The measurement of levels of work stress in individuals

employed in an organisation undergoing change

by

Carla Grove

Dissertation in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF ARTS IN PSYCHOLOGY

in the

FACULTY OF ARTS

at the

RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY

Study leader: Prof. G.P. de Bruin

October 2004

GroveC Page 1
 Acknowledgements

A sincere thank-you to Prof. Zak Nel for encouraging me to embark on this

study, and having the belief in me to finish it. To my husband for his
support. And a very special thank you to Joshua for his insistence on
helping me to type, and for the time he has allowed me to do something
for myself.

GroveC Page 2
 Table of Contents

Chapter One - Problem Statement and Purpose

1.1 Introduction 6
1.2 Problem 7
1.3 Purpose 10
1.4 Core definitions 10
1.5 Overview of dissertation 10
Chapter Two - Workplace Stress
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 Definitions of Workplace Stress 13
2.3 Sources of Workplace Stress 15
2.3.1 Intrinsic Job Characteristics 16
2.3.1.1 Physical Environment Demands 16
2.3.1.2. Workload 17
2.3.1.3. Technology 18
2.3.2 Organisational Roles 19
2.3.2.1 Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity 9
2.3.2.2 Role Overload 20
2.3.3 Work Relationships 20
2.3.4 Career Development 21
2.3.4.1 Job Insecurity 22
2.3.4.2 Promotion and career advancement 24
2.3.5 Organisational Factors 24
2.3.6. Home work interface 25
2.4 Conclusion 26
Chapter Three - Organisational Change and Stress
3.1 Introduction 27
3.2 Factors that drive change in the workplace 28
3.2.1 Changes in job characteristics that drive change in the workplace 29
3.2.2 Changes in organisational structures 29
3.2.3 Globalisation of the economy 29
3.2.4 Socio-political changes 30
3.3 Types of organisational change 30

GroveC Page 3
3.3.1 Mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing’s 32
3.4 Resistance to organisational change 35
3.5 Models of Organisational Change 38
3.5.1 Lewin’s Force Field Analysis of Change 38
3.5.2 Contemporary models of organisational change 39
3.5.3 Scheins’ Planned Change Theory 42
3.7 The reduction of stress during organisational change 43
3.7.1 Coping strategies 43
3.7.2. Change capable organizations 45
3.7.3 The experience of a change process as one of death and dying 47
3.7.3 Incidents that help or hinder in organisational downsizing 48
3.7.4 Employee readiness for change 52
3.8 Conclusion 53
Chapter Four - Method
4.1 Introduction 54
4.2 Restatement of Research Problem 54
4.3 Hypothesis 55
4.4 Participants 55
4.5 Instruments 56
4.5.1 Demographic questionnaire 56
4.5.2 Sources of Work Stress Inventory 57
4.6 Procedures 59
4.7 Statistical Analysis 60
Chapter Five - Results
5.1 Introduction 62
5.2 Descriptive Statistics 62
5.3 Rank Order of the Sources of Stress 63
5.4 Correlations between the Sources of Stress and General Stress 64
5.5 Repeated Measures MANOVA 66
5.6 Repeated Measures ANOVA 66
5.7 Conclusion 67
Chapter Six - Discussion
6.1 Introduction 68
6.2 Discussion of the Results of the Hypotheses 68

GroveC Page 4
6.3 Theoretical Implications 72
6.4 Implications for practice and future research 73
6.5 Methodological Implications 74
6.6 Limitations 74
6.7 Summary and Conclusion 75

TABLE 1 - Means and Standard Deviations for the SWSI scales 63

TABLE 2 - Rank Order of Sources of Stress 64
TABLE 3 - Correlations Between Sources of Work Stress 65
TABLE 4 - Repeated Measures ANOVA for the Nine Sources of Stress
Scales 67

GroveC Page 5
 ABSTRACT

The goal of this study was to measure levels of workplace stress, on two
occasions, in an organisation undergoing change that included a merger,
downsizing exercise, and restructure. This study was regarded as
important as although it is well documented that transformational change
leads to increased levels of employee stress, it is imperative to identify
whether coping strategies implemented by the organisation are sufficient
in addressing employee distress. The identification of the most salient
sources of stress for employees in a specific change setting is also
important since the organisation can then address these sources
specifically rather than to apply a generalised coping strategy.

Two non-random samples were taken from the employees of an

organisation undergoing transformational change. The first sample
consisted of 336 respondents and the second sample consisted of 102
respondents. Existing literature indicates that organisational change leads
to increased levels of employee workplace stress as a result of the
employees inability to cope with change. It is recommended by the
literature that a number of coping strategies for change be implemented by
the organisation during change initiatives. The Sources of Work Stress
Inventory was used to measure work related stress. This inventory
consists of two sections, a General Work Stress scale which measures
general levels of occupational stress, and Nine Sources of Stress scales
which highlight possible sources or triggers of stress.

The study provided empirical support for the theorised notion that
organisational change initiatives lead to increased levels of stress among
employees. Further, the results supported theoretical and research
findings which propose that job security, career advancement, and work
overload are all salient sources of stress in organisational change settings
that involve merger, restructure and downsizing activities.

GroveC Page 6
 The results of this study demonstrated that the implementation of a
number of contemporary change management strategies did not fully
assist in improving the coping ability of employees in this specific change
setting. As a result it was recommended that future change management
strategies or more specifically coping strategies, should include a more
humanistic and psychologically supportive approach as demonstrated in a
number of recent research findings.

GroveC Page 7
 CHAPTER 1
Problem Statement and Purpose

1.1 Introduction

In many organisations change is taking place at an ever-increasing rate

(Schabracq, Winnubst, & Cooper, 2003). Globalization of the economy, ever
increasing competition, and the rapid pace of technological change may be
seen as responsible for bringing about the ever-increasing pace of change in
the working environment on a world wide scale (Schabracq & Cooper, 2000;
Joiner, 2001). As a result, more and more employees today are faced with
changes they never asked for. These continual unasked for changes often
give rise to stress reactions in employees, resulting in a number of negative
consequences for both the employee and the organisation (Tosi & Neal, 2003;
Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999 ).

Since employees invest a large amount of time and effort in acquiring their
present skills and capabilities, pressure to change these adaptations to the
requirements of their working environment are viewed as infractions on the
employees identity and reality, especially when the changes are forced from
without (Schabracq et al., 2003). Employees resist change as it is perceived
as threatening their needs for job security, social interaction, current status,
competence, or self esteem. However, it is the accompanying psychological
cost of the strain imposed on people as they try to adjust to change that forms
the main reason for resistance to change (Newstrom & Davies, 1997). As a
result, employees experience work stress in response to this loss or lack of
control (Bergh & Theron, 2001).

Change requires coping or adaptive responses from the individual. When

individual’s perceive that they have little or no control over changes or
challenges, their stress levels may increase. On the other hand, when
individual’s feel that control is possible, they view the challenge positively and
believe that it can be met. It follows then that individuals would be able to

GroveC Page 8
reduce discrepancies between perceived control and lack of control and
would therefore be less likely to experience distress (Fisher, 1994).

Scheins’ (1988) classical work suggests that unless organisations recognize

that change may give rise to stress reactions in employees, and as such
implement internal organisational measures and conditions that are necessary
for effective coping to occur, most change efforts will fail.

1.2 Problem

Employees in an organisation undergoing change may experience increased

levels of workplace stress if they perceive that they are unable to cope with
the demands made on them as a result of the organisational changes
implemented. The employees perception with regard to his or her ability to
cope with change is moderated both by the support provided by the
organisation during the period of change and the magnitude or type of
organisational change. While individual differences in employees, because of
biological and psychological attributes, may also influence reactions to
change, these factors will be expressly excluded from this study.

The context of the study is the merger of two private education organisations
that are in the process of change. Both organisations were separate divisions
of a holding company undergoing a restructuring process. The rationale
behind the integration of these two separate divisions was threefold: (a) to
consolidate competing products in the two divisions, (b) to offer the market an
improved life long learning experience through the wider variety of products
on offer, and (c) to take out all duplicate support structures and head office
costs thereby increasing the profitability of the business and ensuring its
survival into the future.

While the one organisation had a formal, academically orientated structure

with a culture that could be described as hierarchical (typified by formal rules
and policies that govern what people do), the other much smaller organisation
had a less formal structure with a culture that could be described as clan

GroveC Page 9
orientated (typified by shared values and goals, cohesion and
participativeness). The Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)
as developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999), was used to diagnose the
cultures of each organisation. This instrument was administered by the human
resources department in February 2003. Both organisations were proud of
their current cultures and staff from the two different organisations criticized
one another because of these differences.

The decision to merge was announced to all staff simultaneously via satellite
connection in December 2002. Although the presentation outlined the obvious
benefits to the organisations as a result of this merger, all references to
possible downsizing activities and job losses were carefully avoided.

In January 2003 the executive teams of both organisations participated in a

joint integration planning session in order to identify projects required for the
merger to be realized. Members from each of the executive committees were
evenly allocated to work on these projects. While in theory this process was
positive as it allowed the executives from both organisations to get to know
one another on an individual level, the reality was that competition and
criticism between certain of the executives gained momentum in the climate of
fierce competition for position and power.

The Chief Executive Officer of the larger “acquiring” organisation was tasked
with deciding on both the new organisational management structure as well
as the selection of the individuals who would fill these positions. The new
organisational management structure was announced to all staff in June 2003
and the merger of both organisations was finally formalized.

With the new executive committee came an increase in the centralization of

certain tasks and functions. Further, since the new management structure had
positions with new roles and responsibilities, and a number of the previous
executives were placed in new positions, a certain amount of confusion and
territorialism arose over who was responsible for what and who had the last

GroveC Page 10
call on certain matters. With the executive committee’s main focus being on
their roles and power base, communication to other levels of staff declined.

Over the next six months the new organisation underwent a number of
internal changes not least of which were the changes in management at
executive level. Other changes implemented in the organisation over the six
month period following the merger included the roll out of new IT systems for
both the student management system and the financial reporting system, the
reintroduction of debt collection and credit vetting which was previously an
outsourced function, the implementation of a complete human resources
system in the “acquired” company which had no such processes before the
merger, the closure of two of the “acquired” companies branches and the
retrenchment of all the staff in these branches, the franchising of one of the
national niche product divisions and the retrenchment of all of this divisions
staff, the introduction of improved employee benefits for the “acquired”
companies staff, the introduction of a new sales management process, the
introduction of a new student enrollment process, and finally the consolidation
of product offerings and the launch of new product ranges. Change
management initiatives implemented during this period included the
development and implementation of a communication strategy which
consistently communicated the organisation’s new vision and values, the
publication of an employee newsletter which announced and “cheered” all
progress made on the planned changes, and the implementation of a reward
and recognition system for employee participation and innovation with regard
to the above mentioned changes.

