Suchergebnisse

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to examine how individual differences influence employees' attitude toward organizational change. Specifically, the present study examined how and why proactive personality, dispositional resistance to change, and change self-efficacy influence employees' perceived fairness about the organizational change.Design/methodology/approach– Structural equation modeling was utilized to analyze the survey data obtained from a sample of 140 food service employees after some organizational changes in leadership, menu offerings, and facilities.Findings– The results revealed support for two micromediational chains predicting change fairness: first, change self-efficacy leads to less uncertainty and second, dispositional resistance to change leads to less communication regarding change resulting in employees perceiving they have fewer opportunities to voice concerns about the changes.Research limitations/implications– The cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences and the generalizability of the present findings beyond similar samples experiencing similar changes is unknown. However, the predictions were based on theories that apply to all employees regardless of the changes or the employees' occupations or workplace.Social implications– Employees with particular personality traits are more receptive to change, suggesting that organizations should consider the impact of individual differences when facing large-scale change. To ensure the success of organizational change, organizations should communicate with employees and encourage employee input before implementing change which in turn improves the chances that employees will have favorable reactions to the change.Originality/value– This is the first study to examine how and why individual difference variables influence employees' perceptions about organizational change fairness.

Researchers are generally advised to provide rigorous item-level construct validity evidence when they develop and introduce a new scale. However, these precise, item-level construct validation efforts are rarely reexamined as the scale is put into use by a wider audience. In the present study, we demonstrate how (a) item-level meta-analysis and (b) substantive validity analysis can be used to comprehensively evaluate construct validity evidence for the items comprising scales. This methodology enables a reexamination of whether critical item-level issues that may have been supported in the initial (often single study) scale validation process—item factor loadings and theorized measurement model fit, as examples—hold up in a larger set of heterogeneous samples. Our demonstration focuses on a commonly used scale of task performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and our findings reveal that several of the items do not perform as may have been suggested in the initial validation effort. In all, our study highlights the need for researchers to incorporate item-level assessments into evaluations of whether construct scales perform as originally promised.