The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
JOCM
31,1
230
Received 15 June 2017
Revised 22 October 2017
Accepted 1 December 2017
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
Vol. 31 No. 1, 2018
pp. 230-247
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/JOCM-06-2017-0237
From resistance to readiness:
the role of mediating variables
Rajiv R. Thakur
Department of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management, Jammu, India, and
Shalini Srivastava
OB, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of trust, perceived organizational support, and
emotional attachment in bridging the gap between resistance and readiness to change.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual model including five constructs is developed.
The questionnaire survey using the study variables readiness to change, trust, perceived organizational
support, emotional attachment, and resistance to change was used in this study. Descriptive statistics and
mediation regression analysis are used to test all hypotheses using the survey data of 276 middle-level managers.
Findings – The findings reflect how readiness to change reduces the impact of resistance to change
during organizational change. Furthermore it also finds that how trust, perceived organizational support, and
emotional attachment mediates the relationship between resistance and readiness and reduces the gap
between the two.
Research limitations/implications – The findings in the study have made significant contribution to the
literature especially on middle-level managers in the Indian context. There was a paucity of research done on
the study variables. The mediating effects of the study variable have never been explored earlier and
therefore make an immense contribution to the field of knowledge for practitioners and academicians.
Practical implications – The research results have many practical implications. It could be established
that trust, perceived organizational support, and emotional attachment have a strong and positive association
with the management of change. Linking of study variables during change is helpful for the top managers for
better understanding during a major organizational change. Supporting the employees through human touch
during change will lead to easier transition. Understanding of various dimensions that influence employee to
readiness for organizational change is an important endeavor for organizational change.
Social implications – The research is of utmost significance for the top management as it can provide a
better insight to understand and keep in mind the key aspects during organizational change in such a way
that chances of resistance reduces to minimal. If the employees are contented by receiving support from their
bosses, if there exists a mutual trust which increases emotional attachment, introducing change in the
organization will be much easier for the management.
Originality/value – This research attempts to investigate how during times of turbulent change in an
organization trust between the employees and their supervisor, perceived social support, and emotional
attachment with the organization positively impact the change management process. The findings provide
valuable insights for the top management to understand the psyche of its employees and provide them a
human touch during the time of organizational change.
Keywords Emotional attachment, Trust, Resistance to change, Perceived organizational support,
Readiness to change
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In a highly competitive VUCA world, Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” rules the world.
All the stake holders in the present scenario need to tighten their laces for their survival.
One who resists change will be facing a huge blow as it will act as a dead end street with little
hope of taking a U-turn. Money cannot buy everything is quite apt in this context.
The organization’s top leaders are facing this challenge as they also understand that mere
buying of world class machineries and technologies is not an assurance for success unless and
until the main force behind the success of any organization, the manpower opens their
mindset. The lone static reality in the world is change. Nearly all organizations need trivial
changes every year and key changes sporadically every four to five years (Kotter and
Schlesinger, 1979). Change typically entails employees to move from the known to the The role of
unknown that is the reason that whenever any change is initiated instantly the employees are mediating
likely to resist it. When employees perceive that organizational resources and means cannot variables
sustain the proposed change, employee’s resistance is likely to be high. Burke (2002)
elucidated that planned change engrosses relocation or reorganization of resources, which
leads augmented levels of anxiety and overlooking of organizational functions due to scarcity
of resources. Furthermore, Reichers et al. (1997) and Ford et al. (2008) validated that aspects 231
found to be the key reason of resistance are broken agreements, infringement of trust,
collapsed communication and falsification of circumstances.
For a lot of employees change is demanding (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). Fisher and
Howell (2004) and Bartunek et al. (2006) determine that employees try to comprehend their
changing milieu and also establish how these changes will influence their daily life and their
living. To steer employees through workplace change, organizational representatives
present them with relevant information. Employees deduce the information presented to
them while attitudes are are formed, as well as their common belief regarding organizational
support provided to them. Employees are expected to hold their organizations accountable if
they are inept to comprehend their surroundings and recognize insufficient organizational
support as an indication of change-related ambiguity.
One of the crucial aspects that top leaders should take into perspective for increasing the
acceptance level of change is providing organizational support to the employees. According
to social exchange theory, if someone is favored, in order to compensate that, the reciprocal
leads to obligation. So, if organization respects employees’ efforts, and the employees feel
supported (Neves and Eisenberger, 2014, p. 190), the employees will also extend their
support to the organization in times of need.
It is the task of the top management to understand the psyche of its employees by
giving a human touch. Leaders have to keep their eyes and ears open for understanding
the concerns of the employees resisting change and use psychological drivers in changing
resistance to readiness. Any change brings discomfort for the employees as they are
expected to come out of the comfortable zone. It is a natural phenomenon that employees
will show resistance to change for the reason being moving from known to unknown
natural answer, because change is a move from the known to the unknown (Hadavinejad
et al., 2009, p. 120). As resistance in an inevitable phenomenon, the top leaders should look
into the factors leading to resistance and once identified, should leave no stone unturned
to either reduce or eliminate those factors and thereby, making them accept the change
(Furst and Cable, 2008, p. 123). Smith (2005) illustrates that a noteworthy element of the
organizational setting in which change is to be ventured is the employee’s attitudes,
abilities, inspirations, and awareness as these are vital to the accomplishment of the
change efforts.
However, if the employees are handled in an emotional and empathetic way, if there is a
mutual trust between the leaders and the employees and if the employees have
organizational support, the road travel will become much easier and can have a crucial
impact on work-related outcomes, such as readiness to change. If the employees show a
willingness to change, the chances of success will be high and vice versa (Elving and
Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2009). In the current turbulent times, organizational change is
occurring at a much faster pace (Burke, 2002; Armenakis and Harris, 2002; Herold and
Fedor, 2008). Hackman (1994) determined that organizations can facilitate the attainment of
organizational and personal goals through processes like delegation, which is only possible
in the presence of trust, which motivates the members of organizations to divide power and
control. The present study proposed a conceptual model, which states the mediating effects
of trust, emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support on the employee’s
resistance and readiness to change relationship. This study investigated the relationship
JOCM between employee’s resistance and readiness to change, also the mediating effects of trust,
31,1 emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support on the relationship in varied
sectors of Delhi-NCR region of India with special reference to the middle-level managers
which is unique and hardly being studied in India or abroad.