Although it could be argued that the above changes are beneficial to both the
organisation and it’s remaining employees, the concern needs to be raised
with regard to the effect of these numerous changes on the stress levels of
these employees. Based on the assumption that increased stress levels could
indicate ineffective coping behavior, stress levels would need to be monitored
in order to assess whether or not employees are coping with these numerous
changes.

GroveC Page 11
1.3 Purpose

The principal aim of this study is to track changes in workplace stress levels
over time in an organisation undergoing a number of changes. The objectives
of this study are to (a) administer a questionnaire, namely the Sources of
Work Stress Inventory (SWSI), in order to provide a measure of general levels
of stress as well as possible triggers or sources of stress (b) to take these
measurements one month before the merger and 6 months after the merger
(c) to compare the results of the first test with the second test and relate these
results to the changes in the organisation.

1.4 Core definitions

For the purposes of this study a core definition of workplace stress and
sources of workplace stress will be provided below. While a literature survey
of definitions of workplace stress will demonstrate the many and varied
definitions on offer, for the purpose of this study workplace stress may be
defined as a result of a combination of environmental pressures on a person
and his or her individual response to these pressures or demands. As such,
workplace stress is viewed neither as a response, nor as a stimulus, but
rather as an interaction between the individual and the environment in which
they function. Sources of workplace stress may be classified as environmental
constraints present in the workplace, or differently put, environmental aspects
that prevent employees from coping with demands placed on them.

1.5 Overview of dissertation

Now that the problem statement has been formulated and the purpose of the
study has been provided, chapter two will form a literature review of
workplace stress including an overview of definitions of workplace stress and
the various sources of workplace stress. Chapter three will look at the effect of
change in organisations and how this relates to levels of stress and coping
behaviors of individuals employed in these organisations. Chapter four will
describe the steps taken to conduct this study including a discussion on the

GroveC Page 12
salient feature of the participants and how they were selected, a description of
the psychometric adequacy of the instrument used in this study, and a
detailed discussion on the procedures used in deriving the sample and
collecting the data. A statement of the hypothesis will also be provided in
chapter four. Chapter five will look at the results obtained by statistical
analysis. Finally, chapter six will reflect on the findings of this study by
providing a discussion of the results of the hypothesis, comparing the
relationships of the results to previous theory and research, outlining
methodological implications, providing implications of the research for practice
and future research, and discussing the limitations of this study.

GroveC Page 13
 CHAPTER TWO
Workplace Stress

2.1 Introduction

The severe consequences of work related stress are well documented and
include negative psychological, physical and behavioural outcomes for the
individual, as well as a number of detrimental effects on the organisation.
These consequences are outlined below.

On the individual level these consequences include, but are not limited to job
dissatisfaction (Beehr, 1995), low organisational commitment (Jones, Flynn &
Kelloway, 1996), burnout (Doyle & Hind, 1998), cardiovascular disease
(Theorall & Karasek, 1996), risk of psychiatric disorders (Bonn & Bonn, 2000)
disabling ulcers (Cooper & Marshall, 1978), and increased symptoms of
depression (Revicki & Whitley, 1996).

On an organisational level, Beehr (1995) outlined two major outcomes of

occupational stress: employee withdrawal and reduced job performance.
Lateness, absenteeism, turnover and psychological withdrawal are listed by
Beehr (1995) as types of employee withdrawal. These types of withdrawal
occur when the employee perceives the workplace to be unpleasant and as a
result attempts to avoid it. This mismanaged workplace stress can cost
companies dearly in terms of lost productivity, decreased performance, high
medical aid costs, and loss of much needed experience and skill.

Schabracq and Cooper (2000) cite a number of other possible costs of

workplace stress to organisations. These include low morale, low quality
products and services, poor internal communication, increased levels of
conflict, bad publicity, loss of irate and offended customers, high costs with
regard to staff replacements as a result of increased turnover, and vacancies
that cannot be filled.

GroveC Page 14
This chapter will first outline the different definitions of stress provided by
researchers, and will then offer a definition of stress for the purposes of this
paper. A literature review on the sources of workplace stress is then given.
These environmental sources of strain are differentiated into six primary work
related stressors namely: Factors intrinsic to the job itself, roles in the
organisation, relationships at work, career development issues, organizational
factors such as structure, climate, culture and political environment, and the
home work interface. While an exhaustive description of all potential stressors
in each of these categories is not provided, some of the crucial factors
explored in research will be highlighted in order to demonstrate the
relationship between environmental constraints and worker experiences of
strain.

2.2 Definitions of Workplace Stress

While there appears to be a general consensus that workplace stress is an

important subject since it carries with it a number of dire consequences as
described above, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than to find a single agreed upon definition of stress. This apparent lack of
consensus is explained by Beehr (1995) as partly due to the various
professional approaches to stress and their differing research skills and
orientations. These approaches include medicine (physical stressors and
strains), clinical psychology (psychological stressors and strains), engineering
psychology (human factor specialists), and organisational psychology
(organisational behaviour and management). To add to this confusion stress
has been defined as a stimulus, a response, and as a result of an interaction
between the two, with some type of imbalance between the person and the
environment as the focus of this interaction (Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll,
2001).

A response based definition of stress would be “the unhealthy response of the

individual at a particular time to the wide variety of factors affecting him at the
time” (Melhuish, 1981, p.13). The problem with response based definitions of
stress is that responses may vary over time since individuals are able to adapt

GroveC Page 15
to potential sources of stress. Although this approach recognises that stress
reactions per se are not always negative and that certain levels of stress are
in fact necessary for development, motivation, and change to occur, the
response approach fails to consider environmental factors in the stress
process (Cooper, et al, 2001).

In an attempt to address the shortcomings of the response based definitions

of stress a stimulus based approach to define stress evolved. This stimulus
based approach placed emphasis on the identification of potential sources of
stress.

Both of the above approaches however ignore the individuals’ perception and
appraisal of stressors. A more generally accepted view of stress, which
incorporates the above variables, is that of Lazarus and Folkman (1984)
which states that stress results if demands placed on a person tax or exceed
their perceived ability to cope with the demands. A similar definition of stress
is proposed by Bergh and Theron (2001) in which it is proposed that, “stress
is a condition which develops when the demands made on people exceed
their adaptive (coping) abilities” (p.480). An extension of the view that stress
results from an imbalance between demand and capacity is proposed by
Fisher (1994), “stress is perceived whenever there is low personal control or
jurisdiction over the physical, psychological or social environment”. (p.2)

Fletcher (1991) on the other hand views stress as the result of an imbalance
in the demands and constraints placed on an individual in relation to the
support available to that individual. This view is supported by Bonn and Bonn
(2000) who propose that stress, in essence, is “a perception that the
resources available do not match the demands made” (p.1).

Although many definitions of stress appear to say different things, a common

thread that can be found in most definitions is that stress is a result of a
combination of environmental pressures on a person and his or her individual
response to these pressures or demands.

GroveC Page 16
2.3 Sources of Workplace Stress

Cooper, Dewe, and O’Driscoll (2001) site Karaseks’ (1979) job demands-
control model (Job Strain Model), as an important basis for much of the later
research conducted on job related stressors. Karasek (1979) identified job
demands, and the discretion allowed to meet these demands, as the two main
elements in the working environment that contribute to job stress. Karaseks’
(1979) fundamental proposition was that while excessive work demands could
be clearly linked to increased levels of strain, the actual impact of these
demands was moderated by the level of control perceived by the individual.
Karasek (1979) defines “active” jobs as those with high levels demand and
decision latitude, while “passive” jobs have low levels of demand and decision
latitude. The individual will experience job strain when job demands are high
and decision latitude is low. Similarly, low strain will be experienced when job
demands are low and decision latitude is high.

There are however a number of other factors which play a role in the creation
of work related stress. Cooper, Dewe, and O’Driscoll (2001) identify three
major categories of determinants of strain: job specific sources, organisational
sources, and individual (personal) sources. While individual factors play an
important role, the focus of this paper will be on environmental constraints -
“those aspects of the environment that prevent a person or group from coping
with demands” (Jones & Fletcher, 1996, p.34).

According to Cartwright and Cooper (1997) these environmental sources of

strain may be further differentiated into six primary work related stressors
namely: Factors intrinsic to the job itself, roles in the organisation,
relationships at work, career development issues, organisational factors such
as structure, climate, culture and political environment, and the home work
interface. While an exhaustive description of all potential stressors in each of
these categories will not be provided, some of the crucial factors explored in
research will be highlighted in order to demonstrate the relationship between
environmental constraints and worker experiences of strain.

GroveC Page 17
Although the above classification system offers a useful framework to explore
the physical and psychological sources of job related strain, it must however
be noted that peoples’ responses to stressors are part of a dynamic process.

2.3.1 Intrinsic Job Characteristics

According to Cooper, Dewe and O’Driscoll (2001) this category of stressors is

connected to the performance of specific tasks that make up an individuals
job, as well as to the work environment in specific, and work scheduling
factors. The physical demands of the working environment such as noise,
vibration and temperature will be briefly discussed first. Then workload and
technological changes will be reviewed. The role of lack of discretion and
control as a source of strain has already been discussed above in Karaseks’
(1979) Job Strain Model.

2.3.1.1 Physical Environment Demands

The physical demands of work surroundings represent some of the earliest

forms of stressors investigated by researchers. Cooper, Dewe and O’Driscoll
(2001) cite the early investigations of blue-collar workers by Munsterberg
(1913) and Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) aimed at identifying the links
between physical conditions and productivity. This research demonstrated the
importance of the relationship between environmental factors and health.
However, the Hawthorne studies conducted by Roethlisberger and Dickson
(1939) also played an important role in the development of the significance of
“subjective reactivity”, which means that an individuals’ experience of
environmental factors is highly subjective. As such threshold levels in terms of
temperature, noise, and light differ from person to person.

While certain sounds, such as music and language, are enjoyed by people
and enrich their lives, unwanted sound is referred to as noise. Ivancevich and
Matteson (1980) contended that strain can be caused by excessive noise
(approximately 80 decibels or more) reoccurring on a prolonged basis. This

GroveC Page 18
results in reduced worker tolerance of other stressors and can adversely
effect motivation.

Extreme temperature and vibration are also acknowledged as major sources

of environmental strain. Apart from the negative psychological effects reported
such as annoyance and deterioration of task performance, physical health
hazards include nausea, fatigue and loss of balance (Cooper, et al, 2001).

