Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:43:38.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Change in Context

Exploring Types and Contexts of Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

Edited by
Shaul Oreg ,
Alexandra Michel  and
Rune Todnem By
Shaul Oreg
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Alexandra Michel
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Rune Todnem By
Affiliation:
Universitet i Stavanger, Norway
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Psychology of Organizational Change
New Insights on the Antecedents and Consequences of Individuals' Responses to Change
 , pp. 93 - 182
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.Google Scholar
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Orvis, K. A. (2018). Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(2), 203–230.Google Scholar
Dawis, R. V. (2005), The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In Brown, S. and Lent, R. (eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 3–23). Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.Google Scholar
Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Fugate, M. (2013). Capturing the positive experience of change: Antecedents, processes, and consequences. In Oreg, S., Michel, A, & By, R. T. (eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp. 15–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (2017). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In Marek, T., Schaufeli, W. B., & Maslach, C. (eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 115–129). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, R. (2015). Analysing quantitative data. Variable-based and case-based approaches to non-experimental datasets. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 875–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, T., Hartley, J., Conway, N., & Briner, R. (2015). Feeling the squeeze: Public employees’ experiences of cutback- and innovation-related organizational changes following a national announcement of budget reductions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 1279–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883–891.Google Scholar
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.Google Scholar
Michel, A., & González-Morales, M. G. (2013). Reactions to organizational change: An integrated model of health predictors, intervening variables, and outcomes. In Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp. 65–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, P., Hulks, S., & Wiggins, L. (2012). Organizational change: Perspectives on theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolova, I., Van Dam, K., Van Ruysseveldt, J., & De Witte, H. (2019). Feeling weary; feeling insecure? Are workplace changes all bad news? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 1842.Google Scholar
Nikolova, I., Van Ruysseveldt, J., De Witte, H., & Syroit, J. (2013). Work-based learning: Development and validation of a scale measuring the learning potential of the workplace (LPW). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 1–10.Google Scholar
Nikolova, I., Van Ruysseveldt, J., De Witte, H., & Syroit, J. (2014). Employee well-being in times of task restructuring: The buffering role of workplace learning. Work & Stress, 28, 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolova, I., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Van Dam, K., & De Witte, H. (2016). Learning climate and workplace learning: Does work restructuring make a difference? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (eds.) (2013). The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461–524.Google Scholar
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2017). Regular versus cutback-related change: The role of employee job crafting in organizational change contexts of different nature. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(1), 62–85.Google Scholar
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1154–1162.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory: General survey. In Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (eds.), The Maslach burnout inventory, 3rd ed. – Test Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solinger, O., Joireman, J., Vantilborgh, T., & Balliet, D. P. (2021). Change in unit‐level job attitudes following strategic interventions: A meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(7), 964–986.Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 735–759.Google Scholar
Van Ruysseveldt, J., Verboon, P., & Smulders, P. (2011). Job resources and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of learning opportunities. Work & Stress, 25(3), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Aggarwal, R., Kryscynski, D., Midha, V., & Singh, H. (2015). Early to adopt and early to discontinue: The impact of self-perceived and actual IT knowledge on technology use behaviors of end users. Information Systems Research, 26(1), 127–144.Google Scholar
Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Mathieu, J. E., & Bolander, W. (2010). Why are some salespeople better at adapting to organizational change? Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiman-Smith, L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 421–430.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
Alexy, O., Henkel, J., & Wallin, M. W. (2013). From closed to open: Job role changes, individual predispositions, and the adoption of commercial open source software development. Research Policy, 42(8), 1325–1340.Google Scholar
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autry, C. W., Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, P. J., & Richey, R. G. (2010). The effects of technological turbulence and breadth on supply chain technology acceptance and adoption. Journal of Operations Management, 28(6), 522–536.Google Scholar
Avgar, A., Tambe, P., & Hitt, L. M. (2018). Built to learn: How work practices affect employee learning during healthcare information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 645–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.Google Scholar
Bala, H. (2013). The effects of IT-enabled supply chain process change on job and process outcomes: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 31(6), 450–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2013). Changes in employees’ job characteristics during an enterprise system implementation: A latent growth modeling perspective. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1113–1140.Google Scholar
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2016). Adaptation to information technology: A holistic nomological network from implementation to job outcomes. Management Science, 62(1), 156–179.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 689–710.Google Scholar