Need and context of the study

232 Change in organizations often involves considerable challenges and in the ever-changing
world, it is very pertinent for the organization to make the changes as per the need. It is the
manpower who has to shoulder the responsibility of bringing and managing change. But
the irony is that the employees resist change due to numerous factors both reasonable and
unreasonable. One of the major reasons for their reluctance can be coming out from the
comfortable zone to the zone of uncertainty. Changing resistance to readiness is a
hurricane task for the management. Here comes the role of personal touch from the top
management which can bridge the gap between the two aspects. If there is a trust among
different levels of management, the employees feel emotionally attached and they perceive
organizational support, the drive will become much easier. Although massive amount of
research is accessible on readiness to change and resistance to change in the global
context, there is a dearth of research on readiness to change, resistance to change,
mediating effects of trust, emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support in
the Indian workplaces. Numerous researchers have pointed out on the paucity of research
on change management and change resistance in the Indian context (Bhatnagar et al.,
2010). Bezboruah (2008) recognized the necessity to comprehend employee resistance in
the Indian context. Hence, it is imperative to recognize the effects of trust, emotional
attachment, and perceived organizational support on the employee’s resistance and
readiness to change.
Taking this aspect into mind, the present research deals with the following objectives.

Objectives of the study

(1) the current study is aimed to investigate the relationship between employee’s
resistance and readiness to change; and
(2) it further attempts to understand the mediating effects of trust, emotional
attachment, and perceived organizational support on the employee’s resistance and
readiness to change relationship.

Literature review and hypotheses development

The present study constitutes of one independent variable namely, resistance to change, one
dependent variable namely, readiness to change and three mediating variables namely,
trust, emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support. Resistance to change is
expected to relate negatively with readiness to change directly and indirectly through the
mediating effects of trust, emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support.
The research model of this study is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Relationship between
the study variables
• Trust
• Emotional attachment
• Perceived organizational support
Resistance to change Readiness to change
Readiness to change The role of
One of the antecedents of resistance or support is readiness to change (Armenakis et al., mediating
1993). For change to occur, the stake holders should understand the current state of the variables
organization by comparing it from the past and future perspectives. There is a significant
impact of employees’ readiness in preparing them psychologically for any change
(Madsen, 2003). Readiness is defined as a belief, intention, attitude, and behavior
regarding the extent to which change is needed and the organizational capacity to achieve 233
it successfully (Armenakis et al., 1993; Rafferty and Simons, 2006; Susanto, 2008). Bernerth
(2004) defined readiness as a state of mind during the change process which reflects the
acceptability or resistance to organizational change. Readiness for change is considered as
a prerequisite for the success of change interventions (Armenakis et al., 1993; Bernerth,
2004). Readiness to change occurs when the employees believe in the intentions of the
changes as well as the organizations’ ability to adhere to the changes. Resistance to
change leads to conflicts between the leaders and the employees thereby, reducing
the intensity of the change to occur. Hence, it is very pertinent for the leaders to reduce the
conflicts by aligning the thinking between the two stake holders (Holt et al., 2007).
Readiness to change can be easily linked with the Kurt Lewin model of change where he
proposed three stages namely, unfreezing, changing, and refreezing (Lewin, 1954).
This model was further strengthened by Holt et al. (2007) who discussed about readiness
to change, adoption, and institutionalization as the three stages of implementing change.
If the top leaders are able to understand the cognitive state (beliefs, attitudes, and
intentions) for readiness to change, the change will follow easily (Abdul Rashid et al., 2003;
Bouckenooghe and Devos, 2007).

Resistance to change
French and Bell (1999) defined change as, “a phenomenon where there is a difference
between a new one with an old one.” For change to take place, when there is an
organization’s imbalance between its objectives and its outcomes. For business excellence
for an organization and individual excellence for the employees, the acceptance of change is
very crucial (Cummings and Worley, 1993). The opposite of it is resistance where employees
are reluctant to change due to any reason varying from indifferent attitude, “what’s there for
me, contradictory Ideologies, conflicts, etc.” Keen (1981) defined resistance as “reaction to
opposition to organisational change.”
As change is difficult, it is very important that the employees need to be motivated by
training them for new skills and tasks which they feel they are not attuned with (Oreg, 2003).
Piderit (2000) has categorized three dimensions of resistance, namely, behavior, emotional
issue, and cognition. Behavior is a form of resistance which resists an individual to change
(Williams, 1969), when an individual tries to adhere any change, the disappointment that
follows leads to resistance (Carnall, 1990) and third, resistance is seen as cognition,
constituting one’s beliefs and attitudes. Kulkarni (2016) examined change resistance in
Indian organizations with a perspective of employee’s interpretation of change. Based on
inputs from HR managers implementing change and in-depth interviews of 54 employees
led to the identification of change “resistors.” Findings depicted that employees “may not
perceive their actions as resistance and legitimize their behavior based on ideological
reasons or their assumption that they are behaving in long-term interests of the
organization” (Kulkarni, 2016).

Relationship between resistance to change and readiness to change

During any change, be it personal level or at organizational level, a person has two
options, either to resist it or to accept it. Resistance helps an individual to welcome
change with a positive gesture, whereas resistance leads him to a defiance mode.
JOCM Chawla and Kelloway define resistance to change as “an adherence to any attitudes or
31,1 behaviors that thwart organizational change goals.” Resistance to change can be due
to the feeling of insecurity of losing something or a hesitance in coming out of one’s
comfortable zone.
The employee, while resisting change, resists either attitudinally in terms of need or
behaviorally in terms of unwillingness to stay in the organization during times of
234 turbulence. The main reason which Dent and Goldberg through their study could find for
resistance was coming to the zone of uncertainty. Yu and Lee (2015) in their study on
288 employees from Taiwanese consumer electronics manufacturing which were
experiencing organizational change validated that readiness for change has a negative
impact on resistance to change; they further depicted that readiness for change acts as a
mediator in the relationships between perceived organizational support and resistance to
change; furthermore readiness for change mediates the relationships between positive
psychological capital and resistance to change:
H1. There is a negative and significant association between resistance and readiness
to change.

