Ajm

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/273496999
Change process characteristics and resistance to organisational change: The

role of employee perceptions of justice
Article in Australian Journal of Management · February 2014

DOI: 10.1177/0312896214526212
CITATIONS READS
35 4,002
4 authors, including:
Joanna Georgalis Ramanie Samaratunge

Grant Thornton, Australia Monash University (Australia)
1 PUBLICATION 35 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 434 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ying Lu
Macquarie University
18 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Acculturation and its impact on professional Chinese immigrants in the Australian workplace View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ying Lu on 21 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

526212
research-article2014
AUM0010.1177/0312896214526212Australian Journal of ManagementGeorgalis et al.
Article
Australian Journal of Management

2015, Vol. 40(1) 89–113
Change process characteristics © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
and resistance to organisational sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0312896214526212
change: The role of employee aum.sagepub.com
perceptions of justice
Joanna Georgalis, Ramanie Samaratunge and

Nell Kimberley
Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Ying Lu
Department of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW,
Australia
Abstract
Although there are many potential causes of failed change, ‘resistance to change’ is widely
recognised as a significant contributor to this problem. Much of the literature relating to resistance
has focused on the context-specific antecedents which can be divided into those relating to
change outcomes and those that focus on change implementation. Justice research acknowledges
the importance of employee perceptions of fairness in change management, and identifies it as a
key factor in developing positive employee attitudes toward organisational change. Using change
process characteristics of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), participation and information as
antecedents, the aim of the present study was to examine the influence of employee perceptions
of justice on resistance to change. The results of a survey of 100 employees in an Australian
workplace indicate that informational justice mediated the relationship between LMX and
resistance to change.
Keywords
Organisational change, justice, resistance, employee perceptions, Australia
Corresponding author:
Ramanie Samaratunge, Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Email: ramanie.samaratunge@monash.edu
Final transcript accepted 9 February 2014 by Peter Jordan (AE Organisation Behaviour).
Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

90 Australian Journal of Management 40(1)
1. Introduction
The successful management of change is essential if organisations are to survive and succeed in
dynamic and unpredictable environments (Dawson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979; Oreg and
Berson, 2011; Peccei et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2012). Despite well-intended change strategies,
approximately 70% of all change initiatives fail, leading to disappointed expectations (Pieterse et al.,
2012) and costs exceeding millions of dollars in time and resources (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Chreim,
2006; Foster, 2010). While there may be numerous reasons as to the causes of less-than-optimal or
failed change, unsuccessful change is readily attributed by management to employee resistance (Avey
et al., 2008; Ford et al., 2008; Ford and Ford, 2010; Pieterse et al., 2012; Yerbury, 1982), a complex
and relatively unexplored psychological phenomenon at the individual level (Senior and Swailes,
2010). Clearly, employees are critically important to change initiatives because they are either the
change implementers or change recipients, and therefore their commitment to a large extent deter-
mines the ultimate success of these initiatives (Fugate et al., 2012). As Pieterse et al. (2012) and
Piderit (2000) point out, a more nuanced view on resistance to change and the organisational condi-
tions under which resistance to change may or may not manifest is necessary. This study responds to
these calls and adds value to existing research by asserting that employee perceptions of justice aris-
ing from positive change practices and constructive supervisor–employee relationships will signifi-
cantly reduce negativity toward change.
The literature on change reveals that negative employee responses have many antecedents –
such as job insecurity, anxiety or loss of control (Oreg, 2006) – and more recently they have been
linked to employee perceptions of justice (Fuchs and Edwards, 2011; Jones and Skarlicki, 2012).
In particular, research posits that unfair treatment of employees can lead to increased resentment,
less co-operation, lower productivity and lower work quality (Fuchs and Edwards, 2011; Shapiro
and Kirkman, 1999), and this has implications for employee attitudes towards change. It has been
suggested that perceptions of justice and employee reactions are inextricably theoretically linked
(Foster, 2010; Kernan and Hanges, 2002).
Despite the fact that perceptions of justice are important determinants of employee judgements
about the general work environment (Jones and Skarlicki, 2012; Piccolo et al., 2008), to date rela-
tively few studies have examined the effects of perceived justice or injustice on employee resist-
ance. The bulk of the research examining organisational change and justice dimensions has tended
to focus largely on change outcomes, such as employee layoffs and turnover (Kickul and Finkl,
2002; Paterson et al., 2002). When considering employee resistance, there is a scope to gain greater
understanding of the psychological processes at play, particularly the impact of perceptions of
justice (Van Dam et al., 2008).
This paper fills a void in the literature by focusing specifically on employee resistance to change,
and studying the relationship between that resistance to change and the effect of perceived justice
arising from positive change practices and constructive supervisor–employee relationships,
because research into resistance to change in the workplace is still patchy in Australia. The organi-
sational context referred to in this study takes into account employee relationships with supervisors
in the form of leader/member exchange and change implementation practices such as information
dissemination and employee participation. The effectiveness of relationships with supervisors,
along with information dissemination and employee participation during change, was expected to
positively influence employee perceptions of justice. Perceptions of justice were, in turn, expected
to reduce resistance to change. In addition to gaining greater understanding of this dynamic, the
case also provides empirical data relating to resistance in an Australian context.
The study demonstrates empirical support for a number of central propositions in the literature
and has thus highlighted the importance of perceived organisational justice when managing

Georgalis et al. 91
resistance to change. The strength of the relationship between supervisor and employee is vital for
securing employee support for change programmes. As part of this relationship, those leading
change processes should ensure that adequate provision of information and opportunities for par-
ticipation exist in order to minimise the potential for negative responses. We believe that the find-
ings of this study will guide academics and practitioners to improve their awareness of change
contexts that promote perceptions of justice and, in turn, reduce resistance to change.
The paper is organised as follows. The first section reviews the literature relating to resistance
to change. This is followed by development of the theoretical framework and relevant hypotheses
pertaining to the study. The research design, including sampling techniques and measurement, is
then presented, followed by the findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of research signifi-
cance, implications and limitations and a future research agenda.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Conceptualisation of resistance to change
One factor critical to successful change implementation is the human dimension, which is gener-
ally acknowledged in the literature through the examination of employee responses to change and,
most notably, resistance (Ford and Ford, 2010). Resistance to change is generally defined as ‘any
conduct that serves to maintain the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo’ (Zaltman
and Duncan, 1977: 63). Folger and Skarlicki (1999: 36) conceptualised resistance as a ‘resentment
based’ construct, defined as ‘reactions by disgruntled employees regarding the perceived unfair-
ness of a change’. As a significant contributing factor to failed change (Bovey and Hede, 2001;
Sirkin et al., 2005), resistance may be conceived of as ‘employee behaviour that seeks to challenge,
disrupt or invert prevailing assumptions, discourses and power relations’ (Collinson, 1994: 28).
For many years, resistance was perceived by management as a counterproductive phenomenon to
be overcome, presenting as individual or collective negative attitudes and behaviours (Collinson,
1994; Iverson, 1996; King and Anderson, 1995; Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979; Merron, 1993;
Trader-Leigh, 2002; Waddell and Sohal, 1998; Weber and Weber, 2001).
These perspectives differ significantly from Lewin’s (1945, 1947) seminal systemic concep-
tion through Field Theory. Lewin (1945) adopted a metaphor to explain resistance and argued
that organisations were held in a steady state or ‘equilibrium’ by equal and opposing forces. The
organisation was viewed as a system (a force field), where resistance is the force that counterbal-
ances the driving forces of change. Moreover, Lewin (1945) asserted that any change process
could be understood as a move from the equilibrium position toward a desired state. For this to
occur, there needed to be an unfreezing of the equilibrium position through an imbalance between
driving and restraining forces. Accordingly, resistance could occur anywhere in the system,
either within the individual or elsewhere in the wider system in which the individual operated
(Dent and Goldberg, 1999).
Over the past 60 years, the literature has transformed resistance from its original conceptualisa-
tion as a systemic barrier (Lewin, 1947, 1951) to more individually and psychologically-based
processes that underpin negative responses to change (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008;
Foster, 2010; Oreg, 2003; Piderit, 2000). The individually-based conceptualisation of resistance is
highly complex. For instance, there are several approaches articulated in the literature. These
include: the cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions of resistance (Oreg, 2006; Piderit,
2000); the positivist versus post-modernist view of resistance (Ford et al., 2002; King and Anderson,
1995); resistance as an outcome of restructuring cognitive and cultural schema and attitudes
(Bouwen and Fry, 1995; King and Anderson, 1995; Schein, 1987; Senge, 1990); a

