings of loss, but

the current gain ratings would not provide similar predic
tive measures for future feelings of gain.
The Adjective Checklists for
the total combined sites did not fall into clear patterns
of similarities or differences.
Table 34 presents the
combined adjective nominations for both time frames and the

differences between the nominations for each.
All 69 items, except for the term "guilty," were
nominated in at least one of the two time periods.
The
word "concerned" occurred most frequently in both the

current time period
period (n = 47).
(n = 55) and in the anticipated time
Both time period lists had several words
with only one nomination,
and most of the items obtained
only small numerical differences between the two time

periods.
Table 34
Adjective Checklist Responses--Total Research Site Subjects

(84 Respondents]
Item(*)
cu3
AHb
Dc
Item
CU
AN
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious(3)
Apathecic(l.A)
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,A)
Concerned
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(A)
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(l)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
Fearless(i,S)
Fretful
Friendly
7
13
16
26
5
6
23
A
1
55
5
1
6
A
8
1
9
22
A
10
1
7
6
8
10
16
23
A
14
21
12
6
47
9
2
10
3
13
0
14
25
A
7
1
5
16
1
-3
0
-3
-1
8
-2
8
5
-8
A
1
A
-1
5
-1
5
3
0
-3
0
-2
10
Frightened(A)
Furious(2)
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(A)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(A)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,A)
Jealous(2)
Joyful
Kindly(5)
Light-hearted
Lonely(A)
Mad<2)
Mean(2)
Miserable(A)
Nervous(3)
Numb(1]
Overconcemed
A
3
7
8
9
7
20
2
6
5
18
1
4
2
0
0
8
1
1
13
1
0
6
6
13
7
11
2
3
6
-1
2
A
-6
4
2
1
11
0
0
1
2
3
1
3
6
-A
3
2
11
14
6
8
A
29
1
A
3
2
3
9
A
7
9
A
2
Item
CU
AN
Overwhelmed(A)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
Sad(A)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(4)
Steady(5)
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3]
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcemed(l)
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,A)
Warm< 5)
Worrying(3)
3
1
11
A
4
11
12
12
2
13
1
8
5
9
10
1
26
19
3
19
12
1
11
A
3
11
11
5
11
17
8
3
16
6
16
13
15
9
2
21
18
1
19
22
8
12
1
2
0
7
1
0
5
-A
1
3
5
8
8
6
-1
1
-5
-1
-2
0
10
7
1
(*)Grief Stage Code: 1 Denial. 2 = Anger. 3 = Bargaining. A = Depression. 5 = Acceptance

aCU = Current. bAN = Anticipated. D = Difference
153
While several words obtained differences of five
nominations or more between the two time periods,
these
differences do not suggest any trends similar to those

found in the individual site nominations discussed in
Chapter 4.
For example,
several of the negatively
connotative terms, some of which are included in the grief

categories of Anger, Bargaining and Depression, had more
nominations for the current than for the anticipated time.
Words such as "concerned," "depressed," and "threatened"
each had at least five more nominations in the current
time category than in the anticipated time category.
These nominations for these and similar words seem to
indicate that as the change progressed,
the negative
emotional responses of the individuals would decrease.

Similarly, positively connotative words,
some of
which are found in the grief category of Acceptance, had

fewer nominations in the current category than in the
anticipated category, thus supporting the interpretation
of the possible shift toward acceptance as the change
progresses.
Terms such as "cheerful," "friendly," "glad,"
and "steady" had at least five nominations more in the

anticipated time frame than in the current time frame.
On the other hand, other connotatively positive and
negative terms had differences in the opposite direction.
In this case, respondents possibly projected that whatever
change occurred would be described emotionally as less
154
positive, more negative and more traumatic than the current
state of affairs.
This is reflected in more nominations
in the anticipated time frame than in the current time

frame for such terms as "bitter," depressed," "insecure,"
and "upset."
The positive adjectives, however,
did not generally
obtain a pattern denoting movement into an emotionally

negative state.
More specifically,
the terms of "uncon
cerned," "calm" and "secure" had more current than antic

ipated nomin a t i o n s , but the differences were no greater
than four nominations.
On balance,
these differences
reflect the possibility that as individuals project the

future of a change event,
their emotional reactions may be
equally negative in both time frames, but a sense of

emotional positiveness is projected to increase.
These patterns are obviously open to a myriad of
interpretations.
Although the small sample size and the
questionable validity of combining the data of four dif

ferent sites are problematic,
nonetheless,
the adjectives suggest,
that a certain degree of emotional ambiva
lence resides in both time periods in a change process.

It could also be the case that the emotional reac
tions were viewed separately from the loss and gain p e r
ceptions, or they may even invalidate the estimations of
loss and gain.
Thus, while loss and gain scores reflect
supposedly objective evaluations of individual perceptions
155
in a change situation,
it is possible that the true indica
tion of perception were the emotional responses.
If this
proves to be true, then action should be taken only after

consideration first of the emotional responses,
the loss and gain indicators.
then of
The loss and gain indicators
could, also, be representative of rational thinking, while

the emotional responses could serve as indicators or fore
bodings of irrational behavior.
Implications for instrument alterations.
The Loss and
Gain Questionnaire and the Adjective Checklist are not

without their problems.
In the first place,
the inclusion
of current and anticipated or past time frame variables may

be cumbersome and confusing.
Additionally,
it doubles the
length of the instrument.

While some of the loss, gain, value and magnitude
variables for the current time frame were significantly
correlated with the anticipated variables,
these correla
tions were not strong enough to suggest that future var i

ables could be projected clearly from current variable
ratings.
These anticipated ratings, however, might serve
as reference points for future studies at the changing

institutions.
In this case,
the first set of current
variables could be compared with the second to determine

change over time.
Additionally,
the first and second sets
of current variable scores could be compared to determine

the accuracy of the respondents in predicting loss, gain,
156
value and magnitude.
The qualitative lists of loss and
gain items could be compared in a similar manner.

Should the collection of both the current and the
past or the future variable data prove to be too cumbersome
in future research,
longitudinal studies utilizing only
the current time frame could provide a series of measures

for analyzing change in organizational members'
emotional
reactions to and perceptions of a change event.

Of the four basic variables of loss, gain, value and
magnitude used in this research,
the format and explana
tion of the value and magnitude variables should be con

sidered for restructuring.
While the loss and gain v a r i
ables are explained in the introductory statement for the

questionnaire,
the only explanation or definition of the
value and magnitude variables occurs at each scale.
Also,
the space provided for listing loss and gain items could
be included for the value and magnitude variables so that
respondents could elaborate upon their value and magnitude
ratings.
A positive professional value dimension to complement
the positive personal value dimension should be considered
for inclusion in the Loss and Gain Questionnaire.
This
would make the positive personal value variable consistent

with the personal and professional dimensions of the loss
and gain variables.
The lack of a professional value scale
can be interpreted as an assumption that the dimension does
157
not exist or is not of interest in this type of research.
While this omission can be attributed to the influence of
the positive personal value dimension of the Sudden Change
Model, no such assumptions were made.
The Adjective Checklist appears to provide a range
of emotions broad enough to cover the reactions of the
respondents in this research.
Instructive, however, would
be the substitution of the Adjective Checklist with one

statement asking respondents to list their emotional
reactions to the change situation.
Although the Adjective
Checklist does assist the respondents in assessing their

emotions,
these emotional responses may be limited to and
possibly controlled by the 69 items on the list.
With the
development of additional adjectives from the respondents

in future research, a broader list could be obtained for
analyzing the effects of change situation type, institu
tional type and similar analytic categories.
Format 2
The second format for examining the combined loss and
gain variables and the adjective checklists is the applica
tion of the Sudden Change Model
(Michael,
1982).
Introduction to the Sudden Change M o d e l .
The Sudden
Change Model is based upon the interaction between an

individual's imputed positive personal value of a change
and perception of the magnitude of an organizational change.
The various interactions between the imputation of value
158
and the perception of magnitude are reflected in the possi
ble relationships between the individual and the organiza
tion.
Abrupt or sudden change occurs when there is a shift
in the relationship.
Thus, according to the Sudden Change
M o d e l , sudden organizational change is defined in terms of

the change in relationship between the individual and the
organization,
instead of a change event itself.
The interactions between the perceptions and their

resulting relationships are depicted in Figure 2.
The
X-axis represents the individual's perception of the

magnitude of the change, and the Y-axis represents the
individual's imputed positive personal value of the change
or of the need for change.
Number values are used for
both the X- and Y-axis variables to represent the degree

of change of these variables.
change magnitude increases,
within a range of 1 to 3.
As the perception of the
the X-axis value increases

A value of 1 is labeled as
no c h a n g e , a value of 2 is labeled as moderate c h a n g e , and

a value of 3 is labeled as extensive chan g e .
The Y-axis
increases in a similar manner, with the value of 1 labeled

as an imputation of no positive personal v a l u e , a score
of 2 is labeled as an imputation of moderate positive
personal v a l u e , and a score of 3 is labeled as an imputa
tion of strong or extensive personal v a l u e .
159
4V
[7]
Moderate
Value
Co-optation
Withdrawal
Extensive
Value
Co-optation
[A]
2V
Status Quo
No
Value
7V
Mutual
Accommodation
[5]
[9]
Co-optation
I [6]
Co-optation
[2 ]
[1 ]
X
[8 ]
Significant
Change
2C
Withdrawal
[3]
1
No
Change
Moderate
Change
Extensive
Change
X-Axis - Perceived Magnitude of Change

Y-Axis - Imputed Value
t ]
- Revised number for data analysis
Figure 2. Sudden Change Model
7C
4C
160
Each section of the change matrix is labeled in terms
of one of five categories which describe the relationships
between the individual and the organization in a change
process.
These categories are Status Quo, Co-optation,
Withdrawal, Mutual Accommodation, and Significant Change.

The cells of the Sudden Change Model are separated
from each other by a permeable or a semi-permeable
boundary,
the crossing of which marks an abrupt or sud
den change in the individual-organization relationship.

The dotted line separating the Status Quo, Co-optation,
Mutual Accommodation and Significant Change cells from
each other represents the permeable boundary which may
be crossed with relative ease.
The solid line separating
the Withdrawal cells from the rest of the matrix repre

sents the semi-permeable boundary.
Crossing this boundary
in any direction is much more difficult and often has more

permanent results than crossing the permeable boundary.
In Section 1 there is a perception of no change in
the organization and an attachment of no positive
sibly neutral) value to this.
quo prevails.
(or p o s
In this section the status
Such situations are often found in higher
educational institutions.
For example, a departmental p r o
posal of no changes in student examination policies that

is accepted in terms of the imputation of no value fits
well into this section.
161
For Section 2V, the individual places moderate value
on a need for change, but this is in conflict with the no
change perception which exists.
This mismatch or incon
gruity between the imputed value and the perception of

change forces the individual to co-opt the imputed value
in the face of an organization which is perceived as
unchanging.
For example, a faculty member who imputes a
moderate value to the need for change in examination prac

tices in the face of what is perceived as unchanging
departmental policy may exist in the co-optation mode.
In order to maintain the relationship with the department,
the individual will co-opt the imputed value and may c o n
tinue to measure student progress according to the unchanged
policy.
In Section 2C the same situation occurs as in 2V,
except that the co-optation relationship is reversed.
Instead of valuing the need for change,
the individual
perceives a moderate change upon which no positive p e r

sonal value is imputed.
In this case it is the organiza
tion which is co-opted, not the individual.
Here the
examination policy may remain the same, but the faculty

member might place grading emphasis on other measures
of classroom performance.
Section 5 reflects a situation similar to the one
found in Section l--status quo--in that both the imputed
value of change and the perception of change are the same.
162
In this case both the value and the perception are moder
ate, resulting in mutual accommodation between the organiza
tion and the individual.
A movement into this section
eliminates the need for co-optation,
thus allowing for an
accepted change.
Sections 4V and 4C represent the greatest difference
between the imputed value and the perceived magnitude of
change.
In both situations the difference is so great that
physical or psychological withdrawal results,
often with
the possibility of temporary or permanent termination of

the relationship between the individual and the organiza
tion .
In Section 4V the extensive value imputed to a change
is combined with a perception of no change within the orga
nization.
The faculty member who places a great deal of
value in a departmental change and yet perceives a no

change situation will probably enter into psychological
or physical withdrawal.
Should the X and Y values be r e
versed, a condition of withdrawal will also exist
(4C),
but in this case it is the individual who places no value

upon what is perceived as an extensive or extreme change.
Continuing the examination policy example, a withdrawn
faculty member may implement other examination procedures
despite the no change status of the departmental policy,
thus separating himself/herself from the department.
Or,
in the reverse situation, the faculty member may continue
163
to follow the old departmental guidelines despite depart
mental adoption of a new examination policy.
case,
In either
the individual and the department have now entered
into an extremely strained relationship in which support

and involvement may be withdrawn by either party.
Such a
relationship could precipitate reconciliation through co

optation or acceptance,
or it could lead to termination of
the relationship.
In Sections 7V and 7C the situation is similar to the
one on Sections 2C and 2V.
The major difference between
the two co-optation sets of 2V/2C and 7V/7C is that both

the X and Y values for the 7V/7C cells are greater than 1,
thus denoting at least moderate value investment and change
perception on the part of organizational members.
Section 9 represents the situation in which both the
imputed value and the perceived magnitude of change are
simultaneously of the greatest strength or magnitude.
The perceived extensive change is paired with the imputa
tion of immense value of the change.
Although similar to
Sections 1 and 4 where the X and Y values are identical,

Section 9 does not yield a status quo or mutual accommoda
tion relationship.
In Section 9 significant change is
achieved in the relationship between the individual and

the organization.
The faculty member whose imputation of
value upon a situation perceived as an extensive change

will find that a significant and accepted change in the
164
relationship has occurred.
In the examination policy
example, both the individual and the department may agree

on a shift to an examination policy which is perceived as
being significantly different from the previous policy.
In this format, the loss and gain scores and emotional
responses for the 84 respondents were categorized according
to the Sudden Change Model cell corresponding with their
value and magnitude scores.
Table 35 lists the value and
magnitude scores and the corresponding Sudden Change Model

cell in which the loss and gain variable scores and adjec
tives were placed.
This table also includes descriptive
statistics for the loss and gain variables for each cell
in the current time frame.
The anticipated time frame and
the combined current and anticipated time frame descriptive

statistics are presented in Tables 36 and 37, respectively.
The ANOVA and Scheffe procedures were completed to
determine the significance of the differences between and
among the current, anticipated and total time cells.
Table 38 presents the results of the ANOVA and Scheffe
procedures for both the current and the anticipated time
periods.
In the current time period for the nine cells,
only the variable of personal gain obtained a significant