Trust
Needless to debate, the backbone for organizational excellence is trust which has been at
the forefront in recent time. Trust between different stakeholders within an organization
has a positive role in taking the organization to a higher level. The key success to any
change is organizational trust, absence of which leads to failure of the same. Trust
can be defined as relying and depending on other person’s promises at a given
point of time (Rotter, 1967).Trust encompasses dimensions like honesty, integrity,
reliability, consistency, loyalty, and openness (Butler and Cantrell,1984). Hoy and
Tschannen-Moran defined trust as “a person’s or group’s willingness to make themselves
vulnerable to another person or group, relying on the confidence that the other party
exhibits the following characteristics or facets: benevolence, reliability, competence,
honesty, and openness” (p. 189). Erikson (1963) linked trust with the experiences in
childhood. Luhmann (1988) and Giddens (1990) relate trust as an amalgation of rational
and emotional processes comprising cognitive and affective elements. Nooteboom (2002)
defined trust as an intrinsic value that is valued for the quality of life. Fukuyama (1995)
and Russell have focused on trust as a “functional dimension of society’s operation.”
The employees are willing to go an extra mile if they feel trust is for their good and this
confidence of believing comes from the goodwill of its leaders whom they believe are
impartial (Korsgaard et al., 1995). Whenever there is some change in the organizational
setup, the main reason why the employees are reluctant is due to the fear of the unknown
and due to “uncertainty” (DiFonzo et al., 1994). But, in the presence of trust, this
fear gets waved away and the employees show their acceptance in managing risk, and try
to make the complex situation into a simpler one (McLain and Hackman, 1999). Vanhala
and Dietz (2015) utilized two large-scale survey studies in two different organizations in
Finland, a forest company with a sample size of 411 and an ICT company with a sample
size of 304, examined the illuminating power of employee’s trust in their employer as a
mediator between an organization’s human resource management interventions and
performance outcomes at individual, work unit, and organizational levels. The results
validated the mediating role of trust in an employer. Dalati et al. (2017) in higher education
institutions in Syria analyzed the relationship between sustainable leadership and staff
members trust in coworkers; their study accentuates on the significance of sustainable
leadership and coworkers’ trust and its impact on job satisfaction for the faculty and
university level.
Relationship between trust and organizational change The role of
One of the driving forces behind change is the trust between the superior and the mediating
subordinate. Trust decreases the uncertainty level and thus helps in embracing change at a variables
must speedy level. Trust in leadership makes it as a change enabler during the
implementation of organizational change. In a study, Erturk found trust as a strong
mediator between managerial communication and openness to change. Studies carried out
in the past have found a strong relationship between trust and employees readiness to 235
change. Similarly, the acceptance level for change increases if there is a high level of trust
(Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). When there is a trust among the employees and the
management, collective support during organizational change from the employees is higher
which thereby leads to an easier transition (Huy, 2002):
H2. There is a positive and significant association between trust and readiness
to change and a negative and significant association between trust and resistance
to change.

Emotional attachment
For one’s existence in the world, attachment behavior is of immense significance.
Attachment helps the individuals in connecting one to other, in establishing relationship
and it changes in focus and significance in life cycle. During childhood, the child’s
attachment is his parents, which further shifts to peers and partners in adolescence,
toward their own children in adulthood. Attachment is considered “an affectionate bond
between two individuals which endures through space and time and serves to join them
together emotionally”. This process is applicable at organizational level as well as in
terms of attachment with colleagues and superiors and developing affective enduring
bond with the organization they work. The concept of attachment can be related to the
concept of commitment. Emotional attachment can be very well aligned with the
affective commitment where they talked about the component model of organizational
commitment namely affective, normative, and continuance commitment. Affective
commitment can be defined as an “emotional linkage between an employee and the
organisation and a strong acceptance of organisation’s goals and values.” Affective
commitment to change is often considered as an important factor for change (Herscovitch
and Meyer, 2002). Change management theory also states that the acceptance of the
employees directly affects the successful implementation of change for employees
(Bartunek et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2007).
One of the major challenges that an organization faces through change is the emotional
reaction attached to it (Turnbull, 2002). Cox has critically opined that emotional experiences or
outbursts act as a stumbling block while implementing change.

Relationship between emotional attachment and organizational change

Emotional attachment with the organization leads to a better transition during the change
because a positive attitude and commitment makes an easier absorption. Meyer’s affective
component out of the three components of commitment, speaks about emotional attachment.
Affective commitment relates to the bond between the employer and his employees Mathieu
and Zajac (1990). It can also be associated with the employee’s “emotional attachment” with
the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990) and has been considered as one of the most
important attitudinal consequences of organizational change (Holt et al., 2007, Oreg, 2006).
Literature from the past also shows that emotional attachment sometimes creates less
resistance to change during any organizational change initiative (Oreg, 2006; Peccei et al.,
2011). Studies suggest that emotional attachment leads to discretionary behavior, which in
JOCM turn leads to show a positive intention toward a change which may sometimes be
31,1 elimination of some of the organizational value:
H3. There is a positive and significant association between emotional attachment and
readiness to change and a negative and significant association between emotional
attachment and resistance to change.

