Commitment To Organizational Change - A Critical Review

This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University]
On: 03 January 2015, At: 21:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Change Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20
Commitment to Organizational Change:

A Critical Review
Stephen Jaros
College of Business , Southern University , USA

Published online: 26 Feb 2010.
To cite this article: Stephen Jaros (2010) Commitment to Organizational Change: A Critical Review,
Journal of Change Management, 10:1, 79-108, DOI: 10.1080/14697010903549457
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010903549457
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Journal of Change Management

Vol. 10, No. 1, 79 108, March 2010
Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015
Commitment to Organizational Change:

A Critical Review
STEPHEN JAROS
College of Business, Southern University, USA
ABSTRACT This article provides a critical, narrative review of existing findings from the
organizational behavior literature on the assessment of employee commitment to change
initiatives. First, articles that have assessed commitment to change and attempted to link it to
antecedents and/or outcomes are analyzed. Second, implications of these results and
recommendations for future research are provided, focusing on the need to clarify the
dimensionality of change commitment, its measurement, its relationship to organizational
commitment, and its relationship to culture.
KEY WORDS : Commitment to change, change management, organizational commitment, goal
commitment, critical review, multi-level analysis
Introduction
As markets become ever more global, de-regulated, and competitive, strategic

adaptability, which often translates into the implementation of new goals and
change initiatives, is becoming a requirement for many organizations. This fact
of business life has made commitment to change initiatives more salient for
managers and employees (Conner and Patterson, 1982; Fisher and Selman,
1992; Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Armenakis and Harris, 2009). Managers
who can get their subordinates to commit to new goals, programs, policies, and
procedures may stand a better chance of having these critical business activities
successfully implemented (Kotter, 1996). Because this trend reflects relatively
new developments in the business environment, the literature on this topic is of
a more recent vintage than that of other foci of commitment, such as commitment
Correspondence Address: Stephen Jaros, Southern University, College of Business, 12445 Mollylea Drive, Baton
Rouge, LA 70815, USA. Email: sjaros3@cox.net
1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/10/01007930 # 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14697010903549457
80
S. Jaros
to the organization, or commitment to the union or work group, all of which have
been studied for several decades (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005).
Nevertheless, the commitment to change (C2C) literature has arguably reached
a critical mass, if not for formal meta-analysis, but such that a qualitative assessment of important studies and findings might be helpful to researchers seeking a
way forward in advancing our understanding of how employees develop C2C and
its impact on organizational outcomes. While other researchers have analyzed and
reviewed the theoretical bases for commitment to change (cf. Coatsee, 1999) and
the motivational processes that underlie employee reactions to change initiatives
more generally (cf. Armenakis and Harris, 2009), no study has specifically
focused on analyzing, integrating, and drawing research implications from the
empirical commitment to change literature. Additionally, the Coatsee (1999)
article, which is more closely focused on C2C than the Aremenakis and Harris
article, was published 10 years ago, and in the interim a significant amount of
theoretical and empirical work on C2C has emerged (the development of the
Meyer/Herscovitch three-component model of C2C, for example).
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to critically review existing empirical
findings from the literature on C2C, the attitudinal and behavioral antecedents
and outcomes associated with it, and to offer recommendations for future research
in these areas. First, a theoretical overview is provided that critically compares,
contrasts, and integrates existing theoretical models of C2C. Then, articles that
empirically address C2C are analyzed for the hypotheses tested and research findings. This section of the article is structured around antecedents and outcomes of
C2C with assessments of how C2C has been conceptualized and measured interspersed throughout. The purpose of this part of the article is to assist researchers
who are not currently experts in the area, but are interested in the C2C concept and
thinking about studying it, in getting up to speed with the key issues and findings
generated and addressed by past research. Finally, implications of these results are
discussed and recommendations for future research in the C2C area are provided.
These recommendations focus on making progress in establishing the construct
validity of C2C, improving our measurement of C2C, developing a theoretical
framework for how C2C develops, and issues related to the multi-level and
cross-cultural assessment of C2C. Thus, the second part of the article is intended
to benefit anyone, expert or new to the literature, in crafting new research projects.
Theoretical Overview
Commitment to change is an action commitment, in that unlike other forms of

work commitment that are directed at relatively static entities such as teams
or the organization, C2C usually reflects an employees level of attachment to
the implementation of new work rules, policies, programs, budgets, technology,
and so forth, all of which are dynamic processes (Neubert and Wu, 2009).
Thus, theorists have tended to model the development of C2C as a dynamic
process as well. Conner (1992) proposes that C2C reflects internalization of a
change program, the end result of a three-stage process which begins with an
awareness of, followed by an acceptance of, the need for the change initiative.
Coatsee (1999) builds on this model by incorporating Lawlers (1992) concept
Commitment of Organizational Change
81
of involvement (defined as a product of change-related information, knowledge,

empowerment, and rewards), and shared goals/values. In other words, C2C
reflects a state in which employees are made aware of a change, have the skills
needed to implement it, are empowered to implement it, are motivated to do so
by adequate rewards, and share the vision exemplified by the change. Thus,
while Conners model is purely psychological, focusing on mental states such
as awareness of an acceptance of the need for change, Coatsees model incorporates both psychological factors (awareness) and their interaction with objective
factors (skills possession) and organizational context (reward structure). Also,
by linking acceptance to the notion of goals/value congruence, Coatsee explicitly
describes the condition needed for acceptance of, and thus commitment to, change
that is only implicit in Conners theory.
Additionally, Armenakis and colleagues (Armenakis et al., 1993; Armenakis
and Harris, 2009) have also developed a model of the factors that motivate
employees to commit to change. It encompasses: (a) discrepancy between the
status quo and a desired state of affairs; (b) perceived change appropriateness;
(c) change efficacy (can the employee and organization successfully implement
the change?); (d) support for the change from leaders; and (e) perceived
valence of the change for the employee. Their conceptualization of C2C is therefore also unidimensional, reflecting an employees willingness to support the
change. Compared to the Coatsee and Conner models, Armenakis and colleagues
model clarifies the factors that determine the employees awareness of the need for
change (a perceived discrepancy between the status quo and a desired state), and
broadens Coatsees concept of skills beyond those possessed solely by the
employee to include his/her assessment of the organizations capabilities as
well. The model also explicitly recognizes that the efforts of leaders may influence
an employees felt-need for change and thus willingness to commit to it. The
notion of perceived valance of the change seems analogous to Coatsees
notion of goal/value congruence, though it also conveys more of a sense of economic interest, whereas the Coatsee view seems broader and thus could encompass
altruistic values as well.
Finally, more recently, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) argue that C2C has three
dimensions, reflecting normative (obligation-based), continuance (cost-based),
and affective (feelings-based) attachments to change initiatives. Meyer and Herscovitch accept the motivational bases for C2C described by Conner, Coatsee,
Armenakis and colleagues, but focus on the notion that commitment to change
is a multidimensional construct, not a single, psychologically undifferentiated
state. The model proposes that different types of goal/value congruence (in
Coatsees terms) or perceived change valences (in Armenakiss terms) will lead
to the development of different forms of C2C: valence perceptions based on
costs incurred from failing to support the change will lead to the development
of continuance C2C, those based on positive feelings towards the change will
produce affective C2C, and those based on a sense of obligation towards the
change effort will foster normative C2C.
What all these conceptualizations share is the notion that C2C reflects some
kind of attachment to and involvement in the change initiative, which results
from awareness of the change, some combination of motivating factors, be they
82
S. Jaros
goal congruence, affective affinity, or self-interest, and the mental/physical ability