psychotherapeutic view of resistance (Chawla and Kelloway, 2004; Goldstein, 1989); resistance as
a coping mechanism (Eales-White, 1994; Ford and Ford, 2009); a perspective of resistance at the
polar end of a resistance-to-commitment behavioural continuum (Coetsee, 1999); and resistance as
a product of change agent action and inaction (Ford et al., 2009). The following section traces
resistance research at the individual level that is relevant to the current study.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Lewin’s contemporaries identified individual responses to change as
being either desirable and compliant behaviours, or undesirable and resistant behaviours (Coch and
French, 1948). Subsequent research suggested that the failure of many change initiatives could be
directly attributed to those undesirable and resistant behaviours that were most likely to occur
within employees (Bovey and Hede, 2001; Sirkin et al., 2005).
Although there is no universally accepted definition of resistance to change, from a behavioural
perspective resistance can be broadly defined as ‘any conduct that serves to maintain the status quo
in the face of pressure to alter the status quo’ (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977: 63). Lines (2005: 21)
identifies examples of resistant behaviours as ‘strong voicing of opposing points of view; ridicule
of the change, its process and its premises; boycotts of arenas where change is discussed; and
blocking behaviours’. Resistance to change is therefore presented as a pejorative variable. It was
frequently explained as a problem residing within the individual, as behaviours which are always
inappropriate and something that management has to ‘deal with’ or ‘overcome’ (Dent and Goldberg,
1999). Resistance was also a means by which management could blame employees for failed
change; and vice versa (Piderit, 2000).
In contrast to the early, dichotomous approach to individual responses to change, Piderit (2000)
extended the view of resistance to include a multidimensional conceptualisation. Specifically,
Piderit integrated prior psychological research to posit a tripartite model of resistance which
includes an affective, cognitive and intentional (behavioural) response to change. By focusing on
emotional reactions, beliefs concerning the change as well as behaviours, Piderit creates a more
holistic view of resistance, one that can accommodate ambivalent reactions to the change event.
For instance, it is possible for an individual to recognise the benefits of change, but simultaneously
to feel anxious and uncertain about its implications for his or her own work. The mixed reaction is
what Piderit refers to as ‘ambivalence’. A tripartite approach to resistance is adopted for the current
study.
In more recent explorations of resistance to change Ford et al. (2008) contend that resistance can
be a self-fulfilling prophecy, aimed at protecting the interests of change agents. These authors
argue that resistance is a function of the quality of the relationship between agents and recipients,
in which resistance to change surfaces as a consequence of diminished trust. Furthermore, they
argue that breaches of trust arise out of perceptions of justice, ‘when there are changes in the dis-
tribution of resources, the processes and procedures by which those reallocations are made, or the
ways in which people of greater authority interact with those of lesser authority’ (Ford et al., 2008:
365). This view is consistent with other contributions in the literature on justice concerning the role
of perceived injustice, and subsequent counterproductive behaviours, including a lack of co-
operation, poor work quality, sabotage, theft, and aggressive or violent behaviour that have been
labelled ‘resistance’. Ford et al. (2008) argue that there would be no need to overcome resistance
if the relationships between change agents and recipients were open and based upon meaningful
dialogue and sense-making. The state of these relationships will also be dependent on past events
and interactions, particularly in the context of change. For instance, if change had been poorly
implemented in the past, and employees have been subject to broken agreements, unfair treatment
and poor management decision making, it is unlikely that trust damaged by such actions will be
easily restored (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008; Piderit, 2000). Ultimately, employees
would be negatively inclined toward change.

Georgalis et al. 93
Generally, the current literature suggests that greater attention should be given to the complexi-
ties of individual responses to change (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Herscovitch and Myer, 2002;
Lines, 2005; Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000). These can be explored both in terms of the organisational
context and of the psychological responses of employees. Organisations are therefore encouraged
to develop a deeper understanding of the relational factors and change practices that shape
employee perceptions and the impact that these have on employee responses to change. The paper
now turns to an examination of the importance of the organisational change context.
2.2. Organisational change context

Generally, there are two types of reactions that may precipitate resistance to change: reactions to
change process and reactions to change outcomes, neither of which is sufficiently distinguished
by the literature (Oreg, 2006). From an employee perspective, change is played out on a day-to-
day basis, and the change implementation process therefore involves a social exchange between
an employee and his/her supervisor; that is, Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) (Burton et al.,
2008; Furst and Cable, 2008; LeBrasseur et al., 2002). As part of this exchange relationship,
opportunities for employee engagement and the timely and accurate provision of information
have been found to alleviate or circumvent employee resistance to change (Oreg, 2006; Van Dam
et al., 2008).
2.2.1. Leader–Member Exchange (LMX). LMX has been defined as ‘dyadic relationships and work
roles [that] are developed and negotiated over time through a series of exchanges between leader
and member’ (Bauer and Green, 1996: 1538). LMX also attempts to define the quality of the
dyadic relationship (Kim et al., 2010). The basic premise of this theory is that leaders develop dif-
ferent types of exchange relationships with their followers and that the quality of these relation-
ships affects attitudes and behaviours for both parties (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Liden et al., 1997).
This relationship is particularly important in the context of organisational change because the
direction and support provided by leaders in quality relationships are likely to lessen the potential
for resistance. Thus, the first hypothesis of this study is:
Hypothesis 1a: LMX will be negatively associated with resistance to change.
2.2.2. Participation. Employee participation has been long documented as one of the more successful
techniques for diminishing resistance (Waddell and Sohal, 1998; Wanberg and Banas, 2000). This
stems from the now-classic studies by Coch and French (1948) and Lewin (1945, 1947), which
determined that ‘involvement in the learning, planning and implementation stages of a change pro-
cess significantly influence commitment to change and apparently lowers resistance’ (Waddell and
Sohal, 1998: 543). Overall, many studies have since concluded that participation in change initia-
tives is associated with more positive views of change and reduced resistance (Erwin and Garman,
2010; Giangreco and Peccei, 2005; Lines, 2004). In an Australian context, few studies (Paterson
et al., 2002: 97) have examined the relevance of programme characteristics to the acceptance or
otherwise of change. In their study of the downsizing of a large public sector organisation, research-
ers found that ‘opportunities for participation, recourse and support were perceived as procedurally
fair and resulted in positive appraisals of the effects of downsizing’. Results from this study lend
empirical support to propose a negative relationship between participation and employee resistance
to change. Based on these findings, the first hypothesis can be extended to include:
Hypothesis 1b: Participation will be negatively associated with resistance to change.

2.2.3. Information. The provision of useful, timely and accurate information about change can posi-
tively influence employees’ responses to change (Oreg, 2006). Effective dissemination of informa-
tion ensures that employees are educated about the need for change and have clarity and
understanding of the nature of the change (Self and Schraeder, 2009). The literature also highlights
the importance of communication in influencing employee emotions by reducing their levels of
anxiety and uncertainty (Alas, 2007; Erwin and Garman, 2010). Oreg (2006) found a significant,
positive correlation between individuals who reported receiving information about a change and
their behavioural and cognitive resistance to change. The results of a similar study conducted by
Van Dam et al. (2008) indicated that information, participation and trust in management led to a
significant reduction in resistance to change. Based on the empirical findings, the first hypothesis
can be further extended:
Hypothesis 1c: Providing timely and accurate information will be negatively associated with
2.3. Organisational justice and resistance to change