Bendoly, E. (2014). System dynamics understanding in projects: Information sharing, psychological safety, and performance effects. Production and Operations Management, 23(8), 1352–1369.Google Scholar
Bendoly, E., & Cotteleer, M. J. (2008). Understanding behavioral sources of process variation following enterprise system deployment. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blut, M., Chong, A., Tsiga, Z., & Venkatesh, V. (2021). Meta-analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Challenging its validity and charting a research agenda in the Red Ocean. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(1), 13–95.Google Scholar
Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9–54.Google Scholar
Brown, S. A., Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2014). Expectation confirmation in information systems research: a test of six competing models. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 729–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. A., Venkatesh, V., Kuruzovich, J., & Massey, A. P. (2008). Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 52–66.Google Scholar
Bruque, S., Moyano, J., & Eisenberg, J. (2008). Individual adaptation to IT-induced change: The role of social networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 177–206.Google Scholar
Cadwallader, S., Jarvis, C. B., Bitner, M. J., & Ostrom, A. L. (2010). Frontline employee motivation to participate in service innovation implementation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 219–239.Google Scholar
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 191–229.Google Scholar
Chreim, S. (2006). Managerial frames and institutional discourses of change: Employee appropriation and resistance. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1261–1287.Google Scholar
Cua, K. O., McKone, K. E., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19(6), 675–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
Dawson, P., & Buchanan, D. (2005). The way it really happened: Competing narratives in the political process of technological change. Human Relations, 58(7), 845–865.Google Scholar
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). Research note: How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 93–105.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716.Google Scholar
Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.Google Scholar
Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 453–462.Google Scholar
Gallivan, M. J., Spitler, V. K., & Koufaris, M. (2005). Does information technology training really matter? A social information processing analysis of coworkers’ influence on IT usage in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 153–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gefen, D. R., & Ridings, C. M. (2002). Implementation team responsiveness and user evaluation of customer relationship management: A quasi-experimental design study of social exchange theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 47–69.Google Scholar
Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (2013). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R., Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hardgrave, B. C., Davis, F. D., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (2003). Investigating determinants of software developers’ intentions to follow methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 123–151.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Kuehnl, C. (2010). Social influence on salespeople’s adoption of sales technology: A multilevel analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 159–168.Google Scholar
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2011). User acceptance of agile information systems: A model and empirical test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 235–272.Google Scholar
Hsieh, J. P.-A., Rai, A., & Xu, S. X. (2011). Extracting business value from IT: A sensemaking perspective of post-adoptive use. Management Science, 57(11), 2018–2039.Google Scholar
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Kaltiainen, J., Lipponen, J., & Holtz, B. C. (2017). Dynamic interplay between merger process justice and cognitive trust in top management: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 636–647.Google Scholar
Kanitz, R., & Gonzalez, K. (2021). Are we stuck in the predigital age? Embracing technology-mediated change management in organizational change research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(4), 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. M. (ed.). (2009). Readings in the philosophy of technology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
Kim, H.-W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811–824.Google Scholar
Landers, R. N., & Marin, S. (2021). Theory and technology in organizational psychology: A review of technology integration paradigms and their effects on the validity of theory. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8, 235–258.Google Scholar
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.Google Scholar
Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 461–491.Google Scholar
Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2007). A triple take on information system implementation. Organization Science, 18(1), 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauterbach, J., Mueller, B., & Kahrau, F. (2020). Achieving effective use when digitalizing work: The role of representational complexity. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1023–1048.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Leonardi, P. M. (2007). Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 813–831.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. (2005). A multidimensional commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 117–151.Google Scholar
Marler, J. H., Liang, X., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2006). Training and effective employee information technology use. Journal of Management, 32(5), 721–743.Google Scholar
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satisfaction: Understanding the role of enterprise resource. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 143–161.Google Scholar
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 3(3), 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanaswamy, R., Grover, V., & Henry, R. M. (2013). The impact of influence tactics in information system development projects: A control-loss perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 191–226.Google Scholar
Oreg, S., & Sverdlik, N. (2011). Ambivalence toward imposed change: The conflict between dispositional resistance to change and the orientation toward the change agent. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461–524.Google Scholar
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2018). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1766–1792.Google Scholar