to work on behalf of the change initiative. Thus, theoretically, this discussion
shows that the intellectual development of models of C2C has been one of
elaboration: Conner offers the basic framework, which Coatsee, Armenakis, and
Meyer/Herscovitch have fleshed out.
These models also share some common ideational roots: Normative C2Cs
intellectual legacy is ultimately based on Aristotelian concepts of good name
and good faith, where one commits to a change because one feels that doing
so is part of the employment contract (implicit or explicit) that one has agreed
to, and is thus to an extent honor-bound to uphold. Similarly, continuance commitment to change is partially rooted in concepts of face saving: The employee
commits to change because they fear that peers such as co-workers will feel letdown and their reputation will suffer if they fail to do so. Another ideational
basis, shared by the Armenakis concept and the Meyer and Allen model of
C2C, is that of dissonance reduction: the employee might commit to a change
initiative because there is currently a discrepancy between the organizational
status quo and its stated goals and values that the change initiative could
resolve. Finally, all of the models share the same concerns with respect to outcomes of C2C: higher levels of C2C should lead to behaviors that are supportive
of the change effort.
Thus, to summarize, the key issues raised by this theoretical overview and to be
addressed by the review of the empirical literature are: (a) does empirical research
support the motivational components of these models, and to what extent are the
more elaborated models (cf. Armenakis, Coatsee) superior to Conners general
approach; (b) is Meyer/Herscovitchs three-dimensional conceptualization an
improvement on the unidimensional approach of the other models? And (c)
does C2C positively predict change-supportive outcomes?
Method: Selection of Empirical Research
Since this is a review of the empirical C2C literature, to be included in the review,
a study had to: (1) empirically assess commitment to change, either for construct
validity purposes or to assess its antecedents and/or outcomes; and (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Articles that focused on commitment to
aspects of change processes unrelated to these issues and/or did not assess the
C2C construct itself (Dolcourt and Zuckerman, 2003; Fjortoft, 2007; Pereles
et al., 1997; Wakefield et al., 2003) were not included in the analysis of antecedents/outcomes of commitment to change, though some of their insights are
drawn upon in the research recommendations section.
The studies selected for analysis were chosen by searching for specific terms
including commitment to change, change commitment, organizational commitment to change, and change management, affective commitment to change,
continuance commitment to change, and normative commitment to change, in
the LexisNexis and EBSCO Research Databases (which include PsycINFO,
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, SocINDEX and Business Source
Premier/Complete). Additionally, a snowball method (review of references cited)
was used on these and the articles generated from the database searches to identify
83
other articles of interest. Articles were then read to ascertain their relevance in
making a contribution to the concept, antecedents, and/or outcomes of commitment
to change. Over 30 articles were read and citation counts assessed to determine
which articles made the most impactful contributions, but this study is intended
to be comprehensive in its coverage of the literature with respect to issues (1)
and (2) above, so articles were not included if they did not address those issues.
Studies included in the review are cited in the references, and studies read but
not included in the review are indicated in the Appendix.
Commitment to Change: Antecedents
This section of the article reviews studies that have focused on determining what
factors lead to the development of commitment to change. Summaries of key
study attributes are reported in Table 1. These studies show some similarities, but
mostly differences, in the ways they conceptualize and measure commitment to
change, and the antecedents tested. Five of the six studies conceived of C2C as a
unidimensional construct, but even among these considerable conceptual diversity
is evident: Lau and Woodman (1995) defined C2C as a specific attitude towards
change; Conway and Monks (2008) and Herold et al. (2008) conceptualized it as
an affective reaction to change; Fedor et al. (2006) defined it as a cognitive intention
to commit to change; and Neubert and Cady (2001, study 2) conceived C2C as
similar to goal commitment, emphasizing a willingness to put forth effort on
behalf of the change. A sixth study, Chen and Wang (2007), adopted the multidimensional approach developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) positing that
employees experience affective, continuance, and normative commitments to
change. Thus, no two studies used the same scale to measure commitment to change.
Concerning the factors hypothesized as antecedents of commitment to change,
there has been relatively little effort made to fully assess the relevance of the motivational theories of C2C such as those developed by Armenakis and colleagues
(1993) or Coatsee (1999). No study has comprehensively tested either model,
though Lau and Woodmans (1995) comes closest to testing the Armenakis
model via its change schema construct, which captures the employees sense
of the impact, salience, meaning, significance, and their personal control over
the change. Neubert and Cady (2001) assess aspects of these models via their
concepts of change efficacy, supervisory expectations, and expected rewards, as
do the two studies by Herold and colleagues (Fedor, Caldwell, and Herold,
2006, 2008), which assess job-level and work-unit impact of the change, and
(in the latter study) the impact of change-oriented leadership from supervisors
on employee C2C. Likewise, Conway and Monks (2008) assessed the import of
expected rewards, communication about the change, and transformational/
transactional leadership on C2C. Additionally, two factors that do not readily fit
in to any existing motivational model locus of control and organizational
commitment were assessed as causal factors in multiple studies. Additionally,
Neubert and Cady (2001) were also unable to find a linkage between yet
another aspect of these models, perceived rewards, and commitment to change.
Overall, these studies provide partial support for aspects of the theoretical
models: Change schema (Lau and Woodman, 1995), perceived change efficacy
S. Jaros
84
Table 1. Summary of studies investigating antecedents of commitment to change

Paper/Article
Commitment to
change concept
Type of change
Method
Proposed
elimination of
traditional
university bonfire
ceremony, student
sample
CrossEight-item scale Change schema, locus

sectional SEM created for
of control,
analysis
study
organizational
commitment,
dogmatism, general
attitude towards change
Change schema and

general attitude towards
change positively
predicted C2C, but
organizational
commitment had a
stronger, negative impact.
Neubert and Cady Unidimensional goal

(2001, study 2)
oriented
N 413
Administrative
employees at a
Midwestern (USA)
University
Customer service
initiative among
university staff
Longitudinal
time-lagged
regression
Modification of
HKW goal
commitment
scale
External compliance
factors (rewards, coworker and supervisor
expectations) and
affective factors
Affective antecedents
including organizational
commitment, teamwork
commitment, and change
efficacy positively
predicted C2C,
compliance measures had
no impact
Chen and Wang

(2007)
N 256
Chinese customs
workers
New performance
appraisal system at
Chinese Customs
offices
Crosssectional,
Hierarchical
regression
Meyer/
Herscovitch
(2002) scales
Locus of control (LC),

demographic controls
Employees with high LC

had low affective and
normative C2C, employees
with low LC had high
continuance C2C
Lau and
Woodman (1995)
N 331
Student sample
University
Unidimensional
specific attitude
towards change
Multidimensional:
affective, continuance,
normative commitment
to change
Measure used
Antecedents
Key findings
Multiple kinds of
change impacting
employees across
the 34
organizations
Multi-level,
hierarchical
linear
modeling
Four-items,
Group-level change
Change favorableness
written for study favorableness, work and positively predicted C2C,
job unit change
interacted with work and
job level change to
predict C2C
Herold et al.
(2008)
N 343,
Employees in 34
organizations
Unidimensional:
affective commitment
to change
Multiple kinds
across 30
organizations,
leader-subordinate
groups
Multi-level,
hierarchical
linear
modeling
Four-items from
Meyer/
Herscovitch
(2002) affective
scale
Transformational
leadership, changeoriented leadership,
job-level impact of
change, organizational
commitment
Both types of leadership

interacted with job-level
impact to predict C2C,
organizational
commitment had direct
positive impact on C2C,
change-oriented
leadership less impactful
than transformational
leadership
Conway and
Unidimensional,
Monks (2008)
affective commitment
N 259
to change
Community care
and maternity
hospital employees
in Ireland
New patientfocused service

enhancement
program in three
Irish health service
institutions
Crosssectional,
multiple
regression
Six-item Meyer/
Herscovitch
(2002) Affective
scale
Transformational and
transactional
leadership, human
resources practices
Move to patient-focused
care, communications, and
reward strategy positively
predicted C2C,
transactional leadership
negatively predicted C2C
Notes: SEM: structural equation modeling; C2C: commitment to change; HWK: Hollenbeck, Williams, and Klein; LC: locus of control.
Fedor et al. (2006) Unidimensional,

N 806
intent to change
Managers and
office workers in
34 different
organizations
85
86
S. Jaros
(Neubert and Cady, 2001), perceived change favorableness (Fedor et al., 2006;
Conway and Monks, 2008) and job-level impact of change (Fedor et al., 2006;
Herold et al., 2008) all were found to have positive effects on commitment to
change. Another aspect of these models, managerial actions and leadership,
received mixed support. Neubert and Cady (2001) found that supervisory expectations had no impact on C2C, but Herold et al. (2008) found that the use of
transformational and change-oriented leadership did. However, in contrast to
Herold et al. (2008), Conway and Monks (2008) found that while transformational
leadership did not predict C2C, transactional leadership had a negative impact.
Differences in how these studies were conducted could possibly account for
these variant findings: the Neubert and Cady study was longitudinal whereas
the Herold et al. and Conway/Monks studies were cross-sectional. Neubert and
Cady also used a hybrid measure of leader behavior that combined elements
from scales tapping transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and
supervisor support for the change, and used a goal commitment-based measure
of C2C. The Herold study and the Conway/Monks study used Meyer/
Herscovitchs affective C2C scale, but the former employed a truncated four-item
version while the latter used the complete six-item scale. Both used established
measures of transformational leadership. In the case of these two studies, a critical
factor could be the nature of the control variables included in the analyses. Herold
et al. conducted a multi-level analysis and included organizational commitment
as a control but Conway and Monks included a much broader array of controls,
including contextual factors such as type of medical facility employed at, as well
as controls for HR practices such as job autonomy, level of training, satisfaction
with rewards and job security, and level of teamwork required on the job. Thus,
different control factors could have affected the relationships reported between
types of leadership and C2C in these studies.
Mixed findings also characterize the assessments of organizational commitment
and locus of control. Neubert and Cady (2001) and Herold et al. (2008) both found
organizational commitment to be a significant, positive predictor of C2C, but Lau
and Woodman (1995) found a negative relationship. This discrepancy could be
explained by how organization members viewed the perceived change: in the
former studies, the change was perceived as consistent with existing organizational
values, so employees highly committed to the organization were willing to commit
to the change. However, in the Lau and Woodman study, the proposed change
(ending a traditional university bonfire ceremony) was perceived as contrary to
organizational values, so those highly committed to the organization refused to
commit to the change. Also, while Lau and Woodman (1995) found no relationship
between locus of control and C2C, Chen and Wang (2007) found that locus of
control had a positive relationship with two of Herscovitch and Meyers (2002)
commitment to change constructs, but a negative effect on the third. Thus, in this
instance, the multi-dimensional approach was perhaps able to tease out differences
in how locus of control influenced C2C missed by the unidimensional approach.
As of now, while aspects of the major theoretical models have been confirmed,
and in a manner suggesting that the more elaborated approaches of Coatsee,
Armenakis and colleagues is an improvement over the basic model proposed by
Conner (1982), assessment of the major motivational models is proceeding in a
87
piecemeal, and not the more desirable comprehensive, manner. Overall, these
findings highlight the need to clarify: (a) the possible need for comprehensive
tests of motivational models of C2C; and (b) the usefulness of modeling C2C
as unidimensional or multidimensional and how it should be measured. These
issues are explored in the Research Directions section of the article.
Consequences of Commitment to Change
Like the studies that focused on causes of C2C, studies that have assessed consequences of C2C have varied in how C2C has been conceptualized. While two
of these studies consider C2C to be a unidimensional construct similar to identification with goals or the organization (cf. Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Neubert and
Cady, 2001, study 1), the four more recent studies have adopted the Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) multidimensional framework. Yet even among these studies
there is variation in how the constructs are operationalized, with some using
the full six-item scales but others (Meyer et al., 2007, Canadian sample) using
truncated versions of the original measures.
Not surprisingly, research into the consequences of C2C has for the most part
focused on the impact of the construct on the employees willingness to engage
in change-related behaviors (see Table 2 for comparison of key consequences
studies). For example, Hartline and Ferrell (1996) examined managers commitment to a new service quality initiative as a mechanism influencing the behavior
of hotel service workers. Neubert and Cady (2001) linked C2C with employee
willingness to attend change-implementation meetings, while Meyer et al.
(2007) assessed C2Cs impact on whether employees said that they merely complied with change mandates or enthusiastically championed them. This reflects
researcher interest in testing the primary theoretical expectation about C2C
outcomes: the compatibility hypothesis (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002) which
proposes that C2C should: (a) impact on change-related attitudes and behaviors;
and (b) impact more strongly than other forms of work commitment, such as
organizational commitment. The findings from these studies have been generally
supportive. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) and Meyer et al. (2007) each found
C2C to be a stronger predictor than organizational commitment of an employees
willingness to enthusiastically support change programs.
Another characteristic of this research is that the multidimensional studies have
attempted to tease out differences in how affective, normative, and continuance
C2C (AC2C, NC2C, and CC2C in Tables) affects outcomes. The basis for these
investigations is the notion that since continuance C2C reflects being forced to
go along with a change due to the high costs of resisting it, affective and normative
C2C reflect the employees free choice to implement the change. Therefore, continuance C2C implies neutral or negative feelings about the change and thus
should be associated with mere compliance with the change, while affective
and normative C2C should lead to enthusiastic efforts (Herscovitch and Meyer,
2002: Meyer et al., 2007) and a greater ability to cope with the change (Cunningham, 2006), and again results have been supportive. These findings also provide
some support for the construct validity of the multidimensional model, since
they suggest that the three dimensions really are distinguishable in their outcomes
S. Jaros
88
Table 2. Summary of studies focusing on consequences of commitment to change

