The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change: A 60-Year Review of Quantitative Studies
Abstract
This study reviews quantitative empirical studies of change recipients’ reactions to organizational change. The authors reviewed studies published between 1948 and 2007, out of which 79 met the criteria of being quantitative studies of change recipients’ reactions to an organizational change. Through an inductive review, the authors unravel a model of (a) explicit reactions to change, in which these reactions are conceptualized as tridimensional attitudes; (b) reaction antecedents that comprise prechange antecedents (viz., change recipient characteristics and internal context) and change antecedents (viz., change process, perceived benefit/harm, and change content); and (c) change consequences, including work-related and personal consequences. On the basis of their review the authors conclude by proposing directions for future research and practical managerial implications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter, J. B. (1966) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0092976 · Cited by 21,937
A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z · Cited by 11,049
Piderit, S. K. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707722 · Cited by 1,873
A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Block, J. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187 · Cited by 1,682 · cited 4×
“(continued) Oreg et al. 477 Sometimes different terms were used for describing the same phenomenon (the “jangle” fallacy, Block, 1995), and at other times the same term was given to constructs with diverse definitions (the “jingle” fallacy, Block, 1995).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOrganizational Change Recipients' Beliefs Scale: Development of an Assessment Instrument
Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886307303654 · Cited by 386
Self-citation
Cited by
Change Readiness: A Multilevel Review
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312457417 · Cited by 679
Self-citationFrick, N. R. J., Mirbabaie, M., Stieglitz, S., & Salomon, J. (2021) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2020.1870065 · Cited by 138
Schug, C., Geiser, F., Hiebel, N., Beschoner, P., Jerg-Bretzke, L., Albus, C., Weidner, K., Morawa, E., & Erim, Y. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19041947 · Cited by 87
“[48] highlights the role of organizational trust for successful change processes.”
BackgroundUnderstanding the change-cynicism cycle: The role of HR
Brown, M., Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., & Metz, I. (2017) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.21708 · Cited by 63
Fløvik, L., Knardahl, S., & Christensen, J. O. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02845 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-02-07
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 461-524
- ISSN
- 0021-8863 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6879
- OpenAlex
- W2162159915
- Cited by
- 1,016
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 54.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