F-score
(F = 8.306; = .0000).
The Scheffe procedure
demonstrates that Cell 6 was statistically greater than

Cell 1.
Also, Cell 7 was statistically significantly
greater than Cell 1, Cell 2 and Cell 3.
Troublesome about
these findings, however, were the extremely low sample
Table 35
Current Time Frame
Sudden Change
Model Cell (*)
Value
score
Magnitude
score
Personal
loss
Professional
loss
Personal
gain
Professional
gain
Status Quod)
N - 39
0.1.2
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
2.051
6.260
7.0(0,7)
2.538
8.308
7.0(0,7)
.333
.596
4.0(0,4)
.615
1.822
6.0(0,6)
Co-optation<2)
N - 18
0.1.2
3.4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.444
5.556
7.0(0,7)
3.778
7.007
7.0(0,7)
1.000
2.471
5.0(0,5)
.944
2.056
4.0(0,4)
Withdrawal(3)
H - 14
0.1,2
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
RangelMin. ,Max.)
2.643
7.170
7,0(0,7)
4.537
7.170
7.0(0,7)
.857
1.824
4.0(0,4)
1.429
5.802
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(4)
B -
3,4,5
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Mutual Accommodatian(5)
N 6
3,4,5
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
.333
.267
1.0(0,1)
1.333
2.267
3.0(0,3)
2.167
5.767
5.0(0,5)
2.833
10.567
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(6)
N - 3
3,4,5
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
3.667
12.333
7.0(0,7)
1.667
4.333
4.0(0,7)
3.667
12.333
7.0(0,7)
2.667
5.333
4.0(0,4)
Withdrawal(7)
N - 1
6,7,8
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
.000
.000(1,1)
.000
.000
.000
7.000
.000
.000(7,7)
.000
.000
.000
Co-optation(S)
N - 1
6,7,8
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
4.000
.000
.000(4,4)
4.000
.000
.000(4,4)
Significant Change(9)
N - 2
6,7.8
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
.000
.000
.000
4.000
2.000
2.0(3,5)
2.500
12.500
5.0(0,5)
(*)Revised
Cell number used for discussion purposes.
1.000
2.000
8.000
4.0(0,4)
Table 36
Anticipated Time Frame
Value
score
Magnitude
score
Status Quo(l)
N - 10
0.1.2
0,1,2
Co-optation(2)
H - 6
0,1.2
Withdrawal(3)
N - 42
Personal
loss
Professional
loss
Personal
gain
Professional
gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.500
6.500
6.0(0,6)
3.200
7.511
7.0(0,7)
1.600
4.933
6.0(0,6)
.800
1.733
4.0(0,4)
3.4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.1
1.500
1.900
4.0(0,4)
3.500
3.100
5.0(1,6)
.667
.667
2.0(0,2)
1.333
3.867
5.0(0,51
0,1,2
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
4.595
7.174
7.0(0,7)
5.167
5.801
7.0(0,7)
.905
2.820
6.0(0,6)
.762
1.844
5.0(0,5)
Co-optation(4)
N
3,4.5
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Mutual AccommodationO)
N - 7
3,4,5
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
1.857
3.143
5.0(0,5)
2.571
5.286
6.0(0,6)
1.714
4.571
4.0(0,4)
2.571
3.286
4.0(0,4)
Co-optation(6)
N - 9
3,4,5
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
3.889
6.611
7.0(0,7)
2.667
9.000
7.0(0,7)
3.111
4.361
6.0(0,6)
3.667
2.250
5.0(1,6)
Withdrawal(7)
N -
6,7,8
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Co-optation(8)
N - 1
6,7,8
3.4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Significant Changc(9)
N = 9
6,7,8
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Sudden Change
Model cell (8)
(*)Revised Cell numbers used for discussion purposes.
.000
.000
.000
.222
.194
1.0(0,0)
.000
.000
.000
.111
.111
1.0(0,1)
.000
.000
.000
3.667
5.250
7.0(0,7)
.000
.000
.000
4.111
4.361
6.0(1,7)
Table 37

Combined Current and Anticipated Time Frames
Sudden Change
Model cell (*)
Value
score
Magnitude
score
Personal
loss
Professional
loss
Personal
gain
Professional
gain
Status Quo(l)
N - 49
0,1,2
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.143
6.208
7.0(0,7)
2.673
8.053
7.0(0,7)
.592
1.663
6.0(0,6)
.653
1.773
6.0(0,6)
Co-optation(2)
N - 24
0,1,2
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.208
4.694
7.0(0,7)
3.708
5.868
7.0(0,7)
.917
1.993
5.0(0,5)
1.042
2.389
5.0(0,5
Withdrawal(3)
N - 56
0,1,2
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
4.107
7.770
7.0(0,7)
4.964
6.144
7.0(0,7)
.893
2.534
6.0(0,6)
.929
2.831
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(4)
N -
3,4,5
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Mutual Accommodation(5)
N - 13
3,4,5
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Kax.)
1.154
2.308
5.0(0,5)
2.000
4.000
6.0(0,6)
1.923
4.744
5.0(0,5)
2.692
6.064
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(6)
N - 12
3,4,5
6,7.8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
3.833
7.061
7.0(0,7)
2.417
7.538
7.0(0,7)
3.250
5.477
7.0(0,7)
3.417
2.811
6.0(0,6)
Withdrawal(7)
5 - 1
6,7,8
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
1.000
.00
.000(1,1)
.000
.000
.000
7.000
.000
.000(7,7)
Co-optation(8)
N - 2
6,7,8
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
2.000
8.000
4.0(0,4)
2.000
8.000
4.0(0,4)
Significant Change(9)
N = 11
6,7,8
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
3.727
4.418
7.0(0,7)
3.818
5.164
7.0(0,7)
(*)Revised Cell numbers used for discussion purposes
.545
1.473
4.0(0,4)
.091
.091
1.0(0,1)
.000
.000
.000
Table 38
Analysis of Variance and Scheffe Procedure Summaries
for Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Single Time Frame Analysis
Sudden Change Model
Current
Variable
115
a
between
MS .
within
Personal
Loss
5.4291
14.5060
Profes
sional
Loss
Personal
Gain
Profes
sional
Gain
Anticipated
Fratio
Fprob.
6.0468
.898
7.2108
2.012
Variable
m
c
between
MS
.
within
Fratio
Fprob.
SSD cells*
.5127
Personal
Loss
35.0231
5.6548
6.194
.0000
3:9
.0644
Profes
sional
Loss
40.1943
5.5264
7.273
.0000
3:9
Personal
Gain
14.5054
3.4762
4.173
.0011
3:9
Profes
sional
Gain
23.4423
2.3786
9.855
.0000
1:6
1:9
3:6
3:9
15.7245
1.8932
8.306
.0000
7.1365
3.3632
2.122
.0511
SSD cells*
1:6
1:7
2:7
3:7
adf = 7. bdf = 76. cdf = 6. ddf = 77.

*Statistically significant difference determined by the Scheffe' procedure ( = .05).
169
sizes of 3 and 1 for Cells 6 and 7, respectively, when
compared to sample sizes of 39 for Cell 1, 18 for Cell 2,
and 14 for Cell 3.
A larger sample size is needed to
develop stronger evidence of the significance of these

findings.
While only one variable in the current time frame
obtained a significant F-score, all four variables in the
anticipated time frame obtained significant _F-scores
( = .05).
Each of these variables also obtained at least
one pair of statistically different cells through applica

tion of the Scheffe procedure.
Professional gain obtained
four statistically significantly different cell pairs,

and the three other variables each obtained one statisti
cally significantly different pair of means.
Cell 3 was statistically significantly greater than
Cell 9 for both personal and professional loss.
Cell 3
was also statistically significantly less than Cell 9 for

personal and professional gain.
Similarly, Cell 1 was
statistically significantly less than Cell 6 and Cell 9

for professional gain.
Although the sample sizes for these anticipated cells
were not as greatly different as for the current cells,
any interpretation of these findings, nevertheless, must
be made quite cautiously.
For both time frames there
appears to be a tendency for the higher numbered cells to

have larger gain scores and smaller loss scores.
This
170
supports the general conceptual pattern of the Sudden

Change Model.
The separate current and anticipated cell
findings, however,
leave much room for speculation and
do not validate any of the Sudden Change Model cells as

they are currently constructed.
In order to determine the internal consistency of
each cell over the two time periods,
the ANOVA and Scheffe
procedures were completed for all nine cells across all

four variables for the two time frames.
These findings
are presented in Table 39.

Each variable obtained a significant F-score at the
.0000 level of probability, and statistically significant
cell pairs were obtained for all variables except personal
loss.
None of the statistically significant different
pairs, however, were between current and anticipated

scores for the same cell.
Tentatively,
this suggests
that each cell was relatively internally consistent.

however,
Again,
larger sample sizes are essential to strengthen
this speculation.
Because the Sudden Change Model was not structured to
delineate between the current and the anticipated time
frames within and among the nine cells,
respondents'
each of the 84
current and anticipated ratings were com
bined for a total sample of 168.
ANOVA and Scheffe pro
cedures were completed to determine the significance of

the differences among and between the nine cells for the
Table 39
Comparison Between Time Frames
Sudden Change Model
Current and Anticipated

MS
between
MS i
within
Fratio
Fprob.
Personal
Loss
21.8078
5.8495
3.728
.0000
Professional
Loss
26.6832
6.3631
4.193
.0000
3AC:9A
Personal
Gain
14.9398
2.6899
5.554
.0000
1C: 9A
Professional
Gain
14.3297
2.8677
4.997
.0000
1C: 9A
3A:9A
Variable
SSD cells*
a df = 14. ^df = 153. CA = Anticipated. C = Current.

*Statistically significant as determined by Scheffe procedure ( = .05).
171
172
combined current and anticipated scores on the four loss
and gain variables.
These findings are presented in
Table 40.
Each of the four variables obtained a significant
F-score ( = .000).
Three of the cell pairs for personal
loss, four of the cell pairs for professional loss,
seven
of the cell pairs for personal gain, and seven of the cell
pairs for professional gain were statistically significantly
different.
Cells 3 and 9 obtained statistically significantly
different means across all four loss and gain variables.
The Cell 3 personal and professional loss means were
significantly greater than the Cell 9 means.
Conversely,
the Cell 9 personal and professional gain means were

significantly larger than the Cell 3 means.
Cells 2 and 9 obtained statistically significantly
different means for all variables,
except personal loss.
The pattern of differences followed that found between

Cells 3 and 9.
Cell 2 professional loss mean was signif
icantly greater than the Cell 9 mean.

professional gain means,
Cell 9 personal and
on the other hand, were signif
icantly larger than the Cell 2 means.

Of the six different cell pairs obtaining statis
tically significantly differences for two of the four
variables,
two of these pairs obtained theii differences
for both personal and professional loss variables, and
Table 40
Sudden Change Model
Total Combined Responses
MS
between3
MS ,
within
Fratio
Fprob.
Personal
Loss
35.2691
5.9588
5.919
.0000
Professional
Loss
50.8044
6.1968
8.198
.0000
Personal
Gain
36.6180
2.7149
9.804
.0000
Professional
Gain
25.7540
2.8694
8.976
.0000
Variable
SSD cells*
1:3
3:5
3:9
1:3
2:9
3:5
3:9
1:6
1:7
1:9
2:6
2:9
3:6
3:9
1:5
1:6
1:9
2:6
2:9
3:6
3:9
adf = 7. b df = 160.
*Statistically significant difference determined by the Scheffe Procedure
( = .05).
174
the remaining four of the pairs obtained their differences
for both personal and professional gain variables.
Cell 3
was statistically significantly greater than both Cells 1 and

5 for both the personal and professional loss score means.
For the cell pairs which obtained statistically
significant differences across both gain variables, Cell 6
was found in three of these four pairs.
The Cell 6 means
for the personal and professional gain variables were signif

icantly greater than the Cell 1, Cell 2 and Cell 3 means
for the same variables.
Finally, Cell 1 was significantly
less than Cell 9 for the professional gain variable.

Emotional r e sponses.
The Adjective Checklist items
assigned to each of the nine Sudden Change Model cells

partially support the ANOVA and Scheffe results.
Because
the majority of the statistically significantly differences

occurred in cell pairs consisting of Cells 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
and 9, the discussion of the adjective differences for the
cells is focused upon these six cells.
(Total responses
for each cell are listed in Appendix R . )

Table 41 presents those adjectives which were nominated
by at least 20% of the respondents in each of the Sudden
Change Model cells except 4, 7, and 8.
The 20% level was
used to facilitate the management of a large number of

nominations, which in many cases represented only one or
two respondents.
175
Table 41
Adjective Checklist Nominations
Sudden Change Model Cells
{20% of Respondent Nominations)
Cells
Adjective
Afraid
Agitated
Angry
Anxious
Apathetic
Bitter
Calm
Cheerful
Complaining
Concerned
Contented
Contrary
Cool
Cross
Depressed
Desperate
Disbelieving
Discouraged
Easy-going
Fearful
Fearless
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened
Furious
Glad
Gloomy
Grim
Guilty
Happy
Helpless
Hopeless
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
table continues
176
Cells
Adjective
Hostile
Indifferent
Insecure
Jealous
Joyful
Kindly
Light-Hearted
Lonely
Mad
Mean
Miserable
Nervous
Numb
Overconcerned
Overwhelmed
Panicky
Peaceful
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
Sad
Secure
Sentimental
Serious
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn
Steady
Tense
Terrified
Threatened
Thoughtful
Unconcerned
Uneasy
Upset
Warm
Worrying
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
177
In the pattern of statistically significantly different
mean scores among the nine cells, Cells 2 and 3 had signif
icantly greater loss score means than Cell 9.
Additionally,
Cells 6 and 9 gain score means were statistically signif

icantly greater than Cells 1, 2 and 3.
These findings were
partially reflected in the adjectives nominated for each

cell.
The adjectives selected by at least 20% of the respon
dents in Cells 1, 2 and 3 appeared to reflect different
emotional states than reflected by the adjectives selected
in Cell 9.
Using the grief categories, most of the adjec
tives selected in Cells 1, 2, and 3 fell within the cate

gories of Anger, Bargaining and Depression.
Only one term--
"calm"--fell within the Acceptance category for Cells 1 and 2,

and the term "serious" in Cell 2 fell within both the
Acceptance and Bargaining categories.
In addition,
the
remaining adjectives such as "restless," "shocked," and

"threatened" had a somewhat negative connotation, or could
be considered as reactions normally expected in a traumatic
situation.
Of the 17 Cell 9 items, the majority fell within the
grief category of Acceptance, or could be interpreted as
generally positive emotional responses.
The nominations
of terms such as "peaceful," "secure," "happy," and

"friendly" reflect the generally positive--and,
thus,
possibly gainful"--perception of change.
This seems to
be the case when the nominations are compared with those

in Cells 1, 2, and 3.
In addition to the pattern of the lower number cells
obtaining more negative emotional responses, larger loss
scores and smaller gain scores than the higher cells,
Cells 3 and 6 appear to be pivotal points in the model.
In addition to the Cell 3 personal and professional loss
means being statistically significantly greater than
Cells 5 and 9, they were also statistically significantly
greater than Cell 1.
This is supported partially by the
fact that although the adjectives checked by 20% of the

respondents were generally the same for Cells 1 and 3,
Cell 3 most notably had the terms "bitter," "disbelieving
"restless," "sad," and "shocked," which were not found in
Cell 1.
While the development of a clear connection
between these terms, the loss score differences, and the

different conceptual labels between Cells 1 and 3 is not
possible,
these results do suggest conceptualization of
the Sudden Change Model is at least partially correct.