Paper/Article
Commitment to
change concept
Consequences
assessed
Type of change
Method
Measure used
Hartline and
Unidimensional,
Ferrell (1996)
identification with
N 797,
change
Managers and
customer service
workers, 279 hotel
units
Managers
commitment to
customer service
initiative
Cross-sectional,
SEM
Modified version of
Organizational
Commitment
Questionnaire
(OCQ)
Use of
empowerment and
behavioral
evaluation methods
Managers highly
committed to the change
were likely to use these
methods to motivate
subordinates to support
the change
Neubert and Cady See Table 1

(2001, study 1)
N 388(t1)/
181(t2), political
action committee
workers
New membership
drive among
political action
committee workers
Longitudinal,
SEM
See Table 1
Willingness to
attend membership
drive meetings,
make new sales
calls
Employees with high C2C

were more willing to
engage in these behaviors,
and succeeded in signing
up more new members
Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002)
N 224
Graduate students
in a psychology
program
N 157 Nurses
working at various
medical facilities
Multiple initiatives Mail survey,

among two samples Hierarchical
of hospital nurses in Linear Modeling
many hospitals and
university students
Multidimensional,
affective,
continuance,
normative
Key findings
AC2C, NC2C, and Behavioral

AC2C positively predicted
CC2C scales
continuum
greater behavioral
written for the study reflecting range of activity in both samples,
change-support
NC2C in one sample but
actions
not the other, CC2C in
neither sample
Multidimensional:
affective,
continuance,
normative
NCAA sponsored
athletic department
changes at 10
universities
Cross-sectional,
SEM
Herscovitch and
Coping with the
Meyer (2002) scales change, turnover
intentions
CC2C negatively
impacted coping ability
and positively impacted
quitting intentions. NC2C
positively impacted both,
AC2C positively impacted
coping ability
Meyer et al.
(2007, Indian
study)
N 379
Departmental
managers at an
Indian company
Multidimensional,
affective,
continuance,
normative
Downsizing and
restructuring at
Indian firm
Cross-sectional,
hierarchical
regression and
profile analysis
Herscovitch and
Mere compliance,
Meyer (2002) scales compliance,
cooperation, and
championing
NC2C and AC2C

positively predicted
championing, negatively
predicted compliance,
CC2C reverse
Meyer et al.
(2007, Canadian
study)
N 699(t1),
337(t2)
Employees of a
Canadian energy
company
Multidimensional,
affective,
continuance,
normative
Downsizing/reorganization at
Canadian energy
company
Longitudinal,
time-lagged
regression and
profile analysis
Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002) scales
(truncated four-item
versions)
Behavioral
AC2C and NC2C
continuum
predicted changereflecting range of supportive behaviors, but
change-support
only concurrently. CCC
actions
predicted complianceonly behaviors,
longitudinally. The three
forms of C2C did not
interact to predict
behavior, but C2C was a
better predictor than
organizational
commitment
Notes: SEM: structural equation modeling; C2C: commitment to change; AC2C: affective commitment to change; NC2C: normative commitment to change; CC2C:
continuance commitment to change; NCAA: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Cunningham
(2006)
N 299
Employees of 10
NCAA athletic
departments
89
90
S. Jaros
(though this has not been shown for affective and normative C2C). These differences suggest that managers should focus their efforts more on cultivating affective and normative C2C, as opposed to continuance C2C.
Thus, compared to the antecedents research, the outcomes research appears to
be on somewhat firmer theoretical footing. The compatibility hypothesis is
proving to be a solid conceptual basis upon which to build models hypothesizing
C2Cs impact on change-related outcomes. However, this literature reveals the
same schism between uni- and multidimensional conceptualizations of C2C
evident in the antecedents literature, and a failure to agree on a common
measure of C2C. And, this literature also points to the need to clarify the relationship between C2C and organizational commitment. Recall that in the antecedents
literature, organizational commitment was modeled as a cause of C2C, but in the
outcomes literature it has been treated as a covariate, something experienced
simultaneously with C2C and that competes with C2C as a predictor of
change-related outcomes.
Also, another shortcoming of this literature is a tendency to use self-reports as
proxies for actual behavior. Cunningham (2006), for example, investigated C2Cs
impact on turnover intentions, not actual quitting behavior. Likewise, the Meyer
and colleagues studies have used C2C dimensions to predict self-reported willingness to champion change, rather than actual championing behavior. The one
exception is Neubert and Cady (2001), which used C2C to predict actual attendance at change implementation meetings, and did so longitudinally, important
when trying to make cause-effect inferences.
Studies Assessing Both Causes and Consequences of Commitment to Change
Finally, three studies have examined both causes and consequences of C2C, and
a summary of these articles is presented in Table 3. Again, these studies reflect
differing beliefs about the dimensionality of C2C, with two of them (Ford
et al., 2003; Neves, 2009) using a unidimensional concept, and one (Parish
et al., 2008) using the Herscovitch/Meyer multidimensional approach. Neves
actually uses one of the three Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) scales, the affective
C2C measure, to operationalize commitment to change.
On the antecedents side, these articles are similar to the studies described
earlier, in that they tend to posit factors that capture some aspects of the
Armenakis and colleagues, and Coatsee developmental models, such as perceived
change appropriateness and perceived self-efficacy (Neves, 2009), fit with existing
mission and supervisor relations (Parish et al., 2008) and supervisory support
(Ford et al., 2003). Support for these model components was mostly favorable,
though in the Neves study, self-efficacy failed to predict commitment to
change. Perhaps most interesting was Parish et al.s finding that continuance
C2C was negatively predicted by motivation and supervisory relations, suggesting
that if an employee has good relations with their boss, and is highly motivated
to support the change program, they will not feel that they are being forced or
compelled to implement the change.
On the consequences side, these studies are similar to the outcome studies
described in Table 2, in that they focus on change-related outcomes. The results
Paper/Article
Commitment to
change concept
Ford et al. (2003)

