13594321003630089all Semester Spring Semester BA 1101 Introduction to Accounting BA 1201 Financial...

8/12/2019 13594321003630089all Semester Spring Semester BA 1101 Introduction to Accounting BA 1201 Financial Accountin

1/16

This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]On: 20 February 2014, At: 07:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal of Work and

Organizational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Building commitment to change:

The role of perceived supervisorsupport and competencePedro Neves a

aUniversidade de vora , vora, PortugalPublished online: 17 Aug 2010.

To cite this article:Pedro Neves (2011) Building commitment to change: The roleof perceived supervisor support and competence, European Journal of Work andOrganizational 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 theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,

claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, 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, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13594321003630089http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594321003630089http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13594321003630089http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20


2/16

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

Downloa

dedby[INASP-Pakistan(

PERI)]at07:2320Februar

y2014
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/16

Building commitment to change: The role of perceivedsupervisor support and competence

Pedro NevesUniversidade de Evora, Evora, Portugal

Commitment to change is considered the glue that binds people and change

goals. Still, few studies have explored how employees develop their commitmentto organizational change. The present study examined the relationship betweensupervisor competence and support, and employees commitment to change.Participants were 210 full-time employees from two public organizations thathad recently faced major change interventions resulting from governmentaldirectives. As predicted, perceived supervisor support fully mediated the positiverelationship between competence and affective and normative commitment tochange. On the other hand, supervisor competence was negatively related tocontinuance commitment to change. These findings illustrate how supervisorscan 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,

Universidade de Evora, Apartado 94, Evora 7002-554, Portugal.

E-mail: [email protected]

This research was supported by a grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and

Technology (SFRH/BD/10164/2002).

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2011, 20 (4), 437450

2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594321003630089

Downloa



y2014


4/16

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

benefits 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 OFTHE 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). Commit-

ment to change is considered the glue that binds together people and

change goals (Conner, 1992). It is defined 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 reactionsto change can occur: (1) a desire to provide support for the change

based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective 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-efficacy 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

438 NEVES

Downloa



y2014


5/16

strengths, deficiencies, and opportunities, but also because they motivate

others to commit to these changes while helping them overcome obstacles

(Paglis & Green, 2002).

PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR SUPPORT ANDCOMMITMENT TO CHANGE

Perceived supervisor support (PSS) has been demonstrated to effectively

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, affective commitment to the organiza-

tion, 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 influence reciprocation not only to the supervisor, but to

the organization itself (Eisenberger et al., 2002). In particular, whenemployees 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 benefits (i.e., affective

commitment to change). Simultaneously, based on the norm of reciprocity

(Gouldner, 1960), employees strive to repay the support received by helpingthe 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 affective 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.

BUILDING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 439

Downloa



y2014


6/16

SUPERVISOR COMPETENCE AND PSS ASPREDICTORS OF COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

Although some scholars disagree about the definition of leadership (Bass,

1990; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Yukl, 1998), common factors have been

identified, 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 defined as the group

of task and situation specific skills, competencies, and characteristics that

enable a party to have influence within some specific domain (Mayer, Davis,

& Schoorman, 1995).

The role of competence for the creation of positive and stable relation-ships 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 benefits 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 influence 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 effectively and to deal with

stressful situations (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).These evaluations are based on the behaviours and perceived character-

istics 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 demon-

strate their competence by defining roles, outlining expectations, and

clarifying expectations and tasks, employees perceive them as being more

supportive (Watkins, 2006). These competency assessments carry informa-

tion 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),

440 NEVES

Downloa



y2014


7/16

we propose that perceptions of supervisor competence contribute to

employees PSS.

Hypothesis 2: Supervisor competence is positively related to PSS.

Moreover, perceptions of supervisor competence also affect 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 competenceand 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 super-

visor competence and affective commitment to change.