Sutherland and Cooper (1988) include ventilation and humidity, lighting and
illumination levels, hygiene, and climate in their conceptualisation of physical
environmental demands which may result in employee strain. Bergh and
Theron (2001) also cite sustained concentration, physical exhaustion, and a
poorly designed workplace and equipment as sources of environmental strain.

2.3.1.2. Workload

Both work overload and work underload can result in psychological and
physical strain. According to the Yerkes-Dodson Law, proposed by Yerkes
and Dodson in 1908, an inverted-U relationship exists between the amount of
work demanded of an individual and the health and performance of that
individual. Strain is likely to occur when there is a substantial deviation above
or below the optimal band of workload for the particular individual (Sutherland
& Cooper, 1988).

It is important to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative overload and

underload. Jimmieson (2000) defines quantitative work overload as the belief
by an employee that the demands of a job exceed the volume of work
required to be completed within a specific timeframe. While having to work
under pressure to meet strict deadlines is a major source of quantitative
overload, monotonous and routine work is a source of quantitative underload,
both situations leading to high levels of strain, anxiety and depression
(Cooper, et al, 2001). Irregular flow of work beyond the control of the
individual may also result in work overload and underload (Sutherland &
Cooper, 1988).

GroveC Page 19
Qualitative overload and underload are associated with the individuals’
affective reactions to their job. While qualitative overload refers to the
individuals conviction that they do not have the necessary skills or capabilities
to complete the tasks required of them, qualitative underload refers to
situations in which individuals are unable to demonstrate or use their acquired
skills or to develop to their full potential. Both factors are potent sources of
psychological strain (Cooper et al, 2001).

A study by Sweeney and Summers (2002) found that the escalated workload
of public accountants during the “busy season” resulted in the increase of job
burnout levels to a rate rarely reported in the research literature. During the
busy season the subjects’ weekly workload increased from 49 hours to 63
hours per week. As a result of the increase in hours the incidents of
accountants experiencing burnout increased. Burnout may be defined as a
syndrome, which consists of three components that manifest in a sequential
manner over a period of time. These components include emotional
exhaustion, depersonalisation, and reduced personal accomplishment. This
classical definition of burnout is widely accepted and is based on the 1986
work of Maslach and Jackson (1986).

2.3.1.3. Technology

With the need to keep up with swiftly changing technology in the workplace,
many people may experience stress or overload as a result of inadequate
training and preparation in order to cope with new innovations. Cartwright and
Cooper (1997) found that business executives and managers often
experience strain when attempting to keep up with new technology, and
Korunka, Weis, Huemer and Karetta (1995) noted that changes in employee
job satisfaction and physical health were related to the introduction of new
technology.

Similarly, inadequate or outdated technology in the workplace can contribute

to strain. Employees are unable to properly complete tasks assigned to them

GroveC Page 20
when the equipment given them to complete such tasks constantly breaks
down or is ineffective and unable to assist them. As such, the time an
employee takes to fulfil the tasks increases and the employee may experience
frustration and strain as a result.

2.3.2 Organisational Roles

Organisational roles refers to the behaviours and actions expected of an

individual and the demands placed on that individual in respect of the job that
individual performs.

2.3.2.1 Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity

Kahn et al. (1964) were the first to highlight the importance of role related
strain, and defined role dysfunctions as occurring in two primary ways: role
ambiguity (insufficient clarity on expected role behaviours) and role conflict
(conflicting or competing job demands) (Cooper et al, 2001). Role conflict and
role ambiguity have been the most commonly investigated sources of role
related strain, and while often treated as one, these two factors are
conceptually distinct.

Role ambiguity may be defined as “deficient or uncertain information in the

environment regarding role behaviours expected of the focal person” (Beehr,
1995, p.58). Role conflict on the other hand is defined as “the existence of two
or more sets of expectations on the focal person … such that compliance with
one makes compliance with the other more difficult” (Beehr, 1995, p.58).

Although a number of studies have demonstrated that role conflict has a

detrimental effect on both self reported strain and physiological indicators of
strain, the association between ambiguity and strain is far stronger (Cooper et
al, 2001). Further, a recent study by Tidd and Friedman (2002) found that
employees who act more assertively in managing conflict are less likely to
experience uncertainty as a consequence of role conflict. As such, uncertainty
may act as a mediator in the role stress process.

GroveC Page 21
Irving and Coleman (2003) investigated the possible moderating effects of
employee organisational commitment on relations between role ambiguity and
job tension as an outcome of stress. Two different forms of organizational
commitment were investigated: affective commitment, which refers to an
individuals’ motivation to remain with an organization because they want to,
and continuance commitment, which refers to an individuals’ desire to remain
with an organization because they have to. While affective commitment may
be seen as the consequence of an employees’ involvement, shared values,
and identification with an organization, continuous commitment is the result
of a fear lost investment in the organization for the employee or an inability to
find other employment.

While a number of studies have shown that organizational commitment has a

buffering effect on stressor-strain relationships, others have found no
verification of this. The study by Irving and Coleman (2003) found that both
continuance commitment and affective commitment exacerbated the
relationship between role ambiguity and job tension.

2.3.2.2 Role Overload

This third role variable is defined by Cooper, Dewe and O’Driscoll (2001) as,
“the number of different roles a person has to fulfill”. (p.39). Role overload was
found to be a major source of job related strain by Cooper (1987) since not
only does it place excessive demands on the individuals’ time, but it also may
create uncertainty within the individual with regard to his or her ability to
adequately perform required roles. This uncertainty, if persistent, may in itself
lead to dissatisfaction and psychological strain in the individual and negatively
effect employee well being.

2.3.3 Work Relationships.

Both the quality of interpersonal relationships at work as well as the lack of

social support from others in the workplace are potential sources of job-

GroveC Page 22
related strain. Sutherland and Cooper (1988) define poor relationships at work
as being, “ low trust, low levels of supportiveness, and low interest in problem
solving within the organization”. (p.17). Further, Sutherland and Cooper
(1988) argue that psychological strain in the form of low job satisfaction,
decreased well-being, and feelings of being threatened or victimized by
superiors and colleges are all a result of mistrust. On the other hand,
employees who receive social support in the form of group cohesion,
interpersonal trust and supportive supervision, are found to have decreased
levels of perceived job strain and better health (McLean, 1979).

Interpersonal demands placed on individuals in the workplace may also

contribute to the individuals’ experience of work related stress. Quick and
Quick (1984) proposed five types of interpersonal demands in the workplace,
namely: Status incongruence, social density, abrasive personalities,
leadership style, and group pressure.

Status incongruence occurs when an individual believes or perceives that his

or her status is not what it should be, especially when that status is lower than
the individuals’ expectations. Frustration and stress will also however occur
when an individual perceives that the status assigned to that particular job is
higher than it should be.

Social density refers to crowding or lack of adequate personal workspace.

The need for interpersonal space and distance varies from one individual to
another, and may be experienced as too little (isolation and restriction of
conversation), or too much (aggravation and annoyance) (Sutherland &
Cooper, 1988).

Individuals who disregard the feelings and emotions of others in the

workplace are referred to as abrasive personalities (Cooper et al, 2001). Their
perfectionist, self-centered, disdainful, and critical style often results in
increased levels of strain and feelings of inadequacy among their co-workers
and especially their subordinates.

GroveC Page 23
Autocratic and authoritarian leadership styles have been found to induce
strain among subordinates as a result of their focus on task orientation to the
detriment of good relationship management. Task orientated leaders tend to
ignore employee needs, attitudes, and motivations, often ignoring the need for
feedback on performance, praise, and recognition for a job well done
(O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994). While certain individuals do not experience strain
as a result of authoritarian leadership styles, the majority of employees prefer
to have some type of input into work decisions affecting them and some
degree of control or discretion with regard to their job. This lack of discretion,
as demonstrated in Karaseks (1979) job strain model, contributes significantly
to job related strain (Cooper et al, 2001).

Lastly, group pressure to conform to the social norms of both formal and
informal groups is a potential source of strain to individuals. Strain occurs
when group norms are at odds with the individuals’ values, beliefs or
behaviors (Sutherland & Cooper, 1988).

2.3.4 Career Development

Job insecurity, perceived underpromotion or overpromotion, and a sense of

lack of achievement of goals or ambitions are included in this category of
potential stressors.

2.3.4.1 Job Insecurity

According to Mauno and Kinnunen (1999) job insecurity is conceptually

distinct from the experience of job loss since as a job stressor it, “signifies that
the subjective probability concerning the threat of job loss or the threat of
losing an important job dimension may produce more anxiety and tension
than an actualized job loss” (p.149). In essence, job insecurity refers to the
fear of job loss or redundancy, or the fear of loss of an important aspect of a
job.

GroveC Page 24
This potential stressor is especially prolific as the incidence of restructures
and downsizings increase globally in order to improve organizational
competitiveness and survival (Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999). To add to
these fears the traditional contracts of employment are being rapidly replaced
with temporary contracts, and in many sectors new technologies have
resulted in the automation and the consequent deskilling of jobs (Schabracq &
Cooper, 2000).

As the incidence of restructures and downsizings increase in organisations

across the globe, it appears safe to argue that job insecurity may soon
become the single most important source of workplace strain. The threat of
job loss not only effects the socio-emotional well being of an organisation’s
employees, but it is also associated with a number of serious health problems
including ulcers, colitis, alocia, and increased muscular complaints (Cooper,
et al, 2001). Further, Mauno and Kinnunen (1999) list reduced job satisfaction,
decreased work and organisational commitment, and impaired work
performance as possible outcomes of job insecurity sited in numerous
research articles.

It follows then that job insecurity not only negatively affects employee well-
being, but also organisational efficiency since the consequent low morale and
motivation of the workforce has a negative impact on productivity and
efficiency. To add to this, it appears that the negative impact of redundancy
can be extended beyond those directly effected, and so the perceived positive
economic consequences on organizational profitability must be called into
question. Studies have shown that the survivors of downsizings experience a
decline in job satisfaction and organisational commitment, increased
interpersonal conflict, and more often than not resist change (Cooper et al,
2001).

It should be noted, however, that a cross-sectional study conducted between

1994 and 1998 by Vlerick, Moreau, Mak and Kornitzer (2003) found that the
perceptions of job insecurity varied according to the economic sector, gender,
and scale used. Job insecurity was found to be more prevalent in the private

GroveC Page 25
sector than in the public sector. Women reported higher levels of job
insecurity than did men. The most significant predictors of job insecurity were
psychosocial job characteristics such as low job control and organisational
characteristics such as poor organisational communication. Individual
characteristics such as low self-efficacy and high job involvement at best only
predicted the emotional aspects of job loss, for example, worry and anxiety.
Further, research by Bussing (1999) demonstrated that the level of job control
exercised by an employee was the single most important influencing resource
with regard to the level of stress experienced as a result of job insecurity.