N 432
Police officers and
sergeants from 11
police
departments
Type of change
Method
Unidimensional:
focused on
identification with
change,
willingness to put
forth effort
Community
policing practices
among police
officers
Parish et al.
(2008)
N 191
Employees from a
large not-forprofit
organization
Multidimensional:
affective,
continuance,
normative
Reorganization,
new technology
introduction
among transport
services workers
Neves (2009)
N 191
Portuguese
university
employees
Unidimensional:
affective C2C
New performance Cross-sectional,

appraisal system
SEM path analysis
among Portuguese
university
employees
Measures used
Antecedents
Outcomes
Cross-sectional,
Six-item scale
SEM path analysis written for study,
influenced by the
OCQ
Managerial
support for
change,
experience with
similar changes,
organizational
commitment
Community
All three antecedents
policing behaviors positively predicted C2C,
which then positively
predicted community
policing behaviors
Cross-sectional,
Herscovitch and
SEM path analysis Meyer (2002)
scales (truncated
four-item
versions)
Fit of change with

existing mission,
role autonomy,
motivation,
supervisory
relations
Individual
learning,
implementation
success, improved
job performance

by all four causes, NC2C
by fit with vision and
supervisory relations,
CC2C negatively
predicted by motivation
and supervisory relations;
all three outcomes, NC2C
only individual learning
Perceived change
self-efficacy,
perceived change
appropriateness
Change-related
actions, turnover
intentions
Affective C2C positively

predicted by change
appropriateness, but not
by self-efficacy; affective
C2C negatively impacted
turnover intentions and
positively impacted selfreport change behaviors
Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002)
AC2C scale
(truncated threeitem version)
Key findings
Notes: SEM: structural equation modeling; OCQ: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; C2C: commitment to change; AC2C: affective commitment to change; NC2C:
normative commitment to change; CC2C: continuance commitment to change.
Table 3. Summary of studies assessing causes and consequences of commitment to change
91
92
S. Jaros
show strong support for an affect-based unidimensional C2C construct. Both the
Ford et al. (2003) and Neves (2009) studies utilized affect-based measures: Ford
et al. used a scale developed from the organizational commitment questionnaire
(OCQ), a measure of affective organizational commitment, while Neves used
Hescovitch and Meyers (2002) affective C2C scale. In both studies, C2C was a
significant, positive predictor of change-related outcomes. Likewise, in the
Parish et al. (2008) study, affective C2C was the only one of the three dimensions
that predicted all three outcome variables. Continuance C2C did not predict any of
them, while normative C2C predicted only one.
Finally, while generally supporting the compatibility hypothesis related to outcomes, and for the most part supporting aspects of the motivational models, this
research also reflects some of the weaknesses of the outcomes literature: a reliance
on cross-sectional research designs despite an ostensible goal of making causal
inferences, and the use of behavioral intent proxies for actual behavior.
Implications and Directions for Future Research
What are the implications of these studies for future directions in commitment-tochange research? In the theoretical overview section, three issues were identified:
the adequacy of the motivational models of C2C, the usefulness of an elaborated
multidimensional approach to C2C, and C2Cs efficacy as a predictor of changerelated behaviors. Concerning the last issue, the existing findings seem clear: C2C
does indeed predict change-related behaviors. Yet, concerning the first two issues,
the evidence is mixed, and the review also raises additional issues as well. Thus,
future research is needed to: (1) make additional progress in understanding the
nature of the concept itself; (2) distinguish C2C from organizational commitment;
(3) improve measurement of C2C; (4) determine how C2C develops, and (5)
address issues related to choosing which types of employees and change to
study. For each of these issues, the implications of the literature survey are discussed, and then specific directions for research implied by this discussion are
identified. Table 4 contains a summary of these issues and the recommended
directions for future research.
(1) The Concept of Commitment to Change
The first step in understanding behavior that flows from a concept, such as C2C, is
to establish the definition of the concept because this is a precondition for making
behavioral attributions to it (Schwab, 1980). The review of the literature shows
that disagreement exists over exactly what is meant by the term commitment
to change, with a key issue being whether C2C is a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. Despite their differences, the multidimensional approach
and the unidimensional approach discussed above seemingly share a common
theme, C2C as an emotional state of mind is reflected in cognitions: in the
unidimensional approach, commitment to change is defined as a general feeling
(Lau and Woodman, 1995; Ford et al., 2003) and in the multidimensional
approach as feelings of desire (affective C2C), obligation (normative C2C),
or felt need to commit to the change (continuance commitment to change,
93
Table 4. Research issues and recommendations

Research issue
Commitment to change concept
Relationship between commitment to

change and other work commitments
Measurement of commitment to change
Development of commitment to change
Decisions about employees to study
Recommendations
1) Studies that compare the predictive power of
unidimensional and multidimensional C2C
constructs, and whether normative C2C has a
different factor structure and independent predictive
utility compared to affective C2C.
2) Avoid usage of intent to commit proxies for C2C.
3) If using only a single component of a
multidimensional C2C construct, provide rationale
for doing so.
1) CFA analysis to determine if continuance C2C and
continuance OC are distinct constructs.
2) CFA analysis to distinguish C2C constructs from
organizational commitment and goal commitment.
3) If modeling C2C as a cause of non-change related
outcomes, like turnover, control for OC.
4) Explore possible reciprocal relations among
organizational commitment and C2C.
1) Make sure item wording of C2C scales reflects the
specific change being assessed.
2) Utilize LGM to capture how C2C develops, and
influences outcomes, as changes are implemented
over time.
3) Modifications to validated C2C scales should have a
theoretical justification, and the modified scale
should be empirically assessed before being used.
1) Studies that investigate core psychological processes
that may inhibit or facilitate the development of C2C,
such as cognitive dissonance, habituation, and
entrainment.
2) Comprehensive assessments of theoretical models
such as Conner (1992), Coatsee (1999), Armenakis
et al. (2009).
1) Careful assessment of the change context: which
departments/subunits/employee groups/job
categories are affected, and possible multi-level
effects.
2) Cross-cultural assessments of C2C processes using
tests of statistical invariance.
3) If assessing C2Cs impact on behavior, avoid use of
behavioral proxy and self-reports in lieu of actual
behaviors.
Notes: C2C: commitment to change; OC: organizational change; CFA: confirmatory factor analysis; LGM: latent
growth modeling.
continuance C2C). The issue is whether a model of three distinct feelings of commitment will predict outcomes better than a single general feeling of commitment.
Among the articles adopting the multidimensional approach, confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) results generally showed that affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to change scale items loaded on three separate factors, a
prerequisite for establishing their distinguishability (Herscovitch and Meyer,
94
S. Jaros
2002). Furthermore, the correlations among these factors, with the exception of
affective C2C and normative C2C, were for the most part modest, suggesting
that there is not a great deal of conceptual overlap among them. These studies
also found some evidence that affective, normative, and continuance C2C had
different relations with outcomes such as turnover intentions (Cunningham,
2006) and change-related behaviors (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002; Meyer
et al., 2007) and attitudes (Parish et al., 2008). Likewise, while Chen and Wang
(2007) did not conduct a CFA to assess the factor structure of the Herscovitch
and Meyer scales, they did report correlations among them that did not suggest
much concept redundancy, and they also found that locus of control predicted
them somewhat differently.
On the other hand, some evidence of construct redundancy, particularly between
affective and normative C2C was present as well. For example, when Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) modeled the impact of change commitment profiles, high and
low combinations, of the three commitment to change constructs on the behavioral
continuum, approximately 80% of the profiles reflected affective C2C and normative C2C at the same level, such that it was hard to fill the cells of profiles that have
these forms of commitment at contrasting levels. This reflects the relatively high
correlation among these two constructs, which tend to be highly correlated in
organizational commitment research as well. Whether this high correlation is an
inherent aspect of the affective and normative constructs themselves (perhaps
the allegedly different normative and affective mindsets are largely redundant
Jaros, 2009), or is a measurement artifact of the Meyer and Allen scales, is yet
to be fully resolved (Bergman, 2006; Jaros, 2007). In addition, Meyer et al.
(2007) found that, among Indian employees, affective C2C and normative C2C
were not distinguishable items from both scales loaded on the same factor.
Also, while the preponderance of the evidence suggests that affective, normative, and continuance C2C are distinguishable from each other in the sense that
scale items load on separate factors, constructs can be distinguishable in factor
analyses, and yet not assess the same construct domain (job satisfaction, job performance, and turnover intentions scales will load on separate factors, but of
course refer to different constructs). Consider that in both Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002) and Meyer et al. (2007), profile analyses showed that as long as
affective C2C is high, no matter whether continuance C2C or normative C2C
are high or low, the expression of commitment will be within a narrow range
on the behavioral continuum used in these studies between 72 77 in both
2002 samples, and between 70 81 in both 2007 samples. On the behavioral continuum, which ranges from active resistance to passive resistance to compliance,
to cooperation, to championing, this translates into a finding that as long as affective C2C is high, the employee will exhibit a high level of cooperation with the
change effort, which suggests that perhaps this form of C2C alone is the critical
factor. Likewise, Parish et al. (2008) found that only affective C2C predicted
all three attitudinal and performance outcomes, normative C2C predicted only
one, and much less strongly than affective C2C, while continuance C2C did not
predict any outcomes. These findings call in to question the predictive validity
of the three-component model in that they suggest that affective C2C is the
only powerful predictor of behavior.
95
However, one finding that does seem to provide unambiguous support for the
predictive utility of this model is Cunninghams (2006) result that continuance
C2C was a significant positive predictor of turnover intentions, whereas normative
C2C (direct effect) and affective C2C (indirect effect) had significant negative
impacts on turnover intentions. Yet, these findings can be questioned because
Cunningham (2006) did not control for organizational commitment, which by
Herscovitch and Meyers (2002) compatibility hypothesis should be a stronger
predictor of an organizational outcome, turnover, than C2C should be. If organizational commitment had been included in the analyses, perhaps the significant
findings for all three C2C constructs would have been rendered non-significant.
In contrast to the feelings-based view of both the unidimensional and multidimensional perspectives described above, Fedor et al. (2006) define C2C as the
individuals intentions to act on behalf of the change, a concept which is
devoid of emotional content and encompassing only behavioral intentions. In
the organizational commitment literature, a consensus is emerging that behavioral-intentions and commitment are separate constructs (Bozeman and Perrewe,
2001; Jaros, 2009). Consistent with the traditional tri-partite definition of an attitude, maybe feelings of commitment to a change effort cause the formation of a
behavioral intent to act, which leads to actual change-supportive behaviors.
This implies a causal ordering among the concepts, testable by structural path
analysis. But it also implies that behavioral intentions and commitment to
change are not the same thing, meaning that Fedor et al. (2006) did not actually
assess C2C.
Indeed, the same group of authors that conducted Fedor et al. (2006) used a
different conceptualization of C2C in Herold et al. (2008). In the latter study,
C2C was not defined as a behavioral intention, but instead Herscovitch and
Meyers (2002) concept of affective C2C was utilized. Thus, any substantive conclusions about differences and similarities across the two studies with respect to
their findings about the causes of C2C might be confounded by this difference
in the C2C constructs used, even though each was labeled commitment to
change in both studies.
The approach of Herold et al. (2008) raises another conceptual issue that also
pertains to Neves (2009) and Conway and Monks (2008) as well: in each of
these studies, why was affective C2C analyzed while the normative and
continuance C2C constructs were omitted? The latter are also part of the
Meyer/Herscovitch model. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) considered affective
C2C to be just one component in a three-component model of C2C. So was the
choice to omit normative C2C and continuance C2C from analysis one of convenience, or did the authors of these studies believe that affective C2C alone captures
the concept of C2C? Choices of this kind should be explained so as to improve the
conceptual clarity of the C2C construct.
This discussion implies the following directions for future research: first, to
resolve the dimensionality issue, what is needed is research that compares the
predictive power of the Meyer/Herscovitch constructs and the unidimensional
constructs. For example, data could be collected on both the three Meyer/
Herscovitch measures and the Ford et al. (2003), Neubert and Cady (2001) or
the Lau and Woodman (1995) measures, and their ability to predict important
96
S. Jaros
outcomes thereby compared. If the Meyer/Herscovitch measures predict outcomes above-and-beyond what the unidimensional measures are able to predict,
that would support the multidimensional framework. However, if the additional
Meyer/Herscovitch constructs do not provide additional predictive power, this
would be supportive of the unidimensional approach. Second, researchers
should avoid the use of C2C scales that model C2C as an intent to construct,
since this is better thought of as a consequence of C2C, not C2C itself. Third,
when utilizing a component of the Meyer/Herscovitch model but not all of it,
an explanation should be given as to why this is being done. Finally, within the
Meyer/Herscovitch model, additional research is needed to support the idea
that normative C2C is distinguishable from affective C2C, in terms of factor
structure, and predictive utility.
(2) How are Change Commitment and Other Forms of Commitment Related?
Another issue that remains unresolved is exactly how commitment to change is