The relationship between the individual and the organiza
tion as described by Cell 3 may be highly strained and in
danger of termination if the emotions listed and the loss
and gain scores obtained in this cell are indicative of
this strained relationship.
179
Cell 6 could also be seen as a pivotal point in terms
of its adjectives.
While the Cell 6 gain scores were
statistically significantly greater than Cells 1, 2, and 3,

and despite the nomination of terms such as "friendly,"
"calm," and'peaceful," the majority of the remaining adjec
tives nominated were negative in tone (e.g., "shocked")
or fell within the grief categories of Anger, Bargaining
and Depression.
Furthermore,
the Depression category had
at least three more terms than either the Anger or the

Bargaining categories.
It is possible that Cell 6 repre
sents an emotional turning point
(similar to Cell 3).
The
negative emotions could point to individual depression or

negativism which must be resolved in order to reduce the
possibility of damage to the individual,
to the organiza
tion, or to the relationship between the two.

Summary.
Since data from this research were not col
lected for the purpose of validating the Sudden Change

Model,
these observations were intended only to show a
general support for the Sudden Change Model and its applica
tion to the research data.
What does emerge, however,
is
the need to continue the development of the Model along

the lines which it was originally established and to ob
tain considerably more data which is directly applicable
to each of the nine cells.
This can be done with large
sample sizes which can increase the number of observations

per cell, along with samples from different change situa
tions and different types of organizational members.
What
180
is especially important for the continued development of
the Sudden Change Model is the collection of data from
organizational members who have withdrawn, according to the
Sudden Change Model, because of alienation from the
organization.
Conclusion
The analytic formats in this chapter demonstrate the
strength and flexibility of the Loss and Gain Questionnaire
and the Adjective Checklist.
Continued development of
these instruments was suggested as a result of the data

analysis.
Additionally, partial validation of the Sudden
Change Model was obtained through its application to the

research data.
181
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
In this chapter the major purposes of this study are
reviewed.
Applications of the methodological and theoret
ical components of this research are also outlined.

Finally, general research conclusions are provided.
The two main purposes of this research as outlined in
Chapter 1 were
(a) to develop or adapt instrumentation and
techniques for the assessment of organizational members'

perceptions of and emotional reactions to organizational
change, and (b) to develop social psychological profiles
of organizations in change.
Instrumentation was adapted from Langston's
(1977)
research on structural changes in the University of Texas

system nursing schools and Sullivan and Michael's
revisions of these instruments.
(1982)
Social psychological
profiles generated from data collected with the Loss and

Gain Questionnaire and the Adjective Checklist provided
a basis for the further conceptualization of the social
182
psychology of organizational change.
This extended concep
tualization demonstrates fulfillment of the purposes of

this study.
Methodological and Conceptual Concerns
While the instruments used in this research obtained
data for developing social psychological profiles of chang
ing organizations,
two basic problems remain.
is methodological,
the other is conceptual.
One problem
On the methodological l e v e l , no determination can be

made of the root cause or causes of the estimations of loss,
gain, value and magnitude of an organizational change.
The
underlying assumption of the Loss and Gain Questionnaire

and the Adjective Checklist is that responses are precipi
tated by the change event.
What is unknown, however,
is
whether there are other contributing or primary causes of

these reactions.
In other words, are there underlying
value components,
situational factors or other variables
threatened or affected by the change event and, in turn,

affecting the Loss and Gain Questionnaire scores and
Adjective Checklist responses?
Some sense of these underlying foundations or causes
was obtained in site interviews.
tions were made,
In these sessions distinc
for example, between junior colleges and
senior colleges, between historically black institutions and
183
predominantly white institutions, and between public
indigent health care delivery and private indigent health
care delivery systems.
The challenge,
then, is to continue the development of
these social psychological variables.
Clearer, and possibly
more direct, relationships between perceptions and emotions,

a change event and the situational factors heed to be deter
mined.
While a distinct cause and effect relationship may
not exist for any or all of these components,
investigation
along these lines could expand the number of variables and

determine their interdependence in organizational change
situations.
The second basic problem, the resolution of which is
*
partially dependent upon the resolution of the first

problem, is the acceptance of the variables used in this
study into the paradigm which directs social psychology.
Robert Kahn
(personal communication, November 1983) and
J. Stacy Adams
(personal communication, November 1983),
prominent social psychologists, have noted that this may

not be troublesome, especially since these research var i
ables were collected on an individual level and analyzed
on a group or organizational level.
Additionally, wider
use of these variables in social psychology may also occur

because of their similarity with equity theory tenets,
which are a portion of the foundation of social psychology.
If this truly is the case, organizational change inquiry
184
using these variables should continue, but in such a way as
to be open to analysis in the equity theory framework.
Alternative Analysis and Applications
Perceptual and emotional response data collected in
this research have been analyzed through conventional
statistical techniques and conceptual models.
A broader,
more interdisciplinary approach to data analysis could

possibly aid in refining existing models of organizational
change or in developing n e w ones.
More specifically,
the
Catastrophe Theory models and the two- and three-dimensional

mapping techniques used in areas such as automobile design
and physical science can be applied to the Loss and Gain
Questionnaire and the Adjective Checklist data.
While the
difficulty lies in the identification and application of

appropriate variables and techniques for their quantifica
tion, Catastrophe Theory models and two dimensional maps
have already been developed from the variable types and
data generated from this research (Michael, 1982,
1983).
Intriguing would be the development of three-dimensional

or multi-dimensional graphs of organizations at different
points in a change process, or for the organization's gen
eral history.
From these time series graphs, computer-
assisted interpolation could develop the intervening time

series pictures based upon major time points.
Carrying
this one step farther, a motion picture of an organization

in change,
or of an organization's history, could be
185
developed from these time series graphs.
The resulting
motion picture would be similar to the time-lapse photog

raphy of changing phenomena such as cloud formations or
constellation movement.
One frame of the picture would
provide a clear picture of the organization

or the constellation) at one point in time.
(or the cloud,

The entire
film could provide a condensed and rapid version of the

organizational
(cloud, constellation)
change, development
or movement over time.

From a practical standpoint,
the concepts and m e t h o d
ologies of this research can be applied as they currently

exist or with modifications as discussed above.
While
change situations precipitate a wide range of emotional

responses and perceptions,
the Loss and Gain Questionnaire
and the Adjective Checklist are instruments which can

capture these perceptions and emotions.
Organizational
researchers and administrators could develop social

psychological profiles of organizational groups,
ments,
depart
constituent groups, or the. organization as a whole.
These profiles could assist in the allocation of organiza

tional resources for addressing individuals'
concerns
about their perceived losses and gains vis-a-vis the

change.
For example,
seminars,
change workshops, and
teambuilding efforts could address these perceptions in

order to confirm or correct them.
These perceptions of
loss and gain could also provide decision makers with
186
insight into change event effects previously not considered,
ranging from concern over lost office space or parking
privileges,
to professional esteem or the gain in workload,
extra staff or departmental power.

Even without the resources to directly address these
perceptions and emotional responses, organizational leaders
could use these data to develop clearer or different con
cepts of an organization as it faces a change event.
new conceptual picture, while possibly not affecting decisioning to the point of altering the course of change,
could, nonetheless,
serve as an index of the psychology of
an organization or its smaller units.
This information
could suggest strategies for moving the change through to

completion.
In addition to generating social psychological profiles
of changing organizations,
the Loss and Gain Questionnaire
and the Adjective Checklist could be used in individual

counseling situations.
Given in written or interview f o r
mat, the questionnaire could elicit perceptions and emo

tional reactions to a change situation.
Beyond the purely
cathartic value of discussing or analyzing a change event,

individuals would have a mechanism for guiding discussion
on those aspects of a change event that they might find
stressful, bothersome, or even encouraging.
187
Conclusion
Organizational change remains a fertile field for con
tinued theory and research development.
The social psycho
logical profiles of organizations in change were an attempt

to address certain methodological and theoretical issues in
organizational change inquiry.
Questions remain, however,
concerning the effects of situational and site-specific

f actors.
Although a generic model of organizational change
encompassing factors such as organizational type,
change
event type, abruptness of the change and similar issues

would be extremely difficult to generate,
it would cer
tainly provide a focal point for the interdisciplinary

study of organizational change on a variety of analytic
levels.
In this situation, not only structure, process
and social psychological variables, but also ecological,

biological,
economic and sociological factors--to name a
few--would come into view.
It would be hoped,
then, that
such a broad multi-disciplinary approach to organizational

change
would continue to expand understanding of organiza
tional change beyond current paradigmatic limits.
References
188
References
Albany Junior College. (1982). 1982-1984 Catalogue.
Albany: Albany Junior College.
Bigelow, John. (1982). A catastrophe model of organiza
tional change. Behavioral Sci e n c e , 2 7 , 26-42.
Bigelow, John. (1978). Evolution in organizations.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 8 , 7610-A.
(University Microfilms No. 7809272)
B o w l b y , John. (1980). Loss: sadness and depression.
New York: Basic B o o k s .
Dill, David D. & Friedman, Charles P. (1979). An analysis
of frameworks for research on innovation and change.
Review of Educational R e s e a r c h , 4 9 , 411-435.
D u c k w a l l , Julia M. & Johnson, F. Craig. (1982, May). The
language of qualitative issues. Paper presented at
the twenty-second Association for Institutional
Research Forum, Denver, CO.
Guastello, Stephen J. (1982). Color matching and shift
work. Behavioral Science, 2 7 , 131-139.
Imershein, Allen W. (1977). Organizational change as a
paradigm shift. In J. Kenneth Benson (Ed.),
Organizational analysis: critique and innovation
(pp. 35-45). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Katz, Daniel & Kahn, Robert L. (1978). The social
psychology of organizations (2nd e d . ). New Y o r k :
John Wiley & Sons.
Katz, Daniel, Kahn, Robert L. & Adams, J. Stacey (Eds.).
(1982). The study of organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kimberly, John R. (1980). The life cycle analogy and the
study of organizations. In John R. Kimberly,
Robert H. Miles & Associates, The organizational
life cycle (pp. 1-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
189
190
Konner, Melvin. (1982). Grief. In The tangled wing:
biological constraints of the human spirit
(pp. *25-356). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kiibler-Ross, Elisabeth. (1969). On death and d y i n g .
New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The structure of scientific
revolutions (2nd e d . ). Chi c a g o : University of
Chicago P r e s s .
Langston, Nancy F. (1977). A study of loss and grief, as
produced by structural organizational change.
(University Microfilms No. 77-9313)
Michael, Robert. (1982, October). The sudden change model.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern
Association for Institutional Research, Birmingham,
AL.
Michael, Robert. (1983). [Application of geographical
density mapping techniques to the Sudden Change
Model]. Unpublished raw data.
Miller, Danny & Friesen, Peter H. (1980). Momentum and
revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of
Management J o u r n a l , 2 3 , 591-614.
Mills, Theodore M. (1967). The sociology of small grou p s .
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, I n c .
Newbould, Gerald D. (1980). A catastrophe theory analysis:
city government finances. Public Finance Quarterly,
8, 307-321.
Oliva, Terence A., Peters, Michael H . , & Murthy, H.S.K.
(1981). A preliminary empirical test of a cusp
catastrophe model in the social sciences. Behavioral
S cience, 2 6 , 153-162,
Pensacola Junior College. (1982). 1982-1983 Catalog.
Pensacola: Pensacola Junior College.
Scapens, Robert W . , Ryan, Robert J., & Fletcher, Leslie.
(1981). Explaining corporate failure: a catastrophe
theory approach. Journal of Business and Finance
A c c o u n t i n g , 8, 1-26.
191
Sheive, Linda Tinelli. (1981). A test and reformulation
of three developmental models of organizational
change in an organization of relative zero growth.
TUniversity Microfilms No. DA8204116)
Sheridan, John E. (1980, August). Cusp-catastrophe model
of employee turnover. In Richard C. Huseman (Ed.),
Proceedings of the academy of man a g e m e n t , 161-165.
Sullivan, Margaret & Michael, Robert. (1982), [The
impact of organizational change on the urban m i s s i o n ] .
Unpublished raw data.
Thom, Rene. (1975). Structural stability and morphogenesis:
an outline of a general theory of models (D. h T Fowler,
Trans .) . Reading: W. A. Ben j ainin , I n c .
Thompson, Michael. (1979). Rubbish theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
University of West Florida. (1982a). University of West
Florida, 1982-1983 Catalog. Pensacola: University of
West Florida.
University of West Florida. (1982b, October). Recommenda
tions to unite Pensacola Junior College and the
University of West F l o r i d a . (Merger Plan D r a f t ) ,
P ensacola: University of West Florida.
University System of Georgia, Board of Regents. (1983,
F ebruary). The eighties and beyond: a commitment to
excellence. Atlanta: University System of Georgia,
Board of R e g e n t s .
Zeeman, E. C. (1980). Catastrophe models in administration.
In Paul J. Staskey (Ed.), Meeting the challenges of the
eighties: redirection of resources for renewal. The
Association for Institutional Research, Annual Forum
Proceedings, ~~5~| 9-24.
Zeeman, E. C. (1976, April). Catastrophe theory. Scientific
American, 234(4), 65-70, 75-83.
Appendices
192
Appendix A
Adjective Checklist Review Panel Form
193
2336 Briarwood H i l l s D riv e