236
Perceived organizational support
One of the important dimensions that plays a crucial role in establishing readiness to change is
perceived organizational support. If the employee feels that his supervisor is providing
continuous feedback (Griffin et al., 2001) and the supervisor cares about his well-being
(Eisenberger et al., 2002), he reciprocates by showing increased commitment to the
organization in terms of uncertainty (Malatesta, 1995). On the basis of the norm of reciprocity,
employees who perceive organizational support develop a “felt obligation” to care about the
organization’s welfare and to help the organization achieve its objectives like in the success of
organizational change (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Whenever there is a change, the employees
come under the umbrella of uncertainty and here they take the leader’s behavior as a reference
point. If the leaders show a supporting behavior during the time of upheavals, employees will
reciprocate in a similar manner (Bernerth, 2004). Hence, supportive principle behavior
o supportive principal behavior ?Wwith alignment with perceived organizational support
poses an important factor for favoring readiness to change. Cullen et al. (2014) validated the
“role of perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between employee’s
adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty and employees’ satisfaction and
performance;” furthermore, they explained that “perceived organizational support is an
appraisal that explains the relationship between stress (change-related uncertainty) and
satisfaction and performance.” Shantz et al. (2016) in their study in UK with a sample size of
175 from a manufacturing organization validated that perceived organizational support
moderates the relationship between work engagement and turnover intentions and deviant
behaviors directed toward the organization. They illustrated that perceived organizational
support compensates for relatively low levels of work engagement (Shantz et al., 2016).

Relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational

change
In a study by Yu and Lee (2015) on the relationship between perceived organizational
support and resistance to change, a negative relationship was found between readiness for
change and employees resistance to change. A similar result has been found by Ting who
also found in his study on “A study prepared employees for organizational change,
psychological capital, perceived organizational support and resistance to organizational
change” that if the employees are trained well during organizational change by providing
them organizational support, resistance to change will be lesser to a greater extent. It can be
derived from the literature that employees who have support from their supervisors
appreciate their supervisors and show a positive inclination during the time of
organizational change. In highs and lows, these employees who perceive supervisory
support, perceive the outcome of the change with a positive attitude:
H4. There is a positive and significant association between perceived organizational
support and readiness to change and a negative and significant association between
perceived organizational support and resistance to change.
H5. The impact of resistance to change decreases after introducing the mediating
effects of trust, emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support on
readiness to change.
Methodology The role of
Sample and data collection mediating
Data from middle-level managers belonging to varied sectors of Delhi-NCR region of variables
India was collected for the present study. Out of 450 questionnaires being sent, we received
276 complete questionnaires. The questionnaire was divided into two segments. The first
segment comprised the statements related to the study variables, namely readiness to
change, resistance to change, trust, perceived organizational support, and emotional 237
attachment. The second segment constituted the demographic details of the respondents.
Of all the respondents, 157 were men and 119 were women; 138 had graduate degrees,
124 had postgraduate degrees, and the remaining 4 had other degrees. In total, 129 of them
were married, 146 unmarried, and the remaining 1 did not disclose her identity. Statistical
techniques such as correlation, reliability, factor analysis, and mediator regression analysis
were used to analyze the data.

Assessment of the effects of common method variance

In order to overcome the problem of common method variance in our study which might
have occurred due to self-reported measures by the same respondents, we used Harman’s
one-factor test as per the recommendation of Podsakoff et al. (2003). All the items were
analyzed using varimax rotation (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Aulakh and Gencturk,
2000). The notion that more than 50 percent of the variance in single factor confirms the
presence of common method variance was rooted out in our study as the first emerging
factor explained only 34.56 percent and the remaining four factors together contributed to
65.44 percent of variance.

Measurements
The constructs used in the present study were adapted from the extant literature. However,
certain items were deleted or reworded as per the need of the study. The responses of all the
constructs used in the present study were assessed on a five-point Likert scale.
Hanpachern’s 14-item readiness for organizational change (ROCH) scale was used to study
readiness to organizational change. However, during factor analysis, items having loading
less than 0.60 were dropped, thereby, bringing the items down from 14 to 8. Seven-item trust
scale by Schoorman and Ballinger (2006) was used for the present study. The scale
ranged from strongly disagrees to strongly agrees. Of the seven items, only three items were
found to be fit for the present study. Eight-item scale by Eisenberger et al. (1997) for
perceived organizational support was used in the present study. All the items were deemed
fit for the present study during factor analysis. A three-item scale was applied which was
developed by Cook and Wall to assess Emotional Attachment (EMAT). Oreg’s (2003) 17-
item resistance to change scale was used in the present study. However, only 13 items
having a factor loading of more than 0.60 were used for further analysis.

Analysis and results

In order to test the conceptual model, Anderson and Gerbing’s two-stage process was used.
Reliability and validity of the measures were first assessed and then the hypotheses were
tested through mediational analysis. Table II explains the Pearson correlation and
discriminant validity of the study.

Reliability and validity analysis

In order to assess the inter-item consistency, composite reliability is used using Cronbach’s α.
We followed Fornell and Larcker’s suggestion of considering reliability coefficient values of
0.70 or higher. It can be observed from Table II that all the constructs used in the study has
JOCM good reliability and internal consistency. In order to ascertain that the scale items are
31,1 measuring the theoretical construct, construct validity was tested. Test of construct validity
requires testing of convergent validity as well as discriminant validity. We assessed
convergent validity by observing the item loading and the loading of 0.7 indicates that about
one-half of the item’s variance (the squared loading) can be attributed to the construct. If we
observe Table II, except two items having a loading of more than 0.6, all other loadings were
238 found to be above 0.7, thus, indicating the statistical significance between the items and the
constructs. In order to assess the discriminant validity, Fornell and Larcker’s suggestion of
comparing the variance shared between the constructs with the AVE for each individual
construct. Discriminant validity of a construct is considered as adequate when the AVE of
each construct is greater than the correlation. AVE is represented diagonally in Table I and
the correlations are represented in rows and columns and it can be observed from the results
that AVE is found to be greater than the correlational values (Table I). Hence, the results fully
support the reliability and validity of the constructs used in the study.
Table I explains the correlation and discriminant validity of the study variables.
A significant and negative relationship is found between employees’ resistance to
employees’ readiness to change (r ¼ 0.79, p o0.01) thus, proving our first hypothesis of the
study that there is a significant and negative relationship between employees’ resistance to
employees’ readiness to change. The second hypothesis of the study that there is a positive
and significant association between trust and readiness to change and a negative and
significant association between trust and resistance to change is also proven by the result
(r ¼ 0.71 po 0.01; r ¼ −0.53, p o0.01). Similarly, the third hypothesis of the study that here
is a positive and significant association between emotional attachment and readiness to
change and a negative and significant association between emotional attachment and
resistance to change is also proven by the result (r ¼ 0.78 p o0.01; r ¼ −0.66, p o0.01).
A significant and positive correlation between perceived organizational support and
readiness to change (r ¼ 0.83 p o0.01) and a negative correlation between perceived
organizational support and readiness to change (r ¼ −0.56 p o0.01) proves the fourth
hypothesis of our study, which states that there is a positive and significant association
between perceived organizational support and readiness to change and a negative and
significant association between perceived organizational support and resistance to
change (Table II).