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivard, S., & Lapointe, L. (2012). Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: Nature and effects. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 897–920.Google Scholar
Robey, D., Ross, J. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2002). Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.Google Scholar
Santhanam, R., Seligman, L., & Kang, D. (2007). Postimplementation knowledge transfers to users and information technology professionals. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 171–199.Google Scholar
Seidel, S., Recker, J., & Vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: Functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275–1299.Google Scholar
Stensaker, I., & Falkenberg, J. (2007). Making sense of different responses to corporate change. Human Relations, 60(1), 137–177.Google Scholar
Stevens, M., & van Schaik, J. (2020). Implementing new technologies for complex care: The role of embeddedness factors in team learning. Journal of Operations Management, 66(1–2), 112–134.Google Scholar
Sutanto, J., Kankanhalli, A., Tay, J., Raman, K. S., & Tan, B. C. (2008). Change management in interorganizational systems for the public. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 133–176.Google Scholar
Sykes, T. A. (2015). Support structures and their impacts on employee outcomes: A longitudinal field study of an enterprise system implementation. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 473–496.Google Scholar
Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Gosain, S. (2009). Model of acceptance with peer support: A social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 371–393.Google Scholar
Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Johnson, J. L. (2014). Enterprise system implementation and employee job performance: Understanding the role of advice networks. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 51–72.Google Scholar
Symon, G. (2005). Exploring resistance from a rhetorical perspective. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1641–1663.Google Scholar
Tong, Y., Tan, C.-H., & Teo, H.-H. (2017). Direct and indirect information system use: A multimethod exploration of social power antecedents in healthcare. Information Systems Research, 28(4), 690–710.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 239–260.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., & Sambamurthy, V. (2016). Implementation of an information and communication technology in a developing country: A multimethod longitudinal study in a bank in India. Information Systems Research, 27(3), 558–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Maruping, L. M., & Bala, H. (2008). Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: The competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 483–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2010). Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: Polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 281–303.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Zhang, X., & Sykes, T. A. (2011). “Doctors do too little technology”: A longitudinal field study of an electronic healthcare system implementation. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 523–546.Google Scholar
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations, vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

References

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
Barkema, H. G., Chen, X.-P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 460–479.Google Scholar
Buckley, P. J., Clegg, J., & Tan, H. (2006). Cultural awareness in knowledge transfer to China: The role of guanxi and mianzi. Journal of World Business, 41(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Voss, H., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., & Zheng, P. (2018). A retrospective and agenda for future research on Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(1), 4–23.Google Scholar
Chung, G. H., Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2014). How do employees adapt to organizational change driven by cross-border M&As? A case in China. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 78–86.Google Scholar
Cui, L., Meyer, K. E., & Hu, H. W. (2014). What drives firms’ intent to seek strategic assets by foreign direct investment? A study of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49(4), 488–501.Google Scholar
Deng, P. (2009). Why do Chinese firms tend to acquire strategic assets in international expansion? Journal of World Business, 44(1), 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: Identification in organizational contexts. In Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, I. T. (eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 171–203) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
van Dijk, R., & van Dick, R. (2009). Navigating organizational change: Change leaders, employee resistance and work-based identities. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 143–163.Google Scholar
van Dick, R., & Kerschreiter, R. (2016). The social identity approach to effective leadership: An overview and some ideas on cross-cultural generalizability. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 10(3), 363–384.Google Scholar
van Dick, R., Lemoine, J. E., Steffens, N. K., Kerschreiter, R., Akfirat, S. A., Avanzi, L., Dumont, K., Epitropaki, O., Fransen, K., & Giessner, S. (2018). Identity leadership going global: Validation of the Identity Leadership Inventory across 20 countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 697–728.Google Scholar
van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 171–191.Google Scholar
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–239.Google Scholar
Forbes. (2019). World’s 500 largest corporations in 2019: China matches America. Available online at: Forbes.com.Google Scholar
Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Member’s identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Giessner, S. (2011). Is the merger necessary? The interactive effect of perceived necessity and sense of continuity on post-merger identification. Human Relations, 64(8), 1079.Google Scholar
Global 500. (2010). 2010: Companies – C – FORTUNE. Available online at: CNNMoney.comGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 357–369.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2020). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Junker, N. M., van Dick, R., Häusser, J. A., Ellwart, T., & Zyphur, M. J. (2021). The I and we of team identification: A multilevel study of exhaustion and (in)congruence among individuals and teams in team identification. Group & Organization Management, 47(1), 10596011211004789.Google Scholar
Kostova, T., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Meyer and Peng’s 2005 article as a foundation for an expanded and refined international business research agenda: Context, organizations, and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(1), 23–32.Google Scholar