Justice research posits that when employees perceive that they are being treated fairly they are
likely to develop attitudes and behaviours conducive to successful implementation of change
(Cobb et al., 1995). They are also more likely to contribute in more positive behaviours such as
organisational citizenship (Moorman, 1991), organisational commitment (Bernerth et al., 2007)
and perceived organisational support (Wayne et al., 2002). Justice is generally predictive of higher
levels of openness to change, acceptance of change, cooperation with change and satisfaction with
change (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008; Piderit, 2000). Thus it would seem to follow
that employees who perceive implementation practices to be fair will be less likely to be resistant
to change. However, Foster’s (2010) recent study, which found that organisational justice was not
significantly related to resistance to change, contradicts this conclusion. Foster argues that meas-
ures of resistance to change in empirical studies incorporate traditional pejorative interpretations
through their wording. His findings into the relationships between resistance, justice and commit-
ment to change reveal that resistance to change is not significantly related to justice or commitment
to change; he concludes that conventional perspectives of resistance to change are not helpful to
the study of change implementation.
Generally, the literature on justice focuses on employees and their evaluations of three types of
activity: first, evaluation of the outcomes employees receive from the organisation (distributive
justice); second, evaluation of the formal policies or procedures by which outcomes are allocated
(procedural justice); and, third, evaluation of the interpersonal treatment employees receive from
supervisors (interactional justice) (Saunders and Thornhill, 2003: 325). Colquitt et al. (2001) also
suggested the dimensions of interpersonal and informational justice, arguing that these have dif-
ferent correlates and hence are distinct components of perceived interactional justice. Interpersonal
justice is defined as ‘showing concern for individuals regarding the distributive outcome they
receive’ and informational justice is defined as ‘knowledge about procedures that demonstrate
regard for people’s concerns’ and (Greenberg, 1993a: 84). Management’s demonstration of con-
cern for employees, along with the quality of information provided to employees, is considered to
be antecedent to perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice. In the current study, dis-
tributive justice was omitted because much of the literature on resistance asserts that procedural
justice leading to change outcomes is considered to be of greater importance than the outcomes
themselves (Colquitt et al., 2001). Interactional justice was also omitted in favour of Colquitt
et al.’s (2001) interpersonal and informational justice measures. This is consistent with Colquitt

Georgalis et al. 95
et al.’s analysis and conclusion that a four-factor model (including procedural, distributive, inter-
personal and informational justice) fits the data significantly better than a three-factor model using
interactional justice.
Based on both theoretical and empirical findings, the second set of hypotheses of the study can
be stated as:
Hypothesis 2a: Procedural justice will be negatively related to resistance to change.

Hypothesis 2b: Interpersonal justice will be negatively related to resistance to change.
Hypothesis 2c: Informational justice will be negatively related to resistance to change.
2.4. Justice as a mediator between LMX and resistance to change

Leader behaviours have been found to be direct antecedents of perceptions of justice (Lipponen
et al., 2005). The notions of fairness and reciprocity are fundamental to LMX. Several studies have
examined the impact of leader behaviour on employee perceptions of fairness (Lee et al., 2010;
Lipponen et al., 2005).
For instance, individuals in high-quality leader–member relationships are more likely to receive
clearer justification of the processes used to arrive at outcomes (procedural justice) (Lee et al.,
2010). Alexander and Ruderman (1987) found there was a positive relationship between LMX and
employee perceptions of overall fairness. Adopting further specificity in relation to justice dimen-
sions, Lee (2001) found that the quality of LMX is positively related to both perceived distributive
and procedural fairness. This finding was also supported in a later study by Lee et al. (2010)
where, examining directly the effects of both distributive and procedural justice as mediators
between LMX and organisational outcomes, they explored the impact of interpersonal working
relationships on employee perceptions of justice and the effects of those perceptions on turnover
intentions. Their findings provide empirical evidence for a mediating effect of justice between
LMX and resistance to change.
Interactional justice refers to the quality of the interpersonal exchange that followers experience
with their leaders (Scandura, 1999). Consistent with previous research into LMX and perceptions
of justice, Carter et al. (2009) confirmed the significance of keeping a strong relationship between
these two constructs. Similarly, Bhal’s (2006) study found that both procedural (β = 0.213,
p < .001) and interactional justice (β = 0.253, p < .001) fully mediate LMX and organisational citi-
zenship behaviour relationship. The results from these studies indicate strong support for the medi-
ating effect of interactional justice between LMX and organisational outcomes.
Previous research combining LMX and justice theories provides a theoretical rationale for
linking perceptions of justice to interpersonal exchange in a dyadic relationship framework
(Lee et al., 2010). A study conducted by Furst and Cable (2008) showed that the effectiveness
of management tactics in influencing resistance to change depended on the strength of
supervisor-employee relationships. For those with high-quality LMX relationships, sanctions,
legitimization and ingratiation were associated with less resistance. For those with low-quality
or weaker LMX relationships, sanctions, legitimization and ingratiation were associated with
It is therefore hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between LMX and resistance to change will be mediated by
perceived procedural justice.
Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between LMX and resistance to change will be mediated by
perceived interpersonal justice.

Hypothesis 3c: The relationship between LMX and resistance to change will be mediated by
perceived informational justice.
2.5. Justice as a mediator between participation and resistance to change

Often termed voice (Folger, 1977), process control (Thibaut and Walkers, 1978) or employee input
(Bies and Shapiro, 1988), the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes has been
found to promote perceptions of fairness. Voice or employee input has been one of the most fre-
quently mentioned precursors to procedural justice (Bies and Shapiro, 1988; Folger, 1977).
Participation in change initiatives is associated with positive views of change and reduced resist-
ance to change (Erwin and Garman, 2010).
Positive relationships exist between participation and organisational perceptions of justice
(Chawla and Kelloway, 2004; Kernan and Hanges, 2002). The group-value model developed by
Lind and Tyler (1988) suggests that input or participation may relate to interpersonal justice.
According to this perspective, individuals are concerned about their relationships within groups
and expect to be treated fairly and benefit from those relationships. The effects of participation on
resistance to change, however, also operate through perceptions of procedural justice. Procedures
that allow participation by employees affected by a change decision are seen as fair because of the
level of influence that can be exercised to attain favourable outcomes (Roberson et al., 1999;
Thibaut and Walkers, 1978). A central component of participation is communication. It can thus be
presumed that communication allows the provision of additional information. Based on this prem-
ise, research conducted by Shafiro et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between voice and
informational justice. Similarly, in their survey study of a reorganisation, Kernan and Hanges
(2002) reported strong positive correlations between employee input and procedural (r(161) =
0.57, p < 0.01), interpersonal (r(161) = 0.70, p < 0.01) and informational justice (r(161) = 0.57, p
< 0.01). Participation (voice or employee input) is therefore represented as an antecedent of per-
ceived interpersonal and informational justice. Since relationships have been found between par-
ticipation and interpersonal and informational justice, and between participation and resistance to
change, the effects of participation on resistance to change may operate through perceptions of
interpersonal and informational justice.
This lends further empirical support to a hypothesised negative relationship between participa-
tion and employee resistance to change:
Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between participation and resistance to change will be medi-
ated by perceived procedural justice.
Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between participation and resistance to change will be medi-
ated by perceived interpersonal justice.
Hypothesis 4c: The relationship between participation and resistance to change will be mediated
by perceived informational justice.
2.6. Justice as a mediator between information and resistance to change

The quality of information received by employees from managers during change processes is
important to employee perceptions of justice (Kernan and Hanges, 2002). Because organisational
changes are often plagued by uncertainty and anxiety, the provision of information is recognised as
an imperative aspect of such processes (Johnson et al., 1996). Wanberg and Banas (2000) found
that increased information with regard to proposed changes was related to greater acceptance of
change. Both Greenberg (1993a) and Colquitt (2001) pointed out that communication includes the

Georgalis et al. 97
explanations or justifications by management about the decisions made. These justifications have
shown to be positively causally related to procedural justice (Bies and Shapiro, 1988), and associ-
ated with distributive justice (Daly, 1995; Daly and Geyer, 1994).
Information quality has been positively related to informational justice because it offers expla-
nations for decisions and when the information is timely, accurate and helpful (Colquitt et al.,
2001; Foster, 2010). It is also related to interpersonal justice because it demonstrates manage-
ment’s respectful treatment of individuals (Bies and Moag, 1986; Colquitt et al., 2001; Kernan and
Hanges, 2002). In support of these findings, Kernan and Hanges’ (2002) study of survivor reac-
tions to a reorganisation found that communication was predictive of both interpersonal and infor-
mational justice. Armenakis and Harris (2002) also found that employees, when provided with
accurate and relevant information conveyed in a respectful manner, had improved buy-in with
regard to change decisions and outcomes. Information is therefore represented in the current study
as an important antecedent of procedural, interpersonal and informational justice (Colquitt et al.,
2001; Greenberg, 1993a).
Because the relationship between information and resistance to change has been established,
it is reasonable to suggest that justice will act as a mediator between information and resistance
to change. Organisations providing timely and accurate information about change can influence
how employees feel about a change (Oreg, 2006). Having an understanding of change initia-
tives has been found on numerous occasions to influence individual feelings about change and
impact on resistance (Alas, 2007; Erwin and Garman, 2010). Oreg (2006) found a significant,
positive correlation between individuals who reported receiving information about a change
and resistance to change. Merely providing information does not reduce resistance to change,
however. Employees make their own decisions, based on whether or not they agree with what
has been proposed (Erwin and Garman, 2010). This may also depend on the nature of the infor-
mation provided, its accuracy and its timeliness, as well as the manner in which it is delivered
to employees. Information should therefore be a significant contributor in developing positive
employee perceptions of procedural, interpersonal and informational justice (Colquitt et al.,
2001; Greenberg, 1993b).
Information is therefore an important antecedent of procedural, interpersonal and informational
justice. Given that the relationship between information and resistance to change has been well
established in the literature (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979), it is reasonable to suggest that justice
will act as a mediator between information and resistance to change.
Accordingly, it is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between information and resistance to change will be mediated
by perceived procedural justice.
Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between information and resistance to change will be mediated
by perceived interpersonal justice.
Hypothesis 5c: The relationship between information and resistance to change will be mediated
by perceived informational justice.
3. Method
This study tested the direct, indirect and mediated contributions of a set of independent variables
on a set of dependent variables. In order to achieve this, a correlational field study was con-
ducted. This design has been extensively used in both the change (Furst and Cable, 2008; Oreg,
2006; Van Dam et al., 2008) and justice literatures (Colquitt, 2001; Foster, 2010; Kernan and
Hanges, 2002).