Mediated regression analysis

In order to validate the fifth hypothesis of our study that the impact of resistance to change
decreases after introducing the mediating effects of trust, emotional attachment, and
perceived organizational support on readiness to change, Baron and Kenney’s
recommendation of regression analysis series was administered, which suggested that
three regression equation needs to be carried out. The estimation required regression
dependent variable on independent variable, regression mediator on independent variable,

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

Readiness to change 90.25 27.96 0.85

Trust 17.74 5.99 0.71** 0.84
Perceived organizational support 24.45 8.07 0.83** 0.83** 0.92
Emotional attachment 8.98 2.66 0.78** 0.59** 0.67** 0.80
Table I. Resistance to change 35.69 7.66 −0.79** −0.53** −0.56** −0.66** 0.85
Correlation and Notes: N ¼ 276. Diagonal elements are square root of AVE values. **p o0.01
discriminant validity Source: Authors’ survey
Construct/indicators Factor loadings α
The role of
mediating
Readiness to change (AVE ¼ 0.730) variables
1. Willingness to work more because of the change 0.888 0.94
2. Willingness to solve organizational problems 0.880
3. Willingness to be a part of the new project 0.898
4. Willingness to create new ideas 0.846
5. Willingness to find ways to make the change fail 0.861 239
6. Willingness to do things in a new or creative way 0.725
7. Willingness to change the way I work 0.859
8. Willingness to take responsibility for the change if it fails 0.867
Trust (AVE ¼ 0.707) 0.90
1. Willing to let my supervisor have complete control over my future 0.887
2. Feel comfortable being creative because my supervisor understands 0.883
3. Supervisor keeps my interests in mind when making decisions 0.746
Perceived organizational support (AVE ¼ 0.611)
1. My organization cares about my opinions 0.813 0.91
2. My organization really cares about my well-being 0.820
3. My organization is willing to help me if I need a special favor 0.779
4. Help is available from my organization when I have a problem 0.756
5. My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part 0.849
6. If given the opportunity, my organization would take advantage of me (R) 0.784
7. My organization shows very little concern for me (R) 0.716
8. My organization is willing to help me if I need a special favor 0.727
Emotional attachment (AVE ¼ 0.646) 0.72
1. I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for 0.924
2. I feel myself to be part of the organization 0.696
3. I would not recommend a close friend to join our staff (R) 0.776
Resistance to change (AVE ¼ 0.7222)
1. I generally consider changes to be a negative thing 0.924 0.80
2. I will take a routine day over a day full of unexpected events 0.696
3. I like to do the same old things rather than try new and different ones 0.775
4. Whenever my life forms a stable routine, I look for ways to change it 0.813
5. I would rather be bored than surprised to new and different ones 0.820
6. I would probably feel stressed if there is going to be a significant change 0.779
7. When I am informed of a change of plans, I tense up a bit 0.756
8. When things do not go according to plans, it stresses me out 0.849
9. Changing plans seem like a real hassle to me 0.784
10. Often, I feel a bit uncomfortable even about changes 0.716
11. When someone pressures me to change something, I tend to resist it 0.727 Table II.
12. I sometimes find myself avoiding changes that I know will be good for me 0.764 Convergent reliability
13. Once I have come to a conclusion, I am not likely to change my mind 0.732 of the measurement
Source: Authors’ survey models

and finally regression-dependent variable on both independent and mediating variables.

All the four conditions that are required for mediation analysis are explained in the result.
The present study intends to find out the mediating role of trust, emotional
attachment, and perceived organizational support on resistance to change readiness to
change relationship.
Tables III-V found that there exists a negative relationship between resistance to change
and readiness to change relationship (β ¼ −0.79, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.62, p o0.01), thus, fulfilling the
first condition of a mediated relationship.
The second condition of mediation was done after regressing trust, emotional
attachment, and perceived organizational support on readiness to change. The negative
JOCM β values inEquation (2) of Tables III, IV, and V shows a decrease in regressing trust,
31,1 emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support because of resistance to
change. The analysis of Equation 2 satisfies the second condition of mediational analysis
that the independent variable significantly affects the mediator (β ¼ −0.52, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.27,
p o0.01; β ¼ −0.66, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.43, p o0.01; β ¼ −0.56, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.31, p o0.01).
In Equation 3 of Tables III-V, the third mediation condition was tested by regressing
240 readiness to change on regressing trust, emotional attachment, and perceived organizational
support. β coefficient was found to be positive and significant (β ¼ 0.71, p o0.01; β ¼ 0.83,
p o0.01; β ¼ 0.83, p o0.01), thus, satisfying the third condition of mediation that the
mediator significantly affects the dependent variable.
In order to fulfill the fourth condition of mediation that the effect of the independent
variable on the dependent variable shrinks upon the addition of the mediator to the model,
readiness to change was regressed simultaneously on resistance to change and mediating
variables (trust, emotional attachment, and perceived organizational support). The result in
the fourth equation shows that in the presence of trust, emotional attachment and perceived
organizational support variables, the relationship between resistance to change and
readiness to change became weaker. To test whether trust, emotional attachment,
and perceived organizational support variables mediates the relationship between

Equation criterion Variable predictor Variable β Adj. R2 F

1 Readiness to change Resistance to change −0.79 0.62 465.30**

2 Trust Resistance to change −0.52 0.27 106.74**
3 Readiness to change Trust 0.71 0.51 285.06**
Table III.
Results of mediated 4 Readiness to change Resistance to change −0.58 0.75 408.92**
regression analysis Trust 0.41
with trust as Notes: n ¼ 276. **p o0.01
a mediator Source: Authors’ survey