2.3.4.2 Promotion and career advancement

The lack of ability to advance one’s career or to be promoted within the

organisation is a major source of dissatisfaction and psychological strain for
employees (Jewell, 1998). Although strain is more often than not caused by a
lack of advancement or underpromotion, strain may also occur when
individuals feel overpromoted or promoted beyond their capabilities. This
usually occurs when adequate training or preparation for the new position has
not been provided (Cooper et al, 2001).

2.3.5 Organisational Factors

It is important to note that Clarke and Cooper (2000) contend that

organisational factors have a higher impact on job related strain than do
factors intrinsic to the job. Certain organisational and management styles may
result in increased levels of strain, and include lack of participation by
employees in the decision-making process, ineffective consultation, poor
communication, and office politics. Hierarchical, bureaucratic organisational
structures are characterized by poor communication and exclusion of
employees from the decision making process. Conversely, Jones, Flynn and
Kelloway (1996) argue that the perception by employees that the organisation
is committed to them, is an important moderating factor on the effects of
workplace stress.

GroveC Page 26
It has been found that both the content and the nature of communication
processes within an organisation could affect employee’s responses to both
their jobs and to the organisation as a whole. When communication is
inadequate, particularly between management and non-management, it can
contribute to increased levels of strain (O’Driscoll & Evans, 1998, O’Driscoll &
Cooper, 1996). Further, organisational structures associated with increased
opportunities to participate in decisions are associated with higher levels of
job satisfaction and commitment to the organisation, and an increased sense
of well-being (Cartwright, Cooper, & Murphy, 1996).

2.3.6. The home work interface

Sometimes referred to as work/non-work conflict, this issue deals with the

management of the relationship between an individuals roles and
responsibilities both on and off the job, and its potential as a source of strain
(O’Driscoll, 1996). An individual’s non-work life roles, such as parenting,
relationships, religion, and leisure and social activities may influence or have
a spillover effect at the workplace, while conversely work roles and
responsibilities influence non-work roles (Bergh & Theron, 2001).

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) delineate three forms of work/non-work conflict

namely: time-based conflict, behavior-based conflict, and strain-based
conflict. These are discussed below.

Time-based conflict refers to the conflict experienced by an individual when

work and home roles demand more time and energy than he or she has
available. As a result the individual would need to significantly reduce time
spent in the one area in order to meet the demands made in the other.

Behavior-based conflict occurs when the attitudes, behaviors, and values

required in one role are at odds with those required in another role. The
individual may experience tension when shifting from the set of behaviors
required on one role to the opposing set of behaviors required in the other
role.

GroveC Page 27
Strain-based conflict occurs when negative emotional experiences in one role
impact or interfere with the emotional behaviors in another role. For example,
stress from work can negatively affect family relationships and personal
issues can negatively affect work performance.

According to Phillips-Miller, Campbell, and Morrison (2000), in comparison to

men, career women tend to have less control over resources required to cope
with workplace stress. Not only do woman tend to provide a far larger portion
of child care and household responsibilities than do their male counterparts as
a result of them having less authority to change this inequitable situation in
marital relationships, but women also wield less power in their work
environment. As a result, increases in workplace stress, role overload, and
subsequent depression may occur (Greenberger & O’Neil, 1993).

Phillips-Miller, Campbell, and Morrison (2000) found that women veterinarians

reported significantly greater effects of marital and family stress on career
than did men. Women also reported less perceived spousal support for career
than did men.

2.4 Conclusion

While chapter two provided an outline of the different definitions of stress

proposed by researchers, it was contended that for the purposes of this study
stress would be defined as a result of a combination of environmental
pressures on a person and his or her individual response to these pressures
or demands. This definition relates to the purpose of this study in that the
change taking place in the organisation may be viewed as a form of
environmental pressure and that the response of the individuals in the
organisation is directly related to these changes. The study then went on to
outline a number of sources of workplace stress. This outline is important in
particular to the purpose of this study since it serves the purpose of identifying
which specific elements of the change could be related to increased levels of
strain.

GroveC Page 28
 CHAPTER 3
Organisational Change and Stress

3.1 Introduction

In many organisations change is taking place at an ever-increasing rate

(Schabracq et al, 2003). Globalization of the economy, ever increasing
competition, and the rapid pace of technological change may be seen as
responsible for bringing about the ever-increasing pace of change in the
working environment on a world wide scale (Schabracq & Cooper, 2000;
Joiner, 2001).

With the ever-increasing acceleration of the rate of change, and no gleam of

hope for a future de-escalation, it is vital that organisations learn to adapt to
this ever-changing environment in order to survive (Schabracq et al, 2003).
This ability to adapt requires a flexible approach, which allows both the
employee and the organisation to at least match environmental changes. This
means that employees need to constantly learn new ways of organising,
working, training and learning. It also means the acceptance, by both the
employee and organisation, of a new psychological contract (Strebel, 1998).

Newstrom & Davies (1997) provide a simple but effective definition of work
change as ” any alteration that occurs in the work environment” (p.398).
Hostile takeovers, mergers, acquisitions, management buy-outs, outsourcing,
organisational restructuring, and re-engineering are all examples of
organisational change. More and more employees today are faced with
changes they never asked for or anticipated. These continual, unasked for
changes often give rise to stress reactions in employees, resulting in a
number of negative consequences, for both the employee and the
organisation ( Tosi & Neal, 2003; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999). Unless
organisations recognize this and implement mechanisms that assist
employees in adapting to change, it is safe to say that most change efforts will
fail.

GroveC Page 29
This chapter will start off by examining both the internal and external factors
that drive change in organisations. An overview of types of organisational
change, including developmental change, transitional change, and
transformational change is then provided. Mergers, acquisitions, and
downsizings are discussed as specific types of change and recent research
findings on the effects of these specific types of change are provided.

Employee behaviors aimed at preventing, delaying, or discrediting

organisational change are discussed. These behaviors are known as
employee resistance to change and reasons for such resistances are cited.

An outline of a number of contemporary models of organisational change are

given in order to conceptualize the effect of organisational change on the
employee. While the majority of popular models today focus on change from
an organisational level, Schein’s (1988) planned change theory is discussed
as an example of a change model, which focuses on the individual.

Finally, an outline of the different views on how stress may be reduced in

organisational change situations is provided. An explanation of individual
coping strategies is given, followed by a number of strategies and tactics
organisations should employ in order to increase the coping behavior required
of an individual in order to better deal with change and therefore reduce levels
of strain.

3.2 Factors that drive change in the workplace

All organisations experience some degree of change on an ongoing

basis(Nahavandi & Malekzadeh; 1999, Senior, 1997). This type of internal
ongoing change is related to the recruitment of new employees, the creation
of new positions and roles in an organisation and the elimination of outdated
ones, an the updating and adjustment of work procedures and processes. In
addition to these internal forces of change, organisations are also faced with a
number of external forces that may bring about change. These external forces
form part of the organisation’s general and business environment and include

GroveC Page 30
factors such as economic climate, labour supply, new competition, changes in
technology, and socio-political changes (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh; 1999,
Senior, 1997).

3.2.1 Changes in job characteristics

Fundamental changes with regard to how people work, as well as the skills
required to perform such work, occur in most organisations. The introduction
of new technology and the move from physical tasks to intellectual tasks has
not only changed the nature of how people work, but has also forced people
to acquire new skill sets in order to cope with these changes (Tosi & Neal,
2003).

Many people experience stress or overload as a result of inadequate training

and preparation in order to cope with new technology in the workplace.
Similarly, inadequate or outdated technology in the workplace can contribute
to strain.

3.2.2 Changes in organisational structures

Downsizings, rightsizings, mergers, and acquisitions not only affect employee

numbers in an organization, but can also radically affect factors such as
management style, organisational culture, and employee commitment and
performance (Davis & Savage, 2003).

3.2.3 Globalisation of the economy

A shift to a global economy has brought about changes that affect both the
organisation and the individual. Firstly, increased globalization of the
marketplace has brought about an increase in global competitiveness (Tosi &
Neal, 2003). As such, organisations must constantly find ways to improve
their competitiveness. This leads to changes in organisational processes,
procedures and structures. Secondly, the global economy often requires that

GroveC Page 31
employees relocate to foreign countries where they are required to cope with
very different cultures ( Nehavandi & Malekzahdeh, 1999).

3.2.4 Socio-political changes

Accourding to Nehavandi and Malekzahdeh (1999) organisations are often

forced to respond to cultural, social, or political changes in the general
environment. Organisations may be required to adjust their culture and
strategy in order to better meet demographic changes in their customer base
and staff compliment. Further, organisations would need to change and re-
align their operating policies and procedures as new governments change
labour, financial, and other legislation.

In the South African context, the introduction of the Employment Equity Act
55 of 1998, has brought about a number of organisational challenges and
changes, not least of which being increased diversity within the workforce
(Thomas & Robertshaw,1999).

3.3 Types of organisational change

While both research and literature have shown organisational change to be

stressful to the individuals involved, Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1999) argue
that, “different types of change affect people to different degrees” (p.496). In
essence, change that is gradual and anticipated is usually met with less
resistance and tends to be less stressful than change that is sudden,
unexpected and more dramatic.

The above viewpoint is supported by Nelson (2003) who argues that change
is simply a normal response to internal and external forces, rather than a
departure from the norm. Incremental change occurs in organisations on a
continuous basis, and is normally interspersed by periods of more dramatic
change.

GroveC Page 32
Anderson and Anderson (2001) outline three types of organisational change;
developmental change, transitional change, and transformational change.
Developmental change refers to the improvement of current policies,
processes, systems, or practices within an organisation, in order to improve or
better current operations. Developmental change is usually the outcome of
relatively small changes in an organizations internal and external
environment, and as such is focused on the enhancement of current states
rather than the radical or dramatic problem solving processes required by
profound change. As such, while developmental change is both important and
challenging, it is not normally related to the strain inducing qualities of other
types of change. In fact, Anderson and Anderson (2001) point out that the
process of developmental change, “keeps people vibrant, growing, and
stretching through the challenge of attaining new performance levels” (p.34).
For Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1999) steady, incremental change is defined
as evolutionary change. Since the organisations’ employees do not
experience sudden shifts in work processes and structures, they are able to
adjust to these changes with little or no strain.

