A “change” is a difference in an entity’s state, condition, or property that occurs across an interval of time and can take place in multiple ways. The scope and variety of organization changes make evident that organization change is a familiar and crucial feature of society’s ecosystem. In this chapter we explore multiple types of changes that occur in and among organizations. To appreciate organizational change, it is necessary to understand organizations per se. Thus, we begin by summarizing pertinent literature that defines central characteristics of organizations. Following conventional usage, the term “organization” refers to a purposeful hierarchical human system whose members contribute their efforts or other resources to the system in order to acquire valued resources, such as their livelihood. Organizations are created for multiple types of purposes. Our emphasis is primarily on business organizations, which are created for the purpose of generating wealth for their creators and owners. After discussing organizations, we then turn to our main focus, organizational change. This refers, not only to changes at the organization level of analysis but also at other levels of analysis, ranging from individuals such as the organization’s chief executive officer to populations of organizations. We present topics that address contemporary understandings of organizational change. That is, we discuss sources of change in external organizational environments and organizational responses to such change. We then discuss varieties of organizational change, including population level changes, and changes within individual organizations, including changes initiated by middle managers, organizational learning and unlearning and top management change. Next we move to planned organizational change. This includes changes in culture as well as forms of organization development and forms of whole systems changes, as well as multiple dimensions, of these types of changes. Finally, we describe emerging topics in organizational change, including temporal dimensions, radical and continuous change, dialectical and paradoxical change, emergence, and decline, death and rebirth. Taken together, these topics suggest what organizational change research has explored up to the present. The topics also suggest agendas for new exploration.
George P. Huber and Jean M. Bartunek
Vicente González-Romá and Ana Hernández
Human behavior takes place in different contexts (e.g., organizations, schools, families, sports teams, and communities) whose properties (e.g., climate, culture, cohesion, leadership, communication networks, and structure) influence human behavior. To estimate this influence, researchers need appropriate methods that avoid the problems associated with the application of standard Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression. Multilevel modeling methods offer researchers a way to estimate the aforementioned influence. These methods take into account that the variables involved reside at different levels. For instance, in the relationship between work unit climate and employee job satisfaction, the former variable resides at the work unit level (level 2) whereas the latter resides at the individual one (level 1). Moreover, multilevel modeling methods also take into account that the data analyzed to estimate this type of relationships have a nested structure in which individuals (e.g., employees) are nested into collectives (e.g., work units). Finally, these methods decompose variance into between-group and within-group components and allow researchers to model variability at the between and within levels. Specifically, multilevel modeling methods allow researchers to test hypotheses that involve, among others: 1. A relationship between a higher-level predictor (e.g., work unit climate) and a lower-level outcome (e.g., employee job satisfaction); a so-called “direct cross-level effect”, and 2. An influence of a higher-level moderator (e.g., work unit climate) on an individual level relationship (e.g., the relationship between employee job stress and job satisfaction); a so-called “cross-level interaction”. Multilevel modeling methods can also be used to test more complex models involving mediation (e.g., 2-2-1, 2-1-1, or 1-1-1 models, depending on whether the antecedent and the mediator are level 1 or level 2 variables) and moderated mediation. We show how to test these models by presenting examples with real data and the corresponding SPSS syntax that readers can use to practice.
Ante Glavas and Mislav Radic
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important topic for both academics and practitioners because it potentially influences all aspects of an organization—from relationships with stakeholders to strategy to daily routines and practices. Thus, scholars have explored CSR for close to one hundred years. Prior research has been primarily conducted at the organizational and institutional levels, but has largely overlooked the individual-level of analysis, which is a major gap considering that CSR is enacted by and influences people. Recently, this gap has been addressed by an increased focus on the individual level of analysis—also known as “micro-CSR.” However, CSR is a multilevel construct, so even when focusing on the individual level, all levels need to be taken into consideration at the same time. Moreover, CSR is cross-disciplinary. Prior research has often focused on disciplines such as strategy, but fields such as psychology have much to offer—especially because CSR is conducted through and affects individuals. Moreover, due to the historical focus of CSR on the organizational level of analysis, most studies have aggregated CSR to the firm level. These studies have shown mixed results of the effects of CSR. One reason is that when CSR is aggregated, the variance at the individual level of analysis is lost. Employees might react both positively and negatively to CSR. For example, CSR is often extra-role (e.g., volunteering, being part of committees) and can have a negative effect of role strain and stress. For other employees, they might find tension with the way that CSR is carried out. Future research could dive more deeply into the psychology of CSR and how, when, and why employees might react to CSR differently.
Regine Bendl, Astrid Hainzl, and Heike Mensi-Klarbach
Diversity in the workplace, with a central focus on gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, (dis)ability, and religious belief, has become a major issue in organizations worldwide since the 1990s. How these different diversity dimensions are defined and constructed, as well as by whom and in what context, determines organizational practices. In turn, this determines the transformation of organizations from exclusive to inclusive ones. The workplace is one context of social interaction, in which dimensions of diversity become highly relevant and visible. Depending on the organization’s perspective toward diversity in a managerial context, individual differences between employees can create value and foster innovation and creativity, or can lead to conflict. How diversity is constructed and reproduced within diversity management and inclusion determines how employees feel accepted and included and, thus, how they are able to realize their potential and to contribute to the organization’s vision and aims. However, legitimizing initiatives that foster diversity in the workplace only with potential profits it might generate – called the business case for diversity – and forgetting its roots in the moral case, has shortcomings and potential drawbacks on the aims of diversity management and inclusion. Research on diversity in the workplace can be found in different forms. Generally, there are two main groups. Mainstream diversity literature works within the positivist research tradition and focuses mostly on the performance aspects of diverse workforces by conducting quantitative empirical studies. Critical diversity literature aims at promoting social justice by deeply understanding, criticizing and developing possible solutions. Both research streams have contributed to comprehend diversity in the workplace, realize its potentials and support marginalized groups.