Equation Criterion variable Predictor variable β Adj. R2 F

1 Readiness to change Resistance to change −0.79 0.62 465.30**

2 Emotional attachment Resistance to change −0.66 0.43 206.54**
Table IV.
3 Readiness to change Emotional attachment 0.83 0.69 614.04**
Results of mediated
regression analysis 4 Readiness to change Resistance to change −0.44 0.80 544.25**
with emotional Emotional attachment 0.55
attachment as a Notes: n ¼ 276. **p o0.01
mediator Source: Authors’ survey

Equation Criterion variable Predictor variable β Adj. R2 F

1 Readiness to change Resistance to change −0.79 0.62 465.30**

2 Perceived organizational support Resistance to change −0.56 0.31 123.75**
Table V.
3 Readiness to change Perceived organizational support 0.83 0.70 628.13**
Results of mediated
regression analysis 4 Readiness to change Resistance to change −0.48 0.85 544.25**
with perceived Perceived organizational support 0.57
organizational support Notes: n ¼ 276. **p o0.01
as a mediator Source: Authors’ survey
resistance to change and readiness to change, the study compared β coefficients for The role of
readiness to change for Equation (1) (β ¼ −0.79, p o0.01) and Equation (4) (β ¼ −0.58, mediating
p o0.01; β ¼ −0.44, p o0.01; β ¼ −0.48, po 0.01). The comparison between the two variables
equations suggests that in the presence of trust, emotional attachment and perceived
organizational support, the impact of resistance to change on readiness to change decreased
to a great extent.
241
Discussion and conclusion
For organizational excellence, change is pertinent which has a positive as well as an
adverse effect on its employees. Hence, reaction during change is an obvious phenomenon.
Employees on their basis of their cognitive thinking react differently during
organizational change. Taking this notion in mind, the purpose of our study was to
investigate the relationship between employee’s resistance and readiness to change.
It further attempts to understand the mediating effects of trust, emotional attachment, and
perceived organizational support on the relationship. The results derived from our study
supported the hypotheses we intended to prove. A significant and negative relationship is
found between employees’ resistance to employees’ readiness to change (r ¼ 0.79,
p o 0.01), thus, proving our first hypothesis of the study that there is a significant and
negative relationship between employees’ resistance to employees’ readiness to change.
Studies done in the past validated our results. Keen (1981) also defined resistance as
“reaction to opposition to organisational change.” Resistance to change can due to the
feeling of insecurity of losing something or a hesitance in coming out of one’s comfortable
zone. The second hypothesis of the study that there is a positive and significant
association between trust and readiness to change and a negative and significant
association between trust and resistance to change is also proven by the result (r ¼ 0.71,
p o 0.01; r ¼ −0.53, p o 0.01). This was supported by the studies which showed a positive
association between trust and readiness to change. Trust decreases the uncertainty level
and, thus, helps in embracing change at a must speedy level. Trust in leadership makes it
as a change enabler during implementation of organizational change. Similarly, the third
hypothesis of the study that there is a positive and significant association between
emotional attachment and readiness to change and a negative and significant association
between emotional attachment and resistance to change is also proven by the result
(r ¼ 0.78, p o 0.01; r ¼ −0.66, p o 0.01). Our results got support by the studies carried out
in the past. It can also be associated with employee’s “emotional attachment” with the
organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990) and has been considered as one of the most
important attitudinal consequences of organizational change (Holt et al., 2007; Oreg, 2006).
Literature from the past also show that emotional attachment sometimes creates
less resistance to change during any organizational change initiative (Oreg, 2006;
Peccei et al., 2011).
A significant and positive correlation between perceived organizational support and
readiness to change (r ¼ 0.83 po0.01) and a negative correlation between perceived
organizational support and readiness to change (r ¼ −0.56, po0.01) proves the fourth
hypothesis of our study which states that there is a positive and significant association
between perceived organizational support and readiness to change and a negative and
significant association between perceived organizational support and resistance to change is
also proven by the result. Ting in his thesis entitled “A Study Prepared Employees for
Organizational Change, Psychological Capital, Perceived Organizational Support and
Resistance to Organizational Change” showed that preparing employees for organizational
change has direct effects on their resistance to organizational change as well as the ROCH, due
to the relationship between perceived organizational support and resistance to organizational
change. The results also proved that the mediating variables played a crucial role in bridging
JOCM the gap between resistance to change and readiness to change. The result in the fourth
31,1 equation of mediation regression analysis shows that in the presence of trust, emotional
attachment and perceived organizational support variables, the relationship between
resistance to change and readiness to change became weaker. To test whether trust, emotional
attachment, and perceived organizational support variables mediates the relationship between
resistance to change and readiness to change, the study compared β coefficients for readiness
242 to change for Equation 1 ( β ¼ −0.79, po0.01) and Equation 4 (β ¼ −0.58 po0.01, β ¼ −0.44,
po0.01; β ¼ −0.48, po0.01).The comparison between the two equations suggests that in the
presence of trust, emotional attachment and perceived organizational support, the impact of
resistance to change on readiness to change decreased to a great extent.
It can be concluded from the result that during the time of resistance, if there is trust between
employees and managers, the employees get positive organizational support which may lead to
emotional attachment; the road for readiness to change becomes much easier. The findings in
the study have made significant contribution to the literature especially on middle-level
managers in the Indian context. There was a paucity of research done on the study variables.
The mediating effects of the study variable have never been explored earlier and therefore make
an immense contribution in the field of knowledge for practitioners and academicians.

Limitations
It is a well-known fact that irrespective of the robust work done, there is always some scope
for further work which we could find in our study as well. The first limitation is the problem
of generalizability is in effect when a nonrandom sampling technique is used. An important
limitation during conducting this research was lack of literature to determine the
relationship between mediating variables, and employee readiness for change. In order to fill
this gap, the present research successfully linked the study variables.