3.1. Sample
A questionnaire was sent to employees in the Melbourne office of an international financial ser-
vices firm. Employees at this firm were considered to be a suitable population for the study for a
number of reasons. First, the firm is one of the top five largest accounting and advisory networks
in Australia and globally. Second, employment in the finance sector has been vulnerable in the
recent past and there has been significant restructuring in the industry. The Melbourne office of the
firm had recently implemented three major transformational organisational changes: a manage-
ment reorganisation, a restructure of the Melbourne office and an expansion of all service delivery
lines. These projects had commenced in 2009 with the change of management, including a new
CEO, and were still being implemented at the time of the study.
It was a requirement of the study that participants had experienced a major organisational change
within the past two years. For screening purposes, respondents were asked whether they were aware
of major changes within the last two years and to provide initial information on the survey with
regard to their knowledge of the three specific organisational changes (that is, management reorgani-
sation changes, restructure of the Melbourne office and an expansion of all service delivery lines) in
order to qualify for the sample. The online survey was sent to all 288 employees of the Melbourne
office of the firm, 33 of whom were partners. One hundred and three questionnaires were completed
and returned. After screening the data for respondent eligibility, three respondents were excluded;
thus 100 usable questionnaires were obtained, a net response rate of 34.7%. This is adequate, given
that, as stated by Van Voorhis and Morgan (2007: 48), for regression equations ‘using six or more
predictors, an absolute minimum of 10 participants per predictor variable is appropriate’.
The sample consisted of 59 males (59%) and 41 females (41%). The majority of respondents
were between the ages of 26–35 (48%) and recorded a Bachelor’s degree as their highest level of
education (49%). More than half (54%) identified themselves as non-managers and 35% had an
organisational tenure of 1–2 years.
3.2. Procedures and data collection

Using online survey software (Qualtrics), the survey was made available via a link which was sent
to the participants’ email addresses in July–September 2011 and was made available for a period
of five weeks. Data were collected on a range of personal and professional demographic variables.
For privacy purposes, all correspondence with participants was directed through a Human Resource
contact at the organisation, who distributed the emails to the participants. The survey took approxi-
mately 10 minutes to complete. The data were subsequently collected into a de-identified database
within the Qualtrics software, ensuring the anonymity of the respondents.
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Demographic information. This part collected the participants’ demographic information such
as gender and age, whilst professional variables included educational level, organisational tenure
and work level.
3.3.2. Independent variables – LMX. To measure leader–member exchange, employees were asked
to rate the LMX relationship with their manager using the LMX7 scale (Graen and Uhl-Bien,
1995), as recommended by Gerstner and Day (1997). The measure was developed by Graen and
Uhl-Bien (1995) and consisted of seven items with a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item was ‘How well does your manager
understand your job problems and needs?’ The alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.87.

Georgalis et al. 99
3.3.3. Participation and information. Oreg’s (2006) measure for change process characteristics was
used to assess participation and information. The measure contained a scale for trust in manage-
ment; however, this scale was excluded from the study. The main focus of the paper is on the way
that Oreg’s scale phrases the items in the context of change, and more specifically as part of the
change process, making it appropriate for the present study. The scales were measured using a
5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), consisting of four information
items and four participation items. For example, one item measuring Information was ‘The infor-
mation I have received about the changes has been useful’, and an example item measuring Partici-
pation was ‘I had the opportunity to influence the decisions made regarding the changes’. The
alpha coefficient of Information was 0.89 while the alpha coefficient of Participation was 0.96.
3.3.4. Mediator variables: organisational justice. Colquitt’s (2001) measure for justice was adapted to
assess organisational justice. The original measure also contained a scale for distributive justice;
however, this scale was excluded from the study because the focus was on informational and pro-
cedural justice. The measure for justice consisted of three sub-scales (16 items in total): one was
used to assess procedural justice, and included seven items; one was used to assess interpersonal
justice, and included four items; and one was used to measure informational justice, and comprised
five items. Example items assessing procedural, interpersonal and informational justice were
‘Have you been able to express your views and feelings during those procedures? Has he/she
treated you in a polite manner?’, and ‘Has he/she been candid in his/her communications with
you?’, respectively. Participants were asked to express their perceptions through a 5-point Likert-
type scale (1 = to a small extent, 5 = to a large extent). The alpha coefficients for procedural,
interpersonal and informational justice in this study were 0.86, 0.96 and 0.93, respectively.
3.3.5. Dependent variable: resistance to change. This variable was measured using Oreg’s (2006)
18-item resistance to change scale. The scale utilised a multidimensional view of change, which
was considered appropriate for the present study because it addressed three different types of reac-
tions to change (cognitive, affective and behavioural) and is in line with the current conceptualisa-
tion of resistance in the literature (Piderit, 2000). Sample items included ‘I was afraid of the
change’, ‘I believed that the change would make my job harder’, and ‘I protested against the
change’. Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disa-
gree), with seven of the items reverse coded to avoid the potential for an acquiescent response set.
The alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.93.
3.3.6. Control variable: organisational tenure. A study by Van Dam et al. (2008) provided evidence of
organisational tenure being significantly related to resistance to change. As such, organisational
tenure was included as a control variable in the present study to avoid any spurious effects. Rela-
tionships between demographic variables and dependent variable were analysed to determine any
other control variables.
4. Results
4.1. Means of the variables
Means of the study variables are summarised in Table 1. Respondents on average scored 2.43 on
the resistance to change scale, 2.18 on the participation scale and 2.97 on the procedural justice
scale, all of which were below the midpoint. Respondents scored above the midpoint for the
LMX (M = 3.80), information (M = 3.25), interpersonal justice (M = 3.75) and informational
justice (M = 3.33) scales.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for study variables.
Variables Mean Standard

Deviation
Resistance to change 2.43 0.54
LMX 3.80 0.62
Participation 2.18 0.91
Information 3.25 0.71
Procedural justice 2.97 0.61
Interpersonal justice 3.75 0.68
Informational justice 3.33 0.77
Note: N = 100. All items were measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Table 2. Zero-order correlation matrix of study variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Resistance to change
LMX −0.29**
Participation −0.16 −0.03
Information −0.25* 0.26** 0.49**
Procedural justice −0.36** 0.07 0.67** 0.70**
Interpersonal justice −0.46** 0.27** 0.14 0.52** 0.38**
Informational justice −0.55 ** 0.30 0.37
** ** 0.61** 0.58** 0.58**
Age 0.03 0.19 0.29 ** 0.05 0.09 −0.03 −0.10
Gender 0.12 −0.12 −0.23* −0.19 −0.20* −0.23* −0.12 −0.21*
Education −0.01 −0.19 −0.02 −0.16 −0.06 −0.13 −0.15 0.09 −0.03
Work level 0.07 0.02 −0.18 0.05 −0.08 −0.03 0.11 −0.60** 0.26* −0.36**
Tenure 0.03 0.13 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.02 −0.13 0.52** −0.07 −0.03 −0.42**
Note: N = 100.
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.2. Inter-correlations of variables

Table 2 presents a correlation matrix of all the measures used in the study. The results indicate that
the control variable of age was significantly correlated with the predictor variable participation (r
= 0.29, p < 0.01). Gender (coded as male = 0, female = 1) was another control variable that signifi-
cantly correlated with the predictor variable participation (r = −0.23, p < 0.01) and mediator vari-
ables procedural (r = −0.20, p < 0.05) and interpersonal justice (r = 0.23, p < 0.05). The remaining
control variables of education, organisational work level and organisational tenure were not sig-
nificantly statistically related to the dependent, independent or mediator variables in the study.
Thus, in the subsequent analyses, age and gender were controlled for. However, since tenure was
also found to be statistically significant in a similar study by Van Dam et al. (2008), organisational
tenure was also controlled for. It should be noted that, although categorical in nature, education,
work level and tenure data were rank ordered into seven or more categories. Bolen and Barb (1981)
argue that, in such conditions, analysis of categorical data as if they were continuous is justified
because the collapsed variables’ correlations become considerably closer to the correlation of the
continuous variables when at least five or six scale points are available.

