LEADERSHIP AND

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIOR
Date: 13.05.19

GROUP MEMBERS:

 MEHAK MUMTAZ
 NUZRAT UL AIN
 BUSHRA NAYAB
 MARIA KHAN
 SUMBAL KHAN

SUBMITTED TO: DR. HUSSAIN

 1

Abstract

This report examines antecedents and consequences of employees’ threat appraisal during
organizational change. Survey collected quantitative data from ‘Abacus consulting’ company.
According to the report Positive change orientation and change related fairness are examined as
antecedents of threat appraisal different forms of employee withdrawal as outcomes (quit
intentions, voluntary turnover and absenteeism) according to the survey results threat appraisal
are positively related to absenteeism which results in voluntary turnover.

The frequency and magnitude of organizational change have increased due to globalization and
economic instability. The primary focus of this report is to study the key psychological mechanism
including employee negative reactions to change that is individual’s threat appraisal of
organizational change.

The report further explains how Abacus consulting was going through major organizational change
that is creating new positions and realigning report relationships. The data is collected through
quantitative methodology so that it is easier to compile data on graphs and tables and further more
to get detailed information about our study.

As change is an important factor for employee’s performance, it is very important to identify the
ultimate success of such changes. If change results in negative employees reactions it would be
highly consequential as they can severely impede the realization of the intended benefits of
change.it is therefore essential for organizations implementing change to better understand
employees negative reactions to change so that they can manage the outcomes more effectively.

In order to assess most latent constructs multiple observed indicators were used but single items
were used to represent quit intentions, voluntary turnover, and absenteeism. The variables are
Positive change orientation, which was measured with three indicators that are change-related self-
efficacy, positive attitudes toward change, and perceived control of changes. Change-related
fairness variable was measured with three manifest indicators: distributive, procedural, and
interactional fairness. Threat appraisal construct was measured with seven items including job
stability, relationships with supervisors and coworkers, desirability of one’s job, personal job
opportunities at current employer, pay and benefits, and general working conditions. quit intention
 2

construct was assessed using a single indicator, we fixed the measurement path to the square
root of the estimated scale reliability (.80) in order to correct for measurement error (Williams &
Hazer, 1986). Voluntary turnover behavioral withdrawal outcome was evaluated with an indicator
of voluntary turnover. Absenteeism behavioral withdrawal outcome was measured with a single
item based on data from the focal organization’s records.

Starting with the measurement analysis different methods were studied to measure and report on
a test examining common variance method. Furthermore, Means, standard deviation and
correlation test results are provided in the end to give a clear idea of variables relationship.
According to our research findings Organizations implementing change can monitor employee
threat appraisal to identify which factor is creating issues and then can take certain preventive
measures to avoid that situation.

Antecedents of Employees’ Change-Related Threat Appraisals:

The predictors (independent variables) used can be altered and are not completely
uncontrollable. Secondly both withdrawal cognitions and behaviors are used. Cognition used is
intention to quit and behaviors related to withdrawal are absenteeism and turnover. Positive
change orientation and change related fairness are used as antecedents to threat appraisal.

Hypothesis# 1:

Positive change orientation is negatively related to threat appraisal.

Those who have positive attitude towards change will be confident about their abilities and
would be able to cope with change.

Hypothesis#2:

Change related fairness is negatively related to threat appraisal.

 3

If employees are communicated about change, they will have low threat appraisal.

Hypothesis # 3:

Threat appraisal will be positively related with intentions to quit.

Hypothesis # 4:

Threat appraisal will be positively related to voluntary turnover.

Hypothesis # 5:

Threat appraisal will be positively related to absenteeism.

The higher the possibility of threat, higher would be the withdrawal cognition; intentions to quit
and Withdrawal behavior; absenteeism and voluntary turnover.
 4

Model structure of antecedents: the model structure is tested by applying different

analytical tests.

Positive
change
orientation

Quit Voluntary
Threat
intention turnover
appraisal

Change
related
fairness

Absenteeism
 5

Methodology

Sample and Procedure

Survey data were obtained from 110 employees of Abacus Consulting in the information
technology industry. Abacus was experiencing a major organizational restructuring.Those changes
included creating new positions and realigning reporting relationships. Surveys measuring positive
change orientation, change-related fairness, threat appraisals of the changes, voluntary turnover
and absenteeism were collected. Quantitative research has been used for the study. Quantitative
research is used because it is easier to compile the data onto a chart or graph because of the numbers
that are made available. Another reason for using quantitative research is that the research can be
conducted on a large scale and gives a lot more information as far as value and statistics

Measures

Inorder to assess most latent constructs multiple observed indicators were used but single items
were used to represent quit intentions, voluntary turnover, and absenteeism.