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Lau, W. K., Li, Z., & Okpara, J. (2020). An examination of three-way interactions of paternalistic leadership in China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 26(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049–1080.Google Scholar
Li, W., & Hendrischke, H. (2020). Local integration and co‐evolution of internationalizing Chinese firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62(4), 425–439.Google Scholar
Liang, S., Lupina-Wegener, A., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2021). “Change is our continuity”: Chinese managers’ construction of post-merger identification after an acquisition in Europe. Journal of Change Management, 22(1), 59–78.Google Scholar
Lin, C.-H. V., & Sun, J.-M. J. (2018). Chinese employees’ leadership preferences and the relationship with power distance orientation and core self-evaluation. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 12(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 481–498.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A., & van Dick, R. (2016). Multiple shared identities in cross-border M&As. In Tarba, S., Cooper, S. C. L., Sarala, R. M., & Ahammad, M. F. (eds.), Mergers and acquisitions in practice (pp. 182–191). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A., Drzensky, F., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2014). Focusing on the bright tomorrow? A longitudinal study of organizational identification and projected continuity in a corporate merger. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(4), 752–772.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A., Liang, S., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2020). Multiple organizational identities and change in ambivalence: The case of a Chinese acquisition in Europe. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1253–1275.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A., Schneider, S. C., & van Dick, R. (2015). The role of outgroups in constructing a shared identity: A longitudinal study of a subsidiary merger in Mexico. Management International Review, 55(5), 677–705.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A. A., Karamustafa, G., & Schneider, S. C. (2015). Causes and consequences of different types of identity threat: Perceived legitimacy of decisions in M&As. In Risberg, A., King, D., & Meglio, O. (eds.), M&A Companion (pp. 354–366). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mathews, J. A. (2006). Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1), 5–27.Google Scholar
Money, C. (2010). Global 500. Retrieved 4 April from https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/countries/China.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, D. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 217–233.Google Scholar
Sarala, R. M., Vaara, E., & Junni, P. (2017). Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: New avenues for research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Journal of World Business, 54(4), 307–321.Google Scholar
Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., Fransen, K., Yang, J., Ryan, M. K., Jetten, J., Peters, K., & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model. Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 1001–1024.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tian, Q., & Sanchez, J. I. (2017). Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(5), 235–246.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, 2, 77–122.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., & Dick, R. V. (2005). Continuity and change in mergers and acquisitions: A social identity case study of a German industrial merger. Journal of Management Studies, 42(8), 1549–1569.Google Scholar
UNCTAD. (2019). World investment report, special economic zones. New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).Google Scholar
Vaara, E. (2003). Post‐acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity, confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 859–894.Google Scholar
Wei, T., & Clegg, J. (2018). Effect of organizational identity change on integration approaches in acquisitions: Role of organizational dominance. British Journal of Management, 29(2), 337–355.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z., Anand, J., & Mitchell, W. (2005). A dual networks perspective on inter‐organizational transfer of R&D capabilities: International joint ventures in the Chinese automotive industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 127–160.Google Scholar

References

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.Google Scholar
Chung, G. H., Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2014). How do employees adapt to organizational change driven by cross-border M&As? A case in China. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 78–86.Google Scholar
Damoah, O. B. O., Opoku, L., & Acquah-Coleman, R. (2015). Understanding the relative strength of the motives that influence acquisition strategy: Evidence from an emerging market. African Journal of Management Research, 23(1), 55–72.Google Scholar
van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier, M., Hohfeld, C., Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15(4), 351–360.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 357–369.Google Scholar
Hitt, M. A., King, D., Krishnan, H., Makri, M., Schijven, M., Shimizu, K., & Zhu, H. (2009). Mergers and acquisitions: Overcoming pitfalls, building synergy, and creating value. Business Horizons, 52(6), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsey, M. J., Grice, T., Jetten, J., Paulsen, N., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 1036–1048.Google Scholar
Hornsey, M. J., & Imani, A. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 365–383.Google Scholar
Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). “It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 293–307.Google Scholar
Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S. (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: Identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(5), 499–518.Google Scholar
Junni, P., & Sarala, R. M. (2014). The role of leadership in mergers and acquisitions: A review of recent empirical studies. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 13, 181–200.Google Scholar
Karamustafa-Köse, G., Schneider, S. C., & Davis, J. D. (2022). Unpacking the dynamics in acquisition of capabilities: The role of identities during postmerger integration. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(8), 13–38.Google Scholar
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 233–252.Google Scholar
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049–1080.Google Scholar
Liang, S., Lupina-Wegener, A., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2021). “Change is our continuity”: Chinese managers’ construction of post-merger identification after an acquisition in Europe. Journal of Change Management, 22(1), 59–78.Google Scholar