Georgalis et al. 101
Table 3. Summary of linear multiple regression analysis for change process characteristic variables
predicting resistance to change.
Variables β T
Gender 0.06 0.57
Age 0.12 1.03
Tenure 0.03 0.22
LMX −0.28** −2.69**
Participation −0.14 −1.19
Information −0.10 −0.84
Note. R2 = .14.
**Statistically significant at p < 0.01.
Table 4. Summary of linear multiple regression analysis for organisational justice dimensions predicting
B t
Gender 0.01 0.13
Age −0.01 −0.02
Tenure −0.02 −0.18
Procedural justice −0.05 −0.48
Interpersonal justice −0.20 −1.81
Informational justice −0.41** −3.37**
Note. R2 = 0.33.
**Statistically significant at p < 0.01.
*Statistically significant at p < 0.05.
4.3. Hypothesis testing

Linear multiple regression analysis was undertaken to examine the predictive value of change
process characteristics for resistance to change, and was also used to assess the ability of organisa-
tional perceptions of justice to predict levels of resistance to change. Preliminary analyses were
conducted to ensure no violation of the underlying assumptions of multiple regression. None of the
cases reported a Mahalanobis distance exceeding the critical value of χ2(7) = 22.46, p < 0.001, used
as the criterion distance (Pallant, 2011). Additionally, collinearity diagnostics were inspected for
any multicollinearity between independent variables by examining tolerance values and Variance
Inflation Factors (VIF). The tolerance values for both regressions were above the acceptable level
of 0.10 and the VIF factors did not exceed 10, indicating no multicollinearity (Pallant, 2011).
Table 3 demonstrates the results of the first linear regression analysis in accordance with
Hypotheses 1a-c, identifying the significance of the relationships between change process charac-
teristics and resistance to change. The results indicated that the variance explained by the model as
a whole was 14%, F(6,93) = 2.45, p < 0.05. LMX was found to be a statistically significant predictor
of resistance to change (β =−0.28, p < 0.01), explaining 7.8% of the variance in resistance to change.
As expected, and in support of Hypothesis 1a, LMX was negatively associated with resistance to
change. Hypotheses 1b and 1c were not statistically supported, as participation (β = −0.14, p > 0.05)
and information (β = −0.10, p > 0.05) were not found to significantly predict resistance to change.
Table 4 demonstrates the results of the second linear regression analysis in accordance with
Hypotheses 2a-c, identifying the significance of the relationships between organisational

Table 5. Indirect effects of LMX, participation and information on resistance to change through
perceptions of justice.
Mediator Parameter SE 95% BC CI

estimate
Lower Upper
LMX and resistance to change
Total −0.12 0.07 −0.27 0.01
Procedural justice 0.01 0.02 −0.02 0.07
Interpersonal justice −0.03 0.03 −0.13 0.01
Informational justice −0.10* 0.05 −0.22 −0.02
Participation and resistance to change
Total −0.18* 0.10 −0.42 −0.01
Procedural justice −0.13* 0.08 −0.33 −0.01
Interpersonal justice 0.03 0.03 −0.01 0.12
Information and resistance to change
Total −0.46* 0.11 −0.70 −0.27
Procedural justice −0.14* 0.08 −0.30 −0.02
Interpersonal justice −0.13* 0.07 −0.30 −0.02
Note: BC CI = Bias-corrected confidence intervals; 5000 bootstrap samples. Standardized estimates shown. Controls:
age, gender and tenure. * Significant indirect effect at p < 0.05.
perceptions of justice and resistance to change. The results of the analysis indicated that the variance
explained by the model as a whole was 33.4%, F(6,93) = 7.77, p < 0.001. Informational justice was
found to be a significant predictor of resistance to change (β = −0.41, p < 0.01), explaining 16.8%
of the variance in resistance to change. As expected, and in support of Hypothesis 2c, informational
justice was negatively associated with resistance to change. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were not statisti-
cally supported, as procedural justice (β = −0.05, p > 0.05) and interpersonal justice (β = −0.20, p >
0.05), were not found to significantly predict resistance to change.
Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) multiple mediated regression macro was used to test Hypotheses
3a–c, 4a–c and 5a–c, each aimed at examining the roles played by procedural, interpersonal and
informational justice in mediating the relationship between each of the change process characteristics
(LMX, participation and information) and resistance to change. Table 5 contains the parameter esti-
mates and confidence intervals for the total and specific indirect effects on the relationships between
change process characteristics and resistance to change as mediated by perceptions of justice. Separate
mediation models were examined for LMX, participation and information and are discussed below.
4.4. LMX
Figure 1 illustrates that, consistent with Hypothesis 3c, the indirect effect of informational justice
was statistically significant, as demonstrated by confidence intervals for the indirect effect that did
not contain zero. Thus informational justice was a significant mediator, such that LMX was posi-
tively related (B = 0.23) to informational justice, which in turn was negatively related (B = −0.43)
to resistance to change (see Figure 1). The indirect effects of procedural justice (Hypothesis 3a)

Figure 1. A multiple mediation model of LMX and resistance to change through perceptions of justice.
Note: Standardized estimates shown. Controls of age, gender and tenure were included. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
and interpersonal justice (Hypothesis 3b) were not found to be statistically significant, as evi-
denced by the zero in their respective confidence intervals. Furthermore, the direct effect between
LMX and resistance to change was not statistically significant, indicating that informational justice
fully mediates the relationship between LMX and resistance to change.
4.5. Participation
Consistent with Hypotheses 4a and 4c, Figure 2 shows that the indirect effects of procedural justice
and informational justice were statistically significant, as demonstrated by confidence intervals for
the indirect effects that did not contain zero. Thus procedural justice was a significant mediator,
such that participation was positively related (B = 0.45) to procedural justice, which in turn was
negatively related (B = −0.30) to resistance to change (refer to Figure 2), whilst informational jus-
tice was a significant mediator, such that participation was positively related (B = 0.21) to informa-
tional justice, which in turn was negatively related (B = −0.43) to resistance to change. The indirect
effect of interpersonal justice (Hypothesis 4b) was not found to be statistically significant, as evi-
denced by the zero in the confidence interval. Additionally, the direct effect between participation
and resistance to change was not significant, indicating that both procedural and informational
justice fully mediate the relationship between participation and resistance to change.
4.6. Information
Figure 3 indicates that, consistent with Hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c, the indirect effects of all three
perceptions of justice were statistically significant. Thus procedural justice was a significant medi-
ator, such that information was positively related (B = 0.48) to procedural justice, which in turn
was negatively related (B = −0.25) to resistance to change (see Figure 3); interpersonal justice was
a significant mediator, such that information was positively related (B = 0.53) to interpersonal
justice, which in turn was negatively related (B = −0.25) to resistance to change; and informational
justice was a significant mediator, such that information was positively related (B = 0.46) to infor-
mational justice, which in turn was negatively related (B = −0.43) to resistance to change.