related to other forms of commitment, such as organizational commitment
(OC). This issue is similar to topic (1), in that it partially concerns the construct
validity of C2C, because one issue that needs to be clarified is whether C2C is
redundant with organizational commitment. Of the studies that have used the
Meyer/Herscovitch scales, for example, only Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) conducted CFAs that modeled both C2C and organizational commitment to determine
the distinguishability of those measures. While that studys CFA results indicated
a six-factor model that included separate affective, normative, and continuance
commitments to the organization and to change fit the data better than models
that collapsed measures of change commitment and organizational commitment
on to single factors, this model did not reach the level of good fit on the
RMSEA measure. The authors reported only one other fit statistic, the ECVI, so
its not clear if multiple fit statistics would have altered this conclusion.
Also, the very high continuance C2C and continuance OC correlations reported
in studies two and three suggest a lack of discriminant validity between continuance C2C and continuance OC. Likewise, the failure of the continuance C2C
measure to predict behavioral outcomes when controlling for organizational commitment also suggests that it lacks predictive utility. Note that in Meyer et al.
(2007) in the Canadian sample, continuance C2C at time 1 did negatively
predict turnover intentions at time 2 but in this analysis, organizational commitment was not controlled for. Meyer et al. (2007) did conduct preliminary analyses that showed that the three C2C constructs predicted the behavioral
continuum better than did organizational commitment but this analysis was conducted at the block-level, so it could not be determined if each specific dimension
of C2C had predictive utility when controlling for each specific dimension of
organizational commitment. Likewise, in Cunningham (2006) and in Neves
(2009), it would have been interesting to know if C2C predicted organizational
turnover intentions when controlling for organizational commitment, because
theoretically (as per the compatibility thesis) we would expect organizational
commitment to be the stronger predictor of an organizational outcome like turnover intentions.
97
Additionally, we also need to know more about their causal ordering. Lau and
Woodman (1995) found that OC negatively predicted C2C, while Ford et al.
(2003) found that OC positively predicted C2C. These contradictory findings
suggest that organizational and C2C can be characterized as having reinforcing
or conflicting goals: if employees are highly committed to the organization but
perceive the change initiative as being contrary to the organizations interests,
they are not likely to be high in C2C. In contrast, highly organizationally-committed employees who perceive a change initiative as advancing the mission of
the organization are likely to respond with high levels of commitment to the
change (Huy, 1999). This implies that managers hoping to foster high levels of
employee commitment to a change initiative must be able to persuade employees
to believe that the goals of the change initiative are congruent with the goals of the
organization. However, these inferences are tempered by the fact that in the two
studies, these relations were derived from cross-sectional, not longitudinal, data.
Conversely, though none of the studies reviewed here tested for this relationship, it could be the case that C2C influences organizational commitment as
well. If an employee is experiencing a low level of OC because he/she is alienated, or perhaps just not enthused, about the current goals and mission of the
organization, but his or her supervisor implements a change initiative that the
employee is excited and enthused about, their high commitment to this change
initiative could possibly have a positive influence on their OC, because the
changed organization will be more appealing to them. Specifically, high commitment to the change initiative could raise the psychological costs of leaving
the organization (continuance C2C), and/or cause the employee to view the
goals/missions of the organization in a more emotionally positive light (affective
C2C). Future research could assess these possibilities by modeling reciprocal
relations between change commitment and organizational commitment via
longitudinal research.
One other relationship that merits further study is how C2C relates to goal commitment (GC). Unlike the other studies, Neubert and Cady (2001) derived their
change-commitment scale from a measure of goal commitment (GC), not organizational commitment. In doing so, the authors distinguished GC from C2C by
arguing that Program commitment . . . differs from the traditional conceptualization of goal commitment in that program commitment is a psychological attachment to the overall goals of a program rather than commitment to individual
performance goals (Neubert and Cady, 2001, p. 422). This definition implies a
strong relationship: both are goal-related, the alleged difference being that C2C
has a focus on overall programmatic goals rather than individual goals. Yet, GC
research has not confined itself to individual performance goals. Group-level
and work-unit level GC has been studied as well (Klein and Mulvey, 1995 for
example), and it would seem that for any type of impactful change, new goals
for the employee would be formulated. Furthermore, the two sets of antecedents
Neubert and Cady posited as causes of C2C, affective and compliance factors,
were derived in large part from Locke et al.s (1988) goal-commitment model.
Even in studies that did not derive the C2C construct from GC, the antecedents
studied frequently mirror those theorized as causes of GC. The change schema
antecedent analyzed by Lau and Woodman (1995), for example, includes factors
98
S. Jaros
such as the impact of the change on current practice (also assessed as an antecedent of C2C by Fedor et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2008), meaning of the change,
self-efficacy, salience of the change, and personal control over the change
factors frequently studied in GC research. Locus of control was also posited as
an important antecedent in this study, and in Chen and Wang (2007) as well.
Overall, most of the antecedents posited as causes of C2C are ones that figure
very prominently in models of goal commitment. This could be a case of if it
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . its probably a duck. The
problem of construct proliferation the specification of many, often redundant,
commitment constructs in organizational behavior research is one that is frequently lamented (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesveran, 2005). Future research
should investigate the distinguishability and predictive utility of the emerging
C2C construct with the well-established goal commitment construct.
Directions for future research (2): First, at least in the short-run, until their
distinguishability is firmly established, studies that use the Herscovitch and
Meyer scales in substantive research should first conduct CFAs to determine
the dimensionality of the scales in conjunction with measures of organizational
commitment. This should also be done for studies that adopt a unidimensional
approach as well, with respect to organizational and goal commitment. Second,
if hypotheses involve only C2C and not organizational commitment, OC
should be controlled for when testing for relationships with outcomes, as per
Herold et al. (2008). Third, while controlling for OC implies that OC and C2C
are covariates, it is possible that they have a causal/reciprocal relationship that
may vary (causality may be positive or negative) depending on whether the
employee is more committed to the change or to the organization, and future
research could investigate these processes. Finally, theoretical work is needed
to justify C2C as different from goal commitment, and empirical work is
needed to establish C2Cs distinguishability from this seemingly quite similar
construct.
(3) Measurement of Commitment to Change
Researchers have to be able to measure the C2C construct, and that means choices
have to be made: is it better to develop a scale from scratch (Lau and Woodman,
1995), or to modify a scale used to measure some other kind of commitment, such
as organizational commitment (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996) or goal commitment
(Neubert and Cady, 2001)? Should a C2C scale already developed by someone
else be employed (Cunningham, 2006)? Sometimes, these choices are compelled
by the research agenda. If, like Lau and Woodman, one is operationalizing
the construct for the first time, then the last option is not available. If, like
Cunningham (2006), Chen and Wang (2007) or Parish et al. (2008), propositions
derived from a particular model of C2C (in their cases, Herscovitch and Meyer,
2002), then the measures associated with that model should be used. Yet regardless of the choice made, without reliable, valid measures of C2C, it is difficult to
draw substantive conclusions about relations among variables (cf. Schwab, 1980).
In this regard, a comparison with organizational commitment is warranted,
because most C2C measures used in the studies previously discussed are
99
modifications of scales originally developed to measure organizational commitment, such as the Meyer/Allen measures and the OCQ.
Assessment of commitment to change initiatives differs from the measurement
of organizational commitment in two important ways. First, commitment to the
organization is usually more of an enduring experience. As long as the employee
is a member of organization X, they experience some, albeit fluctuating, level of
commitment to organization X; and second, it is usually a unique and unambiguous experience. That is, when an employee is asked to fill out an organizational
commitment questionnaire, there are usually no multiple entities that could
reasonably be called the organization for that employee (though in some rare
cases there might be). The target of the commitment they are being asked
about by the researcher, the organization, is usually clearly understood by the
employee (Vandenberghe, 2009).
In contrast, by their nature, change initiatives tend to be of a shorter duration,
since they are usually implemented to take the organization (or department or
work-unit) from state A to state B, and thus typically have a finite start and end
point, so C2C should be a less enduring, more transient state of mind. Furthermore, at any given point in time, the target of commitment, change, might be
uncertain to the employee, because change initiatives may be either non-existent
(if the organization is not undergoing change at that moment) or there might be
multiple change initiatives underway, such that if an employee is asked to
report their commitment to change, they might think to themselves what
change? or which change? (cf. Herold, Fedor, and Caldwell, 2007).
For measurement purposes, these differences raise the issues of the timing of
measurement, and of how the change-referent is worded in the scale. With
regard to the latter, in some of the research reviewed here, such as Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002), Cunningham (2006), and Chen and Wang (2007), item
wording of change commitment measures referred to a generic change
process, as in I believe in the value of this change from the Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002) AC2C scale. In the Chen and Wang study, the authors prefaced
the administration of the measure by telling respondents to think specifically
about the new performance appraisal system when filling out the survey, while
Cunningham (2006) conducted a group-level manipulation check to make sure
employees in the departments he surveyed were experiencing significant
change. These practices possibly mitigated respondent confusion about what or
which change they might have experience.
Timing of measurement also matters, because as noted above, organizational
changes processes are often of finite duration. So far, researchers have adopted
different strategies. In effect, Lau and Woodman (1995) measured commitment
to a proposed change, because their study involved a change to a university
bonfire tradition that had not yet been decided upon but was being debated by
the campus community. Cunningham (2006) measured C2C at university athletic
departments that were in the midst of change efforts, while Chen and Wang (2007)
and Herold et al. (2008) measured commitment to change efforts that had recently
been completed.
Can the timing of measurement influence matter? Earlier, it was noted that most
studies of C2C antecedents and outcomes have relied on cross-sectional, not
100
S. Jaros
longitudinal, methods. Therefore, results from the two studies that have measured
C2C at multiple points in time might be instructive. Neubert and Cady (2001)
measured C2C before a membership campaign was initiated and then immediately
afterwards. Likewise, Meyer et al. (2007, Canadian study) measured C2C just
before and then eight months after organizational restructuring had been
implemented and the effects were being felt. In their study of the causes of
C2C, Neubert and Cady found that affective factors were strong predictors of
C2C at both time 1 and time 2, but of the three compliance factors assessed,
only one was a significant predictor of C2C at time 1, and none were at time
2. They also found that for the affective factors, the impact of antecedents at
time 1 on C2C at time 2 was fully mediated by the antecedents at time 2. These
results suggest a significant amount of temporal stability in how antecedents influence C2C, meaning that perhaps C2C and its causes could have been measured
concurrently and at any single point in time during the change effort and the
results would likely have been the same. However, in addition to the stronger
attribution of causality made possible by measuring the impact of antecedents
at time 1 on C2C at time 2, the longitudinal design meant that they were able to
control for the influence of C2C at time 1 on C2C at time 2. Since C2C at time
1 was found to be the single strongest predictor of C2C at time 1, had time 1
C2C not been controlled for, perhaps the compliance factor that was found to
have been a significant predictor at time 1 would also have been significant at
time 2, and the impact (variance explained) in time 2 C2C by the affective
factors might have been much higher as well, causing us to misconstrue the
actual impact of all of the antecedents on change commitment.
Similarly, Meyer et al. (2007) found that the impact of affective C2C and normative C2C at time 1 on behavioral support (BS) for change at time 2 was
mediated by affective and normative C2C measured at time 2, again suggesting
that concurrent measurement would have been just as effective as longitudinal
analysis. However, they also found that time 1 continuance C2C was a significant,
direct predictor of time 2 BS while time 2 continuance C2C was not a significant
predictor. In the case of continuance C2C, first impressions seemed to have an
enduring effect on behavior, something that cross-sectional analysis would have
missed. They also found that BS at time 1 was a significant predictor of BS at
time 2, meaning that controlling for this factor was important in deriving an
accurate assessment of how the three forms of C2C impacted on behavioral
support for the change.
Thus, going forward, these results speak to the import of using longitudinal
measurement strategies, unless the specific research question implies concurrent
analyses only. Even better, some researchers have begun to use advanced forms
of structural equation analysis such as Latent Growth Modeling (LGM) to
analyze changes in commitment over time (Bentein et al., 2005, for an application
to organizational commitment). LGM requires the collection of three waves of
data, and allows the researcher to specify not just the focal variables of interest
(such as locus of control or C2C) as latent constructs, but the change in those variables as latent constructs as well. LGM allows the researcher to capture more
nuances of the process of how something unfolds over time, which would seem
to be of particular import in assessing commitment to change, which by definition
101
is about commitment to a dynamic, unfolding process as opposed to entities with