Positive change orientation. This variable was measured with three manifest indicators: change-
related self-efficacy, positive attitudes toward change, and perceived control of changes.
Importantly, instructions for all three indicators used the recent changes at the focal organization
as their referent; that is, each measure explicitly referred to the actual changes that occurred rather
than employees’ reactions to changes in general. For example, instructions for change self-efficacy
were, “We are interested in your perceptions of your ability to deal with tchanges that have
occurred. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following.” Instructions for the
positive attitudes toward change scale were, “We are interested in your atti- tudes toward the
changes that have occurred at work. Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the
following.” And finally, items for perceived control of the changes were pre- ceded by “Please
indicate to what extent you agree with the following as they relate to the changes that have
occurred.”

Change-related fairness. This variable was measured with three manifest indicators: distributive,
procedural, and interactional fairness. Distributive fairness was measured with five items, such as
“Have the changes in your job responsibilities been fair to you?” Similarly, procedural fairness
was operationalized with five items, including “Have the pro- cedures that produced the change
 6

been free of bias?” Interactional fairness was assessed with four items, each referring to the
authority figure most closely associated with the changes. A sample item is, “I know where to find
additional information about change?” All responses ranged from strongly disagree to strongly
agree.

Threat appraisal. This construct was measured with seven items including job stability,
relationships with supervisors and coworkers, desirability of one’s job, personal job opportunities
at current employer, pay and benefits, and general working conditions. Respondents were asked,
“Due to the changes, do you feel that each of the following is THREATENED—a possibility that
it will get worse in the future?” Respondents indicated their responses range from strongly disagree
to strongly agree.

Quit intention. Employees were asked, “What are the chances that you will quit your job during
the next 12 months?” Responses ranged from 1 (no chance) to 5 (100% chance). Because the
construct was assessed using a single indicator, we fixed the measurement path to the square root
of the estimated scale reliability (.80) in order to correct for measurement error (Williams & Hazer,
1986). Some criticism exists regarding use of single-item measures, but researchers have found
that the psychometric qualities of single- item measures compare favorably to those of multi-item
measures and can demonstrate good reliability as well as face and predictive validity (Bergkvist
& Rossiter, 2007).

Voluntary turnover. This behavioral withdrawal outcome was evaluated with an indicator of
voluntary turnover .Employees were asked to respond to"My workload is too heavy in comparison
to rewards/facilities provided”.Employees indicated their response range from strongly disagree
to strongly agree.

Absenteeism. Absenteeism, a behavioral withdrawal outcome was measured with a single item
based on data from the focal organization’s records.Employees were asked to rate the working
environment of the company, where 1 being worst and 5 the best.

Measurement Analysis:
Results are presented in different levels, to make sure all the variables are included in the test and
gives us clear results. We first looked into the methods we can use to find out the measures and
report on a test examining common method variance. Means, standard deviation and correlation
 7

test results are provided in the end to give a clear idea of variables relationship. These results
provide the evidence supporting the quality of our measures.

We run a regression analysis test as we want to predict the value of a variable based on the value
of another variable. The correlation between different variables have also been tested to
understand the relation between; threat appraisal, positive change orientation and change related
fairness. The interaction terns of positive change orientation and change related fairness was also
being observed to understand the complexity among variables.

As per the correlation, positive change orientation and change related fairness has a negative
correlation with threat appraisal. However, positive change orientation and change related fairness
shows a positive correlation. Total number for all the variables are 109, as our sample size was
small we got different results. Among all the tests we took threat appraisal as the dependable
variable and rest of the variables as independent variable, to have a clear understanding of the
impact of threat appraisal on other variables and how in reality this is effecting the life in an
organization.

In the Anova table, the large F ratio means that the variation among group means is more than we
expect to see by chance. The degree of freedom was taken in 2 groups the significance of change
related variance and positive change orientation with threat appraisal is 0.004, however, with the
interaction of these variable the significance improves.

Each sum-of-squares is associated with a certain number of degrees of freedom that is computed
from number of variables and number of groups and the mean square (MS) is computed by dividing
the sum-of-squares by the appropriate number of degrees of freedom. These can be thought of as
variances. The square root of the mean square residual can be thought of as the pooled standard
deviation.
 8

Results:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
 20

Discussion:

The primary goal of this research was to investigate the effects of threat appraisal and in turn their
relationship with employee withdrawal behavior. Data collection and interpretation provide
insights into how managers might more effectively implement organizational change. The
questions we have identified helped us to indicate the reason behind withdrawal behavior and how
these are effecting the daily life of an employee. As per the questionnaire many employees said
that they have a good relationship with the coworkers but they are still not satisfied with the
environment of the organization.