At I a n ta t Georgia 30319
January 1 5 . 1903
I am a d octoral student in the Educational A d m in is tra tio n department a t Georgia

S ta te U n iv e r s ity . D r. W a lte r Daves has to ld me th a t you m ight be w illin g to help
me. Please d iv e me a few moments o f your tim e to review a sh o rt c h e c k lis t.
P art o f my d is s e r ta tio n research w i l l in c lu d e a study of em otional re a c tio n s of
fa c u lty members to the merger process a t t h e i r postsecondary i n s t it u t i o n s . These
re a c tio n s w il l be measured through fa c u lty members responses on two FEELINGS
CHECKLISTS* one r e f le c t in g fe e lin g s a t the tim e o f the merger announcement, and
one r e f le c t in g fe e lin g s about the merger as i t e x is ts to day.
This FEELINGS CHECKLIST was o r d in a lly designed to measure emotions purported
to e x is t in any one or more o f the Loss and G r ie f stages ( i . e . . D e n ia l. Anger.
B a rg ain in g . Depression. Acceptance) as P o stu la ted by Kublcr-Ross and o th e rs .
W hile th e re is disagreement over the exact s tr u c tu r e , sequence and d u ra tio n of
these stages, they have proved h e lp fu l in the study of fa c u lty re a c tio n s to
i n s t it u t io n a l merger in h ig h er ed u catio n .
Please review t h is FEELINGS CHECKLIST and make any c o rre c tio n s which you th in k
would improve the l i s t . A ls o , any comments you wish to make w i l l be most appre
c ia te d .
Should you have any questions about com pleting th is short review form or about
the general n atu re of the research p r o je c t. Please do not h e s ita te to c a ll me
a t 658-3100 (G eorgia S ta te U n iv e r s ity camous).
Please re tu rn your completed forms in the re tu rn envelopes by F rid a y . January 21 .
Thank you fo r ta k in g th e tim e to helo w ith t h is re se arc h .
C o rd ia lly >
Bob M ichael
D o cto ra l Student
Ed ucation al A d m in is tra tio n
6e o rg la S ta te U n iv e rs ity
195
Name _
D atei~
FEELINGS CHECKLISTI REVIEWER'S FORM
Below i * a l i s t o f words which describe d if f e r e n t fc e lln d s . Please check the ap p ro priate
column o r columns f o r those words which you b e lie v e r e f le c t one o r more o f th e f i v e s ta te s in
the Loss and G r ie f model.
FEELINGS
LOSS AND GRIEF 5TASES
AFRAID
AGITATED
ANGRY
ANXIOUS
APATHETIC
BITTER
CALM
CHEERFUL
COMPLAINING
CONCERNED
CONTENTED
CONTRARY
COOL
CROSS
DEPRESSED
DESPERATE
DISBELIEVING
DISCOURAGED
EASY-GOING
FEARFUL
FEARLESS
FRETFUL
FRIENDLY
FRIGHTENED
FURIOUS
GLAD
GLOOMY
GRIM
GUILTY
HAPPY
HELPLESS
HOPELESS
196
REVIEWER'S FORM - PAGE 2
FEELINGS
HOSTILE
INDIFFERENT
INSECURE
JEALOUS
JOYFUL
KINDLY
LIGHT-HEARTED
LONELY
MAD
(CAN
MISERABLE
NERVOUS
NUMB
OVERCONCERNED
OVERWHELMED
PANICKY
PEACEFUL
PLEASANT
RATTLED
RESTLESS
SAD
SECURE
SENTIMENTAL
SERIOUS
SHAKY
SHOCKED
SOLEMN
STEADY
TENSE
TERRIFIED
THREATENED
THOUGHTFUL
unconcerned
UNEASY
UPSET
WARM
WORRYING
LOSS AND 6RIEF STAGES
197
PAGE 3
FEELINGS CHECKLISTI REVIEWER'S ADDITIONS
In the column* below Please l i * t any words you b e lie v e should be added to the FEELINGS
CHECKLIST In ord er to r e f le c t fe e lin e s in the Loss and G r ie f s t a le s .
DENIAL
ANGER
BARGAINING
DEPRESSION
Do you have any comments* o bservations o r s u M e s tlo n s to share?
Thank you
ACCEPTANCE
Appendix B
Review Panel Response Tally
198
199
LOSS AND GRIEF STAGES
FEELINGS
AFRAID
AGITATED
12
ANGRY
14
ANXIOUS
APATHETIC
11
BITTER
13
CALM
12
CHEERFUL
COMPLAINING
12
CONCERNED
CONTENTED
11
CONTRARY
14
11
CROSS
14
DEPRESSED
14
DESPERATE
12
14
COOL
DISBELIEVING
DISCOURAGED
14
EASY-GOING
10
FEARFUL
10
10
FEARLESS
FRETFUL
FRIENDLY
FRIGHTENED
FURIOUS
13
GLAD
GLOOMY
13
GRIM
13
GUILTY
10
HAPPY
HELPLESS
14
14
HOPELESS
200
FEELINGS
LOSS AND GRIEF STAGES
14
11
INSECURE
JEALOUS
JOYFUL
KINDLY
LIGHT-HEARTED
LONELY
13
MAD
13
MEAN
12
MISERABLE
14
NERVOUS
10
12
OVERCONCERNED
OVERWHELMED
12
PANICKY
PEACEFUL
13
PLEASANT
RATTLED
RESTLESS
SAD
14
SECURE
SENTIMENTAL
SERIOUS
SHAKY
SHOCKED
SOLEMN
STEADY
11
TENSE
10
TERRIFIED
THREATENED
HOSTILE
INDIFFERENT
NUMB
10
12
11
UNEASY
UPSET
12
WARM
WORRYING
THOUGHTFUL
UNCONCERNED
201
DENIAL
ANBER
BARGAINING
DEPRESSION
ACCEPTANCE
Avoiding(2)
Smothered(1)
Worthy(I)
Forsaken(1)
Hopeful(1)
Forgotten(1)
Seething(l)
Marketable(1)
Sinful(1)
Realistic(1)
Soaced-out(1)
Impotent(1)
Energized(l)
Worse(l)
Sobered(l)
Distorting(1)
Energerized(l)
Hapless(1)
Open(l)
Impotent(1)
Receptive(1)
Despair{1)
Energized(l)
Resignation(1)
Appendix C
Change Assessment Package--Pilot Test
202
203
Box 1028
Georgia S tate U n iv e rs ity
March 25. 1983
Dear Member o f the C o lleg e o f P u b lic and Urban A f f a lr s i

As a doctoral student in Educational A d m in is tratio n a t Georgia S ta te
U n iv e rs ity . I am conducting my d is s e rta tio n research on in d iv id u a l reactions
to in s t it u t io n a l change. I have been given permission by D r. C h a rlie Hopkins
to request your assistance in a p rete st of the instruments which w il l be
used in the fin a l d is s e rta tio n research. Could I Please have a few minutes
of your time?
As you are w ell aware, the C o lleg e of Public and Urban A ffa ir s became an
o f f i c i a l o rg a n iza tio n on J u ly 1 . 1981. as the re s u lt of the merger of the
College of General S tu d ies , the College of Urban L if e , and the I n s t it u t e of
Governmental A d m in is tra tio n . Even i f you were not a Part of any of these
u n its a t the tim e o f the merger. I would lik e you to use the attached
instruments to assess your reactio n s to the merger both in July 1981 and in
March 1963. These instrum ents co n sist of the follow ings
1. Two (2 ) a d je c tiv e ch e c k lis ts to assess your fe e lin g s
about the merger a t two d iffe r e n t p o in ts in tim e.
2. A Loss and Gain A u estlo n n aire to assess your fe e lin g s
of personal loss, personal g a in , p ro fession al loss,
and p rofessional gain in terms of the merger.
Because th is is a p re te s t of the instrum ents. I would also app reciate any
suggestions o r conments you have about t h e ir co n stru ctio n , form at, c l a r i t y ,
and the lik e . There is a sheet attached fo r you to make your comments.
Once you have completed the instruments and the comment sheet. Please re tu rn
them to me in the enclosed campus m a ile r by F rid a y . A p ril 1 . 1983.
A ll responses w il l be
In d iv id u a l responses.
an aly sis purposes and
Thus, c o n fid e n tia lity
reported as aggregated data w ith no id e n t if ic a t io n of

In a d d itio n , your responses w il l be used only fo r data
w i l l not be made a v a ila b le to anyone other than m yself.
and anonymity w i l l be m aintained a t a l l tim es.
I hope th a t you w i l l p a r tic ip a t e in th is p r o je c t, the re s u lts of which w ill be

reported as a p ilo t te s t in the d is s e rta tio n and as a b r ie f s it e an aly sis fo r
the C ollege o f P u blic and Urban A f f a ir s . Because I have not enclosed an informed
consent form. I w i l l i n f e r th a t your completing these Instruments in d ic a te s your
consent to p a r tic ip a te according to the s tip u la tio n s s ta ted h e re in .
Thank you fo r your time and help. Should you have any questions about th is
p re te s t or about the d is s e rta tio n p ro je c t. Please do not h e s ita te to c a ll me
a t GSU extension 3100.
C o rd ially >
Sat
Bob Michael
Demographics
GENERAL INFORHATION
1. Do you have fa c u lty rank?
Ye*---------------------------------------------- What I t your rank? (Check one)
No ( I f No* then co
to duestion A)
In tru c to r
A * * l* t a n t Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
2 . How lone have you held th is rank?

Years
Yes
For how I one?
3. Do you have tenure?

Years
No
4 . Do you have an a d m in is tra tiv e position?
Yes-----------------------------------------------What is your t i t l e ?
How lone have you had th is p ositio n? ___ Years
No ( I f No* then co
to duestion 5 )
5 . Do you have a s t a f f position?
Yes-----------------------------------------------What is your t i t l e ? _______________________ ____
How lone have you had th is position? ___ Years
No
6 . In which u n it were you employed a t the time of the mercer on J u ly 1* 1981?
Co 11 e tc of General s tu d ie s -* " --------- For
how lone? ___ Years
Col I tee of Urban L if e ----------------------- ---------- ---------------------For how lone? ___ Years
I n s t it u t e of Governmental
Other
A d m in is tratio n ------------------For
howlone?
Please s p e c if y ---------------------------------------------- For how lone?
Years
Years
7 . How would you view your primary work o rie n ta tio n ? (Check only one)
Persona I/c a r e e r -r e la te d
P o s itio n -re la te d
In s t it u t io n - r e la t e d
___ D is c ip lin e -r e la te d
_ _ Col I s e e -re la te d
ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST I
INTRODUCTIONS A chance situation may cause people to have any number of

responses. Please think about your feelings at the time
that the merger of the College of General Studlest the
College of Urban Life* and the Institute of Governmental
Administration became official as outlined In the merger
statement given below.
MERGER
STATEMENT
DIRECTIONS
s On July 1* 1981* the College of Public and Urban Affairs was

created as a result of the merger of the College of General
Studies* the College of Urban Life* and the Institute of
Governmental Administration.
s Please read the list below and check all those words which
describe your feelings at the time that the merger became
official as outlined in the merger statement.
Overwhelmed
1. ___ A fra id
2 4 . ___ F righ ten ed
47.
2. ___ A g ita te d
2 5 . ___ Furious
4 8 . .___Panicky
3 . ___ Angry
26. ___ Glad
4 9 . ___ Peaceful
2 7 . ___ Gloomy
50.
5 . ___ A p a th e tic
2 8 . ___ Grim
5 1 . ___ R a ttle d
6 . ___ B i t t e r
29. ___ G u ilty
52. ___ R e s tle s s
7 . ___ Calm
3 0 . ___ Happy
53. ___ Sad
a.
___ C h eerfu l
3 1 . ___ H e lp les s
54.
9 . ___ Complaining
32. ___ Hopeless
55. ___ Sentim ental
33. ___ H o s tile
56.
4.
Anxious
10. ___ Concerned
P lea san t
Secure
S eriou s
34. ___ I n d if f e r e n t
57. ___ Shaky
12. ___ C o n trary
35. ___ Insecure
58.
13. ___ Coo 1
3 6 . ___ Jealo us
59. ___ Solemn
14. ___ Cross
37. ___ J o y fu l
6 0 . ___ Steady
11.
Contented
Shocked
3 8 . ___ K in d ly
61. ___ Tense
1 6 . ___ D esperate
3 9 . ___ L ig h t-h e a rte d
62. ___ T e r r i f i e d
17. ___ D is b e lie v in g
4 0 . ___ Lonely
6 3.
18. ___ Discouraged
4 1 . ___ Mad
64. ___T ho u g h tfu l
19. ___ Easy-going
4 2 . ___ Mean
65. ___ Unconcerned
20. ___ F e a rfu l
4 3 . ___ M is e ra b le
66.
21. ___ F e a rle s s
4 4 . __ _Nervous
67. ___ Upset
22.
4 5 . ___ Numb
6 8 . ___ Warm
15.
Depressed
___ F r e t f u l
2 3 . ___ F rie n d ly
46 .
Overconcemed
T hreatened
Uneasy
69. ___ W orrying
206
LOSS AND GAIN QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION! People In change s itu a tio n s may view the chance In terms of it s
e ffe c ts on th e ir personal and professional liv e s . These e ffe c ts
may be assessed usinc four catecories which are not mutually
exclu sive. These catecories aret
1. Personal Loss
2. Personal Gain
3 . Professional Loss
4. Professional Gain
For example. a fa c u lty member may evaluate the appointment of
a new department chairman in the fo llo w ln c waysi
Personal Lassi This new department chairman seems determined
to have as many fa c u lty members as possible
in the o f fic e durlne the re cu tar 8 i3 0 - 5i3Q
o ffic e hours. Now I m sure th at i ll have to
c iv e up my Wednesday momine tennis lesson
fo r a t lea st a few months.
Personal Gaim Hey! This new department chairman has a ereat
love fo r c la s s ic a l ooera. Now i l l f i n a ll y
have someone in the o ffic e to share my c u ltu ra l
in te re s ts .
Professional Losst This new chairman's emohasis on pure research
w il l probably dim inish the importance of com
munity service p ro je cts as a promotion c r it e r io n .
I may have to s h if t my work to cct more involved
in research i f I want to o btain my promotion
w ith in the next two years. This could cause me
some problems fo r a w h ile .
Professional Galnt The new chairman has o u ite a re p u tatio n as an
ad u lt lea m in c s p e c ia lis t. I m sure th a t th is
w ill b rin e c re a te r p re s tlc e to our department,
and i t should c e rta in ly lend some ex tra credence
to the continuing education program I'm try in g
to develop.
THE QUESTIONS! The questions in the Loss and Sain Questionnaire ask you to make
separate assessments of your personal loss, personal g a in , profes
sional loss, and professional gain which you have experienced or
which youhad an tic io a te d you would experience throughout the course
of the merger.
OTHER
INFORMATION! You w ill also be asked to evaluate the merger in terms of i t s value
to you and the size or magnitude of the change hrnuwht *hout by the
the merger.
207
Loss and Gain Questionnaire - Pate 1
MERGER STATEMENTi On J u ly I t 1901i the C o lle ts of P u blic and Urban A ffa ir s was
created as a re s u lt of the m crter of the C o lla te of General
S tu d les i the C o lla te of Urban L if e . and the I n s t it u t e of
___________________ Governmental A d m in is tra tio n .__________________________________
PERSONAL LOSS - CURRENT