Figure 2. A multiple mediation model of participation and resistance to change through perceptions of
justice.
Figure 3. A multiple mediation model of information and resistance to change through perceptions of
justice.
Additionally, the direct effect between information and resistance to change was significant, indi-
cating that procedural, interpersonal and informational justice are partial mediators of the relation-
ship between participation and resistance to change.
5. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to gain a clearer understanding of the complex relationships between
leader–member exchange, participation and information and the mediation effects of employee

perceptions of justice on resistance to change. The results of this study reinforce previous findings
regarding the relevance of employee perceptions of justice to the implementation of change; but,
more importantly, they add to our understanding of the issues by highlighting the significance of
relationships with supervisors and change practices in shaping perceptions of justice and reducing
resistance.
For instance, we have shown a significant negative relationship between informational justice
and resistance to change. These findings suggest that individuals who perceived higher levels of
informational justice reported less resistance to change. This is consistent with studies which have
found that explanations provided to employees on the rationale and details for change promote
cooperation and reduce retaliation towards organisational decisions and potentially lessen employ-
ees’ resistance to change (Colquitt, 2001; Folger and Skarlicki, 1999; Greenberg, 1990). This is
consistent with Daly and Geyer’s (1994) finding that a lack of explanation is often regarded as
unfair, generating resentment towards management and its decisions. Leaders have a moral respon-
sibility to their employees (Folger and Skarlicki, 1999), and those more successful in implement-
ing change will provide adequate and clear explanations for the reasoning behind their actions.
Such conduct illustrates to employees that they are significant, cared about and worthy of respect.
Thus perceived informational justice has the capacity to ‘justify’ managerial actions, minimise the
impact of negative perceptions about change, and fulfil the moral obligations of organisations and
their leaders, all of which contribute to lower levels of resistance to change.
In contrast, the hypotheses predicting the inverse relationships between procedural justice and
resistance to change, and interpersonal justice and resistance to change were found to be insignifi-
cant. These results contrast with earlier evidence in support of these negative relationships and
resistance to change (Shapiro and Kirkman, 1999; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997) and also on
resistance-related behaviours such as cynicism (Reichers et al., 1997). From a technical perspec-
tive, these non-significant relationships might be attributable to the measures adopted and a lack of
statistical power in the analysis due to the limited sample size in the present study. This has signifi-
cant implications for future research, since it is possible that the change outcomes might have been
considered by employees to be more important than opportunities for influencing the process or
their treatment by managers.
5.1. Role of justice as a mediator between LMX and resistance to change

The first set of hypotheses predicted that perceptions of justice would mediate the relationship
between LMX and resistance to change. The present findings advance the literature by finding
that, as predicted by theory, informational justice fully mediates the relationship between LMX
and resistance to change, consistent with previous research in the emerging literature on LMX
(Graen, 2004; Stanley et al., 2005; Wanberg and Banas, 2000) and justice in predicting employee
outcomes.
Underlying leader–member exchange relationships are notions of fairness and reciprocity.
Employees may be less likely to resist change if they experience high-quality LMX relationships.
Leader–member relationships are generally characterised by good interpersonal relationships with
employees and in times of change there should be heightened awareness by managers of the impor-
tance of the nature and calibre of information conveyed to employees.
However, the results did not reveal that procedural justice and interpersonal justice mediate the
relationship between LMX and resistance to change. Podsakoff et al. (2003) noted that employees
who belong to the leader’s ‘in-group’ (high-quality LMX relationships) will perceive their leaders
as treating them more fairly than those not part of this group. Thus, while some employees may be
less likely to resist change if they experience high-quality LMX relationships, the converse is

probable for those in the ‘out-group’ who were not privy to information relating to the change.
Again, in the current study, the inverse relationship between interpersonal justice and resistance
may be less likely where those in the out-group have not benefited from mutual trust, reciprocity
and commitment.
5.2. Justice as a mediator between participation and resistance to change

The second set of hypotheses predicted that perceptions of justice would mediate the relation-
ship between participation and resistance to change. The results showed that both procedural
and informational perceptions of justice fully mediated the relationship between participation
and resistance to change. This outcome lends strong support for procedural and informational
justice being responsible for the effects of participation on resistance (Chawla and Kelloway,
2004; Kernan and Hanges, 2002; Shafiro et al., 2007). The mediating role of procedural justice
in the relationship between participation and resistance to change can be explained by process-
control theory. Underpinning participation is the basic need for control or, at the very least,
perceived control (Peus et al., 2009). Allowing participation in change decisions is seen as
fair, because employees perceive it as an avenue to influence favourable or equitable out-
comes, consistent with process-control theory. This finding suggests that participation charac-
terised by perceptions of procedural justice has the capacity to decrease levels of resistance to
change. In practice, encouraging employees to participate genuinely in change is likely to lead
to reduced resistance because of their active involvement in the decisions that directly affect
their future.
The mediating role of informational justice in the relationship between participation and resist-
ance to change can be explained by evaluating Leventhal’s representativeness criterion (Leventhal
et al., 1980). The representativeness rule implies that the procedures should integrate the interests
of all the parties involved in the process and that employees should have their interests acknowl-
edged (Dayan and Colak, 2008). Participation itself involves more than the provision of informa-
tion. It affords the opportunity for employees to ask questions, to explore options, and to understand
how change will impact their roles. Participation characterised by perceptions of informational
justice therefore has the capacity to decrease levels of resistance to change.
In the relationship between participation and resistance to change, it was hypothesised that
interpersonal justice would have been a statistically significant mediator, but this was unsupported.
In the present study it is possible that, even if employees were given sufficient opportunity for
engagement, their views may not have been acknowledged in a meaningful and valued manner,
thus leaving them disengaged with the process.
5.3. Justice as a mediator between information and resistance to change

As predicted, the relationship between information and resistance to change is mediated by percep-
tions of procedural, interpersonal and informational justice. This outcome lends strong support for
perceptions of justice being responsible for the effects of information on resistance to change,
consistent with studies that have recognised the significance of timely, accurate and useful infor-
mation as affecting employee perceptions of change outcomes (Daly, 1995).
Resistance to change has been well-established in the literature as counterproductive employee
attitudes and behaviours, as something to deal with or overcome (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Ford
et al., 2008; Piderit, 2000; Waddell and Sohal, 1998). The literature consistently shows that in order
to implement change successfully it is imperative that leaders gain the commitment and support of
employees.

The results of this study demonstrate that particular vigilance and sensitivity to justice issues on
the part of managers are required, particularly with regard to their credibility as leaders and the
creation of a climate of fairness. Organisations should therefore consider how supervisor relation-
ships and implementation practices are perceived by employees, in particular whether these prac-
tices meet employees’ expectations as to what is fair and appropriate in the circumstances. The
findings of this study show that organisations must develop a deep understanding of change prac-
tices and psychological processes that shape employee perceptions and that are likely to elicit
counterproductive or supportive responses to change.
6. Limitations and future research

Although the findings of the present study may offer meaningful theoretical and practical implica-
tions, the study is also subject to a number of limitations. First, the relatively small sample size has
contributed to the lower statistical power in the analyses and thus it is important to expand the
sample size and its composition for future research. It was also taken from only one organisation
in the financial services sector, which may call into question the generalisability of the study’s find-
ings. However, the fact that the hypotheses were derived from previous theoretical and empirical
studies from a variety of organisational contexts provides some support for generalisability.
The second limitation is that the study adopted a purposive sampling technique for the distri-
bution of the survey in only one organisation, which is less satisfactory than other probability
sampling techniques since the purposive sampling method is potentially biased (Shaughnessy
et al., 2000). Therefore the representativeness of the study’s sample to the total population is
uncertain to some extent and any generalisations beyond the sample should be made with caution.
This was partly due to the requirement that participants should have experienced change within
the past two years.
Third, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow causal inferences to be drawn
regarding the relationships between the variables found to be significant in the study; rather, gen-
eralisations can be made. The concern of common-method variance is also related to the cross-
sectional nature of the study. However, it has been shown that common method variance is generally
not robust enough to invalidate such research findings (Doty and Glick, 1998).
The study provides a basis for multiple important avenues for future research. Empirical studies
examining organisational justice as a mediator between resistance to change and its antecedents are
few. An important implication stemming from this research is the need for organisational percep-
tions of justice to be considered when examining organisational employee change outcomes such
as resistance to change. As a consequence, further research is required to establish whether the
outcomes of the present study can be replicated, using different samples, change situations and
industries. Future researchers could also consider expanding the change process characteristics
studied and consider additional variables that could further explain employees’ reactions to organi-
sational change. For example, affect may be a useful mediator in the context of organisational
change. ‘Affect’ is a generic term that encompasses individual emotions and moods (Elfenbein,
2007). The literature generally fails to acknowledge the important role that ‘affect’ plays in change
readiness or resistance; and nor does research adequately explain the precise mechanisms through
which perceptions of justice influence employee affect and subsequent attitudes, which leads to
robust future research.
Organisational change is a dynamic and often continuous process. It is difficult to gain an accu-
rate idea from the current study of the actual change processes that have taken place in the organi-
sation; the case needs further investigation and must include a qualitative approach to convey a
deep understanding of how people react to organisational changes and the results of these changes