Hypothesis 3b: PSS mediates the positive relationship between super-

visor competence and normative commitment to change.Hypothesis 3c: PSS mediates the negative relationship between super-

visor competence and continuance commitment to change.

METHOD

Sample and procedure

Participants were full-time employees from two Portuguese public organiza-

tions, a university and a city hall, which had recently undergone majororganizational changes resulting from governmental directives. The univer-

sity implemented a new performance appraisal system, and the city hall

applied a flexible working schedule. Supervisors played a significant role in

both cases. In the first case they were responsible for implementing the new

appraisal system, and in the second they were responsible for reorganizing

the workflow to adjust to nontraditional schedules. No differences were

found between the two samples concerning the impact of change, t(205)

1.36, p4 .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.


Downloa



y2014


8/16

As a result, the final 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 final 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).

Affective, continuance and normative commitment to change items were

taken from Herscovitch and Meyers (2002) scales. Affective commitment tochange 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 eachconstruct 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 presen-

ted 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 vari-

ance in all variables, with the exception of affective commitment to change

442 NEVES

Downloa



y2014


9/16

(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 (0university; 1 city hall). Data were analysed

using structural equation modelling with AMOS.

To assess construct independence we compared the fit of the hypothesized

five-factor model against four alternative models (Table 3). In the first

TABLE 1

Descriptive statistics and correlationsa,b

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Competence 4.35 0.83 (.87)2. Perceived supervisor support 3.86 0.93 .66** (.82)

3. Affective commitment to change 3.78 0.99 .15* .14* (.85)

4. Continuance commitment to change 2.77 1.36 .01 .02 7.28** (.83)

5. Normative commitment to change 3.00 1.00 .11 .20** .06 .28** (.62)

a5-point scales. bCronbachs alpha and Pearsons r are reported on the diagonal. *p5 .05,

**p5 .01.

TABLE 2Results of ICC(1) and ICC(2) for organizational membership

ICC(1) ICC(2)

1. Supervisor competence 0.09 0.91

2. Perceived supervisor support 0.06 0.88

3. Affective commitment to change 70.01 71.18

4. Normative commitment to change 0.10 0.92

5. Continuance commitment to change 0.41 0.99

TABLE 3

Confirmatory factor analysis

w2 df CFI GFI RMSEA AIC

Five factors 208.69* 109 .94 .90 .07 296.69

Four factorsa 333.93* 113 .87 .83 .10 413.93

Three factorsb 454.33* 116 .80 .78 .12 528.33

Two factorsc 680.30* 118 .67 .69 .15 750.30

One factor 1024.68* 119 .47 .59 .19 1092.68

*p5 .01. aMerge competence and PSS. bMerge competence and PSS, and normative and

affective commitment to change. cMerge competence and PSS, and normative, affective, and

continuance commitment to change.


Downloa



y2014


10/16

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 affective 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 five-factor

model, w2(109) 208.69, p5 .01, CFI .94, GFI .90, RMSEA .07,

AIC 296.69, was the only model that presented all fit indexes within

the criterion values and simultaneously held the lowest AIC value(Akaike, 1987). Consequently, we used the five-factor model to test our

hypotheses.

Although our hypotheses did not predict the strength of the mediation

effect, partial mediations are a more realistic research goal, since most

social phenomena have multiple causes (Baron & Kenny, 1986). There-

fore, we compared the fit 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 affective,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 & Vanden-

berghe, 2003). Model 4, which included a direct path from competence to

continuance commitment to change, provided a significant increase in

TABLE 4

Results for nested structural equation models

w2 df CFI GFI RMSEA Dw2

Model 1 (theorized) 226.55* 123 .94 .89 .06

Model 2a 226.54* 122 .94 .89 .06 0.01

Model 3b 226.46* 122 .94 .89 .06 0.09

Model 4c 222.84* 122 .94 .90 .06 3.71

Model 5d 222.33* 120 .94 .90 .06 4.22

*p5 .01. aPartial mediation model adds path from supervisor competence to affective

commitment to change. bPartial mediation model adds path from supervisor competence to

normative commitment to change. cPartial mediation model adds path from supervisorcompetence to continuance commitment to change. dPartial mediation model adds

path from supervisor competence to affective, normative, and continuance commitment to

change.