As you th in k about the cu rren t m erter s itu a tio n in your c o lla te * do you have a
fee l i n t o f Personal lossT Please ra te th is f c e lin e o f cu rren t personal loss
usIns the scale belowi
CURRENT PERSONAL LOSS
C irc le your response (use only one whole number)
0 .................. 1 .................. 2 ...................3...................4 ...................5 ...................6 .................. 7 . , ............... B
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
What is your current personal loss in terms of the merter?
Current personal
lossi_______________________________________________________________
PERSONAL LOSS - PAST

At the time th a t the m crter became o f f i c i a l (J u ly 1* 1 9 8 1 )i did you have a fe e line
of personal loss? Please ra te th is past fee l i n t o f personal loss u s ln t the scale
belowi
PAST PERSONAL LOSS
0 .................. 1 .................. 2 ...................3 ...................4 .................. S................... 6 .................. 7 ................... 8
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
What did you fe e l you were lo s ln t when the m e rte r became o f f i c i a l (J u ly 1> 1981)?
Past personal lossi__________________________________________________________________
208
Loss and Gain Questionnaire - Pace 2
MERGER STATEMENTi
On Ju ly 1 . 1981. the CotleSe of Public and Urban

A ff a ir s was
created as a re s u lt of the mercer of the ColleCe of General
S tu d ies , the ColleCe of Urban L if e , and the I n s t it u t e of
___________________ Governmental A d m in is tra tio n ._________________________________
PERSONAL GAIN - CURRENT

As you th in k about the cu rren t mercer s itu a tio n In your c o lle c e . do you have a
fee lin e of personal Cain? Please ra te th is fe c lin c of cu rren t personal Cain
uslnc the sc ale below*
CURRENT PERSONAL GAIN
C ir c le your response (use only one whole number)
0 .................. 1 ..................2 . . 1 .............3 ................... 4 .................. 5 ...................6 ................ . 7 ................... 8
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Sain
Gain
Gain
Gain
What Is
your cu rren t personal Cain in terms of the mercer?
C u rren t personal c a lm _______________________________________________________________
PERSONAL GAIN - PAST

At the tim e th a t the mercer became o f f i c i a l (J u ly 1 . 1 9 81 ). did you have a fee line
of personal Caln7 Please ra te th is past fe e lin g of personal Cain uslnc the scale
belowi
PAST PERSONAL GAIN
0 ...................1 ...................2 ............. . . 3 ................... 4 .................. 5 ...................6 ...................7 ................... B
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Gain
Gain
6a in
Gain
What did you fe e l you were c a ln in c when the mercer became o f f i c i a l
(J u ly 1 . 1981)7
Past personal Cairn----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
209
MERGER STATEKENTi On Ju ly 1 . 1981. the C o lla te of Public and Urban A ffa ir s was
created as a r e s u lt o f the m erter of the Col I etc o f 6cncral
S tu d ie s , the C o lla te of Urban L i f e , and the I n s t it u t e of
PROFESSIONAL LOSS - CURRENT

As you th in k about the c u rre n t m erter s itu a tio n in your c o lla t e , do you have a
fee l i n t o f p ro fession al lossT Please ra te th is f e c l i n t of cu rren t professional
loss u s ln t the scale belowi
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL LOSS
0 ...
No
Loss
What is
1...................2 ...................3 ................... 4 .................. 5 ...................6 ...................7 . ................. S

Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Loss
Loss
Loss
your cu rren t p ro fession al
C urrent P rofessional
loss in terms of the m erttr?
lossi___________________________________________________________
PROFESSIONAL LOSS - PAST

At the time th a t the m erter became o f f i c i a l (J u ly 1 . 1 9 8 1 ). did you have a fee l i n t
of p ro fession al lossf Please ra te th is oast fe e lin g of p rofessional loss u s in t the
sc ale belowi
PAST PROFESSIONAL LOSS
0 .................. 1...................2 ...................3 ...................4 ...................5 ...................6 ...................7 ...................8
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
What did you fe e l you were lo s ln t when the m crter became o f f i c i a l
Past p rofessional
(J u ly 1 . 1981)7
lossi_______________________________________________________________
210
Loss and Gain Gucstiomalrc - Pate 4
ICRGER STATEMENT) On Ju ly 1< 1961! th * C o lla te of P ublic and Urban A ffa ir s was
created os a r e s u lt o f the m crter of the Co I ted* o f General
S tu d ies i the C o lla te of Urban L if e i and the I n s t it u t e of
___________________ Governmental A d m in is tratio n .__________________________________
PROFESSIONAL GAIN - CURRENT
As you th in k about the cu rren t m crter s itu a tio n in your c o lla te ! do you have a
fee l i n t o f p ro fession al ta ln 7 Please ra te th is fee l i n t of c u rren t p rofessional
t a in u s ln t the scale belowi
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL GAIN
0 .................. 1 .................. 2 ...................3 ...................4 .................. 5 ..................
No
Minor
Moderate
Gain
Gain
6 a ln
What is
Considerable
Gain
your cu rren t p ro fess io n al t a i n in terms of the mcrter?
Current professional t a l m ___________________________________________________________
PROFESSIONAL GAIN - PAST

At the time th a t the m e rte r became o f f i c i a l (J u ly l ! 1 9 8 1 )i did you have a fee l i n t
o f Professional ta in ? Please ra te th is past fee l i n t of p ro fession al t a i n u s ln t the
scale bclowt
PAST PROFESSIONAL GAIN
C ir c le your response (use only one whole nisnber)
..... 2................... 3..................4 . . ............... 5....... 6....... 7....... 8

No
Gain
Minor
Gain
Moderate
Gain
Considerable
Gain
What did you fe e l you were t a l n i n t when the m erter became o f f i c i a l
(J u ly l i 1961)7
Past p ro fession al t a i n t ______________________________________________________________
211
MERGER STATEMENTi On J u ly I t 1981. the C o llece o f P u blic and Urban A ff a ir s was

created as a r e s u lt of the mercer of the C o llece of General
S tu d ies i the C o llece of Urban L lf e t and the In s t it u t e of
MERGER REASONS - CURRENT

Please l i s t what you b e lie v e a t th is present time to be the reasons fo r the m ercer.
MERGER REASONS -
PAST
Please l i s t what you b elieved to b e .th e reasons fo r the mercer a t the time th a t i t
became o f f i c i a l (J u ly l i 19 61 ).
212
Loss and Sain Guestionnalrc - Pace 6
MERGER STATEMENT! On Ju ly I t 1981t the C o llece of P u b lic and Urban A f f a ir s was

created as a r e s u lt o f the mercer o f the Col IcCe o f General
S tu d les t the C o lle c t of Urban L i f t t and the I n s t it u t e o f
__________________Governmental A d m in is tra tio n .___________________________________
THE MERGER PROCESS - VALUE

CURRENT - What p o s itiv e value fo r you
up to today? Please use the
value ra tln C i
do you b e lie v e th a t the mercer has had

scale to in d ic a te your p o s itiv e personal
CURRENT POSITIVE PERSONAL VALUE

0 .................. 1 ................... 2 .................. 3 . . . . . . . . . 4 ................... 5 ................... 6 . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 8
No
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Value
Value
Value
Value
PAST - What p o s itiv e value f o r you did you b e lie v e th a t the mercer had a t the
the time i t became o f f i c i a l (J u ly I t 19811? Please use the sc ale to
in d ic a te your past p o s itiv e personal value ra tln C i
PAST POSITIVE PERSONAL VALUE
0 .................. 1 ....................2 .................. 3................... 4 ...................5...................6 ...................7 ...................8
No
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Value
Value
Value
Value
THE hERGER PROCESS - MAGNITUDE
CURRENT - What do you b e lie v e is the s iz e or the macnitude of the chances brouCht
about thus f a r aa a r e s u lt o f the mercer? Please use the scale below to
in d ic a te your assessment of the chance macnitudes
CURRENT CHANGE MAGNITUDE
0 . . .
Minor
Chance
No
Chance
Moderate
Chance
Extensive
Chance
PAST - What did you b e lie v e was the s ize or macnitude o f the chances broucht
about by the mercer when i t became o f f i c i a l (J u ly I t 1981)? Please use
the scale below to In d ic a te your oast assessment of the chance macnitudei
PAST CHANGE MAGNITUDE
0 . . . . .
No
Chance
Minor
Chance
Moderate
Chance
Extenalve
Chance
ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST I I
INTRODUCTION! As a change s itu a tio n progresses' people may fin d th a t t h e ir
reactio n s to the s itu a tio n also change. In the case of the
mercer o f the C o llece of General Studies* the C o llece of
Urban L lf c i and the In s t it u t e of Governmental A d m in is tratio n
your fee lin e s may today be d if fe r e n t from when the mercer
became o f f i c i a l as o u tlin e d in the merCer statement Civen
below.
MERGER
STATEMENT
DIRECTIONS
i On J u ly l i 1961? the C o llece o f Public and Urban Affairs- was

created as a re s u lt of the mercer of the College of General
S tu d ie s ' the C ollege of Urban L ife * and the In s t it u t e of
Governmental A d m in is tratio n .
i Please read the l i s t below and check a l l those words which
describe your cu rren t fe e lin g s about the merCer of the
th ree u n its lis te d in the merger statem ent.
1. ___ A fra id
2.
A g itated
24.
Frightened
47. ___ Overwhelmed
25.
Furious
48. ___Panicky
3. ___ Angry
26. ___ Glad
49. ___ Peaceful
4 . ___ Anxious
27. ___ Gloomy
50. ___ Pleasant
5. ___ A p ath etic
28. ___ Grim
51. ___ R a ttle d
6. ___ B i t t e r
29. ___ G u ilty
52. ___ R estless
7. ___ Calm
30. ___ Happy
53. ___ Sad
8. ___ Cheerful
31. ___ Helpless
54. ___ Secure
9. ___ Comp la in In c
32. ___Hopeless
55. ___Sentimental
10.
Concerned
33.
H o s tlle
56. ___ Serious
u.
___ Contented
34.
In d iff e r e n t
57. ___ Shaky
12. ___ Contrary
35. ___ Insecure
58. ___Shocked
13. ___ Cool
36. ___Jealous
59. ___ Solemn
14. ___ Cross
37. ___ Joyful
60. ___ Steady
IS. ___ Depressed
38. ___ Kindly
61. ___Tense
16.
39. ___L ig h t-h e arte d
62. ___T e r r if ie d
17. ___ D is b e lie v ln c
40. ___Lone 1y
63. ___Threatened
18. ___ Discouraged
41. ___Mad
64. ___Thoughtful
19. ___ Easy-going
42. ___Mean
65. ___ Unconcerned
20. ___ F e a rfu l
43. ___ M iserable
66. ___ Uneasy
21. ___ Fear 1ess
44. ___ Nervous
67.
22. ___ F re tfu l
45. ___ Numb
68. ___ Warm
23. ___ F rie n d ly
46. ___ Overconcemcd
69. ___Worrying
Desperate
Upset
214
COMMENT SHEET
Thank you fo r taking tha time to complete these instrum ents. Could you please
take a few more moments to answer these ev alu atio n questions?
Thank you
1 . Approximately how lone did I t take fo r you to complete these Instruments?