(for example, to explore how many people may have left as a result of the change processes,
whether respondents were likely to have been ‘survivors’, and the differences of responses to
change between managers and non-managers). Future research would benefit from having several
points of access to the organisation over time. In a similar manner it would benefit from a mixed
method longitudinal design, including a qualitative approach, which would provide researchers
with the advantage of making causal inferences, testing the prolonged effects of perceived justice
over extended periods of time and gaining a richer understanding of the variables and relationships
studied through qualitative data.
It is also important to look at inter-group relationships, the dynamics of organisational
change, leading to clarifying and resituating the role of resistance to change. It would be valu-
able to conduct an in-depth investigation to check why some employees did not report any
change while the others were aware of the changes. It would also be interesting to examine
whether there are any significant differences between employees and managers in responding
to the change process.
7. Implications and conclusions

The current research sought to investigate the relationships between the organisation’s context and
resistance to change, mediated by perceived organisational justice. It was found that of the change
process characteristics LMX was significantly and inversely related to resistance to change.
Informational justice was significantly and negatively related to resistance to change. These find-
ings empirically confirmed previous conceptual literature, emphasising the importance of leader–
member relationships and the importance of managing perceptions of justice through quality
information dissemination.
It was further found that informational justice mediates the relationship between LMX and
resistance to change. Procedural and informational justice mediate the relationship between par-
ticipation and resistance to change, and all three perceptions of justice (procedural, interpersonal
and informational) mediate the relationship between information and resistance to change.
These findings suggest that organisations would benefit from developing a greater understand-
ing of change practices that shape employee perceptions of justice and ultimately elicit either
counterproductive or supportive responses to change. Attention should also be given to fostering
positive relationships with employees within a climate of fairness and respect. In addition, change
implementation practices should focus on activities that increase employee knowledge and under-
standing of the change and encourage their involvement.
Our research suggests that resistance can be tempered by involving employees in the change
process through increasing the fairness and the transparency of decision making processes, provid-
ing adequate explanations for the decisions and respecting employees through the provision of
useful, timely and accurate information about change. Disregarding such practices may decrease
employees’ faith and trust in change management programmes (Stanley et al., 2005) and may ulti-
mately fuel employees’ resistance. Change agents and other organizational authorities are therefore
likely to benefit from paying closer attention to organisational justice issues.
Interactions can affect how the change process develops and how the change is implemented,
perceived and evaluated. In turn, this may indirectly influence the overall effectiveness of the
change (Van Dam et al., 2008). Our findings indicate that organisational changes stand a better
chance in work situations that are characterised by close and supportive relationships between
leaders and subordinates and effective delivery of negative news in fair ways. Extensive commu-
nication and participation should be made available to all employees, and fostering organisational
justice is key to harnessing employees’ cooperation and support in times of change.

Resistance to organisational change can severely obstruct the change process and produce
negative outcomes, such as decreased employee satisfaction, productivity, and well-being. A
better understanding of resistance to change and the organisational conditions under which
resistance to change can be managed is therefore an indispensable precondition, since an exten-
sive review of the literature revealed a critical link between employee perceptions of justice and
the positive outcome of change programmes. Our study investigated this increasingly important
relationship, using change process characteristics of LMX, participation and information. Our
findings of a survey of 100 employees in an Australian workplace found that procedural and
informational justice mediated the relationship between participation and resistance, while all
three perceptions of justice (procedural, interpersonal and informational) mediated the relation-
ship between information and resistance change. We believe that further understanding of the
roles of perceived justice could facilitate the successful management of change gaining a com-
petitive advantage by utilizing the diverse skills and experience of employees within the
organization.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
Alas R (2007) Reactions to organizational change from the institutional perspective: The case of Estonia.
Problems and Perspectives in Management 5: 19–31.
Alexander S and Ruderman M (1987) The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behav-
ior. Social Justice Research 1: 177–198.
Armenakis AA and Harris SG (2002) Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal
of Organizational Change Management 15: 169–183.
Avey JB, Wernsing TS and Luthans F (2008) Can positive employees help positive organizational change?
Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors? Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 44: 48–70.
Bauer TN and Green SG (1996) Development of a leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of
Management Journal 39: 1538–1567.
Beer M and Nohria N (2000) Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review 78: 133–141.
Bernerth JB, Armenakis AA, Feild HS, et al. (2007) Justice, cynicism, and commitment. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 43: 303–326.
Bhal KT (2006) LMX-citizenship behaviour relationship: Justice as a mediator. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal 27: 106–117.
Bies RJ and Moag JF (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: Lewicki BH,
Sheppard MH and Bazerman MH (eds) Research on Negotiations in Organizations, vol. 1. Greenwich:
JAI Press, pp. 43–55.
Bies RJ and Shapiro DL (1988) Voice and justification: Their influence of procedural fairness judgements.
Academy of Management Journal 31: 676–685.
Bolen KA and Barb KH (1981) Pearson’s R and coarsely categorized measures. American Sociological
Review 46: 232–239.
Bouwen R and Fry R (1991) Organizational innovation and learning. Four patterns of dialogue between the
dominant logic and the new logic. International Studies of Management and Organization 21(4): 37–51.
Bovey WH and Hede A (2001) Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective pro-
cesses. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 22: 372–382.
Burton J, Sablynski C and Sekiguchi T (2008) Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via leader-
member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology 23: 51–61.

Carter MZ, Jones-Farmer A, Armenakis AA, et al. (2009) Transformational leadership and followers’ perfor-
mance: Joint mediating effects of leader-member exchange and interactional justice.In: GT Solomon (ed).
Best Paper Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.
Chawla A and Kelloway EK (2004) Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal 25: 485–498.
Chreim S (2006) Managerial frames and institutional discourses of change: Employee appropriation and
resistance. Organization Studies 27: 1261–1287.
Cobb AT, Folger R and Wooten K (1995) The role justice plays in organizational change. Public Administration
Quarterly 19: 135–151.
Coch L and French J (1948) Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations 1: 512–532.
Coetsee L (1999) From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly 23: 204–222.
Collinson D (1994) Strategies of resistance: Power, knowledge and subjectivity in the workplace. In: Jerimer
JM, Knights D and Nord WR (eds) Resistance and Power in Organisations. New York, 25–68.
Colquitt JA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 386–400.
Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, et al. (2001) Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25
years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 425–445.
Daly JP (1995) Explaining changes to employees: The influence of justifications and change outcomes on
employees’ fairness judgements. Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences 31: 415–428.
Daly JP and Geyer PD (1994) The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: Employee evaluations
of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 623–638.
Dawson P (1991) Lost managers or industrial dinosaurs? A reappraisal of front-line management. Australian
Journal of Management 16: 35–48.
Dayan M and Colak M (2008) The role of procedural justice in the new product development. European
Journal of Innovation Management 11: 199–218.
Dent EB and Goldberg SG (1999) Challenging ‘resistance to change’. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
35: 25–44.
Doty DH and Glick WH (1998) Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results?
Eales-White R (1994) Creating Growth from Change: How You React, Develop and Grow. London: McGraw-
Hill.
Elfenbein HA (2007) Emotions in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. Academy of
Management Annals 1: 315–386.
Erwin DG and Garman AN (2010) Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and practice.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal 31: 39–56.
Folger R (1977) Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of ‘voice’ and improvement on expe-
rienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 108–119.
Folger R and Skarlicki DP (1999) Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as mistreatment. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 12: 35–45.
Ford JD and Ford LW (2009) Decoding resistance to change. Harvard Business Review 87(2): 99–104.
Ford JD and Ford LW (2010) Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational Dynamics
39: 24–36.
Ford JD, Ford LW and D’Amelio A (2008) Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of
Management Review 33: 362–377.
Ford JD, Ford LW and McNamara RT (2002) Resistance and the background conversations of change.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 15: 105–121.
Foster RD (2010) Resistance, justice, and commitment to change. Human Resource Development Quarterly
21: 3–39.
Fuchs S and Edwards MR (2011) Predicting pro-change behaviour: The role of perceived organisational jus-
tice and organisational identification. Human Resource Management Journal 22: 39–59.
Fugate M, Prussia GE and Kinicki AJ (2012) Managing employee withdrawal during organizational change:
The role of threat appraisal. Journal of Management 38: 890–914.