Liang, S., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R., & Lupina‐Wegener, A. (2021). The intergroup sensitivity effect in mergers and acquisitions: Testing the role of merger motives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(8), 769–778.Google Scholar
Lipponen, J., Wisse, B., & Jetten, J. (2017). The different paths to post‐merger identification for employees from high and low status pre‐merger organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 692–711.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., & Deng, P. (2014). Chinese cross-border M&A: Past achievement, contemporary debates and future direction. In Cooper, C. L. & Finkelstein, S. (eds.), Advances in mergers and acquisitions (Vol. 13, pp. 85–107). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Lupina‐Wegener, A., Drzensky, F., & Van Dick, R. (2014). Focusing on the bright tomorrow? A longitudinal study of organizational identification and projected continuity in a corporate merger. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(4), 752–772.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A., Schneider, S. C., & van Dick, R. (2015). The role of outgroups in constructing a shared identity: A longitudinal study of a subsidiary merger in Mexico. Management International Review, 55(5), 677–705.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A. A., Karamustafa, G., & Schneider, S. C. (2015). Causes and consequences of different types of identity threat: Perceived legitimacy of decisions in M&As. In Risberg, A., King, D., and Meglio, O. (eds.), M&A Companion (pp. 354–366). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lupina-Wegener, A. A., Liang, S., van Dick, R., & Ullrich, J. (2020). Multiple organizational identities and change in ambivalence: The case of a Chinese acquisition in Europe. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1253–1275.Google Scholar
Moore, F. (2016). Flexible identities and cross-border knowledge networking. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 12(4), 318–330.Google Scholar
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2021). China statistical yearbook. China Statistics Press. Available online at: www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2021/indexch.htm, last accessed May 18, 2022.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C., & Owens, P. (1996). Making work groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. In West, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 125–142). Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, R. T., & Rottig, D. (2018). Chinese acquisitions of developed market firms: Home semi-formal institutions and a supportive partnering approach. Journal of Business Research, 93, 230–241.Google Scholar
PwC Report. (2021). 2020 China M&A Market Review and Outlook (pp. 12–16). Available at: www.pwccn.com/zh/deals/publications/ma-2020-review-and-2021-outlook.pdf. Last accessed May 18, 2022.Google Scholar
Rentsch, J. R., & Schneider, B. (1991). Expectations for postcombination organizational life: A study of responses to merger and acquisition scenarios. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(3), 233–252.Google Scholar
Riad, S., Vaara, E., & Zhang, N. (2012). The intertextual production of international relations in mergers and acquisitions. Organization Studies, 33(1), 121–148.Google Scholar
Sarala, R. M., Junni, P., Cooper, C. L., & Tarba, S. Y. (2016). A sociocultural perspective on knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1230–1249.Google Scholar
Sarala, R. M., Vaara, E., & Junni, P. (2019). Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: New avenues for research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Journal of World Business, 54(4), 307–321.Google Scholar
Schüler‐Zhou, Y., & Schüller, M. (2009). The internationalization of Chinese companies: What do official statistics tell us about Chinese outward foreign direct investment? Chinese Management Studies, 3(1), 25–42.Google Scholar
Schweizer, L. (2005). Organizational integration of acquired biotechnology companies into pharmaceutical companies: The need for a hybrid approach. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1051–1074.Google Scholar
Shimizu, K., Hitt, M. A., Vaidyanath, D., & Pisano, V. (2004). Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A review of current research and recommendations for the future. Journal of International Management, 10(3), 307–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive performance feedback improve citizenship intentions and job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportunities for advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(2), 177–201.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. G. (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in Group Processes, 2, 77–122.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2007). The group psychology of mergers & acquisitions: Lessons from the social identity approach. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 6, 1–15.Google Scholar
Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Continuity and change in mergers and acquisitions: A social identity case study of a German industrial merger. Journal of Management Studies, 42(8), 1549–1569.Google Scholar
Wang, H., & Miao, L. (2020). The globalization of Chinese enterprises: Trends and characteristics. Singapore: Springer Singapore.Google Scholar
Zhou, A. J., Fey, C., & Yildiz, H. E. (2020). Fostering integration through HRM practices: An empirical examination of absorptive capacity and knowledge transfer in cross-border M&As. Journal of World Business, 55(2), 1–14.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Change in Context
  • Edited by Shaul Oreg, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Alexandra Michel, Universität Heidelberg, Rune Todnem By, Universitet i Stavanger, Norway
  • Book: The Psychology of Organizational Change
  • Online publication: 28 September 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009086721.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Change in Context
  • Edited by Shaul Oreg, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Alexandra Michel, Universität Heidelberg, Rune Todnem By, Universitet i Stavanger, Norway
  • Book: The Psychology of Organizational Change
  • Online publication: 28 September 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009086721.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Change in Context
  • Edited by Shaul Oreg, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Alexandra Michel, Universität Heidelberg, Rune Todnem By, Universitet i Stavanger, Norway
  • Book: The Psychology of Organizational Change
  • Online publication: 28 September 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009086721.007
Available formats
×