5 - 1 5 minutes
1 5 - 2 0 minutes
___ 3 0 - 4 5 minutes
___ 45 minutes or more
2 0 - 3 0 minutes
2 . How c le a r were the in s tru ctio n s? (C ir c le your response)
1 ................. . 2 ................. 3 ................... 4
Very
Unclear
C le a r
Very
Unclear
C lear
I f you rated the in s tru c tio n s as a 1 o r a 2> could you Please e x p la in what
the d i f f i c u l t y was w ith the in s tru c tio n s ?
3.
Were there any p arts of the Instruments which you had d i f f i c u l t y completing?
I f there were* could you Please t e l l me which questions were troublesome
and why you found them so?
4.
Did the form at of the m a te ria ls cause you any problems In reading o r com pleting
them? I f they dld< could you Please e x p la in the n a ture o f the problem?
5.
Do you have any suggestions fo r making these m a te ria ls e a s ie r to complete?
Appendix D
Sample Change Assessment Package--Final Form
215
216
2336 Briarwood H i l l s D riv e

A tla n ta i Georgia 30319
A o rlI 12. 1983
Dear A d m ln is tra to ri
As a doctoral student in Educational A dm instration a t Georgia S ta te U n iv e r s ity .
I am conducting my d is s e rta tio n research on in d iv id u a l re a c tio n s to i n s t it u
tio n a l change. I have been given perm ission by the p res id e n t of your in s t it u t i o n
to request your assistance in p ro vid in g in fo rm atio n f o r th is re search . Could
I please have a few moments of your time?
As you are w ell aware, the U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola Ju n io r
College J o in tly produced a u n ific a tio n proposal which re c e n tly has been withdrawn
by the presidents of both i n s t it u t io n s . I would lik e you to use the attached
Instrum ents to assess your re ac tio n s to th is u n ific a tio n Plan w ithdraw al and
to assess your a n tic ip a te d reactio n s had the u n if ic a t io n p lan been approved and
enacted. These instrum ents a re i
1. Two ( 2 ) a d je c tiv e c h e c k lis ts to assess your fe e lin g s
about the u n ific a tio n plan/process a t two d if f e r e n t
points in tim e.
2 . A Loss and Gain G uestionnaire to assess your fe e lin g s
of personal loss, p ro fess io n al loss, personal g a in .
and P rofessional g a in in terms o f the u n ific a tio n p la n /
process.
A ll responses w i l l be
in d iv id u a l responses.
an a ly s is purposes and
Thus, c o n f id e n t ia lit y
reported as aggregated data w ith no id e n t i f i c a t i o n of

In a d d itio n , your responses w i l l be used only fo r data
w i l l not be made a v a ila b le to anyone o th e r than m y se lf.
and anonymity w i l l be m aintained a t a l l tim es .
I hope th a t you w il l p a r tic ip a te in th is p r o je c t, the re s u lts of which w il l be

reported in the d is s e r ta tio n and as a b r ie f s it e an a ly s is f o r both the U n iv e rs ity
of West F lo rid a and Pensacola Ju n io r C o lle g e . Because I have not enclosed an
informed consent form. I w il l in f e r th a t your com pleting these Instrum ents
in d ic a te s your consent to p a r t ic ip a t e according to the s tip u la tio n s s ta ted h e re in .
When you have completed these instru m en ts. Please place the m a te ria ls in the
attached self-add ressed stamped envelope and re tu rn them to me by Wednesday.
A p ril 20. 1963.
Thank you so much fo r your tim e and h e lp . Should you have any questions about
these instrum ents or about the d is s e rta tio n p r o je c t, please do not h e s ita te to
c a ll me a t 404-658-3100.
C o rd ial I y .
Bob Michael
217
UNIFICATION ASSESSMENT PACKAGE

DEMOGRAPHICS SHEET
1. At which I n s t it u t i o n arc you c u rr e n tly employed?

Pensacola J u n io r C ollege
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a
2. For how many years have you been employed a t th is In s titu tio n ?
Years
3. How would you c la s s ify your c u rre n t employment Position?(Check only one)
A d m in is tra tio n
S ta f f
F acu lty
218
ABJECTIVE CHECKLIST I
INTRODUCTION! A chande s itu a tio n may cause people to have any number of
responses* Please th in k about your fc e lin e s about the
withdrawal of the u n ific a tio n proposal as o u tlin e d In the
chande statem ent Clvcn below.
CHANGE
STATEMENTi
In October 1982 a formal Plan f o r the u n ific a tio n of the

U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola Ju n io r Col lade was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 1983
the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
DIRECTIONS!
Please read the l i s t below and check a l l those words which

describe your fe c lin e s about the withdrawal of the u n ific a tio n
proposal as o u tlin e d in the chande statem ent.
24.
25. ___Furious
48. ___Panicky
3. ___ Anery
26. ___ Glad
49.
4. ___ Anxious
27.
G1oomy
50. ___ Pleasant
28.
Grim
51. ___R a ttle d
5. ___ A pathetic
Frldhtened
47. ___Overwhelmed
1. ___ A fra id
2. ___ A ditated
Peaceful
Restless
6. ___ B it t e r
29. ___ G u ilty
52.
7. ___ Calm
30. ___Happy
53. ___Sad
a.
31.
Helpless
32.
Hopeless
Cheerful
9. ___ Comp 1a in in *
54. ___ Secure

55. ___Sentimental
Serious
33. ___ H o s tile
56.
11. ___ Contented
34.
In d iffe r e n t
57. ___ Shaky
12. ___ Contrary
35.
Insecure
58.
J e a 1ous
59. ___ Solemn
10. ___ Concerned
13.
Coo 1
36.
14.
Cross
37. ___Joyful
Shocked
60. ___ Steady

61. ___Tense
15.
38. ___ Kindly
16.
39.
L ld h t-h e arte d
62. ___T e r r if ie d
40.
Lane 1y
63.
Threatened
41. ___Mad
64.
Thoudhtful
42.
65.
Unconcerned
66.
Uneasy
17.
DlsbeI le v in *
IB . ___Discouraeed
19.
Eaay-dolnd
20. ___ F earfu l

21.
Fearless
22. ___ F re tfu l

23.
Frien dly
Mean
43.
__Mlserab 1e
44.
Nervous
67. ___Upset
45.
Numb
68.
Warm
69.
Worryind
46. ___ Overconcemed
219
LOSS AND GAIN OllESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTIONi Po p I In a change s itu a tio n nay view the change in terms of i t s
e ffe c ts on t h e ir Personal and p rofessional liv e s . These e ffe c ts
nay be assessed using fo u r categ o ries which are not m utually
e x c lu s iv e . These categ ories a re i
1 . Personal Loss
2 . P rofessional Loss
3. Personal Gain
4 . P rofessional Gain
Por example, a fa c u lty member may evalu ate the appointment of
a new department chairman in the fo llo w in g waysi
Personal Loss
This new department chairman seems determined to have as many
fa c u lty members as possible in the o ffic e during the re g u la r
8 :3 0 - 5 :3 0 o ff ic e hours. Now I m sure th a t I w il l have to g ive
up my Wednesday morning t a m is lesson fo r a t le a s t a few months.
Professional Loss
This new chairman s emphasis on pure research w il l Probably
dim inish the Importance of community se rv ic e p ro je c ts as a
promotion c r it e r i o n . I may have to s h i f t my work to g et more
involved in research i f I want to o b ta in my promotion w ith in
the next two years. This could cause me some problems f o r a w h ile .
Personal Gain
Hey! This new department chairman has a g re a t love f o r c la s s ic a l
ooera. Now I w i l l f i n a l l y have someone in the o ff ic e to share
my c u ltu r a l in te r e s ts .
Professional Gain
The new chairman has q u ite a re p u ta tio n as an a d u lt learn in g
s p e c ia lis t. I'm sure th a t th is w i l l b rin g g re a te r p re s tig e to
our department: and i t should c e r ta in ly lend some e x tra credence
to the continuing education program which I am try in g to develop.
THE ftUESTIONSt The Questions in the Loss and Gain flu e stlo n n aire ask you to make
separate assessments of your personal loss: p rofessional loss: personal
g a in , and p ro fession al g ain which you have experienced or which you
a n tic ip a te you w il l experience throughout the change process.
OTHER
INFORMATION!
You w il l also be asked to evalu ate the change in terms of i t s value
to you and the s ize o r magnitude of the change.
220
4
CHANGE STATEMENTt In October 1982 a formal Plan fo r th u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity o f West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C o llege was
___________________ the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
PERSONAL LOSS - CURRENT

As you th in k about the w ithdraw al of the u n if ic a tio n p ro po sal do you c u rre n tly
have a fe e lin g o f personal loss? Please ra te t h is fe e lin g of c u rre n t personal
loss using the scale belowi
CURRENT PERSONAL LOSS
0 ...................1 ...................2 ................... 3 ...................4 ...................5 ................... 6 ................... 7
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
What are you c u rre n tly losing on a personal
the u n if ic a tio n proposal?
lev el in terms of the w ithdraw al of
C urrent personal lossi______________________________________________________________
PROFESSIONAL LOSS - CURRENT

As you th in k about the w ithdraw al o f the u n ific a tio n p ro po sal> do you c u rre n tly
have a fe e lin g o f p ro fession al loss? Please ra te th is fe e lin g o f cu rren t p ro fes
sio n a l loss using the scale belowi
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL LOSS
0 ...................1 ................... 2 ...................3 ................... 4 ...................5 ................... 6 ................... 7
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
What are you c u rre n tly losing on a p ro fess io n al
of the u n ific a t io n proposal?
lev el in terms of the w ithdraw al
Current professional lossi_____________________________________________________
221
CHANGE STATEMENT! In October 19B2 a formal Plan f o r the u n ific a tio n o f the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C o lleg e was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 19B3
___________________ the u n ific a t io n proposal was withdrawn due to lack o f support.
PERSONAL GAIN - CURRENT

As you th in k about the w ithdraw al of the u n ific a t io n p ro po sal do you c u rre n tly
have a fee lin e o f personal gain? Please ra te t h is fe e lin g o f cu rren t personal
gain using the sc a le belowi
CURRENT PERSONAL GAIN
0 ...................1................... 2 ...................3 ................... 4 .................. 5 ............... - . 6 ................... 7
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Gain
Gain
Gain
Gain
What are you c u rre n tly g ain in g on a personal
of the u n if ic a t io n proposal?
C urrent personal g a in i______________________________________________________________
PROFESSIONAL GAIN - CURRENT

As you th in k about the w ithdraw al of the u n if ic a tio n p ro po sal> do you c u rre n t Iy
have a fe e lin g of p ro fess io n al gain? Please ra te th is f e l l in g of c u rre n t p ro fes
sio nal g a in using the sc ale belowi
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL GAIN
0 ................... 1................... 2 ...................3 ....................4 ...................5 ................... 6 ................... 7
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Gain
Gain
Gain
Gain
What are you c u rre n tly g ain in g on a p ro fess io n al
of the u n if ic a tio n proposal?
Current professional gaini_____________________________________________________
222
ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST I I
INTRODUCTION!
CHANGE
STATEMENTI
DIRECTIONS!
A* a change s itu a tio n Progresses. m o p It may fin d th a t t h c lr

rs ac tlo n a to the s itu a tio n als o change. Should ths u n ific a tio n
o f ths U n lv a rs lty of West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r Col Isas
bo comp It to d dosolto th e c u rre n t s ta te of the u n if ic a t io n proposal
your fe e lln a s a t th a t time stay be d if f e r e n t from what they are
today.
In October 1982 a formal Plan fo r th e u n if ic a tio n o f the
U n iv e rs ity o f West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C o lle d t w as...
c o -o p c ra tlv a ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 1983
the u n ific a tio n Proposal was withdrawn due to lack o f support.
Please read the l i s t below and check a l l those words which
you th in k would describe your fe e lin g s should the u n ific a tio n
become coaiolete.
1.
A fra id
2 4.
Frightened
47.
Overwhelmed
2.
A g itated
2 3.
Furious
48.
Panicky
3.
Angry
26. ___ Glad
4 . __A n xlo us
27.
Gloomy
Grim
5.
A p ath etic
2 8.
A.
litte r
29. ___ G u ilty
49.
Peaceful
30.
Pleasant
51.
Watt 1ed
32.
R estless
7 . ___ Calm
X .
Happy
S3.
Sad
8.
Cheerful
3 1.
Helpless
34.
Gecure
9.
Hopeless
Complaining
3 2.
35.
Sentiments 1
10.
Concerned
33. ___ H o s tile
36.
Serious
U .
Contented
34.
In d iff e r e n t
37. ___ Shaky
12.
Contrary
33.
Insecure
13. ___Cool
36. ___ Jealous
38. ___ Shocked

39.
Solemn
14. ^ _ C ro s s
37. ___ Joyful
60.
Steady
1 3. __Dcpresaed
38.
K indly
61.
Tense
1 6.
Desperate
39.
1 7 . ___D is b e lie v in g
4 0.
18.
Discouraged
4 1. ___ Had
19.
Easy-going
42.
Mean
20.
F e a rfu l
Lonely
62.
T e r r lf le d
63.
Threatened
64.
Thoughtful
63.
Unconcerned
Uneasy
43.
H ise ra b Is
66.
2 1 . ___ Fearless
44.
Nervous
67.
Usset
22.
43. ___ Nunb
68.
Wans
4 6 . ___ Overconcemed
69.
Worrying
F re tfu l
2 3 . ___ F rie n d ly
223
7
CHANGE STATEMENTi In October 1982 a format Plan f o r the u n if ic a tio n o f the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C ollege was
____________________the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack o f support.
PERSONAL LOSS - ANTICIPATED

I f the u n ific a tio n were to be completed, do you a n tic ip a te th a t you would have
a fe e lin e of personal lossf Please ra te th is a n tic ip a te d personal loss using the
sc ale belowt
ANTICIPATED PERSONAL LOSS
0 .................. 1 ................... 2 ................... 3 ................... 4 ...................5 ................... 6 ................... 7
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
What do you a n tic ip a te losin g on a personal
the u n ific a tio n ?
A n tic ip a te d personal
lev el in terms of the com pletion of
lossi_____________________________________________ ____________
PROFESSIONAL LOSS - ANTICIPATED

I f th e u n if ic a t io n were to be completed, do you a n tic ip a te th a t you would have
a fe e lin g of p ro fess io n al loss7 Please ra te th is a n tic ip a te d p ro fess io n al loss
using the scale belowi
ANTICIPATED PROFESSIONAL LOSS
0 ...................1 ...................2 ................... 3 ...................4 ...................5 ................... 6 ....................7
No
Minor
Moderate
C onsiderable
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
What do you a n tic ip a te losin g on a p ro fess io n al le v e l in terms o f the com pletion
of th e u n ific a tio n ?
Anticipated Professional lossi_________________________________________________
224
8
CHANGE STATEMENT! In October 1982 a formal Plan fo r the u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola Ju n io r C ollege was
___________________ the u n if ic a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
PERSONAL GAIN - ANTICIPATED

I f the u n if ic a t io n were to be comoletedt do you a n tic ip a te th a t you would have
a fe e lin d of personal gain7 Please ra te th is a n tic ip a te d personal g ain using the
scale belowi
ANTICIPATED PERSONAL GAIN
0 ...................1 ...................2 ................... 3 ................... 4 ...................5 .......... . . . . 6 ................... 7
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Gain
Gain
Gain
Gain
What do you a n tic ip a te gainin g on a personal
of the u n ific a tio n ?
lev el in terms of the completion
A n tic ip a te d personal g a in i________________________________________________________
PROFESSIONAL GAIN - ANTICIPATED