In contrast, Anderson and Anderson (2001) explain that transitional change is

more complex in that it requires an appropriate response to greater shifts in
environmental factors from the organisation in order to ensure it’s
competitiveness and survival. In this type of change scenario organisations
are required to find ways in which they can better serve current/and or future
demands. In other words, the organisation is required to move to a new, more
appropriate future state. In order to do this, the organisation would need to
leave its old operating state behind, and move through a period of transition in
which the new or future state is put into place. Since the transition state is
unique and distinct from the old state, transitional changes would normally
have clear start and end dates, and as such are usually project management
driven (Anderson & Anderson, 2001).

As long as people affected by the change are fully aware of, and committed to
such change, then the project management of transitional change is in most
instances effective. If, however, the transitional change strategy and the

GroveC Page 33
change programme itself are not aligned to the specific human dynamics of
the organisation, then the project becomes unmanageable in that the
employees impacted are likely to experience uncertainty, inertia, resistance to
the proposed changes, emotional pain or grief at the loss of the past, and fear
with regard to the individual’s ability to cope with the new organisational state
(Anderson & Anderson, 2001). As such, adequate planning and
communication of change processes during transitional change should be
implemented in order to avoid unnecessary human trauma as described
above (Hodge, Anthony & Gales, 2003).

Anderson and Anderson (2001) define transformational change as the radical

or fundamental move from one state of being to another. The most significant
difference between transitional change and transformational change is the
degree of focus required for the human and cultural components of the
change. Transformational change requires that all individuals in the
organisation view both their internal and external environment as well as
themselves in a completely different way. As a result, this type of change
requires a significant shift in organisational culture, behavior, and mindset in
order for the change to be implemented successfully. Anderson and Anderson
(2001) caution that since transformational change requires that both leaders
and employees undergo personal change, the type of approach used is of
paramount importance in order to ensure success.

Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1999) classify transformational change as

revolutionary change or frame-breaking change. While this type of change
may be planned it may also occur as a result of a response to a crises. In
either case, revolutionary change causes stress since organisations undergo
considerable redirection and the change is of a dramatic and intense nature.

3.3.1 Mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings as specific forms of

organisational change

Three distinct types of organisational change have been observed as a result

of efforts to increase chances of organisational survival and to increase

GroveC Page 34
productivity, namely: mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings. Definitions of
these specific types of change are provided below and recent research
findings on their effects on employees and the organisation are discussed.

According to Collins (2003), in a merger or acquisition, “one firm takes over or

joins with another firm to form a new company” (p.2). The increase of profits
and the improvement of shareholder value may be seen as the main drivers
behind mergers and acquisitions. Essentially, mergers and acquisitions are
often viewed by management as a better and quicker methods to grow a
business than to invest and wait for organic growth to occur. Research
however often indicates the contrary in that more than 50 percent of mergers
fail to increase value (Collins, 2003, Schabracq & Cooper, 2000).

Davis, Savage, Thomas Stewart, and Chapman (2003) define downsizing as

an attempt on the part of an organisation to increase profitability, boost
productivity, improve competitiveness, and to cut waste. These goals result in
the reduction or loss of employees, positions or jobs, departments and
divisions, or product lines.

An increasing number of American companies are using downsizing or staff

layoffs as a strategic response to environmental changes, despite the growing
number of studies that point out little or no long-term benefits to the
organisation (Collins, 2003; Schabracq & Cooper, 2000). To the contrary,
empirical studies have demonstrated that downsizings result in a number of
negative effects for the organisation including a decline in productivity, a
decrease in profitability, and an increase in negative employee behavior such
as absenteeism and conflict, for those employees who survived the
downsizing (Davis et al, 2003).

A study by Armstrong-Strassen (1998) on the satisfaction of nurses after a

restructure showed that nurses were less satisfied with certain aspects of their
job and work environment, including job security. These nurses were also less
satisfied with the treatment of retrenched nurses, and supervision. In essence

GroveC Page 35
the subjects experienced the downsizing exercise as a violation of their
psychological contract the part of their employer.

Wagar’s (2001) study on the results of permanent workforce reductions found

that absenteeism and employee conflict increased, supervisor-union
employee relations became poorer, the number of grievances filed increased,
and employee reported a far lower overall job satisfaction.

According to Cooper, Dewe and O’Driscoll (2001) mergers and acquisitions

may be viewed as a form of organisational bereavement since employees
would more than likely have to deal with feelings of loss. This bereavement
may be viewed as a result of the death of the organization as employees
know it. Feelings of loss of identity are typical in such situations. To
compound this problem, employees must also cope with the uncertainty
attendant with major organisational change.

This uncertainty is fuelled by what Burke (1988) terms as ‘merger syndrome’ –

a defensive, fear the worst response. Mergers are often marked by increased
centralization and decreased communication. The result is a grape vine that
runs rampant with rumors of ‘worst case’ scenarios. Inevitably employees
become distracted, productivity decreases and loss of key people often
occurs (Burke, 1988).

To add to this, Schabracq and Cooper (2000) point out that mergers bring
about organisational change on many levels. These changes mean that
employees have to cope with new groups of unpredictable and apprehensive
colleagues who come from different backgrounds and who have unclear
agendas. Further, employees in the new merged company need to cope with
a new set of working conditions, roles and responsibilities, policies and
procedures, and sometimes work locations.

A study by Boardman, Kelpe, Straub and Van Fleet (2003), on the merger of
two prominent Nebraska hospitals, highlighted a number of major concerns
voiced by the nurses involved. These concerns included fear of potential loss

GroveC Page 36
of history, fear of loss of identity and institutional trust, distrust with regard to
fair reimbursement, and uncertainty and questioning of leadership levels,
practice changes, relationships, and job security.

An obvious result of mergers, acquisitions and downsizing are employees’

concerns surrounding job insecurity and career development, factors that
have increasingly become a source of stress in the past two decades
(Cartwright & Cooper, 1992). This “career stress” has been shown to have a
number of negative outcomes including job dissatisfaction and poor work
performance (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980). In fact, Cooper et al (2001) cite
job insecurity as the single most salient source of stress for employees.

The increasing number of mergers and acquisitions, and downsizing activities

in organisations have resulted in major restructuring. These restructures more
often than not result in cultural change or conflict. Organisational culture is
defined by Joiner (2001) as, “a system of shared meaning within an
organisation which influences how people act” (p.3). This change or conflict
creates ambiguous working environments and individual cultural
incongruence. This type of environment is likely to be experienced as stressful
by the individual (Cartwright, Cooper & Murphy, 1996).

3.4 Resistance to organisational change

In his outline of planned change theory, Schein (1988) states: “the problem of
initiating change is especially salient because of the common observation that
people resist change, even when the goals are apparently highly desirable”
(p.243). In fact, Gill (2003) contends that resistance to change is a frequent
phenomenon. Resistance to change is made up of a number of employee
behaviors, which often aim to prevent, delay or discredit the implementation of
organisational change.

Gill (2003) classifies the reasons for resistance to change into two categories;
cognitive and behavioral reasons, and emotional or affective reasons.
Cognitive and behavioral reasons include a lack of knowledge with regard to

GroveC Page 37
the reasons for the change, a lack of substantiation with regard to the benefits
of the change, and a lack of confidence or belief that the change is needed.
This lack of conviction leads to a lack of motivation or incentive to change
(Gill, 2003).

Numerous emotional reasons for resistance to change may be found in

research literature. Newstrom and Davies (1997) propose that while
employees resist change, as it is perceived as threatening their needs for job
security, social interaction, current status, competence, or self-esteem, the
main reason for resistance to change may be seen as a result of the
psychological costs that accompany change. These psychological costs arise
as a result of the strain imposed on people as they try to adjust to change.

Since employees invest a large amount of time and effort in acquiring their
present skills and capabilities, pressure to change these adaptations to their
current working environments are viewed as infractions on the employees’
identity and reality, especially when the changes are forced from without
(Schabracq et al, 2003). In essence, Schabracq et al (2003) argue that work
stress may be viewed as a response to a loss or lack of control, which is a
common factor in any change situation.

Fisher’s (1995) contention that stress is a result of an imbalance between

demand and capacity, supports the above argument. This contention is
extended to include the idea that whenever there is low personal control over
the physical, psychological or social environment, stress is perceived by the
individual. In other words, change or challenge creates discrepancy, which
can bring about negative states of distress when the individual perceives that
they have low control in reducing that discrepancy.

To add to this, Cunningham, Woodward, Shannon, MacIntosh, Ledrum,

Rosenbloom, and Brown (2002) propose that individuals differ in their levels
of self-efficacy, or their perceived capacity to cope with change. Employees
who believe that changes proposed will exceed their coping capabilities
usually resist change. In contrast, employees with high levels of self-efficacy

GroveC Page 38
are less likely to resist change and are more likely to positively participate in
change efforts.

For Strebel (1998), one of the main reasons why employees resist change is
that change brings about an alteration of terms with regard to, “the mutual
obligations and commitments that exist between employees and the
company” (p. 139). These reciprocal obligations and mutual commitments
between employees and organisations are defined by Strebel (1998) as
personal compacts. Personal compacts describe and govern the relationship
between the employee and the organisation, and they may be explicit or
implied. When organisations propose changes, the terms of these personal
compacts are altered. Unless managers redefine new terms with the buy in of
employees, it is highly likely that employees will resist proposed changes.

Personal compacts exist on three dimensions namely: formal, psychological,

and social (Strebel, 1998). The formal dimension of personal compacts refers
to the basic duties and performance requirements expected of the employee,
and the level of authority and resources the employer allocates to the
employee in order to fulfill these requirements. Job descriptions, letters of
appointment and performance agreements form written proof of this
dimension of personal compact. The psychological dimension of personal
compacts refers to the unwritten aspects of the employment relationship that
include feelings such as trust and dependence between employee and
employer. Employee loyalty and commitment to the organisation will depend
on the perception by the employee that he or she is fairly recognized and
rewarded, both financially and otherwise, for a job well done. Finally, the
social dimension of personal compacts refers to the employees’ perception of
an organisation’s culture. Essentially, the employees’ commitment to the
organisation will depend on whether he or she believes the company
practices the values that it subscribes to and upholds. Since change initiatives
often lead to increased conflict and are characterized by poor communication,
this dimension of personal compact is most often undermined (Strebel, 1998).

GroveC Page 39
3.5 Models of Organisational Change

3.5.1 Lewin’s Force Field Analysis of Change

Tosi et al. (2003) contend that in order for organisations to be successful they
must adapt to the many changes they face in their environment. This
adaptation to change in order to survive is contextualised by Tosi et al (2003)
in terms of Kurt Lewins’ Force Field Analysis of Change. Although Lewin
proposed this theory of organisational change as early as the 1950’s, it still
continues to influence thinking on organisational change today.

