Impact of organizational change on employees commitment

Impact of organizational transmit on holdees commissionIMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ON EMPLOYEES COMMITMENTEmployee commission has been an chief(prenominal) factor to determine the success of an organization. In the current section we atomic number 18 going to see the influence of organizational miscellany on employees lading. legion(predicate) authors and researchers have concentrated on reactions closely associated with the diversity itself, such as participants openness to trade (Wanberg Banas, 2000), go outingness for modification (Armenakis et al, 1993), confrontation to qualify (Kotter Schlesinger, 1979), or pessimism toward change (Wanous, Reichers, Austin, 2000). On the other hand few researchers have focused on broader workplace outcomes, such as organizational fealty and absenteeism (Hui Lee, 2000). But, Hercovitch Meyer (2002) investigated individuals abet for a single change initiative as a function of twain commitment to change and organizational commitment. count on et al. (1999) argues that if it is known how a change initiative is managed and the consequences of the change initiative bath impact organizational commitment as they cause employees to re-evaluate their personal association with the organization. Thus, knowing that organizational change may indicate alterations in the rapport between the employee and the organization (Caldwell et al., 2004), it is essential for management to understand how change initiatives may strengthen or bring out employees commitment to the organization. Coetsee (1999) argues that commitment is one of the important factors involved in employees nourish for change initiatives.Some aspects of change initiatives may also play important role in the change-commitment birth. First, attitudinal reactions to change are considered to be focused, in part, by feelings of uncertainty, loss of control, and fear of failure engendered by the change events (Oreg, 2003). As such, the magnitude o r extensiveness of a particular change, by affecting the degree of such feelings, extends a context of use within which fairness and favourableness are evaluated in fictile employees responses to the change (Caldwell et al, 2004). Second, a given organizational change can be conceived as occurring or having antithetic impact at different organizational levels, such as the organizational, work group, or individual levels (Goodman Rousseau, 2004). Fedor et al (2006) suggests that Changes having proximal impact, that is, changes affecting ones own job needs or ones immediate work group should be more salient in shaping the change-commitment relationship than changes having their effects at higher levels in the organization.Hercovitch Meyer (2002) defined commitment to a change as a mindset that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative, and argued that this mindset can reflect (a) a desire to provide suppo rt for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment to the change), (b) a recognition that there are be associated with failure to provide support for the change (continuance commitment to the change), and (c) a guts of obligation to provide support for the change (normative commitment to the change).Attitudes towards organizational changeThe role of organizational commitment in a change context is evident from the change management literature (Vakola Nikolaou, 2005). Darwish (2000) says that according to many authors employees preference of change is dependent on organizational commitment of that employee. Iverson (1996) ranked join membership and organizational commitment first and second respectively as determinants for attitudes towards organizational change. Lau Woodman (1995) argued that organizational change is supported by super committed employees if it is supposed to be advantageous. But, Vakola Nikolau (2005) contradicts this by sayi ng that many researchers indicated that highly committed employees may refuse to accept to change if they perceive it as a threat for their own benefit. Influence of organizational commitment on attitudes to organizational change is evident from the above findings. Iverson (1996) supports this as organizational commitment is better predictor of behavioural intentions than job satisfaction within change context, based on previous research. He then adds on that in a change project more effort is put by highly committed employees, as a result positive attitudes towards change are developed among employees. From the above discussion it can be predicted that the relationship between organizational commitment and attitudes to change is positive.Locus of controlThe ideal of LOC was initially proposed by Rotter (1966), which refers to an individuals awareness of his or her ability to employ control over the environment. Internals believe that they have control over their environment, where as externals forecast their lives as controlled by external factors. Researchers have proposed that the concept of LOC should be considered a multidimensional construct and olibanum the internal and external control might be relatively independent as opposed to consisting of opposing ends of a single continuum (e.g., Levenson, 1981). However, most studies of locus of control within organizations have been reign by Rotters single factor LOC scale (Chung Ding, 2002).Given that change inevitably places an individual in an indecisive environment (Begley, 1998). An individuals psychological reactions to change will be influenced by his or her control over the environment. According to Judge et al. (1999), some evidence confirms the relationship between LOC and various psychological reactions to a change. Lau Woodman (1995) identified that compared with externals, internals had a more positive attitude toward a change, and could better handle with a change (Judge et al., 1999). How ever, Chen Wang (2007) argued that internals may scorn a change and externals may support a change in some cases. Thus, the relationship between LOC and psychosocial reactions to a change is more tangled than it appears. Chen Wang (2007) proposed that the above difference between internals and externals lies in the manner of their support or resistance to a change, which comes from a different psychological mechanism, and thus LOC should be studied in relation to more comprehensively analyze psychological reactions to a specific change.