Psychological research on safety at work aims at understanding people’s attitudes and behaviors in relation to hazards for their own and others’ health and well-being. Important safety-related behaviors are safety compliance and safety participation, which address rule-following and proactive safety improvements. These behaviors are influenced by individual cognitive and motivational processes as well as team processes, such as coordination and communication. Relevant antecedents of these processes are characteristics of the job (e.g., job demands), the individual (e.g., risk propensity), the team (e.g., leadership), and the organization (e.g., organizational culture). How individuals and teams are supported in adequately handling hazards also depends on the safety management systems set up in their organizations. Important components of such management systems are, for instance, safety training and incident reporting and investigation. Interventions aimed at improving safety always have to consider cultural factors in the organization, which impact attitudes toward risk and uncertainty.
Tiffany Bisbey and Eduardo Salas
Teams are complex, dynamic systems made up of interdependent members working toward a shared goal; but teamwork is more than working together as a group. Teamwork is a multifaceted phenomenon that allows a group of individuals to function effectively as a unit by using a set of interrelated knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Effective teamwork is marked by cooperation, communication, coordination, conflict management, coaching, and shared cognition among team members. The most effective teamwork leads to team performance gains that are greater than the sum of each individual member’s effort. These performance outcomes re-inform the teamwork process, thus creating a recursive feedback loop that drives team development and guides future performance. Along with performance outcomes, individual- and team-level changes incite learning and allow teams to adapt to the dynamic systems in which they exist. With each development cycle over time, teams learn how to maneuver their environment and allocate their resources to reach performance goals with more efficiency. There are many external factors that can influence this process, including organizational characteristics, situational demands, and team training interventions; as well as internal factors that emerge and evolve over the life of the team, such as shared mental models and psychological safety. Although teamwork is a complex phenomenon with many moving parts, a strong body of research guides practitioners in leveraging its influence on organizational effectiveness.
Michael P. Leiter
Engagement has continued to develop as a positive construct in organizational psychology. Initially defined as employees’ identification with their work, work engagement became understood as a configuration of vigor, dedication, and absorption that motivates exceptional work performance. Although generally viewed as a positive construct, engagement may have a dark side in giving work excessive importance in employees’ lives. There has been some debate regarding the specific qualities that define engagement and the extent to which engagement is an enduring trait in contrast to a varying response to situational constraints and opportunities. The concerns are reflected in the measures of engagement, the most widely used is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). The Job Demands/Resources Model has structured much of the research work on engagement in recent years, leading to initiatives to enhance engagement by improving the quality and variety of resources available to employees at work. Within this domain, job crafting appears to provide a means through which individuals or groups may broaden their opportunities to participate in engaging activities while reducing the range of drudgery inherent in their work.
Occupational health psychology is concerned with improving the quality of work life and protecting and promoting the safety, health, and well-being of workers. Research and theoretical development in this area of psychology has focused on a number of core areas, particularly the study of workplace stress, health and safety at work, workplace aggression and bullying, work–life balance, and impact of the organization of work on health and well-being, including flexible work and new technology. Researchers have devoted attention to understanding the causes and mechanisms linking work design and organizational factors to health, safety, and well-being in the workplace, as well as developing interventions to improve work conditions and promote well-being. While much of this work has focused on alleviating negative effects (e.g., preventing disease and injury and reducing stress symptoms), positive psychology has influenced researchers to examine motivating effects that create the conditions for personal growth and learning (e.g., job crafting, thriving at work, and work engagement).
Action regulation theory is a meta-theory on the regulation of goal-directed behavior. The theory explains how workers regulate their behavior through cognitive processes, including goal development and selection, internal and external orientation, planning, monitoring of execution, and feedback processing. Moreover, action regulation theory focuses on the links between these cognitive processes, behavior, the objective environment, and objective outcomes. The action regulation process occurs on multiple levels of action regulation, including the sensorimotor or skill level, the level of flexible action patterns, the intellectual or conscious level, and the meta-cognitive heuristic level. These levels range from unconscious and automatized control of actions to conscious thought, and from muscular action to thought processes. Action regulation at lower levels in this hierarchy is more situation specific and requires less cognitive effort than action regulation at higher levels. Workers further develop action-oriented mental models that include long-term cognitive representations of input conditions, goals, plans, and expected and prescribed results of action, as well as knowledge about the boundary conditions of action and the transformation procedures that turn goals into expected results. The accuracy and level of detail of such action-oriented mental models is closely associated with the efficiency and effectiveness of action regulation. One of three foci can be in the foreground of action regulation: task, social context, or self. A task focus is most strongly associated with high efficiency and effectiveness of action regulation, because it links task-related goals with relevant plans, behavior, and feedback. Action regulation theory has been applied to understand several phenomena in the field of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, including proactive work behavior, work-related learning and error management, entrepreneurship, occupational strain and well-being, reciprocal influences between personality and work, innovation, teamwork, career development, and successful aging at work.
Group process refers to the behaviors of the members of small working groups (usually between three and twelve members) as they engage in decision-making and task performance. Group process includes the study of how group members’ characteristics interact with the behavior of group members to create effective or ineffective group performance. Relevant topics include the influences of group norms, group roles, group status, group identity, and group social interaction as they influence group task performance and decision-making, the development and change of groups over time, group task typologies, and decision-making schemes. Relevant group outcomes include group cohesion, process losses and process gains in performance, free riding, ineffective information sharing, difficulties in brainstorming, groupthink, and group polarization. Other variables that influence effective group process include group member diversity, task attractiveness, and task significance. A variety of techniques are used to improve group process.