Our findings showed predictors of threat appraisal that are positive change orientation and change-
related fairness in our test, can be used to help change the negative effects of organizational and
can help bring change regarding employee withdrawal behavior. These can help to retain the
employee and can make them understand the situation in the organization. Organizations
implementing change can monitor employee threat appraisal to determine which factor is creating
issues and can take certain preventive measures to avoid that situation.

These preventive measures can help the company to decrease employee turnover as the human
resource is the backbone of the company and as they are not satisfied with the change and
orientation in the organization they won’t be able to bring in positivity in the organization and will
increase threats within the organization.

Situation factors are especially important elements for managing organizational change.
Management should include employees’ in change process can help them feel privileged and
respectful. They will understand that every decision is fair and there is no biasness in the
organization. Once this thing prevails in helps the employees to reduce threat appraisal and
withdrawal behavior. Therefore, proactively focusing on employees’ perceptions of fairness and
their positive change orientation are complementary tools that managers can use to increase the
probability of effectively implementing change.

Contribution and conclusion

 21

The results from this study helped answer why do some employees quit because of change
and others don’t? The results of this study revealed that threat appraisal is part of the answer.This
study also provides important and new insights for turnover theory and research. One implication
is that appraisal is an important forerunner to conventional withdrawal behaviour. Specifically, we
suspect threat appraisal mediates the relation- ships between various antecedents (e.g., interrole
conflict and job avoidance) and intentions and behaviors to quit.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

new_threat_appraisal 2.0872 .70001 109

new_positive_change_orientation 3.1070 .90253 109
new_change_related_fairness 3.2844 .98766 109
interaction term of positive change 10.2712 4.55705 109
orientation and change related fairness
22
 23

Correlations

interaction
term of
positive
change
orientation
and change
new_threat_appr new_positive_cha new_change_rela related
aisal nge_orientation ted_fairness fairness

Pearson new_threat_appraisal 1.000 -.117 -.302 -.279

Correlation new_positive_change_orientat -.117 1.000 .075 .753
ion

new_change_related_fairness -.302 .075 1.000 .683

interaction term of positive -.279 .753 .683 1.000

change orientation and
change related fairness
Sig. (1-tailed) new_threat_appraisal . .112 .001 .002
new_positive_change_orientat .112 . .219 .000
ion
new_change_related_fairness .001 .219 . .000

interaction term of positive .002 .000 .000 .

change orientation and
change related fairness
N new_threat_appraisal 109 109 109 109

new_positive_change_orientat 109 109 109 109

ion

new_change_related_fairness 109 109 109 109

interaction term of positive 109 109 109 109

change orientation and
change related fairness
 24

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 new_change_related_f . Enter
airness,
new_positive_change_
orientationb
2 interaction term of . Enter
positive change
orientation and change
related fairnessb

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal

b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F

Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .316a .100 .083 .67028 .100 5.897 2 106 .004

2 .318b .101 .075 .67315 .001 .099 1 105 .754

a. Predictors: (Constant), new_change_related_fairness, new_positive_change_orientation

b. Predictors: (Constant), new_change_related_fairness, new_positive_change_orientation, interaction term of positive change

orientation and change related fairness

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 5.299 2 2.649 5.897 .004b

Residual 47.623 106 .449

Total 52.922 108

2 Regression 5.344 3 1.781 3.931 .011c

Residual 47.578 105 .453

Total 52.922 108

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal
 25

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3.003 .305 9.859 .000

new_positive_change_orie -.074 .072 -.095 -1.032 .304 -.117 -.100 -.095

ntation

new_change_related_fairn -.209 .065 -.295 -3.189 .002 -.302 -.296 -.294

ess
2 (Constant) 2.765 .815 3.395 .001

new_positive_change_orie .008 .270 .010 .029 .977 -.117 .003 .003

ntation

new_change_related_fairn -.142 .222 -.201 -.640 .523 -.302 -.062 -.059

ess

interaction term of positive -.023 .073 -.149 -.315 .754 -.279 -.031 -.029
change orientation and
change related fairness