444 NEVES

Downloa



y2014


11/16

model fit, w2(122) 222.84, p5 .01, CFI .94, GFI .90, RMSEA .06,

Dw2(1) 3.71, p5 .05. Figure 1 depicts the significant paths in our final

model (Model 4).1

Competence was significantly related to PSS, b .71,p5 .01, which was

in turn positively related to both affective, b .16, p5 .05, and normative

commitment to change, b .17, p5 .05, supporting Hypotheses 2, 1a, and

1b, respectively. PSS, however, was not significantly related to continuance

commitment to change, b .09, p4 .05; hence, Hypothesis 1c is rejected.

Finally, supervisor competence displayed a significantly negative relation-

ship with continuance commitment to change, b7.18,p5 .05, which was

unpredicted. To further test the mediation effect of PSS on the relationship

between competence and affective and normative commitment to change weused the z-prime test developed by MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Hoffman

(1998). This test has highly accurate Type I error rates and superior

statistical power (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002).

The indirect effects of competence on both affective, z0 1.99, p5 .05, and

normative commitment to change, z0 1.96, p5 .05, were significant, thus

supporting Hypotheses 3a and 3b, respectively.

Figure 1. Final model for competence, perceived supervisor support, and commitment to

change. PSSperceived supervisor support; NCC normative commitment to change;

ACC affective commitment to change; CCC continuance commitment to change.

1In this model, organizational membership was significantly related to both continuance,b7.57, p5 .01, and normative commitment to change, b7.22, p5 .01, but not to

affective commitment to change, b7.05, p4 .05, and perceived supervisor support,

b7.08, p4 .05.


Downloa



y2014


12/16

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 affective and normative commitment to change. Additionally, super-

visor 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 hasthe 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

affective 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 orientationtowards 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 benefits of change (affective 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 different, based on the reasoning behind the desire

to reciprocate. Supervisor competence and PSS were positively related to

both affective and normative commitment; only competence was negativelyrelated 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 offers 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

446 NEVES

Downloa



y2014


13/16

inflation effect due to common method, we tested our measurement model

while controlling for the effects of an unmeasured latent methods factor

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The model with the

common method variance factor presented a better fit than the original

measurement model, w2(92) 144.82, p5 .01, CFI .97, GFI .93,

RMSEA .05, Dw2(17) 63.87, p5 .01, suggesting that common method

variance is indeed present in the study. However, all the items loaded

significantly on the expected factor, revealing that while common method

variance may be present, it does not necessarily affect our results. Such a

finding 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 self-

efficacy (Fedor et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2007; Neves, 2009) contribute

significantly 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 affective,

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


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 tochange.Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 503512.

Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). The model of followers responses to self-sacrificial

leadership: an empirical test.Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397421.


Downloa



y2014


14/16

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 followereffects.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 first-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 effects 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 influences on employees commitment

to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 942951.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and

change leadership on employees commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal ofApplied 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 effective relationships.

New York: Free Press.

House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: 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., & Hoffman, 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., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002).

A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Methods, 7, 83104.

448 NEVES

Downloa



y2014


15/16

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on

trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,

123136.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizationaltrust. 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 thesupervisor 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-efficacy and managers motivation for leading

change.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215235.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, 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 AppliedPsychology, 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). Affective 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.


Downloa



y2014


16/16

Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied


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

450 NEVES

Downloa



y2014

13594321003630089all Semester Spring Semester BA 1101 Introduction to Accounting BA 1201 Financial...

Documents

Transcript of 13594321003630089all Semester Spring Semester BA 1101 Introduction to Accounting BA 1201 Financial...