Managerial implications
The new veracity that change brings into the organization facilitates employee’s acceptance
and meaningful interpretation of the transition. Adapting change is part of human
conditioning, as nothing remains the same. However, employee’s resistance to change is
both deep and normal. Organizations are made up of people, who are the actual basis of and
medium for change. These individuals will either accept or oppose change. Organizations
and its employees ought to be equipped for transformation, if they require change in order to
take hold and do well than the competitors. Organizations need to recognize that readiness
for change is not usual and thus it shall not be implicit. The present research is of utmost
significance for the top management as it can provide a better insight to understand and
keep in mind the key aspects during organizational change in such a way that chances of
resistance reduces to minimal. If the employees are contented by receiving support from
their bosses, there exists a mutual trust which increases emotional attachment; introducing
change in the organization will be much easier for the management.
Further, it could be established that trust, perceived organizational support, and
emotional attachment have a strong and positive association with the management of
change. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) validated that high perceived organizational
support can perk up employee’s commitment to the organization. Perceived organizational
support describes employee’s sense of experience as how the organizational standards echo
their individual goals, ideals, well-being, belief, assistance, and experience. Therefore, it is
imperative that organizations initiate programs to comprehend employee needs and thus
augmenting the perceived organizational support. Creating employee support and keenness
for proposed changes, rather than simply prevailing over resistance is inevitable for
glorious organizational adaptation.
 Organizations need to understand that Trust is a pedal to direct employee’s opinions The role of
regarding and dedication to organizational transformation plans. Furthermore, as validated mediating
by Huy (2002) “that employees are more likely to collectively support organizational change variables
programs when there is a sense of trust and attachment to the organization.” It is imperative
to know here how to build trust within employees and one of the key ways is through
communication. Past research illustrates that change ambiguity impels the employees to feel
frightened, rutted, susceptible, and apprehensive resulting in resistance to change. Therefore, 243
it is essential that managers accentuate the expected benefits ensuing from the process of
change in all their communications and consider employee apprehensions critically during
change processes. To improvise perceptions of organizational support and lessening
ambiguity it is crucial for organizations to encourage employees to provide inputs wherever
required. Furthermore, by using interventions such as job rotation, developmental feedback,
incentives, training, and other forms of engagement initiatives, organizations can augment
employee’s perception of organizational support, thereby facilitating smooth transition.
Positive attitude toward acceptance and implementation of changes can be built if
employees are facilitated with reasoned and accurate understanding of the rationale and
essence of changes. Moreover, managers need to recognize that to lessen the resistance to
change and develop the intention of change employees need to be communicated the
benefits associated with the change, as this promotes innovation and endorses transition.
The prime source of change execution failure across organizations globally has been
recognized as employee resistance (Erwin and Garman, 2010; Maurer, 1996; Reger et al.,
1994; Spiker and Lesser, 1995; Waldersee and Griffiths, 1996). Smith (2005) demonstrates
that “through active, ongoing and meaningful involvement in the change process people can
be helped to see the connections between their personal work and attitudes and overall
organizational performance and employees can be encouraged to embrace personal
responsibility for achieving change.” The intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of the changes
elucidated by personal valence can help develop thrust for change. Therefore, it becomes a
crucial task for managers to include the notion of organizational change into the daily life of
employees. By including organizational change into daily lives of employees will facilitate
employees to turn it into personal values. It is essential for managers to reward this
inclusion so that employee’s readiness to change is secured effortlessly, thereby reducing
the employee resistance. Supporting the employees through human touch during change
will lead to easier transition. Understanding of various dimensions that influence employee
to ROCH is an important endeavor for organizational change.

Practical implications
The research results have many practical implications. It could be established that trust,
perceived organizational support, and emotional attachment have a strong and positive
association with the management of change. Linking of study variables during change is
helpful for the top managers for better understanding during a major organizational change.
Supporting the employees through human touch during change will lead to easier transition.
Understanding of various dimensions that influence employees to ROCH is an important
endeavor for organizational change.