I f the u n ific a tio n were to be completed! do you a n tic ip a te th a t you would have
a fe e lin g of p ro fess io n al gain? Please ra te th is a n tic ip a te d p ro fess io n al g ain
using the sc ale belowi
ANTICIPATED PROFESSIONAL GAIN
0 ...................1 ...................2 ................... 3 ...................4 .................. 5 ...................6 ................... 7
No
Minor
Moderate
Considerable
Gain
Gain
Gain
Gain
What do you a n tic ip a te g ainin g on a p ro fession al
of the u n ific a tio n ?
level in terms of the completion
Anticipated professional gaini___________________________________________________
225
CHANGE STATEMENTi In October 19B2 a formal Plan fo r the u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity o f West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C ollege was
___________________ the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
PROPOSAL WITHDRAWAL REASONS

Please l i s t what you b e lie v e to be the reasons f o r the w ithdraw al of the
u n ific a tio n proposal. Be as s p e c ific as p o s sib le.
UNIFICATION REASONS
Please l i s t what you b e lie v e to be the reasons fo r the u n ific a t io n of the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola Ju n io r C o lle g e .
226
10
CHANGE STATEMENT: In October 1982 a formal Plan f o r the u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C ollege was
____________________the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
PROPOSAL WITHDRAWAL - VALUE AND MAGNITUDE

VALUE - What p o s itiv e value f o r you do you b e lie v e th a t the w ithdrawal of the
u n if ic a tio n proposal has had up to today? Please ra te your p o s itiv e
personal value on the scale below:
POSITIVE PERSONAL VALUE
0 ......
No
Value
Minor
Value
Moderate
Value
Extensive
Value
MAGNITUDE - What do you b e lie v e is the size o r magnitude of th is change in

u n ific a tio n Plans? Please ra te th is magnitude using the scale below:
PROPOSAL WITHDRAWAL MAGNITUDE
0 ......
No
Change
Minor
Change
Moderate
Change
Extensive
Change
UNIFICATION PROPOSAL - VALUE AND MAGNITUDE

VALUE - What p o s itiv e value fo r you do you b e lie v e th a t the u n if ic a tio n would
have had i f i t had been completed?
POSITIVE PERSONAL VALUE
0 ...................1 ...................2 ................... 3 ................... 4 ...................5 ................... 6 ................... 7 ................... 6
No
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Value
Value
Value
Value
MAGNITUDE What do you b e lie v e the s it e or the magnitude o f the changes

in the two co lle g e s would have been i f the u n ific a tio n had
been completed?
UNIFICATION CHANGE MAGNITUDE
0 ...................1 ...................2 ...................3 ................... 4 .................. 5 ....................6 ...................7 ................... 6
No
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Change
Change
Change
Change
Appendix E
Sample Research Outline
(Postsecondary Institutions)
227
228
Bob Michael
Georgia S ta te U n iv e rs ity
A tla n ta * Georgia
4 0 4 -65B-3100
FACULTY REACTIONS TO INSTITUTIONAL MERGER

RESEARCH OUTLINE
Research
Purposes!
1. To assess fa c u lt y re a c tio n s to the a n tic ip a te d o r completed

merger of t h e i r in s t it u t i o n w ith another h ig h er education
in s t it u t i o n .
2 . To develop case s tu d ie s fo r the merger in s t itu tio n s used in
t h is research. Case study m a te ria ls w il l co n sist of fa c u lty
re a c tio n data and In s t it u t io n a l background in fo rm atio n pro
vided by academic a d m in is tra to rs .
Research
S ite s i
Research
S u bjects:
P u b lic h ig h er education in s t it u t io n s which a re considering

merger* have developed a merger p lan* or have i n i t i a t e d or
completed a merger.
1 . A ll f u llt im e fa c u lty members a t the research s it e s .

2 . The p res id e n t and the academic v ic e p res id e n t of each s i t e .
3 . Three to s ix academic a d m in is tra to rs id e n t if ie d by the
p res id e n t and v ic e p res id e n t as having e x c e lle n t knowledge
of the merger process a t the i n s t it u t i o n .
Instrum ents!
1 . An emotional response c h e c k lis t to assess fa c u lty emotional

re a c tio n s to the merger process.
2 . A lo s s /g a in q u e stio n n aire to assess fa c u lty perceptions of
personal and p ro fess io n al loss and g ain v is -a - v is the i n s t i t u
tio n a l merger.
3 . An in te rv ie w schedule of questions designed to e l i c i t merger
background in fo rm a tio n from the p re s id e n t* academic vic e
p re s id e n t* and academic a d m in is tra to rs a t each s i t e .
Procedures!
1 . In te rv ie w s w i l l be conducted in the o f f ic e of the in d iv id u a l

su b je ct and w i l l take approxim ately 30 -45 m inutes.
2 . The emotional response c h e c k lis t and the lo s s /g a in question
n a ire w i l l be m ailed v ia campus m ail to a l l f u llt im e fa c u lty
members. Two fo llo w -u o reminders w i l l be sent out in sevenday in t e r v a ls .
3 . The completed instrum ents w i l l be returned v ia campus m ail
to a c e n tra l c o lle c t io n P o in t* such as a v ic e p re s id e n t s
o f f ic e or an i n s t it u t io n a l research o f f ic e .
229
RESEARCH OUTLINE - PAGE 2

Bob Michael
4 . E x tra copies of the instrum ents w i l l be a v a ila b le a t the

c e n tra l c o lle c tio n p o in t f o r those fa c u lty members who need
another copy.
5.
Privacy and
R epo rtin g!
The completed instrum ents w i l l be m ailed to

21 days a f t e r the i n i t i a l m a ilin g .
the research er
1 . A ll fa c u lty and a d m in is tra to r responses w i l l be analyzed and

reported as grouped d a ta . Raw data w il l be ac ce ss ib le to only
the researcher and the d is s e rta tio n committee c h airp e rso n .
2.
Each p res id e n t w i l l re ce iv e a b r ie f re p o rt of th e fin d in g s

fo r h is own i n s t it u t i o n . This re p o rt w i l l be provided w ith in
3 -4 months a f t e r d is s e r ta tio n com pletion.
Research Needs
from Each
In s t it u t i o n !
1 . Approval
2 . Approval
to conduct the research a t the I n s t it u t i o n .

of the merger statem ent in tro d u c in g the Instru m en ts.
3. Three nominations each by the p res id e n t and the academic

vic e Presid en t of academic a d m in is tra to rs who have e x c e lle n t
knowledge of the merger process a t t h e i r i n s t it u t i o n .
4.
F u lltim e fa c u lty campus m a ilin g l i s t .
5. Use of the campus m ail system.

6 . In te rv ie w time w ith the p re s id e n t, the academic v ic e p re s id e n t,
and the academic a d m in is tra to rs s e lecte d f o r in te rv ie w in g .
7 . F acu lty cooperation in completing the in s tru m en ts.
6.
A c e n tra l research co o rd in ato r who w il l c o lle c t the returned

instrum ents and keep e x tra copies fo r su b je cts who m isplace
them. T his c e n tra l research c o o rd in ato r w i l l also Package the
returned instrum ents and m all them in a prepaid m a ile r to
the researcher.
Appendix F
Interview Schedule
230
231
Interview Schedule
1.
What are the reasons for the change?
2.
What is your personal evaluation of these reasons?
3.
What are your short-term plans for the institution?
4.
What are your long-term plans for the institution?
5.
Do you have any contingency plans?
6.
Who is pro-change?
7.
Who is anti-change?
8.
Who stands to gain?
9.
Who stands to lose?
What are their actions?

What are their actions?
10.
What are the external forces supporting the change?
11.
What are the major external forces against the merger?
Appendix G
List of Interviewees by Site
232
233
List of Interviewees by Site
John Baxter
Dean of Students and College Registrar
Pat Edwards
Coordinator of Public Relations
David Hewett
Chair, Social Science Division
Betty Parton
Chair, Department of Allied Health
Ann Peets
Chair, Developmental Studies
Ed Tarratus
Dean of Instruction
B. R. Tilley
President
Charles Breaux
President, Jefferson Clinic Professional Corporation
Vernon King
Senior Assistant Administrator
Robert Sherrill
Medical Director
Alex Smith
Comptroller
Vee Stalker
Director, Volunteer Services and Community Relations
Jon Vance
Executive Director
Diane Vandiver
Acting Director, Nursing

Clyde Hagler
Vice President for Business Affairs
Ed Hartsell
President
Rodney Smith
Dean, School of Humanities
Larry Yax
District Director, Learning Resources
Carl Beckman
Dean, College of Education
Ken Curtis
Vice President for Student Affairs
Arthur Doerr
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Lucius Ellsworth
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
D. Pat Howe
Vice President for University Relations
James Robinson
President
Appendix H
Loss and Gain Items
235
Loss and Gain Items

Category
Personal
Professional
Conflict in new situation(l)

Free time(l)
Hostile environment in new situa
tion (1)
Lack of real scholars(1)
Less emphasis on academic quality(1)
Lost in s huffled)
New Leadership (1)
Personal/professional contacts(3)
Position(1)
Responsibilities(1)
Restricted opportunities for growth
and expansion(l)
Status(1)
Lack of concern for research(1)

Less emphasis on academic
quality(1)
Perception of a particular dis
cipline being less rigorous(1)
Program support and cooperation(l)
Recognition(l)
Restricted organizational
mobility (1)
Salary increased)
Current
Gain
Acceleration of salary increases(1)

Atmosphere of the department (1)
Control of personal conditions
essential for effective teach
ing (1)
Curriculum revisions(1)
Department status(1)
Independence of thought and action(1)
More like-minded colleagues(1)
More support from dean's office (1)
New leadership(3)
Ability to develop own program(l)

Ability to set agenda for long
range development(1)
Addition of degrees to the program(2)
Association with the univer
sity (1)
Better division of labor(1)
Broadening expertise into other
academic ar e a s (1)
Departmental status(l)
236
Current
Loss
Category
Past
Loss
Personal
Professional
Efficiency(1)
Increased job responsibility and
function(1)
Increased professional standards
and organization(1)
Increased resources(1)
Independence(1)
Larger unit--more visibility(3)
New job experienced)
Opportunities enhanced for re
search, publication and con
tinuing education(4)
Represent a larger unit(l)
Respect from other colleges(1)
Salary(1)
Stimulus to add additional
courses d )
Variety of students increased(1)
Academic quality emphasis(1)

Autonomy of the unit(l)
Family atmosphere(1)
Inconvenience of moving office{l)
Less daily contact with colleagues(1)
Lost in the shuffle(2)
Personal contacts(1)
Personal significance(l)
Restriction of opportunity(1)
Standing among peers/subordinates(1)
Academic quality emphasis(1)

Cancellation of promotion
gains(1)
Decision-making powers (1)
Ease in obtaining promotion/
tenured)
Recognition(1)
Salary increased)
Special identity within the
university(1)
Uncertainty as to future of
program(l)
237
Position(l)
Prestige in teaching area(l)
Professional contacts(5)
Public speaking skills(1)
Reorganization of division(1)
Work experience(1)
Category
Past
Gain
Personal
Departmental status(1)
Development of job(l)
Enhanced focus on the college(1)
Hope for a position(1)
Increased program visibility(1)
Leadership(3)
More contacts with wider interests(4)
More support from dea n s offi c e (1)
Office s p a c e d )
Personal autonomy(1)
Professional
Better work environment(1)

Departmental status t increased
professionalism of program(l)
Efficiency(1)
Enhanced status in the univer
sity (1)
Expand number of courses I en
joy teaching(1)
Identification with a larger
u n i t (1)
Increased program acceptability(1)
Increased professional standards
(1)
Increased resources(1)
Increased visibility(1)
Job redesign(1)
New job (1)
Nicer office(1)
Organization(l)
Program expansion
Appendix I
Merger Reasons Categories
Urban Affairs
239
240
Merger Reasons Categories

Urban Affairs
Merger reason
category
Current
nominations
Past
nominat ions
10
10
Efficiency
Enrollment
Leadership
Program effectiveness
Save all three units
Service to students
University prestige
Economic
Educational
Organizational/Operational
Political
Appendix J
Loss and Gain Items
241
Loss and Gain Items

Category
Personal
Current
Loss
Current
Gain
Professional
Opportunity for new/broader pro

fessional experiences(1)
Opportunity to provide more pro
grams and events for stu
dents (1)
Opportunity to work more closely
with competent, professional
staff(1)
Possibility of professional ad
vancement
Definition of the university will
be retained(l)
Demonstration of my commitment to
the university becoming a 4-year
institution, but not necessarily
on my terms{1)
Directorship of this office will
retain a strong personal
identity(1)
Job security(1)
Relief of several years of stress/
change/new problems(1)
Continuation of the status quo

Demonstration of interinstitutional cooperation(2)
Demonstration of professional
leadership of faculty(l)
Directorship of this office will
retain a strong personal
identification(1)
Potential for 4-year status for
the university(1)
242
Personal
Professional
Anticipated
Loss
Administrative identity and

mission(l)
Free time(l)
Known situation(l)
Vision of role of university(1)
Administrative identity and

mission(l)
Predictable professional obliga
tions, assignments, etc.(l)
Professional status q u o (2)
Anticipated
Gain
New people to work w i t h (2)

New responsibilities(1)
Opportunity for new program

development(1)
Opportunity for development or
change of position(4)
Vindication of a professional
position(l)
Category
Appendix K
Merger Proposal and Withdrawal Reasons
2kk

Unification Reasons
Avoid duplication of services(5)
Avoid takeover of University of West Florida by
Florida State U n i v ersity(2)
Better program articulation(2)
Better service to the community(2)
Better use of community resources(1)
Broader range of student services(1)
Community aspirations(3)
Earlier specialization in academic a r e a s (1)
Eliminate competition with Pensacola Junior
Col l e g e (1)
Intercollegiate athletics(1)
Keep students in the Panhandle(2)
Larger institution with more c l o u t (4)
Lower division at University of West Florida{6)
Maintain community h a r m o n y (1)
Politics(l)
Relieve fear at Pensacola Junior College over
lost enrollments(1)
Proposal Withdrawal Reasons
Conflict with m i s s i o n (4)
Cost(2)
Deviation from state n o r m s (4)
Lack of political clout/alliances(9)
Opposition from community college system(l)
Politically inappropriate(1)
Poor leadership(1)
Poorly written p r o p o s a l (1)
Appendix L
Loss and Gain Items
246
Loss and Gain Items