Essentially, Lewin’s model of organisational change proposes that

organisations contain numerous powerful opposing forces, those that drive
change and those that resist change. If the organisation does not adapt to
these opposing forces, thereby leading to equilibrium, it will cease to exist.
The organisation will maintain its status quo when these two forces are
balanced. Since the achievement of such balance occurs over time,
organisations tend to resist any change that would upset this equilibrium.
Therefore, in order to effect future change, forces for change must be stronger
than those that resist change (Tosi et al, 2003).

Lewin proposed three stages of organisational change. All three stages

namely, unfreezing, transformation and refreezing would need to occur in
order to effect change in an organisation.

Unfreezing is the first stage of change and refers to the recognition by the
organisation of a need for change in the status quo. Unless an organisation
experiences significant pressure to change, the organisation will resist change
(Tosi et al, 2003). Unfreezing takes place when existing practices and
behaviors are questioned and dissatisfaction with the status quo such as
current management practices and organisational performance occurs. This
dissatisfaction leads to motivation to change and forces that resist change are
accordingly reduced while forces that drive change are strengthened.

GroveC Page 40
Transformation refers to the second stage of change in Lewin’s model and
has to do with the change itself. During this stage various organisational
practices and processes are changed or transformed. Employees learn new
behaviors as new policies and practices are implemented (Nahavandi et al.
1999).

Refreezing is the final stage of change in Lewin’s model of change. During

this stage all changes in the transformation stage are made permanent and a
new equilibrium results. Employees’ newly learned behaviors with regard to
the recently implemented practices and processes are embedded by way of
coaching, training and appropriate reward systems (Nahavandi et al. 1999).

3.5.2 Contemporary models of organisational change

According to Mento et al. (2002), three of the most well known models used to
manage and implement change in organisations today are Kotters’ (1995)
eight step model for transforming organisations, Jick’s (1991) tactical ten step
model for implementing change, and General Electrics’ seven step change
process model.

The main focus of Kotters’ (1995) model is to provide a process of

implementing and managing change in order to avoid major errors in the
change process. Kotters’ (1995) study of over 10 organisations varying in size
and industry type showed that the majority of change efforts failed. As a
result, this model proposes that the change process should follow a series of
sequential phases. Each of these phases last a considerable amount of time
and significant mistakes in any one of these phases can negatively impact the
whole momentum of the change process (Mento et al, 2002).

According to Kotter (1995) these failures occur as a result of a number of

errors made by senior management in organisations undergoing change.
These errors can be overcome by following a eight sequential step process
which includes; the establishment of a sense of urgency about the need to
change, the creation of a powerful guiding coalition responsible for leading the

GroveC Page 41
change process, the development of a vision and strategy that will guide the
change process, the creation and implementation of a change communication
strategy that will consistently communicate the new vision, the elimination of
change barriers and the encouragement of creative problem solving and risk
taking, the generation of short term wins, the consolidation of gains through
short term wins in order to produce more change, and finally, the
reinforcement of the changes and the anchoring of such changes in the
organisations culture (Kotter, 1995).

Kreitner et al. (1999) point out that Kotters’ (1995) model emulates Lewins’
(1951) model in that the first four steps above assume an unfreezing process,
steps five to seven correspond with the change or transformation process,
and the last step may be seen to represent the refreezing process outlined by
Lewin (1951).

While Kotters’ (1995) model is aimed at the strategic level, Jicks’ (1991)
model is aimed at the tactical level. In essence the aim of Jicks’ (1991) ten-
step model is to guide the implementation of organisational change through
the provision of a blue print process as well as a method to evaluate change
efforts already underway. These ten steps for implementing change include;
the analysis of the organisation and its need for change, the creation of a
shared vision and common direction, a separation from the past, the creation
of a sense of urgency to change, the support of a strong leader role, the line
up of political sponsorship, the creation of an implementation plan, the
development of enabling structures, the communication to and involvement of
people, and lastly the reinforcement and institutionalization of the change
(Mento et al. 2002).

Although the General Electric model closely follows the unfreezing,

transformation, and refreezing stages of Lewins’ (1951) model, the General
Electric model focuses on the role of leader in the change process. The
models’ developers urge that the seven steps proposed should be viewed as
a checklist for leaders as they create urgency for the change, design and
communicate a shared vision, mobilize commitment for the change, measure

GroveC Page 42
the progress of the change, and finally change the systems and structures in
order to institutionalize or refreeze the change (Mento et al. 2002).

Mento et al. (2002) introduced a framework that incorporates all three of the
above theoretical models in order to provide guidance to practitioners leading
organisational change processes. Mento et al. (2002) argue that this model is
grounded in both theory and practice as it is also based on a change process
undergone at a Fortune 500 defense industry firm.

Mento et al (2002) propose that the following twelve steps outlined below, be
followed when implementing change. The first step would be to recognize the
need for change by highlighting the idea of what needs to be changed. This
step may be seen as similar to the proposition made by Jack Welsh that
leaders must first face reality in order to initiate change (Mento et al., 2002).
The second step in this process is to define the change initiative by, “
identifying the need for change, creating a vision of the desired outcome,
deciding what change is feasible, and choosing who should sponsor and
defend it” (Mento et al, 2002 p. 49). Next, the leaders and managers of
change must evaluate the climate for change in order to develop an effective
change implementation plan. The main reason given for this climate
evaluation is the probability that “ no product development or improvement
ever occurs without someone else’s effort being hindered” (Mento et al., 2002,
p.50). The fourth step in the process is to develop a change plan that not only
includes specific goals but that also details responsibilities for all participants.
The next step is to find and cultivate a sponsor, a notion similar to that of
Kotters’ (1995) development of a powerful guiding coalition. The sixth step is
to prepare the recipients of change for the change. Mento et al. (2002) include
this step as they argue that unless people themselves are willing to change,
change in the organisation will not take place. For Mento et al. (2002)
employees must not only accept the general concept of change, but must also
internalize the specific change outlined, or such change will not occur. The
seventh step in this process revolves around getting employees to accept that
change is necessary and to ensure that the organisations culture supports
such change. This step is essentially about ensuring that the change is not in

GroveC Page 43
conflict with the organisational culture. In order to achieve this, reward
systems, performance measurement systems, training initiatives, and
reporting roles and responsibilities would need to compliment and reinforce
that change. In the eighth step the organisation should identify a change
leader team. Mento et al. (2002) point out that by appointing a team rather
than an individual a broader set of skills and competencies can be applied to
the change process that would increase the likelihood of it being successful.
The ninth step in this process is similar to that of Kotters’ (1995) sixth step in
that it calls for the creation of small wins to aid motivation. In other words,
employees involved in the change initiative are recognized for their progress.
Goals that are far in the future are seen as being more achievable since
recent goals are celebrated along the way. The tenth step calls for the
constant communication of the change. According to Mento et al. (2002) this
change communication should reduce confusion and resistance to change.

3.5.3 Scheins’ Planned Change Theory – a focus on the individual in an

organisation undergoing change

Most change models focus on leading and managing change. These models
focus on the process and implementation of change from an organisational
perspective, rather than on the individual and their experience of the
organisational change process. In contrast, Schein’s (1988) planned change
theory takes a more human centric approach.

The experience of stress by an individual presented with organisational

change may be understood in the context of the basic assumption underlying
planned change theory as described in Schein (1988). This model, first
proposed by Lewin (1952) and Lippitt and his collaborators (1958), and later
elaborated by Schein (1972), makes a number of assumptions on
organizational change that will be discussed in the paragraphs that follow.

Change not only involves learning something new, but also unlearning
something already well established both in the personality and in the social
relationships of the individual. As such, a considerable amount of adaptation

GroveC Page 44
would be required in order to change present behavior and attitudes and
replace them with new ones.

The second assumption is that change will not occur unless there is a
motivation to change. The creation of motivation involves three specific
mechanisms, namely; disconfirmation of present behaviors and attitudes
through the set up of sufficient guilt or anxiety to motivate change, and the
creation of psychological safety.

The third assumption holds that organisational change can only take place
through individual changes in key members of the organisation. This means
that organisational change is always mediated by individual change.

The fourth assumption is that adult change involves attitudes, values, and self
image. The unlearning of these established responses is at first inherently
painful and threatening. As such, the change process more often than not
results in increased stress in the affected individual, especially when that
individual perceives that they have no control over the situation.

Finally, the theory assumes that change is a multi-stage cycle, which includes
the creation of motivation to change, the development of new attitudes and
behaviors or changing, and the refreezing or stabilization of the changes.

3.7 The reduction of stress during organisational change

3.7.1 Coping strategies

Before investigating the different ways in which stress may be reduced in

organisational change situations, it is helpful to first understand how
individuals manage or control stressors and/or themselves when experiencing
stress.

According to Tosi et. al. (2001), individuals apply two functions of coping. The
first function is a problem solving one in which the affected individual attempts

GroveC Page 45
to change either the environmental stressor or their behavior. The aim of this
coping function is to either remove the stressor, to reduce the chances of it
occurring again, or to try and reduce the severity of the stressor. The second
function of coping involves the management of emotions that occur as a
reaction to stress. This function includes four different coping strategies, being
information seeking, direct action, restraining action, and psychological coping
reactions. These functions as explained by Tosi et al (2001) are detailed
below.

Information seeking refers to the attempt on the part of the individual to

discover what the stressors are and what caused them. Reduced uncertainty
through information seeking often results in reduced stress.

Direct action refers to any actions taken by individuals experiencing job

stressors in order to alleviate such stressors. Examples of such actions may
include increased performance, increased use of substances such as alcohol
or medication, and seeking alternate employment. The search for and
development of social support, whether it be in the form of colleagues or
family and friends, may also act as a buffer of the effects of stress.

Dealing with stress by not taking any action is known as restraining action.
Individuals may employ this tactic when they believe that taking action may in
fact lead to less desirable outcomes than doing nothing at all.

Psychological coping reactions refer to the subjective emotions and

subsequent behavior that a person perceives of a situation. Examples of
psychological coping reactions include psychological withdrawal or the denial
of the existence of a problem. Although these defense mechanisms may allow
the individual to operate more comfortably in a problematic situation, reality is
distorted and adjustment to stress is only probable over the short term.

GroveC Page 46
3.7.2. Change capable organisations

It is apparent from Scheins’ (1988) planned change theory that change

requires coping or adaptive responses from the individual. When the
individual perceives that they have little or no control over changes or
challenges, stress may result.

According to Fisher (1995), “ being in control means being able to resolve

these discrepancies” (p.2). If the individual feels that control is in fact possible,
he or she will perceive the challenge positively and believe that it can be met.
It follows then that the individual would be able to reduce discrepancies and
would therefore be less likely to experience stress.