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal

b. Predictors: (Constant), new_change_related_fairness, new_positive_change_orientation
c. Predictors: (Constant), new_change_related_fairness, new_positive_change_orientation, interaction term of
positive change orientation and change related fairness

Excluded Variablesa

Collinearity

Partial Statistics

Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance

1 interaction term of positive -.149b -.315 .754 -.031 .038

change orientation and change
related fairness

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), new_change_related_fairness, new_positive_change_orientation
 26

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

new_threat_appraisal 2.0872 .70001 109

new_voluntary_turnover 1.9564 .63085 109
new_absenteesim 1.8899 .21898 109
new_quit_intention 2.5657 .84802 109
newVTxQI 5.2462 2.99462 109
newABxQI 4.8219 1.64228 109
newvtxqixabxqi 29.0718 26.49585 109
 27

--

new_threat_ap new_voluntary new_absentee new_quit_inte newVTxQ newABxQ newvtxqixa

praisal _turnover sim ntion I I bxqi

Pearson new_threat_appra 1.000 .242 .010 .345 .358 .342 .365

Correlation isal

new_voluntary_tu .242 1.000 -.064 .427 .846 .412 .711

rnover

new_absenteesim .010 -.064 1.000 -.148 -.090 .185 .042

new_quit_intentio .345 .427 -.148 1.000 .807 .940 .831

n

newVTxQI .358 .846 -.090 .807 1.000 .775 .961

newABxQI .342 .412 .185 .940 .775 1.000 .848

newvtxqixabxqi .365 .711 .042 .831 .961 .848 1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) new_threat_appra . .006 .458 .000 .000 .000 .000

isal
new_voluntary_tu .006 . .253 .000 .000 .000 .000
rnover
new_absenteesim .458 .253 . .063 .175 .027 .331

new_quit_intentio .000 .000 .063 . .000 .000 .000

n
newVTxQI .000 .000 .175 .000 . .000 .000

newABxQI .000 .000 .027 .000 .000 . .000

newvtxqixabxqi .000 .000 .331 .000 .000 .000 .

N new_threat_appra 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
isal

new_voluntary_tu 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

rnover

new_absenteesim 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

new_quit_intentio 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

n

newVTxQI 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

newABxQI 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

newvtxqixabxqi 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

 28

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 new_quit_intention, . Enter
new_absenteesim,
new_voluntary_turnove
rb
2 newvtxqixabxqi, . Enter
newABxQI, newVTxQIb

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal

b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F

Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .366a .134 .109 .66071 .134 5.410 3 105 .002

2 .382b .146 .096 .66562 .012 .486 3 102 .693

a. Predictors: (Constant), new_quit_intention, new_absenteesim, new_voluntary_turnover

b. Predictors: (Constant), new_quit_intention, new_absenteesim, new_voluntary_turnover, newvtxqixabxqi, newABxQI, newVTxQI

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 7.085 3 2.362 5.410 .002b

Residual 45.837 105 .437

Total 52.922 108

2 Regression 7.730 6 1.288 2.908 .012c

Residual 45.192 102 .443

Total 52.922 108

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal

b. Predictors: (Constant), new_quit_intention, new_absenteesim, new_voluntary_turnover
c. Predictors: (Constant), new_quit_intention, new_absenteesim, new_voluntary_turnover, newvtxqixabxqi,
newABxQI, newVTxQI
 29

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) .811 .631 1.285 .201

new_voluntary_tur .128 .111 .116 1.152 .252 .242 .112 .105

nover

new_absenteesim .201 .294 .063 .684 .496 .010 .067 .062

new_quit_intention .252 .084 .305 3.009 .003 .345 .282 .273

2 (Constant) .912 2.278 .400 .690

new_voluntary_tur -.351 .606 -.317 -.580 .563 .242 -.057 -.053

nover

new_absenteesim .528 1.056 .165 .500 .618 .010 .049 .046

new_quit_intention .201 .978 .243 .205 .838 .345 .020 .019

newVTxQI .206 .326 .883 .634 .527 .358 .063 .058

newABxQI -.113 .458 -.266 -.247 .805 .342 -.024 -.023

newvtxqixabxqi -.006 .021 -.242 -.298 .766 .365 -.030 -.027

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal

 30

Excluded Variablesa

Collinearity Statistics

Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation Tolerance

1 newVTxQI .485b 1.082 .282 .106 .041

newABxQI -.402b -.436 .663 -.043 .010

newvtxqixabxqi .210b .820 .414 .080 .126

a. Dependent Variable: new_threat_appraisal

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), new_quit_intention, new_absenteesim, new_voluntary_turnover