more existential stability, such as a team or organization. Researchers could use
LGM to explore how C2C varies as a change effort is implemented and
unfolds, and how these changes in C2C impact on behavioral outcomes. A
variant of LGM, Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), can be used to similar advantage
when assessing the impact of profiles of multiple forms of commitment, such as in
the Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) and Meyer et al. (2007) studies. Vandenberg
and Stanley (2009) provide a detailed discussion of the use of these methods.
Finally, another measurement issue of potential import is the modification of
existing measures of C2C for use in later studies. For example, Herold et al.
(2008) also chose to use a four-item version of Herscovitch and Meyers (2002)
affective C2C scale, not the complete six-item scale. Likewise, Neves (2009)
used a three-item version of the Hescovitch/Meyer affective C2C scale. This is
a potential problem because the addition or deletion of items can change the psychometric properties of a scale (Jaros, 2009) and, thus, change the substantive
relationships between constructs that we find in our data. A four-item or threeitem affective C2C might relate differently to antecedents or outcomes than a
six-item affective C2C.
This is not to say that this problem was actually present in the Herold et al. (2008)
and Neves (2009) studies. It may not have been, and the fact that both of these truncated scales had high internal reliability scores indicated that they were sound, at
least on that particular psychometric dimension. However, internal reliability is
not the only important aspect of a scales construct validity. And, this is not to
say that scale items should never be deleted or added. Scale refinement is an
ongoing process and deleting problematic items can make a scale a more valid,
reliable measure of the C2C construct. If, for example, confirmatory factor analysis
of our data shows that particular C2C scale items do not load strongly with other
C2C scale items in our data, then that is a sound basis for deleting those items.
In the Canadian sample, for example, Meyer et al. (2007), citing survey-length
issues, used four-item versions of the Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) scales to
assess affective, normative, and continuance C2C but the complete six-item versions of these scales in the Indian sample. While the four-item versions used in the
Canadian sample all reported reliabilities of greater than 0.8, in the Indian sample,
the six-item version of the normative C2C scale had a reliability score of 0.67,
below the customary 0.70 threshold for adequate reliability. Thus, the truncated
normative C2C was more reliable in its data set than the complete version was in
its data set. This is surprising because all else equal, due to the formula used to
derive it, a scales internal reliability tends to rise with additional items.
Additional psychometric tests might show that the four-item normative C2C
scale used in the Canadian study might be a better measure than the six-item
version and should be used in future research. But, Herold et al. (2008) and
Neves (2009) do not provide any rationale for why they truncated the affective
C2C scale, so it is not known whether the basis for the choice was sound or
not. The proliferation of different versions of the same measure also makes knowledge accumulation difficult when later researchers try to conduct meta-analyses.
Directions for research (3): First, concerning item wording to prompt employees to think about the change they are experiencing, the best practice is to word the
102
S. Jaros
items so as to refer specifically to the change that the researcher wishes to measure
the employees commitment to. In both Hartline and Ferrell (1996) and Ford et al.
(2003), for example, the specific change/strategy initiative is mentioned in
the scale items, as in I am committed to the idea of community policing from
the latter study. This practice would probably eliminate all confusion from the
mind of the respondent about the change they are being asked to reflect on.
Second, researchers should be mindful of the timing of C2C measurement, and
utilize methods such as LGM that can capture how C2C itself changes as
employees experience the change process. Finally, modifications to previously
validated scales should be justified theoretically, or if they are done for convenience, construct validity tests such as CFA should be conducted to establish that
truncation hasnt violated the conceptual integrity of the scale.
(4) Development of Commitment to Change
Concerning how C2C develops, the review of the antecedents literature shows
that for the most part, researchers have tended to focus on specific factors that
might influence an employees level (that is, high or low) of C2C, such as supervisory support, locus of control, perceived favorableness of the proposed change,
and prior experience with a change effort. Even in studies such as Parish et al.
(2008) that grounded their antecedents in a theoretical model, what tends to be
lacking is a broader theoretical account for the development of C2C in the
first place, before it achieves any particular level in the mind of the employee.
This is problematic, because it means that we have no systematic way of comparing the relative predictive power of specific causes identified in the reviewed
studies.
What would a process model of C2C development look like? Perhaps it might
be that before a change initiative is introduced, an employee has an explicit or
perhaps implicit commitment to the status quo that must be unfrozen for commitment to develop. This commitment to the status quo would be a mental construct that must be altered for C2C to emerge, constituting a barrier to the
latters development. For example, the literature on habitual routines (Gersick
and Hackman, 1990) or entrainment (Ancona and Chong, 1996) may describe
some of the mechanisms that underlie a commitment to the status quo and thus
inhibit C2C, and/or might contribute to an employees readiness to commitment
to change (Harris and Cole, 2007). Likewise, classic psychological work on cognitive dissonance has shown that dissonance reduction is an important motivator
in getting employees to change their behaviors, and thus possibly their commitments (Mazmanian and Mazmanian, 1999; Gruber, 2003); and research on
medical education has shown that by getting physicians to make a written commitment, an explicit promise, to changing their diagnosis procedures predicts whether
they actually follow through on changes (Wakefield et al., 2003; Fjortoft, 2007).
Similarly, as discussed earlier, Coatsee (1999) and Armenakis and colleagues
(Armenakis et al., 1993: Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Berneth et al., 2007;
Armenakis and Harris, 2009) have developed theoretical models for predicting
employees motivation to implement planned change, and existing research has
investigated some of these factors as causes of commitment, albeit in a piecemeal,
103
and not comprehensive, manner. This makes it difficult to know the relative
strength of each motivational factor in predicting C2C.
Directions for research (4): in addition to investigating core psychological processes such as dissonance reduction, habit formation, and entrainment as barriers
to the development of C2C, exiting motivational models such as those developed
by Conner (1992), Coatsee (1999) and Armenakis and colleagues should be comprehensively tested, so as to tease out the predictive validity of each model component. Thus either confirming the model, or pointing to how it should be
modified. Armenakis and Harris (2009) note that recently, scales have been developed and validated to assess the five factors that comprise their model of motivation to change (Holt et al., 2007), which overcomes a barrier to
comprehensively testing this model as a description of the development of C2C.
However, in the Armenakis and colleagues model, change adoption is posited
as a precursor, not a consequence, of C2C. This hypothesis is questionable on
theoretical grounds, since commitment to change might be a perquisite for the
employees willingness to adopt the change. Even from an organizational perspective, it might be better to try and convince employees to commit to a change before
seeking to implement it. Future research should test for the causal ordering of the
adoption and C2C aspects of the model.
(5) Deciding which Employees to Study
Fedor et al. (2006) and Herold et al. (2007, 2008) are exemplary in the modeling
of cross-level effects on commitment to change. Organizational change is often a
multi-level phenomenon, initiated at the top and having ripple effects down and
across the hierarchy, and if cross-level effects are not modeled and measured,
improper inferences about what is influencing C2C may be drawn. Sometimes,
change initiatives ostensibly apply to the entire organization, and yet may
impact some employees far more than others. A company-wide Total Quality
Management initiative might have profound work experience implications for
production workers, for example, but be barely noticed in the accounting department. Or, the change might be equally felt in each department, but be perceived in
very different ways by members of the different areas of the firm because of how it
specifically impacts their jobs.
On the other hand, multi-level effects are not always to be expected. If a change
is initiated within a work-unit and its effects are limited to that sphere, it would not
make sense to model multi-level factors when analyzing the C2C of employees in
that work unit. In this vein, the Hartline and Ferrell (1996) study is instructive. If a
change initiative is specifically aimed at a particular workgroup or department,
than only employees in that department should be studied, and multi-level
effects need not be modeled. Additionally, even within a particular work unit,
managers and subordinates often have different responsibilities in implementing
the change. Notably, Hartline and Ferrell (1996) assessed managerial, not
service-worker, commitment to implementing a customer-service policy, since
in their research setting it was managers that were primarily responsible for
directing the implementation of the change strategy. But since then, C2C research
has focused on the commitment of subordinates, not managers. Along the same
104
S. Jaros
lines, different types of changes might have different effects on commitment. For
example, in the Fedor et al. (2006) and Herold et al. (2008) studies, multiple
organizations undergoing different kinds of changes were sampled. Some were
experiencing re-structuring, others the implementation of new technologies, still
others changes in leadership personnel and strategy. It is possible that the
causes of C2C could vary depending on the type of change being implemented.
Finally, national and cultural differences might exist in how employees experience change commitment. As indicated in Tables 1 3, a wide variety of employees in different types of occupations and organizations have been assessed, but
much of this research has taken place in a USA Western European context, but
it is possible that cross-cultural differences exist. For example, in research using
the Herscovitch and Meyer scales, both Chen and Wang (2007), using a
Chinese sample, and Cunningham (2006), analyzing a USA sample, found that
NC2C and CC2C were not significantly correlated (r 0.05, r 0.01),
whereas Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) found a significant relationship (r
0.24 in both study 2 and study 3, significant at 0.01 and 0.05 respectively).
Perhaps Canadians view their obligation to the change initiative (normative
C2C) as a kind of a cost that would be incurred should they violate it (and
thus somewhat akin to continuance C2C), whereas USA and Chinese employees
might view normative C2C in a more purely moral/normative light, clearly distinguishing it from economic costs, and thus from continuance C2C. Likewise,
Meyer et al.s (2007) study of Canadian and Indian samples found that while
affective C2C and normative C2C were distinguishable in the former sample, in
the latter they loaded on the same factor. Meyer et al. (2007) argued that
perhaps Indian culture is more collectivist in nature, which could account for
this finding. Alternatively, as was noted earlier, perhaps the difference can be
explained by the different scales (four-item vs. six-item) used in the two
studies. At this point, these speculations are not well-grounded because the
empirical difference reported so far are both modest and drawn from just a few
studies.
Directions for research (5): as per Herold and Fedor et al.s research, we should
be sensitive to targeting employees who are likely to be undergoing the most
changes, and control for subunit membership when conducting empirical analyses
to determine the level of change commitment, and perceptions about the change
effort. This means controlling for or modeling the effects of employee type,
level, or job category when testing substantive relationships with outcomes.
Also, in future research analyzing multiple organizations undergoing different
types of change, it would be helpful if these different types of change are controlled for in the analysis of causes and consequences of change commitment so
that different effects might be teased out. Finally, future research should investigate national/cultural differences in how employees experience commitment to
change, including tests of cross-cultural invariance with regard to factor structure
and relationships with antecedents and outcomes.
Finally, although it does not fit in to any of the five categories discussed, it
was noted earlier that C2C studies that focus on outcomes have tended to use behavioral-intent proxies or self-reports of behaviors rather than actual behaviors.
Thus, our confidence in claims about C2C impacting on change-related behaviors
105
goes up if the actual behaviors are directly measured (as in Neubert and Cady,
2001) rather than via proxy.
Conclusion
In a recent review of their research on organizational change, Armenakis and