Fisher’s (1995) argument is supported by Scheins’ (1988) view that the

“health” or effectiveness of individuals, groups and organisations can be
ultimately defined by some kind of ability to cope effectively. Schein (1988)
outlines a number of internal organisational conditions that are necessary for
effective coping to occur during organisational change.

According to Schein (1988), successful coping requires accurate and

sufficient communication, internal flexibility and creativity, assimilation of and
dedication to the organisation’s goals, a culture or climate of support and
freedom from threat, and finally an ability to consistently change the
organisation’s structure to fit its goals and tasks. Without these organisational
conditions, successful coping cannot occur. Effective change will not take
place since employees will resist the change in order to avoid its perceived
psychological cost.

Employees who perceive the organisation as indifferent to their personal

needs and capabilities will respond to change by feeling threatened and
anxious, rather than being co-operative and supportive (Schein, 1988).
Eisenberger, Fasolo and Davis-Lamastro (1990) contend that the belief by
employees that the organisation is committed to them plays an important role
in moderating the effects of work stress. This contention is supported by

GroveC Page 47
research conducted by Jones, Flynn and Kellaway (1996) who found that
employee’s perception of the organisation as supportive is both strongly and
negatively correlated with work stress. Methods of recruitment and selection,
and training and socialization of employees communicate either indifference
or commitment to the personal needs and goals of the individual. Research by
Boardman, Kelpe, Straub and VanFleet (2003), further demonstrated that
maintaining open communication channels, and validating and showing
empathy for emotions related to change, would allow for the re-establishment
of organisational trust and commitment. Since change necessitates trust,
employee trust and commitment are of paramount importance during periods
of change. More often than not though, change threatens trust.

In order for the organisation to obtain commitment, creativity and flexibility

from employees it should provide relevant rewards, both economic and non-
economic. Non-economic rewards include autonomy, responsibility, challenge
and psychological growth (Schein, 1988).

Good group and inter-group relations, a condition needed to ensure that

groups work towards rather than against organisational goals, can only be
achieved when management practices ensure that personal needs are
integrated with organisational goals (Schein, 1988). The provision of training
for effective group membership and management will ensure that anti
managerial groups are not formed thus preventing the thwarting of change
efforts.

McLagan (2003) argues that with the number and complexity of changes
faced by businesses today, organisations need to ensure that they have an
inbuilt capacity for change. McLagan (2003) provides a summary of research
conducted throughout the world that highlights the qualities of organisations
that have this inbuilt capacity for change. These qualities, in terms of
employee coping with change, are outlined below.

GroveC Page 48
Research has demonstrated that organisations that are able to link the
present and the future in the work of the employees are better able to deal
with change. Essentially, employees think and work with the future in mind,
rather than viewing current work as an extension of, or an alternative to, the
past way of working or doing things in the organization (McLagan, 2003).

Organisations that are able to make learning a way of life are usually more
successful at change (McLagan, 2003). Knowledge is well managed and as a
result fewer mistakes are repeated. The organisation creates and supports a
learning and information sharing culture. This type of culture encourages
ongoing change at individual, team, and inter-team levels.

Research has shown that organisations that are able to successfully

implement change have a general culture of trust, especially with regard to
the level of personal credibility managers had amongst staff (McLagan, 2003).
In organisations with low levels of employee trust, resistance to change was
more likely to occur as employees believed that managements proposals
were flawed or incorrect.

3.7.3 The experience of a change process as one of death and dying

According to Zell (2003), most change models lack insight and understanding
with regard to the way in which individuals and groups process their
resistance to change and ultimately deal with changes forced upon them.

The majority of change models consist of a three-part process that starts with
an imperfect organisation, moves through a transitional or transformational
stage, and finally results in a preferred stage. The change models proposed
by Lewin, Kotter (1995), Jick, and General Electric, as outlined above, are
examples of this type of model.

These three-stage models may include human focused elements such as

communication, training, participation, consultation or coercion. These

GroveC Page 49
elements however, merely form part of an overall business strategy, which is
applied with the aim of ensuring individual compliance with the proposed or
required organisational changes. If one of the above strategies do not work,
another may be applied, until such time as a successful strategy is found,
whether it be one of reward, force, or pressure. Further, while these types of
models may recognize a number of sources of resistance to change, they do
not however focus on the actual process of working through resistance to
change, as experienced by individuals. As such, the overwhelming emotions
of shock, frustration, helplessness, depression, and anger, experienced by
people confronted with change, have largely been ignored by most change
models (Zell, 2003).

Zell’s (2003) study on the effects of change on professors at a public

university, found that the change process, for both individuals and the
organisation, closely resembled that of the process of death and dying as
proposed by Kubler-Ross (1969), in her study of terminally ill patients. Zell’s
(2003) study suggests that the process of change, for both the individuals and
the organisation, moves through five distinct phases namely; denial, anger,
bargaining, depression, and acceptance. In conclusion, Zell (2003)
recommends that rather than being “herded” through the three stage models
for change, individuals should be viewed and treated as human beings who
need to mourn their losses while having some extent of control over their own
healing processes and future.

3.7.3 Incidents that help or hinder in organisational downsizing

Survivors of downsizing’s report increased levels of stress, decreased

motivation, and a decline in performance as a result of workload increase,
higher levels of distrust with regard to management and leadership, and an
increase in the experience of emotions such as anger, insecurity, guilt,
sadness, and fear (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, Erlebach, 2004).

Amundson et al. (2004), conducted a study in order to determine which

incidents helped or hindered employees who survived organisational

GroveC Page 50
downsizings. It was proposed that these positive and negative incidents be
taken cognizance of in order to reduce negative effects of downsizings, and
enhance positive influences and events thereby ensuring successful change.
As such, positive incidents should be applied in order to ensure better coping
through this type of change process. Conversely, incidents as reported as
negative in this study should be avoided in order to remove obstacles to
coping and to reduce levels of strain and anxiety experienced by survivors of
restructurings and downsizings. An outline of these incidents is provided
below.

3.7.3.1. Involvement in process

Downsizing survivors expressed a desire to provide input with regard to the

restructuring process as they believed that they had an important role to play
in the organisation’s future and success. When this input and involvement
was not sought by management, the survivors expressed frustration and
concern that the proposed changes were the correct ones for the
organisation.

3.7.3.2 Impact on co-worker relationships

Participants expressed feelings of loss and sadness with regard to colleagues

who had been retrenched. It was recommended that organisations not only
allow employees time to grieve for this loss, but also that the organisation
acknowledges such loss. Further, levels of anger and resentment toward the
organisation increased when retrenchments were seen to be unfair and
insensitive.

3.7.3.3 Attitude and behavior of leadership

The attitudes and behavior of organisational leaders and managers played a

very important role in terms of the participants’ levels of trust. When managers
were seen as providing clear and transparent communications, and as direct
and supportive, participants reported enhanced levels of trust. Managers that

GroveC Page 51
were seen as having their own interests at heart, and lacking in open and
clear communication and directness, where viewed as incompetent and
unreliable. This lead to decreased levels of organisational trust (Amundson,
Borgen, Jordan, Erlebach, 2004).

3.7.3.4 Communication

Amundson et. al. (2004) found that, “inadequate, contradictory, or vague

communication increased confusion, anxiety, mistrust, and speculation”( p.7).
As such, the communication strategy used to inform employees of downsizing
intentions is paramount to the success of this type of change initiative.

3.7.3.5 Positive valuation of workers

Participants reported that after the downsizing they felt that their psychological
contract with the organisation had fundamentally changed. Whereas prior to
the downsizing employees believed that the organization offered them long
term career prospects in exchange for good performance and loyalty, after the
downsizing employees questioned the extent to which the organization valued
and rewarded them (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, Erlebach, 2004).

3.7.3.6 Morale

While the majority of participants reported negative feelings as a result of the

downsizing, certain participants reported positive feelings and attributed this
to the fact that they had made a conscious effort to attempt to maintain a
positive attitude during the restructuring process. A common factor among
these participants was their acceptance of the uncertainty and lack of control
in the process (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, Erlebach, 2004).

GroveC Page 52
3.7.3.7 Life after work

While participants reported that support from family, friends, and spouses
reduced levels of tension and stress, they also reported concerns with regard
to the spill over effects of the downsizing exercise on these support systems.
A number of participants cited an increase in levels of work related stress as
reasons for their experience of sleep disturbances, irritability, headaches, and
increased number of sick days taken (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, Erlebach,
2004).

3.7.3.8 Possible job loss

While most participants had at some stage considered the possibility of

possible job loss, the participants that felt that they had a good chance of
employability outside the organiation experienced far less anxiety, fear, and
panic concerning possible job loss than those who believed that they did not
stand a good chance of external employment (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan,
Erlebach, 2004).

3.7.3.9 Organisational support

Participants reported that the failure on the part of the company to

acknowledge and support their mental health after the emotional upheaval of
the downsizing as damaging. Attempts on the part of the organization to offer
Employee Assistance Programmes, and to fund appropriate training and
development initiatives, where seen as positive, and assisted in employees’
coping with change (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, Erlebach, 2004).

While change, but especially downsizing, creates a great deal of workplace

stress, organisations can attempt to reduce the levels of stress by ensuring
that they limit the number of negative incidents as reported in the above
research. Further, an increase in the number of incidents that allow for better
coping on the part of the employer should also lead to a decrease in levels of
workplace stress (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, Erlebach, 2004).

GroveC Page 53
3.7.4 Employee readiness for change

An individual’s ability to cope with change is linked to their readiness to initiate

and accept change. Unless an individual is motivated and ready to accept
change, he or she is likely to resist change and to experience increased levels
of stress during change or transition periods. According to Cunningham et. al.
(2003), “readiness for change research suggests that a demonstrable need
for change, a sense of one’s ability to successfully accomplish change (self-
efficacy) and an opportunity to participate in the change process contribute to
readiness for organisational change” (p.2).

Madson (2003) points out that while some employees appear to search for
and invite change, readily participating and adjusting to proposed changes,
others tend to be more hesitant and need more time and support in order to
successfully take part in proposed changes. Further, some employees
purposefully resist or obstruct change, refusing to participate in the
organisation’s proposed goals or plans. These individual differences with
regard to change are known as the individuals change readiness
characteristics (Madson, 2003).

While a number of characteristics may be used to predict an individual’s

readiness for change, Madson (2003) proposes that an employee’s personal
wellness is one such important factor. Wellness for this purpose is defined by
Madson (2003) as the ability of an individual to live and work to his or her
fullest potential on all levels of being including emotional, spiritual, intellectual,
physical and social. As such, the implementation of employee wellness
programmes will better prepare employees for change, and allow them to
cope with the stress, anxiety, and fear often related to change.