Directions for future research

The study will provide further opportunities for future research. Future study can be done
on comparative analysis between various sectors. Demographic variables can also
be considered for the study in future. The role of personality during change can also be
assessed during organizational change. A longitudinal study may be conducted to
establish the cause-and-effect relationship between the study variables for better validity
and learning.
JOCM References
31,1 Abdul Rashid, M.Z., Sambasivan, M. and Rahman, A.A. (2003), “The influence of organizational culture
on attitudes toward organizational change”, The Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-179.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
244 pp. 1-18.
Andersson, L.M. and Bateman, T.S. (1997), “Cynicism in the workplace: some causes and effects”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 449-469.
Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2002), “Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 169-183.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993), “Creating readiness for organizational
change”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 681-703.
Aulakh, P.S. and Gencturk, E.F. (2000), “International principal-agent relationships-control, governance
and performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 521-538.
Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D.M., Rudolph, J.W. and DePalma, J.A. (2006), “On the receiving end:
sensemaking, emotion and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others”, Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 182-206.
Bernerth, J. (2004), “Expanding our understanding of the change message”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-52.
Bezboruah, K.C. (2008), “Applying the congruence model of organizational change in explaining the
change in the Indian economic policies”, Organizational Change and Social Transformation,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 129-140.
Bhatnagar, J., Budhwar, P., Srivastava, P. and Saini, D.S. (2010), “Organizational change and
development in India: a case of strategic organizational change and transformation”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 485-499.
Bouckenooghe, D. and Devos, G. (2007), “Psychological change climate as a crucial catalyst of
readiness for change: dominance analysis”, working paper, Vlerick Leuven Gent
Management School, Universiteit Gent, Gent.
Burke, W.W. (2002), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Butler, J.K. Jr and Cantrell, R.S. (1984), “A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust
in superiors and subordinates”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 55, pp. 19-28.
Carnall, C. (1990), Managing Change in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cullen, K., Edwards, B., Casper, W. and Gue, K. (2014), “Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of
change-related uncertainty: implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction,
and performance”, Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 269-280.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, G. (1993), Organisation Development and Change, 5th ed., West
Publishing Company, St Paul, MN.
Dalati, S., Raudeliūnienė, J. and Davidavičienė, V. (2017), “Sustainable leadership, organizational trust
on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria”, Business,
Management and Education (Verslas, Vadyba Ir Studijos), Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 14-27.
DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P. and Rosnow, R.L. (1994), “Reining in rumors”, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002), “Perceived
supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. and Lynch, P. (1997), “Perceived organizational support, The role of
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, mediating
pp. 812-820.
variables
Elving, W. and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. (2009), “Information, communication, and uncertainty
during organizational change; the role of commitment and trust”, Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, NY.
Erikson, E.H. (1963), Childhood and Society, W.W. Norton & Co, New York, NY. 245
Erwin, D.G. and Garman, A.N. (2010), “Resistance to organizational change: linking research and
practice”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Fisher, S.L. and Howell, A.W. (2004), “Beyond user acceptance: an examination of employee reactions to
information technology systems”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 243-258.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D’Amelio, A. (2008), “Resistance to change: the rest of the story”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 362-377.
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1999), Organization Development – Behavioral Science, 6th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust. The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Furst, S. and Cable, D. (2008), “Employee resistance to organizational change: managerial influence
tactics and leader-member exchange”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 453-462.
Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G. and West, M.A. (2001), “Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of
supervisor support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 537-550.
Hackman, B.K. (1994), “Reconceptualizing managerial delegation behavior”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 33-52.
Hadavinejad, M., Khaef Elahi, A. and Alizadeh Sani, M. (2009), “Politicians, managers, employees and
political understanding of resistance to change”, Iran Management Science, Vol. 4 No. 16,
pp. 119-137.
Herold, D.M. and Fedor, D.B. (2008), Change the Way You Lead Change: Leadership Strategies That
Really Work, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B. and Caldwell, S.D. (2007), “Beyond change management: a multilevel
investigation of contextual and personal influences on employee’s commitment to change”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 942-951.
Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002), “Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-
component model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 474-487.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2007), “Readiness for organizational change:
the systematic development of a scale”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 232-255.
Huy, Q. (2002), “Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the contribution
of middle managers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 31-69.
Keen, P.G. (1981), “Information system and organizational change”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 24-34.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), “Building commitment, attachment, and
trust in strategic decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 60-85.
Kotter, J. and Schlesinger, L. (1979), “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 57, pp. 106-114.
Kulkarni, V. (2016), “Employee interpretations of change: exploring the other side of the resistance
story”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 246-263.
Lewin, K. (1954), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
JOCM Luhmann, N. (1988), “Familiarity, confidence and trust: problems and alternatives”, in Gambetta, D.
31,1 (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 213-237.
McLain, D.L. and Hackman, K. (1999), “Trust, risk and decision making in organizational reactions to
pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 115-130, Resource
Development Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 36-52.
Madsen, S.R. (2003), “Wellness in the workplace: preparing employees for change”, Organization
246 Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Malatesta, R.M. (1995), “Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment
using a social exchange framework”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 127-133.
Maurer, R. (1996), “Using resistance to build support for change”, The Journal for Quality and
Participation, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 56-63.
Neves, P. and Eisenberger, R. (2014), “Perceived organizational support and risk taking”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 187-205.
Nooteboom, B. (2002), Trust, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Oreg, S. (2003), “Resistance to change: developing an individual difference measure”, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 651-665.
Oreg, S. (2006), “Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-101.
Peccei, R., Giangreco, A. and Sebastiano, A. (2011), “The role of organizational commitment in the
analysis of resistance to change: co-predictor and moderator effects”, Personnel Review, Vol. 40
No. 2, pp. 185-204.
Piderit, S. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional of attitudes
toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 783-794.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 879-903.
Rafferty, A.E. and Simons, R.H. (2006), “An examination of the antecedents of readiness for fine-tuning
and corporate transformation changes”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 325-350.
Reger, R.K., Gustafson, L.T., Demarie, S.M. and Mullane, J.V. (1994), “Reframing the organization: why
implementing total quality is easier said than done”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19,
pp. 565-584.
Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P. and Austin, J.T. (1997), “Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 48-59.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rotter, J.B. (1967), “A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 680-693.
Rousseau, D.M. and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999), “What’s a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and
social accounts in organizational change”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 514-528.
Schoorman, F.D. and Ballinger, G.A. (2006), “Leadership, trust and client service in veterinary
hospitals”, working paper, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K. and Latham, G.P. (2016), “The buffering effect of perceived organizational support
on the relationship between work engagement and behavioral outcomes”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Smith, I. (2005), “Achieving readiness for organisational change”, Library Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, The role of
pp. 408-412. mediating
Spiker, B.K. and Lesser, E. (1995), “Change management: we have met the enemy”, Journal of Business variables
Strategy, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 17-21.
Susanto, A.B. (2008), “Organizational readiness for change: a case study on change readiness in a
manufacturing company in Indonesia”, International Journal of Management Perspectives, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 50-61.
247
Turnbull, S. (2002), “The planned and unintended emotions generated by a corporate change program”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Vanhala, M. and Dietz, G. (2015), “HRM, trust in employer and organizational performance”, Knowledge
& Process Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 270-287.
Waldersee, R. and Griffiths, A. (1996), “The changing face of organisational change”, Center for
Corporate Change, Australian Graduate School of Management University of New South Wales.
Williams, E. (1969), “Changing systems and behaviour: people’s perspectives on prospective changes”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 53-58.
Yu, M. and Lee, M. (2015), “Unlocking the black box: exploring the link between perceive organizational
support and resistance to Change”, Asia Pacific Management, Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 177-183.

Further reading
Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Herold, D.M. (2006), “The effects of organizational changes on employee
commitment: a multilevel investigation”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 1-19.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.K. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on change”,
Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 152-76.
Goddard, R.D., Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W.K. (2001), “A multilevel examination of the
distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools”,
The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Hanpachern, C., Morgan, G.A. and Griego, O.V. (1998), “An extension of the theory of margin:
a framework for assessing readiness for change”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 339.
Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R. and Huo, Y.J. (1997), “Procedural context and culture: variation in the
antecedents of procedural justice judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 767-780.
Litt, M.D. (1988), “Cognitive mediators of stressful experience: self-efficacy and perceived control”,
Cognitive Theory and Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 241-260.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organization commitment”,
Human Resources Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.

Corresponding author
Shalini Srivastava can be contacted at: shalini.srivastava@jaipuria.ac.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com