Harris (2009) argued that in order for organizations to not just survive but
prosper, they must be knowledgeable about how to implement appropriate organizational changes that will be embraced by their employees (Armenakis and
Harris, 2009, p. 128) but, unfortunately, successful organizational change
efforts are rare, with most failing to fulfill their promise. Thus, although organizational change initiatives are a ubiquitous and necessary aspect of organizational
life, they often prove to be problematic. Commitment to change has been postulated as a key psychological mechanism linking organizational efforts to
implement planned change and the behaviors of employees. Thus, commitment
to change is of import to employees, in terms of how they experience their
working lives, and to managers, in terms of achieving desirable organizational
or work-unit outcomes, and overcoming resistance to change (Oreg, 2003).
Pursuing the research recommendations outlined above could take us closer
towards greater understanding of commitment to change, why it develops, what
structural and psychological barriers might inhibit or enhance its development,
and how and why it impacts on change and perhaps even non-change related
employee behaviors and organizational outcomes, thereby helping organizations
implement change initiatives more successfully. Our role as researchers is to continue to generate the basic knowledge about commitment to change and thereby
help practicing managers implement change more effectively. In terms of
setting an agenda, the construct validity issues merit the most immediate attention
because only if we clearly define and measure commitment to change and distinguish it from other related constructs, such as commitment to other foci like
the organization, can progress be made in understanding what can be done to
promote C2C in employees (developing a strong theoretical model of its development) and make further progress in determining what outcomes it impacts upon
issues which are of greatest import to the change-manager. In this regard, while
much progress has been made, much work remains to be done.
References
Armenakis, A. and Bedeian, A. (1999) Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s,
Journal of Management, 25(3), pp. 293315.
Armenakis, A. and Harris, S. (2009) Reflections: our journey in organizational change research and practice,
Journal of Change Management, 9(2), pp. 127142.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S. and Mossholder, K. (1993) Creating readiness for organizational change, Human
Relations, 46(6), pp. 681701.
Ancona, D. and Chong, C. (1996) Entrainment: pace, cycle and rhythm in organizational behavior, in: B.M. Staw
and L.L Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 19, pp. 251284 (Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press).
Bergman, M. (2006) The relationship between affective and normative commitment: review and research agenda,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), pp. 645663.
106
S. Jaros
Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R. and Stinglhamber, F. (2005) The role of change in the
relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(2), pp. 468482.
Bernerth, J., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Walker, H.J. (2007) Justice, cynicism, and commitment: a study of
important organizational change variables, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(3), pp. 303326.
Bozeman, D.B. and Perrewe, P.L. (2001) The effect of item content overlap on Organisational Commitment
Questionnaire turnover cognitions relationships, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), pp. 1625.
Chen, J. and Wang, L. (2007) Locus of control and the three components of commitmentto change, Personality
and Individual Differences, 42(3), pp. 503512.
Coatsee, L. (1999) From resistance to commitment, Public Administration Quarterly, 23, pp. 204222.
Conner, D.R. (1992) Managing at the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers Succeed and Prosper Where
Others Fail (New York: Villard Books).
Conner, D.R. and Patterson, R.W. (1982) Building commitment to organizational change, Training and
Development Journal, 36(1), pp. 1830.
Cooper-Hakim, A. and Viswesvaran, C. (2005) The construct of work commitment: testing an integrative
framework, Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), pp. 241259.
Conway, E. and Monks, K. (2008) HR practices and commitment to change: an employee-level analysis,
Human Resource Management Journal, 18(2), pp. 7289.
Cunningham, G. (2006) The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover
intentions, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), pp. 2945.
Dolcourt, J. and Zuckerman, G. (2003) Unanticipated learning outcomes associated with commitment to change
in continuing medical education, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23(1),
pp. 173181.
Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Herold, D. (2006) The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment:
A multi-level investigation, Personnel Psychology, 59(1), pp. 129.
Fisher, L. and Selman, J. (1992) Rethinking commitment to change, Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(3),
pp. 250256.
Fjortoft, N. (2007) The effectiveness of commitment to change statements on improving practice behaviors
following continuing pharmacy education, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(6),
pp. 17.
Ford, J., Wessbein, D. and Plamandon, K. (2003) Distinguishing organizational from strategy commitment:
linking officers commitment to community policing to job behaviors and satisfaction, Justice Quarterly,
20(1), pp. 159183.
Gersick, C.J.G. and Hackman, J.R. (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing teams, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), pp. 6599.
Gruber, M. (2003) Cognitive dissonance theory and motivation for change: a case study, Gastroenterology
Nursing, 26(6), pp. 242245.
Harris, S.G. and Cole, M.S. (2007) A stages of change perspective on managers motivation to learn in a
leadership development context, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(4), pp. 774793.
Hartline, M. and Ferrell, O. (1996) The management of customer-contact service employees: an empirical
investigation, Journal of Marketing, 60(October), pp. 5270.
Herold, D., Fedor, D., Caldwell, S. and Liu, Y. (2008) The effects of transformational leadership and change
leadership on employees commitment to change: a multi-level study, Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(2), pp. 346357.
Herold, D., Fedor, D. and Caldwell, S. (2007) Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees commitment to change, Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(4), pp. 942951.
Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002) Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component
model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), pp. 474487.
Holt, D., Armenakis, A., Feild, H. and Harris, S. (2007) Readiness for organizational change: the systematic
development of a scale, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), pp. 232242.
Huy, Q.N. (1999) Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change, Academy of Management
Review, 24(2), pp. 325345.
Jaros, S. (2007) Measurement issues in the Meyer and Allen model of organizational commitment, ICFAI Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 6(4), pp. 725.
107
Jaros, S. (2009) Measurement of commitment, in: H. Klein, T. Becker and J. Meyer (eds) Commitment in
Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions, pp. 347382 (New York: Routledge).
Klein, H.J. and Mulvey, P.W. (1995) The setting of goals in groups: An examination of processes and
performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), pp. 4453.
Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Lau, C. and Woodman, R. (1995) Understanding organizational change: a schematic Perspective, Academy of
Management Journal, 38(2), pp. 537554.
Lawler, E. (1992) The ultimate advantage: creating the high-involvement organization (San Francisco: JosseyBass).
Locke, E., Latham, G. and Erez, M. (1988) The determinants of goal commitment, Academy of Management
Review, 13(1), pp. 2339.
Mazmanian, P.E. and Mazmanian, P.M. (1999) Commitment to change: theoretical foundations, methods and
outcomes, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 19(1), pp. 200207.
Meyer, J., Srinivas, E., Lai, J. and Topolnytsky, L. (2007) Employee commitment and support for an
organizational change: test of the three-component model in two cultures, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80(1), pp. 185211.
Neubert, M.J. and Cady, S.H. (2001) Program commitment: a multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its
impact and antecedents, Personnel Psychology, 54(2), pp. 421448.
Neubert, M. and Wu, C. (2009) Action commitments, in: H. Klein, T. Becker and J. Meyer (eds) Commitment in
Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions, pp. 181210 (New York: Routledge).
Neves, P. (2009) Readiness for change: contributions for employees level of individual change and turnover
intentions, Journal of Change Management, 9(2), pp. 215231.
Oreg, S. (2003) Resistance to change: developing an individual difference measure, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), pp. 680693.
Parish, J., Cadwallader, S. and Busch, P. (2008) Want to, need to, ought to: employee commitment to
organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), pp. 3252.
Pereles, L., Lockyer, J., Hogan, D., Gondocz, T. and Parboosingh, J. (1997) Effectiveness of commitment
contracts in facilitating change in continuing medical education intervention, Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 17(1), pp. 2731.
Schwab, D. (1980) Construct validity in organizational behavior, in: B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds)
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 348 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press).
Vandenberghe, C. (2009) Organizational commitments, in: H. Klein, T.T. Becker and J. Meyer (eds) Commitment
in Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions, pp. 99135 (New York: Routledge).
Vandenberg, R. and Stanley, L. (2009) Statistical methodological challenges for commitment research: issues
of invariance, change across time, and profile differences, in: H. Klein, T. Becker and J. Meyer (eds)
Commitment in Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions, pp. 383418 (New York:
Routledge).
Wakefield, J. et al. (2003) Commitment to change statements can predict actual change in practice, Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23(1), pp. 8993.
Appendix
Articles read for the review but not included:

Angle, H. and Lawson, M. (1993) Changes in affective and continuance commitment in times of relocation,
Journal of Business Research, 26(1), pp. 3 15.
Demers, R. and Forrer, S. (1996) Commitment to change. Training & Development, 50(8), pp. 2227.
Gordon, W. (1993) Individual commitment and organizational change: a guide for HR and OD specialists,
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(2), pp. 173175.
Hofman, P. (2008) Commitment to change, Utility Week, 29(5), pp. 1 2.
Huy, Q. (2002) Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the contribution of middle
managers, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), pp. 3169.
Iverson, R. (1996) Employee acceptance of organisational change: the role of organisational commitment,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), pp. 122149.
108
S. Jaros
Lines, R. (2004) Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment, and
change goal achievement, Journal of Change Management, 4(3), pp. 193215.
Maurer, R. (2005) Sustaining commitment to change, Journal for Quality and Participation, 28, pp. 30 35.
Nijhof, W., de Jong, M. and Beukhof, G. (1998) Employee commitment in changing organizations: an exploration, Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(6), pp. 243 250.
Shum, P., Bowe, L. and Auh, S. (2008) Employees affective commitment to change: the key to successful CRM
implementation, European Journal of Marketing, 42(11), pp. 13461371.
Singh, A. and Shoura, M. (2006) A life-cycle evaluation of change in an engineering organization: a case study,
International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), pp. 337 348.
Skordoulis, R. and Dawson, P. (2007) Reflective decisions: the use of Socratic dialogue in managing organizational change, Management Decision, 45(6), pp. 9911007.
Smith, J. (2008) Commitment to change, Plant Engineering, 62(12), pp. 3843.
Swailes, S. (2004) Commitment to change: profiles of commitment and in-role performance, Personnel Review,
33(2), pp. 187 204.
Switzer, M. (2008) Preparing the soft stuff: building commitment for change, Public Management, September,
pp. 1215.
Varney, G. and Hunady, R. (1978) Energizing commitment to change in a team-building intervention: a FIRO-B
approach, Group and Organization Studies, 3(4), pp. 435 446.

Commitment To Organizational Change - A Critical Review

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

Commitment To Organizational Change - A Critical Review

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University]

On: 03 January 2015, At: 21:45

Journal of Change Management

Commitment to Organizational Change:

College of Business , Southern University , USA

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Journal of Change Management

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Commitment to Organizational Change:

As markets become ever more global, de-regulated, and competitive, strategic

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Commitment to change is an action commitment, in that unlike other forms of

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Commitment of Organizational Change

of involvement (defined as a product of change-related information, knowledge,

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

goal congruence, affective affinity, or self-interest, and the mental/physical ability

Commitment of Organizational Change

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Table 1. Summary of studies investigating antecedents of commitment to change

CrossEight-item scale Change schema, locus

Change schema and

Neubert and Cady Unidimensional goal

Chen and Wang

Locus of control (LC),

Employees with high LC

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Both types of leadership

New patientfocused service

Commitment of Organizational Change

Fedor et al. (2006) Unidimensional,

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Commitment of Organizational Change

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Consequences of Commitment to Change

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Table 2. Summary of studies focusing on consequences of commitment to change

Neubert and Cady See Table 1

Employees with high C2C

Multiple initiatives Mail survey,

AC2C, NC2C, and Behavioral

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

NC2C and AC2C

Commitment of Organizational Change

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Ford et al. (2003)

New performance Cross-sectional,

Fit of change with

AC2C positively predicted

Affective C2C positively

Commitment of Organizational Change

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Table 3. Summary of studies assessing causes and consequences of commitment to change

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Commitment of Organizational Change

Table 4. Research issues and recommendations

Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 21:45 03 January 2015

Commitment to change concept

Relationship between commitment to

Measurement of commitment to change

Development of commitment to change