Category
Personal
Professional
Continued frustration(1)
Opportunity for experienced)
Possibility of advancement(1)
Possibility of greater financial
rewards, benefits(2)
Possibility of development of
position(2)
Advancement in the university

system(l)
Higher level authority(1)
Prestige(l)
Professional stimulationd)
Opportunity for development(2)
University status(1)
Current
Gain
Community recognition for unifica

tion effort(1)
Continued position(l)
Continued responsibility(1)
Continued role(l)
Continued functions(1)
Continued opportunities(1)
Continued professional rank/
status(1)
Continued viable program(l)
Anticipated
Loss
Employment(1)
Freedom of involvement(1)
Position comfort(1)
Position security(l)
Flexibility(1)
Functions(1)
Security of position(1)
Staff(1)
Anticipated
Gain
Community/state involvement(1)
Higher level of postsecondary
employment(1)
Increased income(4)
Job performance satisfaction(l)
Status/prestige(3)
Better use of facilities(1)

Better use of faculties(1)
Higher level of employment(4)
Increased income(1)
Increased stature as a change
agent(1)
Status/prestige(3)
Unified approach to higher
education(2)
University status d )
247
Current
Loss
Appendix M
248
249
Unification Reasons
Better articulation of p r o g r a m s (1)
Better community service(2)
Better opportunities for students(5)
Broadened scope of program offerings(1)
Creation of new university in northwest F l o r i d a (6)
Elimination of duplication and competition(8)
Enhanced economic growth of the a r e a (2)
Greater economic base for community college mission(l)
Improved image and performance of the University
of West Florida(l)
Increase University of West Florida enrollment(1)
Introduction of new approach to education in
F lo r i d a (1)
Prevention of enrollment decline in advanced and
professional education p r o g r a m s (1)
Promotion of technical upper division programs
at the university(1)
Proposal Withdrawal Reasons
C o s t (1)
Economic environment(2)
Ill-conceived plan(l)
Lack of community support; fear of elitism(l)
Lack of equal commitment between both institu
tions (1)
Lack of leadership by university administration(1)
Lack of legislative support(6)
Lack of understanding of area educational n e e d s (1)
Lack of understanding of how the plan would work(l)
Lobbying by the community colleges(1)
No real strategy to get plan accepted(l)
Politics(3)
Possible harm to vocational education(1)
University of West Florida fear of competition
with a large "overnight univer s i t y " (2)
Unprecedented arrangement(4)
Appendix N
Loss and Gain Items
250
Loss and Gain Items

Category
Personal
Professional
Current
Loss
Enjoyable working relationships/

situation(l)
Health(1)
Involvement in possible future
options(1)
J o b (2)
Job contentment(1)
Legitimate and knowledgeable
authority(2)
M o n e y (1)
Residence(1)
Respect for county commission(1)
Satisfying work(l)
Security(2)
Stability of competent p e ople(2)
Time with friends(3)
Friends(1)
Governance structure(1)
Hospital allies(2)
Job security(2)
Joint goals for the hospital(2)
M o n e y (1)
Opportunity to work with UAB
(medical school) house staff(2)
Professional quality of the
group(1)
Quality of patient care(3)
Support for indigent c a r e d )
Current
Gain
Change in employment(1)
Forced to think about personal
w a n t s (1)
Greater esprit de corps among hos
pital workers toward problem
resolution(l)
Less structure needed for final
decision(l)
Restudy of hospital would reprove
our accomplishments(1)
Get governing body off center,

make changes(1)
Investigation of job opportuni
ties (1)
Leaving(2)
Out from under the personnel
board(l)
Recommendations may be considered(l)
Reevaluate my commitment to
Jefferson Clinic(1)
Suggestion by UAB (medical school)
that we have teaching value(1)
Category
Personal
Professional
Anticipated
Loss
Ability to function(2)
Chance for meaningful c h a n g e d )
Clinic(2)
County-clinic contract(1)
Friends(2)
H o m e (3)
Ideal of indigent c a r e d )
Identity(1)
Income and retirement contribution(5)
Initiative(1)
J o b (7)
Job security(1)
Lease of the hospital(1)
Reduction in hospital funds and
staff (2)
Ability to meet goals of the

hospital(1)
Career(2)
Contact with UAB (medical school)
house staff(1)
Job rewards(1)
Peer relationships{3)
Position(6)
Quality nurse practitioners(1)
Reduction in services(3)
Anticipated
Gain
Confidence from learning a new area(l)

M o n e y {3)
More sharing among remaining em
ployees , working for common g o a l s d )
New job m o v e d )
New setting, new cult u r e d )
Association with a large national

company(1)
Learn more about administrative
management and decision making
in the hospital business(1)
New area of (academic) concentra
tion (3)
New field(l)
New position(3)
252
Appendix 0
Board of Trustees Resignation
Reasons and Justifications
253
Board of Trustees Resignation

Reasons and Justifications
Resignation Reasons
B igotry(3)
Contract renegotiation(3)
Cost of indigent c a r e (14)
Decreased reven u e s (2)
Effect c h a n g e (1)
Eliminate resident house s t a f f (1)
Fear-loss of subsidies paid by hospital to county
through retirement and health care(l)
Gain budget c o n t r o l (5)
Gain con t r o l (2)
Gain control of house staff and r e h i r e (1)
Lack of tr u s t (2)
Political(9)
Poor m a n a g e m e n t (4)
P o w e r (2)
Value cha n g e s (2)
Justification
No--Board has no control over F u n d i n g (1)
Cost is c o n t r o l l e d d )
Personal and political gain(l)
Yes--Cost factors(3)
Gain control of coding p r o b l e m s , change
ma n a g e m e n t (1)
Political posturing important(2)
Appendix P
Loss and Gain Items
255
Loss and Gain Items

Category
Current
Loss
Personal
Administrative relationships(4)
Convenience [travel](3)
Course control and structure con
trol (2)
Flexibility(1)
Free time(l)
Grading control based on m astery(1)
Institutional p r i d e (2)
Job security(2)
Leadership stability(1)
Office(l)
Opportunity(1)
Personal accomplishments(2)
Pleasant work environment(1)
Prestige(3)
Psychological comfort(2)
Reduction in black graduates(1)
Reputation(2)
Self image(1)
Social status with fellow asso
ciates (1)
Status(2)
Professional
Academic standards(4)
Administrative competence(3)
Albany Junior College(1)
Curriculum control(4)
Demotion(2)
Department identity(1)
Department status(1)
Discipline reputation(l)
Input(1)
Job satisfaction(l)
Merit raise competition among
faculty will increased)
New administration(l)
Position(8)
P o w e r (1)
Professional environment(2)
Professional services delivery(l)
Reputation/status(4)
Salary(1)
Tenure(1)
Timed)
Category
Personal
Professional
Challenge to the Albany Junior

College hierarchy(1)
Faculty status(1)
Less work(l)
More college-like atmosphere(1)
More firm social environment(1)
New colleagues(1)
Responsibility to hold things
together until merger decision
m a d e (1)
Salary(8)
Administrative advancement(1)
Greater research orientation(2)
Job opportunities(1)
More educational facilities(1)
More course offerings(1)
New acquaintances(2)
Opportunity to teach upper divi
sion courses(6)
Prestige of 4-year institution(1)
Speaking engagements, consultant
fe e s (1)
Anticipated
Loss
Classroom autonomy(2)
Friendships at Albany Junior
College(3)
Identification with Albany State
College [reputation](3)
Inconvenience(4)
Loss of communication(1)
Loss of the institution(1)
Network(l)
Personal community standing{4)
Personal life changes(1)
Position(9)
Pride in work/motivation(3)
Professional status(2)
Racial stereotyping(l)
Self satisfaction(l)
Work environment(3)
Work pattern(4)
Academic Independence(1)
Administrative contact(1)
Campus status(1)
Career(3)
Control of class quality(1)
Demotion(2)
Input(1)
Learning environment(1)
Loss of better students(1)
Mission shift--move from teaching
emphasis to research emphasis(1)
Position(15)
Po w e r (1)
Professional contacts(1)
Quality/standards(6)
Reputation/status/prestige(8)
Salary(1)
Student serviced)
Teach lower level classes(4)
Tenure(2)
257
Current
Gain
Category
Anticipated
Gain
Personal
Decreased racial hostility(1)

Fewer responsibilities(2)
Greater challenged)
Less conformity to administrative
n o r m s (1)
M o n e y (9)
More free time (A)
More varied work environment(1)
Shorter contact hours(1)
Status(1)
Professional
Advanced position(1)
Flexibility in teaching assign
ment (1)
Increased research opportuni
ties (1)
Increased peer/professional
contacts(1)
M o n e y (1)
More money for institutional
n e e d s (1)
Prestige/status(3)
Retain brightest students(1)
Teach in specialty areas(1)
Teach upper level courses(5)
Widened professional horizons(1)
258
Appendix Q
Merger Reasons and Justifications
259
260
Merger Reasons and Justifications
Merger Reasons
Declining enrollment(2)
E c onomics(12)
Efficiency(2)
Eliminate plant duplication(1)
Eliminate program duplication(15)
Federal p ressures(21)
Improve organizational structure at Albany State
Co l l e g e (1)
Increase minority participation in higher education
in Albany a r e a (1)
Increase number of whites at Albany State C o l l e g e (6)
Integration(1)
J e alously(1)
Keep population from going elsewhere for a four-year
degreed)
Overcome historical stigma of a black institution(1)
Perception of what minorities want(l)
P o l i t i c a l (7)
Quality improvement at Albany State Col l e g e (8)
Quality improvement at both schools(1)
R a c i a l (2)
Racial b a l a n c e (7)
Merger Justifications
No--Albany Junior College is already desegrated(l)
Better methods should be used to achieve
desegration(1)
Both institutions serve equally the community(1)
Junior college mission different from the
four-year college m i s s i o n (8)
Maintain the historically black institution(4)
Merger would create institutional m e d i o c r i t y (2)
Merger would in effect penalize strong
p r o g r a m s (2)
Politically motivated{2)
Projected financial savings will not be
a c h ieved(2)
Racial balance will not be achieved(2)
261
Yes--Declining enrollments(1)
E conomics(8)
Efficiency(3)
Eliminate what is in effect a private institution
funded from public f u n d s (1)
Equal opportunity(2)
Improve educational strength and quality(3)
Appendix R
Adjective Nominations
Sudden Change Model
262
263
Adjective Nominations
Sudden Change Model
Cells
Adjective
Afraid
Agitated
Angry
Anxious
Apathetic
Bitter
Calm
Cheerful
Complaining
Concerned
Contented
Contrary
Cool
Cross
Depressed
Desperate
Disbelieving
Discouraged
Easy-going
Fearful
Fearless
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened
Furious
Glad
Gloomy
Grim
Guilty
Happy
Helpless
Hopeless
Hostile
Indifferent
Insecure
3
8
10
11
6
5
15
1
2
32
4
1
2
2
11
1
9
10
14
18
2
12
9
1
4
29
3
2
5
2
9
6
2
7
1
7
13
2
6
1
5
6
3
3
5
5
5
3
12
3
4
7
13
5
18
2
4
3
13
21
2
7
1
2
2
2
4
7
2
2
1
2
3
2
5
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
6
4
3
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
1
3
4
5
6
3
7
12
1
13
4
8
19
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
264
Cells
Adj ective
Jealous
Joyful
Kindly
Light-hearted
Lonely
Mad
Mean
Miserable
Nervous
Numb
Overconcerned
Overwhelmed
Panicky
Peaceful
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
Sad
Secure
Sentimental
Serious
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn
Steady
Tense
Terrified
Threatened
Thoughtful
Unconcerned
Uneasy
Upset
Warm
Worrying
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
5
1
2
1
7
2
1
7
2
2
2
6
4
3
3
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
5
2
16
16
3
11
10
2
4
8
1
1
8
3
5
8
3
2
4
2
4
2
4
11
13
4
1
10
3
14
4
5
8
1
20
10
1
12
20
10
1
3
1
4
1
1
4
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
1
3
3
6
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
4
4
1

A Social Psychological Approach To The Study of Organizational Change

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Social Psychological Approach To The Study of Organizational Change

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INFORMATION TO USERS

A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF

G e o r g ia Sta te Universi:/ College o f Ed u c atio n

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______

Colored illustrations, paper o r prin t______

Photographs with dark b a c k g ro u n d ______

Illustrations a re poor c o p y ______

P a g e s with black marks, not original copy_______

Print show s th rough as there is text on both sid e s of p a g e ______

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

Print ex ceed s margin req u irem en ts______

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

Com puter printout p ag es with indistinct p rint______

P a g e (s )____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows.

Two pages num bered

______ . Text follows.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______

A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for

It has been approved and accepted

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

In presenting this dissertation as a partial fulfillment

2336 Briarwood Hills Drive

M.Ed., Georgia State University (Educa

Teacher, The Galloway School, Atlanta,

Teacher, The Saint Francis School, Atlanta,

Degree Program Specialist, College of Urban

Special Project Coordinator, Georgia Career

American Educational Research Association

The Practice-Theory-Practice Model: The

Often missing in organizational change inquiry is analysis

analysis would serve as a bridge between these micro and

the research attempted

to assess individual perceptions of and emotional reactions

the assessment data

were aggregated for the development of social psychological

staff and administrators at

five institutions participated in this study of organiza

The sites included four postsecondary

institutions involved in mergers and a public hospital

the dimensions of institu

personal and professional loss and gain, their perceptions

of the positive personal value of the change, their percep

Additionally, partial validation

of the Sudden Change Model was obtained.

the social psychology of organizational change, however,

organizational culture, values, history, environment) not

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE LITERATURE

Adjective Checklist Review Panel Return

Adjective Checklist Grief Categories

Research Sites: Institutional Type and

Change Assessment Package Return Rates and

Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain

T-Values--College of Public and Urban

Intercorrelation Matrix--College of Public

Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations

Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain

T-Values--University of West Florida

Intercorrelation Matrix--University of West

Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations

Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain