This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] On: 20 February 2014, At: 07:23 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Building commitment to change: The role of perceived supervisor support and competence
Pedro Neves
a a

Universidade de vora , vora, Portugal Published online: 17 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Pedro Neves (2011) Building commitment to change: The role of perceived supervisor support and competence, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20:4, 437-450, DOI: 10.1080/13594321003630089 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594321003630089

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2011, 20 (4), 437450

Building commitment to change: The role of perceived supervisor support and competence
Pedro Neves
vora, E vora, Portugal Universidade de E

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

Commitment to change is considered the glue that binds people and change goals. Still, few studies have explored how employees develop their commitment to organizational change. The present study examined the relationship between supervisor competence and support, and employees commitment to change. Participants were 210 full-time employees from two public organizations that had recently faced major change interventions resulting from governmental directives. As predicted, perceived supervisor support fully mediated the positive relationship between competence and aective and normative commitment to change. On the other hand, supervisor competence was negatively related to continuance commitment to change. These ndings illustrate how supervisors can shape employees reactions to change. Keywords: Commitment to change; Perceived supervisor support; Competence; Organizational change; Public sector.

Organizational change has become an important topic for managers and researchers, particularly because external events and crises precipitate changes far more than planned events (Beer & Walton, 1987). Worker safety, quality management, and the regulation of employment practices are the order of the day. Analysis of the impact of change management on employee behaviour has raised some issues, mainly related to the limitations of using a macro perspective concerning change. More recently however, several authors have focused on a micro, people-oriented perspective of change (e.g., Cunningham, 2006; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Neves & Caetano, 2009; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Correspondence should be addressed to Pedro Neves, Department of Psychology, vora, Apartado 94, E vora 7002-554, Portugal. Universidade de E E-mail: pedro.neves@ordemdospsicologos.org This research was supported by a grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/10164/2002). 2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594321003630089

438

NEVES

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

This study explores the relationship between perceived supervisors competence and support, and their employees commitment to change. That is, if supervisors are regarded as competent, they will be perceived as more supportive, and employees will support change because they recognize its benets and/or feel obliged to reciprocate such positive treatment. However, if supervisors are regarded as less competent, they will be perceived as less supportive, and employees may either change because they fear the costs of not doing so, or not change at all. By addressing this question, we call attention to the importance of supervisors for employees reactions to change.

COMMITMENT TO CHANGE: AN EXTENSION OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT MODEL

Although organizational commitment has been extensively studied (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997), commitment to change has only recently been focused upon (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Commitment to change is considered the glue that binds together people and change goals (Conner, 1992). It is dened as the force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, p. 475). According to these authors, three distinct reactions to change can occur: (1) a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benets (aective commitment to change); (2) a recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide support for the change (continuance commitment to change); and (3) a sense of obligation to provide support for the change (normative commitment to change). Research has consistently demonstrated the importance of commitment to change for both organizational and change outcomes (Cunningham, 2006; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007; Neves, 2009; Neves & Caetano, 2009). Despite the implications of developing employees commitment to change, only a few studies have examined its antecedents. Most studies focused either on change characteristics, like change favourableness, magnitude, or turbulence (Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007), or on employees self-perceptions, such as individual change self-ecacy or locus of control (Cheng & Wang, 2007; Herold et al., 2007). Supervisors play a key role in the successful implementation of change, but only one study has examined the role of supervisors for the development of commitment to change (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008). Indeed, supervisors are agents of change within organizations, not only because they diagnose their work groups

BUILDING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

439

strengths, deciencies, and opportunities, but also because they motivate others to commit to these changes while helping them overcome obstacles (Paglis & Green, 2002).

PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

Perceived supervisor support (PSS) has been demonstrated to eectively foster employee reciprocation. Employees strongly respond to indications of their supervisors care and positive valuation by increasing their emotional bond to both the supervisor and the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). When supervisors care about the welfare and recognize the contributions of their subordinates, employees levels of job satisfaction, aective commitment to the organization, and inrole and extrarole performance increase. Additionally, turnover intentions and voluntary turnover decrease (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). Furthermore, since supervisors are seen as agents of the organization, acting on its behalf, their favourable or unfavourable orientation towards employees should inuence reciprocation not only to the supervisor, but to the organization itself (Eisenberger et al., 2002). In particular, when employees feel supported by their supervisors, they should be more willing to embrace situations that are important to the organization and that, at the same time, include a certain level of risk, such as major organizational changes. When employees have higher levels of PSS, they develop a strong emotional bond to organizational goals, and increase their desire to support change, based on their belief concerning its inherent benets (i.e., aective commitment to change). Simultaneously, based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), employees strive to repay the support received by helping the organization reach its objectives. As such, they may also feel obliged to support the change (i.e., normative commitment to change). Finally, it is expected that higher levels of PSS will decrease commitment to change based on the fear of the consequences of not supporting change (i.e., continuance commitment to change). Hypothesis 1a: PSS is positively related to aective commitment to change. Hypothesis 1b: PSS is positively related to normative commitment to change. Hypothesis 1c: PSS is negatively related to continuance commitment to change.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

440

NEVES

SUPERVISOR COMPETENCE AND PSS AS PREDICTORS OF COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

Although some scholars disagree about the denition of leadership (Bass, 1990; House & Podsako, 1994; Yukl, 1998), common factors have been identied, such as the centrality of leaders competence (e.g., Bass, 1981; Hollander, 1978; Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Competence is evaluated by employees through their assessment of their leaders ability to perform his or her work, and can be dened as the group of task and situation specic skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have inuence within some specic domain (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). The role of competence for the creation of positive and stable relationships between supervisors and employees has been largely recognized. It has been associated with trust in the supervisor (Conger, 1990; Mayer et al., 1995), leadermember exchange (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Snyder & Bruning, 1985), compliance with supervisor decisions (Price & Garland, 1981; Tannenbaum, 1974) and modelling (Weiss, 1977, 1978). Competent supervisors make an additional investment to improve the relationship with their subordinates, since (1) they do not feel threatened by them, and (2) they recognize the benets of high quality relationships for themselves, their employees, and the organization. Additionally, perceived competence can also help develop positive attitudes by subordinates (Andersson, 1996). Organizational support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) suggests that various leadership behaviours have potentially greater inuence on perceived support than would static or impersonal organizational policies. According to organizational support theory, employees develop PSS based on their judgement of whether aid will be available from that organizational agent when they need it, both to carry out their jobs eectively and to deal with stressful situations (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). These evaluations are based on the behaviours and perceived characteristics of the supervisor. Employees monitor supervisors actions such as observing, planning, directing, and evaluating subordinates work activities and performance (Dowell & Wexley, 1978; Eisenberger et al., 2002), and make a global assessment of how competent he or she is based on these observations. Previous research has shown that when supervisors demonstrate their competence by dening roles, outlining expectations, and clarifying expectations and tasks, employees perceive them as being more supportive (Watkins, 2006). These competency assessments carry information concerning the supervisors ability to provide the necessary aid, which employees use when forming their perceptions of supervisor support. Therefore, based on organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986),

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

BUILDING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

441

we propose that perceptions of supervisor competence contribute to employees PSS. Hypothesis 2: Supervisor competence is positively related to PSS.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

Moreover, perceptions of supervisor competence also aect employees intentions of reciprocity (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998). If a supervisor is perceived as incompetent, their subordinates are less likely to invest in them and in the organization. As such, we expect supervisor competence to be related to employees commitment to change. To the extent that supervisor competence should be related to PSS, and PSS should in turn be related to the three dimensions of commitment to change, we further expect that PSS mediates, at least partially, the relationship between supervisor competence and commitment to change. When employees consider their supervisor has the necessary competence to assist them in their work, their PSS increases, which in turn enhances their desire to reciprocate by providing support to organizational change. Hypothesis 3a: PSS mediates the positive relationship between supervisor competence and aective commitment to change. Hypothesis 3b: PSS mediates the positive relationship between supervisor competence and normative commitment to change. Hypothesis 3c: PSS mediates the negative relationship between supervisor competence and continuance commitment to change.

METHOD Sample and procedure

Participants were full-time employees from two Portuguese public organizations, a university and a city hall, which had recently undergone major organizational changes resulting from governmental directives. The university implemented a new performance appraisal system, and the city hall applied a exible working schedule. Supervisors played a signicant role in both cases. In the rst case they were responsible for implementing the new appraisal system, and in the second they were responsible for reorganizing the workow to adjust to nontraditional schedules. No dierences were found between the two samples concerning the impact of change, t(205) 1.36, p 4 .05) and all employees mentioned that the change had at least a moderate impact on their work. Both organizations were approximately the same size. The city hall had a total of 159 employees, of whom 124 agreed to complete the survey. Two additional participants were removed for incomplete participation.

442

NEVES

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

As a result, the nal sample for the city hall was 122 employees (77% response rate). The university had a total of 145 employees, of whom 21 were not evaluated by the new appraisal system and 10 were on leave (and as such were not considered for the study). We removed 26 participants for incomplete participation, obtaining a total of 88 responses (77% response rate). Such response rates are considered to be acceptable (Roth & BeVier, 1998). Our nal sample included 210 full-time employees. Employee characteristics were also similar in both organizations. The majority of participants were female (71%) and were less than 45 years old (79%). Almost half had worked in the same organization for more than 10 years (48%), and educational attainment was as follows: less than a high school degree (38%), high school diploma (34%), and university degree (28%).

Measures
Supervisor competence was measured with four items adapted from the Mayer and Davis (1999) ability scale (e.g., My supervisor has much knowledge about the work that needs to be done) (a .87). PSS was measured using three items of the Rhoades et al. (2001) scale (e.g., My supervisor really cares about my well-being) (a .82). Aective, continuance and normative commitment to change items were taken from Herscovitch and Meyers (2002) scales. Aective commitment to change was measured with four items (e.g., I believe in the value of this change) (a .86). Continuance commitment to change was measured with three items (e.g., I have too much at stake to resist this change) (a .83). Normative commitment to change was measured with three items, of which two were retained: I would not feel badly about opposing thins change (R) and I would feel guilty about opposing this change (r .62). The third item was dropped, as it correlated poorly with the other two items. All scales were measured through Likert scales ranging from 1 totally disagree to 5 totally agree. The number of items used for each construct was smaller than the original scales due to survey length restrictions posed by the organizations. Since the original measures were in English, all questions were translated and backtranslated from Portuguese, following the procedure outlined by Brislin (1970).

RESULTS
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and scale reliabilities are presented in Table 1. All scales presented good reliability values. To identify the impact of organizational membership on our model, we assessed intraclass correlations. Organizational membership explained a fair amount of variance in all variables, with the exception of aective commitment to change

BUILDING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

443

(Table 2). Thus, following the procedure outlined by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), we added organizational membership as a dummy coded predictor in our model (0 university; 1 city hall). Data were analysed using structural equation modelling with AMOS. To assess construct independence we compared the t of the hypothesized ve-factor model against four alternative models (Table 3). In the rst

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and correlationsa,b

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Competence Perceived supervisor support Aective commitment to change Continuance commitment to change Normative commitment to change 4.35 3.86 3.78 2.77 3.00

SD

0.83 (.87) 0.93 .66** (.82) 0.99 .15* .14* (.85) 1.36 .01 .02 7.28** (.83) 1.00 .11 .20** .06 .28** (.62)

a 5-point scales. bCronbachs alpha and Pearsons r are reported on the diagonal. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.

TABLE 2 Results of ICC(1) and ICC(2) for organizational membership ICC(1) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Supervisor competence Perceived supervisor support Aective commitment to change Normative commitment to change Continuance commitment to change 0.09 0.06 70.01 0.10 0.41 ICC(2) 0.91 0.88 71.18 0.92 0.99

TABLE 3 Confirmatory factor analysis w2 Five factors Four factorsa Three factorsb Two factorsc One factor 208.69* 333.93* 454.33* 680.30* 1024.68* df 109 113 116 118 119 CFI .94 .87 .80 .67 .47 GFI .90 .83 .78 .69 .59 RMSEA .07 .10 .12 .15 .19 AIC 296.69 413.93 528.33 750.30 1092.68

*p 5 .01. aMerge competence and PSS. bMerge competence and PSS, and normative and aective commitment to change. cMerge competence and PSS, and normative, aective, and continuance commitment to change.

444

NEVES

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

model, we merged competence and PSS into one single factor, since they both refer to perceptions concerning the supervisor (four factors); in the second model we also combined normative and aective commitment to change (three factors); in the third model we merged the three commitment to change dimensions into one factor (two factors); in the fourth model all variables were aggregated into a single factor. Lagrange multiplier tests (Bentler, 1995) for adding parameters suggested adding two residual correlations, between two items of the supervisor competence scale and two items of the continuance commitment to change scale, and as such we allowed the errors of these items to covary. The theorized ve-factor model, w2(109) 208.69, p 5 .01, CFI .94, GFI .90, RMSEA .07, AIC 296.69, was the only model that presented all t indexes within the criterion values and simultaneously held the lowest AIC value (Akaike, 1987). Consequently, we used the ve-factor model to test our hypotheses. Although our hypotheses did not predict the strength of the mediation eect, partial mediations are a more realistic research goal, since most social phenomena have multiple causes (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Therefore, we compared the t of a full-mediation model against four partially mediated nested-models. In these alternative models we added direct paths from competence to the three dimensions of commitment to change (Table 4). We allowed the disturbance terms associated with aective, continuance, and normative commitment to change to correlate, to account for the possible existence of a general commitment to change higher order factor (Hunt & Morgan, 1994; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). Model 4, which included a direct path from competence to continuance commitment to change, provided a signicant increase in

TABLE 4 Results for nested structural equation models w2 Model Model Model Model Model 1 (theorized) 2a 3b 4c 5d 226.55* 226.54* 226.46* 222.84* 222.33* df 123 122 122 122 120 CFI .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 GFI .89 .89 .89 .90 .90 RMSEA .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 Dw2

0.01 0.09 3.71 4.22

*p 5 .01. aPartial mediation model adds path from supervisor competence to aective commitment to change. bPartial mediation model adds path from supervisor competence to normative commitment to change. cPartial mediation model adds path from supervisor competence to continuance commitment to change. dPartial mediation model adds path from supervisor competence to aective, normative, and continuance commitment to change.

BUILDING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

445

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

Figure 1. Final model for competence, perceived supervisor support, and commitment to change. PSS perceived supervisor support; NCC normative commitment to change; ACC aective commitment to change; CCC continuance commitment to change.

model t, w2(122) 222.84, p 5 .01, CFI .94, GFI .90, RMSEA .06, Dw2(1) 3.71, p 5 .05. Figure 1 depicts the signicant paths in our nal model (Model 4).1 Competence was signicantly related to PSS, b .71, p 5 .01, which was in turn positively related to both aective, b .16, p 5 .05, and normative commitment to change, b .17, p 5 .05, supporting Hypotheses 2, 1a, and 1b, respectively. PSS, however, was not signicantly related to continuance commitment to change, b .09, p 4 .05; hence, Hypothesis 1c is rejected. Finally, supervisor competence displayed a signicantly negative relationship with continuance commitment to change, b 7.18, p 5 .05, which was unpredicted. To further test the mediation eect of PSS on the relationship between competence and aective and normative commitment to change we used the z-prime test developed by MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Homan (1998). This test has highly accurate Type I error rates and superior statistical power (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Homan, West, & Sheets, 2002). The indirect eects of competence on both aective, z0 1.99, p 5 .05, and normative commitment to change, z0 1.96, p 5 .05, were signicant, thus supporting Hypotheses 3a and 3b, respectively.

In this model, organizational membership was signicantly related to both continuance, b 7.57, p 5 .01, and normative commitment to change, b 7.22, p 5 .01, but not to aective commitment to change, b 7.05, p 4 .05, and perceived supervisor support, b 7.08, p 4 .05.

446

NEVES

DISCUSSION
The present research examined the mediating role of PSS in the relationship between supervisor competence and commitment to change. As expected, PSS fully mediated the relationship between supervisor competence and both aective and normative commitment to change. Additionally, supervisor competence presented a direct negative relationship with continuance commitment to change. When supervisors were perceived as more competent in their work, employees perceived higher levels of supervisor support. Competence explained a considerable part of PSSs variance (50%). This result is consistent with organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), which claims that PSS develops partly due to employees perceptions that the supervisor has the ability to help them, contributing to a global assessment of competence. Simultaneously, it is also possible that more competent supervisors might feel less threatened by their employees and as such attribute higher value to a supportive relationship when compared to less competent supervisors (Snyder & Bruning, 1985). Additionally, the evaluation of supervisor competence increased both aective and normative commitment to change through its relationship with PSS. Since subordinates perceive their supervisors as agents of the organization, they view their favourable or unfavourable orientation towards them as an indication of the organizations support (Eisenberger et al., 2002), thus reciprocating such orientation through the active pursuit of organizational goals. Employees commitment to change was developed both due to a belief in the inherent benets of change (aective commitment) and to a sense of obligation to provide support for the change (normative commitment). The relationship between competence, PSS, and commitment to change appears to be dierent, based on the reasoning behind the desire to reciprocate. Supervisor competence and PSS were positively related to both aective and normative commitment; only competence was negatively related to continuance commitment to change. One possible explanation for this result is that supervisor competence, more than support, helps reduce the fear concerning change and its consequences. In conclusion, the present research oers further support for the micro perspective of change (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Judge et al., 1999), extends the existing literature, and suggests promising directions for future research. In particular, this research adds to the limited evidence concerning the role of supervisors in promoting employees commitment to change. Nonetheless, there are several limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data raises concerns in the interpretation of causality inferences and as such, should be interpreted with caution. Second, common method variance is also a concern, since all measures are self-reported. To examine the

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

BUILDING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

447

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

ination eect due to common method, we tested our measurement model while controlling for the eects of an unmeasured latent methods factor (Podsako, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsako, 2003). The model with the common method variance factor presented a better t than the original measurement model, w2(92) 144.82, p 5 .01, CFI .97, GFI .93, RMSEA .05, Dw2(17) 63.87, p 5 .01, suggesting that common method variance is indeed present in the study. However, all the items loaded signicantly on the expected factor, revealing that while common method variance may be present, it does not necessarily aect our results. Such a nding is consistent with previous research (e.g., Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Neves & Caetano, 2009). Still, other research methods should be utilized in order to overcome such shortcomings. Finally, our model explains a small amount of variance in employees commitment to change (between 3% and 5%), suggesting that other variables should be examined as antecedents of commitment to change. Although research has shown that individual perceptions concerning change such as change appropriateness, favourableness, or change selfecacy (Fedor et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2007; Neves, 2009) contribute signicantly to commitment to change, other factors related to leadership practices and social exchanges remain largely unexplored. Future research should integrate such antecedents of commitment to change.

REFERENCES
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317332. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of aective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118. Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49, 13951418. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182. Bass, B. M. (1981). Stodgills handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. (1987). Organization change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 339367. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Research, 1, 185216. Cheng, J., & Wang, L. (2007). Locus of control and the three components of commitment to change. Personality and Individual Dierences, 42, 503512. Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). The model of followers responses to self-sacricial leadership: an empirical test. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397421.

448

NEVES

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 4455. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower eects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747767. Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books. Cunningham, G. B. (2006). The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 2945. Dowell, B. E., & Wexley, K. N. (1978). Development of a work behavior taxonomy for rst-line supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 563572. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565573. Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The eects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multi-level investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 129. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161178. Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal inuences on employees commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 942951. Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The eects of transformational and change leadership on employees commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346357. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474487. Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to eective relationships. New York: Free Press. House, R. J., & Podsako, P. M. (1994). Leadership eectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 4582). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1994). Organizational commitment: One of many commitments or key mediating construct? Academy of Management Journal, 37, 15681587. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107122. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662674. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C., & Homan, J. (1998). A new method to test for mediation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Homan, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable eects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83104.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

BUILDING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

449

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The eect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A eld quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123136. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709734. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 6189. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B., & Topolnytsky, L. (2007). Employee commitment and support for and organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 185211. Neves, P. (2009). Readiness for change: Contributions for employees level of individual change and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9, 215231. Neves, P., & Caetano, A. (2009). Commitment to change: Contributions to trust in the supervisor and work outcomes. Group and Organization Management, 34, 623644. Ng, T. W., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group and Organization Management, 33, 243268. Paglis, L., & Green, S.G. (2002). Leadership self-ecacy and managers motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215235. Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsako, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903. Price, K. H., & Garland, H. (1981). Compliance with a leaders suggestions as a function of perceived leader/member competence and potential reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 329336. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698714. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Aective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825836. Roth, P. L., & BeVier, C. A. (1998). Response rates in HRM/OB survey research: Norms and correlates, 19901994. Journal of Management, 24, 97117. Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, S. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689695. Snyder, R. A., & Bruning, N. S. (1985). Quality of vertical dyad linkages: Congruence of supervisor and subordinate competence and role stress as explanatory variables. Group and Organization Studies, 10, 8194. Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors and sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 251270. Tannenbaum, A. S. (1974). Hierarchy in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132142. Watkins, M. (2006). Perceived supervisor support as a mediator of the relationships between supervisor behaviors and subordinate attitudes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Alliant International University, Los Angeles, CA. Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modelling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 89105.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014

450

NEVES

Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 711718. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership and organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Original manuscript received September 2008 Revised manuscript received November 2009 First published online August 2010

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:23 20 February 2014