Furst SA and Cable DM (2008) Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics
and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 453–462.
Gerstner CR and Day DV (1997) Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and
construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 827–844.
Giangreco A and Peccei R (2005) The nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance to change:
Evidence from an Italian context. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16:
1812–1829.
Goldstein J (1989) The affirmative core of resistance to change. Organization Development Journal 7: 32–38.
Graen GB (2004) New Frontiers of Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series. Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Graen GB and Uhl-Bien M (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain per-
spective. Leadership Quarterly 6: 219–247.
Greenberg J (1990) Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts.
Greenberg J (1993a) The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational
justice. In: Cropanzano R (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 79–103.
Greenberg J (1993b) Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft
reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54:
81–103.
Herscovitch L and Meyer JP (2002) Commitment to organisational change: Extension of a Three-Component
Model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 474–487
Iverson R (1996) Employee acceptance of organisational change: The role of organisational commitment.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 7: 122–149.
Johnson JR, Bernhagen MJ, Miller VD, et al. (1996) The role of communication in managing reductions in
work force. Journal of Applied Communication Research 24: 139–164.
Jones DA and Skarlicki DP (2012) How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organiza-
tional justice. Organizational Psychology Review 32(2): 138–160.
Kernan MC and Hanges PJ (2002) Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of
procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 916–928.
Kickul LSW and Finkl J (2002) Promise breaking during radical organizational change: Do justice interven-
tions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 469–488.
Kim B, Lee G and Carlson KD (2010) An examination of the nature of the relationship between Leader-
Member-Exchange (LMX) and turnover intent at different organizational levels. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 29: 591–597.
King N and Anderson N (1995) Innovation and Change in Organisations. London: Routledge.
Kotter JP and Schlesinger LA (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review 57: 106–114.
LeBrasseur R, Whissell R and Ojha A (2002) Organisational learning, transformational leadership and imple-
mentation of continuous quality improvement in Canadian hospitals. Australian Journal of Management
27: 141–162.
Lee HR, Murrmann SK, Murrmann KF, et al. (2010) Organizational justice as a mediator of the relationships
between leader-member exchange and employees’ turnover intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
and Management 19: 97–114.
Lee J (2001) Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and cooperative communication.
Management Communication Quarterly 14(4): 574.
Leventhal GG, Karuza JJ and Fry WR (1980) Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In: Mikula
G (ed.) Justice and Social Interaction: Experimentation and Theoretical Research from Psychological
Research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 167–218.
Lewin K (1945) The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry
8: 126–136.
Lewin K (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations 1: 143–153.

Lewin K (1951) Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Liden RC, Sparrowe RT and Wayne SJ (1997) Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for
the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 15: 47–119.
Lind EA and Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Lines R (2004) Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and
change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management 4: 193–215.
Lines R (2005) The structure and function of attitudes toward organizational change. Human Resource
Development Review 4: 8–32.
Lipponen J, Koivisto S and Olkkonen ME (2005) Procedural justice and status judgements: The moderating
role of leader in-group proto-typicality. Leadership Quarterly 16: 517–528.
Merron K (1993) Let’s bury the term ‘resistance’. Organization Development Journal 11: 77–86.
Moorman RH (1991) Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors:
Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology 76: 845–855.
Oreg S (2003) Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88(4): 680–693.
Oreg S (2006) Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 15: 73–101.
Oreg S and Berson Y (2011) Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’s personal
attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology 64: 627–659.
Pallant J (2011) SPSS Survival Manual. 4th ed. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Paterson JM, Green A and Cary J (2002) The measurement of organizaitonal justice in organizational change
programmes: A reliability, validity and context-sensitivity assessment. Occupational and Organizational
Psychology 75: 393–408.
Peccei R, Giangreco A and Sebastiano A (2011) The role of organisational commitment in the analysis of
resistance to change. Personnel Review 40: 185–204.
Peus C, Frey D, Gerkhardt M, et al. (2009) Leading and managing organizational change initiatives.
Management Revue 20: 158–175.
Piccolo RF, Bardes M, Mayer DM, et al. (2008) Does high quality leader-member exchange accentuate
the effects of organizational justice? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17:
273–298.
Piderit SK (2000) Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes
toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review 25: 783–794.
Pieterse JH, Caniëls MCJ and Homan T (2012) Professional discourses and resistance to change. Journal of
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Jeong-Yeon L, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.
Preacher KJ and Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behaviour Research Methods 40: 879–891.
Reichers AE, Wanous JP and Austin JT (1997) Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational
change. Academy of Management Executive 11: 48–59.
Roberson QM, Moye NA and Locke EA (1999) Identifying a missing between participation and satisfaction:
The mediating role of procedural justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 585–593.
Saunders MNK and Thornhill A (2003) Organisational justice, trust and the management of change: An
exploration. Personnel Review 32: 360–375.
Scandura TA (1999) Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership
Quarterly 10: 25–35.
Schein EH (1987) Process Consultation: Lessons for Management and Consultants, vol. 2. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Self DR and Schraeder M (2009) Enhancing the success of organizational change: Matching readiness strate-
gies with sources of resistance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 30: 167–182.
Senge PM (1990) The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review 32:
7–23.

Senior B and Swailes S (2010) Organizational Change. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Shafiro MV, Hanson GC, Truxillo DM, et al. (2007) Employee reactions to reduction in benefit-related com-
pensation: A fairness perspective. Psychologist-Manager Journal 10: 105–125.
Shapiro DL and Kirkman BL (1999) Employees’ reaction to the change to work teams. Journal of
Shaughnessy JJ, Zechmeister E and Zechmeister J (2000) Research Methods in Psychology. 5th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Sirkin H, Keenan P and Jackson A (2005) The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review
83: 108–118.
Skarlicki DP and Folger R (1997) Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 434–443.
Stanley DJ, Meyer JP and Topolnytsky L (2005) Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change.
Journal of Business and Psychology 19: 429–459.
Thibaut J and Walkers L (1978) A theory of procedure. California Law Review 66: 541–566.
Trader-Leigh KE (2002) Case study: Identifying resistance in managing change. Journal of Organizational
Change Management 15: 138–155.
Van Dam K, Oreg S and Schyns B (2008) Daily work contexts and resistance to organisational change:
The role of leader–member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied
Psychology: An International Review 57: 313–334.
Van Voorhis CRW and Morgan BL (2007) Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample
sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 3: 43–50.
Waddell D and Sohal AS (1998) Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management
Decision 36: 543–548.
Wanberg CR and Banas JT (2000) Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing work-
place. Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 132–142.
Wayne SJ, Shore LM, Bommer WH, et al. (2002) The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of
organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 590–598.
Weber PS and Weber JE (2001) Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal 22: 291–300.
Yerbury D (1982) Redundancy: The response of Australian industrial law. Australian Journal of Management
7: 75–102.
Zaltman G and Duncan R (1977) Strategies for Planned Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

View publication stats

Ajm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ajm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Change process characteristics and resistance to organisational change: The

Article in Australian Journal of Management · February 2014

Joanna Georgalis Ramanie Samaratunge

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Australian Journal of Management

Joanna Georgalis, Ramanie Samaratunge and

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

2.2. Organisational change context

Hypothesis 1a: LMX will be negatively associated with resistance to change.

Hypothesis 1b: Participation will be negatively associated with resistance to change.

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

2.3. Organisational justice and resistance to change

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Hypothesis 2a: Procedural justice will be negatively related to resistance to change.

2.4. Justice as a mediator between LMX and resistance to change

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

2.5. Justice as a mediator between participation and resistance to change

2.6. Justice as a mediator between information and resistance to change

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

3.2. Procedures and data collection

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for study variables.

Variables Mean Standard

Table 2. Zero-order correlation matrix of study variables.

4.2. Inter-correlations of variables

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

4.3. Hypothesis testing

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Mediator Parameter SE 95% BC CI

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

5.1. Role of justice as a mediator between LMX and resistance to change

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

5.2. Justice as a mediator between participation and resistance to change

5.3. Justice as a mediator between information and resistance to change

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

6. Limitations and future research

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

7. Implications and conclusions

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

Senior B and Swailes S (2010) Organizational Change. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Downloaded from aum.sagepub.com at Macquarie University Library on August 20, 2015

You might also like