Although employee wellness programmes will differ from one organisation to

the next, fundamentals such as training on communication, assertiveness,
listening skills, conflict resolution, feedback skill training, smoking cessation
programmes, workplace fitness related classes, and stress management

GroveC Page 54
programmes may be implemented to increase employee wellness (Madson,
2002).

3.8 Conclusion

There can be no doubt from the research literature covered in this chapter
that organisational change brings about increased levels of strain for
employees effected by such change. Given the negative effects on both the
employees and the organisations with regard o increased levels of strain,
organisational change appears to be a daunting task for all involved. On the
positive side however, research literature has indicated not all forms of
organisational change are experienced as stressful. More importantly though,
this literature argues that a number of interventions may be applied in
organisational change situations in order to lessen the levels of strain
experienced by affected employees. Essentially, these interventions are
focused on enabling the individual to better cope with organisational changes.

GroveC Page 55
 CHAPTER FOUR
Method

4.1 Introduction

The aim of this Method’s Chapter is to describe the steps taken to conduct
this study. First, a description of who the participants were, how these
participants were obtained, their numbers and characteristics, and the
representativeness of the sample will be provided. Second, the psychometric
adequacy of the instrument used in this study will be discussed. The Sources
of Work Stress Inventory (SWSI) consists of two sections, a 15-item General
Work Stress scale which measures general levels of occupational stress, and
a 79-item, nine Sources of Stress scale, which highlights possible triggers or
sources of stress in the workplace. Third, the steps taken for all phases of
data collection for the study will be described. Finally, a description of the data
analysis used to test the hypotheses will be given.

4.2 Restatement of Research Problem

Employees in an organisation undergoing change may experience increased

levels of workplace stress if they perceive that they are unable to cope with
the demands made on them as a result of the organisational changes
implemented (Schabracq et al, 2003). The employee’s perception with regard
to his or her ability to cope with change is moderated both by the support
provided by the organisation during the period of change and the magnitude
or type of organisational change (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999). While
individual differences in employees, because of biological and psychological
attributes, may also influence reactions to change, these factors will be
expressly excluded from this study. If sufficient support is provided during the
period of organisational change then levels of workplace stress experienced
by employees should increase only moderately. Further, if the type of
organisational change implemented is on the whole positive and/or moderate

GroveC Page 56
to small in magnitude, employee levels of workplace stress should increase
only slightly over time (Anderson & Anderson, 2001).

4.3 Hypothesis

Employees’ scores on the General Work stress Scale will be higher on the
second test than on the first test.

Employees scores on the Nine Sources of Work Stress scales will be higher
on the second test than on the first test.

4.4 Participants

The Sources of Work Stress Inventory (SWSI) was electronically mailed to all
employees both prior to, and six months after a merger had taken place at a
national private education institution. The employees were asked to complete
this non-experimental survey and submit their responses. Two non random
samples were taken in this study. The first one was taken in May 2003, 4
weeks prior to the merger, and consisted of 336 respondents. It should
however be borne in mind that an announcement of the intention to merge the
two organisations was made to all employees in December 2002. The second
sample was taken in January 2004, six months after the merger, and
consisted of 102 respondents. Forty-seven participants responded to both of
the surveys. It should however be noted that the organisation’s employee
resignation rate increased to 55% during the six months after the merger, with
part of this rate being attributable to a significant number of retrenchments
during this time.

The first sample included 138 men (41.1%), 196 woman (58.3%), and one not
specified. The second sample included 32 men (31.4%) and 70 women
(68.6%). Of those responding to both surveys 16 were men (34.0%) and 31
were woman (66.0%). The first sample included 272 respondents (81.0%)
from the larger “acquiring” organization, 61 respondents (18.2%) from the
smaller “acquired” organization, and two not specified. The second sample

GroveC Page 57
included 70 respondents (68.6%) from the larger “acquiring” organization and
32 respondents (31.4%) from the smaller “acquired” organisation. The sub
sample included 32 respondents (68.1%) from the larger “acquiring”
organisation, 14 respondents (29.8%) from the smaller “acquired”
organisation, and one not specified. 172 Academic personnel (51.2%), 76
administrative personnel (22.6%), 58 managerial personnel (17.3%), 28 sales
personnel (8.3%), and one unspecified, responded in the first sample.
Twenty-four academic personnel (23.5%), 38 administrative personnel
(37.3%), 33 managerial personnel (32.4%), and seven sales personnel (6.9%)
responded in the second sample. Respondents in the sub sample included 12
academic personnel (25.5%), 18 administrative personnel (38.3%), 15
managerial personnel (32%), and two sales personnel (4.3%). In the first
survey the response rate was 42%, while in the second survey the response
rate dropped to 25%.

On both occasions employees were informed that the survey would measure
their levels of workplace stress with the aim of measuring general levels of
workplace stress in the organisation rather than reporting on the survey
results individually. It was also made clear to participants that these results
would be kept confidential and that only a general discussion of the results
from an organisational level would be provided to all participants.

4.5 Instruments

4.5.1 Demographic questionnaire

The demographic questionnaire contained items relating to the respondents

age, gender, language, and number of years service in the organization.
Respondents were asked to indicate by which of the two pre-merger
organizations they were employed. Items relating to job title were included
and respondents were asked to indicate whether they were employed as
managerial personnel, academic personnel, administrative personnel, or sales
personnel.

GroveC Page 58
4.5.2 Sources of Work Stress Inventory

The SWSI (de Bruin & Taylor, in press) is the measure used for work related
stress. The SWSI consists of two sections, a General Work Stress scale
which measures general levels of occupational stress (15 item in total), and
nine Sources of Stress scales, which highlights possible triggers or sources of
stress (79 items in total). The General Work Stress Scale indicates to what
extent work itself is a source of stress for the individual and consists of
questions concerning the level of stress caused by work. The 15 Likert-type
items of the General Work Stress scale are represented on a five-point
continuum (1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always),
indicating how often the respondent feels that way. High scores indicate high
levels of general occupational stress. The 79 Likert items of the Sources of
Stress scales are represented on a five-point continuum (1 = none at all, 2 =
very little, 3 = some, 4 = quite a lot, 5 = very much), indicating to what extent
each source of stress contributes to the individual’s level of stress at work.
Role Ambiguity, Relationships, Working Environment, Tools and Equipment,
Career Advancement, Job Security, Bureaucracy/Autonomy, Work/Home
Interface, and Work Load make up the nine sources of work stress in the
Sources of Stress scales.

De Bruin and Taylor (in press) provide the following definitions for the nine
sources of work stress, based on both a literature search and a qualitative
survey in which respondents were asked about the causes of stress in their
working environment. Role ambiguity refers to the level of stress experienced
by an employee as a result of indistinct specifications or regular changes with
regard to the employees’ duties, responsibilities, and constraints in the
working environment. Relationships as a source of stress is defined as the
level of stress experienced by an employee as a result of poor interpersonal
relationships in the workplace and subjection to interpersonal abuse.
Workload refers to the level of stress experienced by an employee as a result
of their perception that they are incapable of coping with the amount of work
assigned to them. While the category of bureaucracy relates to the stress
experienced by an employee as a result of inflexible policies, procedures, and

GroveC Page 59
protocols in an organization, it also includes the dimension of autonomy,
which refers to the level of stress experienced by an employee as a result of
their lack of empowerment or job control and decision latitude in the
workplace. Tools and equipment refers to the level of stress experienced by
employees as a result of having to work with irrelevant, outdated, highly
complex, or broken equipment or machinery. Physical environment refers to
anything in the employees’ physical working environment, which may lead to
increased levels of stress. Career advancement refers to the level of stress
experienced by an employee as a result of their perception that they lack the
ability or opportunity to advance their career or to be promoted within the
organization. The category of job security relates to an employees fear of job
loss or redundancy. Work/home Interface refers to the level of stress
experienced by an employee as a result of inadequate social support, work-
nonwork additivity, and spillover.

De Bruin and Taylor (in press) reported that factor analysis of the SWSI
provided support for the construct validity of the nine sources of stress and
the General Work Stress scales.

Cronbach alpha coefficients were used to measure the level of internal

consistency for each of the Sources of Stress scales and the General Work
Stress Scale. These coefficients were as follows: Role Ambiguity (nine items),
α = .89; Relationships (11 items), α = .93; Tools and Equipment (eight items),
α = .91; Job Security (four items), α = .93; Career Advancement (five items),
α = .90; Bureaucracy/Autonomy (17 items), α = .95; Work/Home Interface
(seven items), α = .86; Workload (nine items), α = .93; and General Work
Stress (11 items) α = .92. These coefficients might be described as
satisfactory.

De Bruin and Taylor (in press) employed a multiple regression analysis to

examine the relations between General Work Stress and the Sources of
Stress. The zero order correlations between General Work Stress and the
Sources of stress were as follows: Role Ambiguity (r = .48), Relationships (r =

GroveC Page 60
.37), Tools and Equipment (r = .20), Job Security (r = .35), Career
Advancement (r = .37), Bureaucracy/Autonomy (r = .42), Work/Home
Interface (r = .42), and Workload (r = .57). The multiple correlation between
General Work Stress and the Sources of Stress was R = .66, R2 = .44, F (8,
294) = 28.28, p < .001, thus proving to be significant. As such, the relations
between the Sources of Stress scales and the General Work Stress scale
provide support for their construct validity. The scales of Workload and Role
Ambiguity were found to be the best predictors of General Work Stress having
the following meaningful partial correlations: Workload (r partial = .38) and Role
Ambiguity (r partial = .27).

4.6 Procedures

Permission was secured from the executive committee members of both

private education organizations to administer the SWSI for the purpose of this
study. It was agreed by the executive committee members that the SWSI
would be administered on two occasions, one month prior to the
announcement of the management structure of the newly merged
organisation, and then again six months after the merger was effected by the
announcement of the new management/company structure.

On both survey occasions the sample was derived through the use of an
electronic-mail (email) message that was sent to all employees requesting
that they complete the SWSI. On both participation request occasions,
potential participants were told (a) that they would be completing questions
that dealt with their experience of stress in the workplace, and (b) who would
be conducting the study. On both occasions the e-mail requesting that
employees participate in the survey gave assurances that their participation
would be anonymous and that individual results would not be disclosed.

The SWSI was posted on the organisations intranet and hyperlink was
created for ease of access. All potential participants who received the email
requesting their participation could click on an automatic link item on the email
and were automatically diverted to the SWSI. Participants would then

GroveC Page 61
complete the SWSI and press a submit button whereby the responses to the
SWSI were sent to a protected file on the company’s server. Responses to
the SWSI could not be submitted unless all questions on the survey had been
completed. Data was collected online, coded, and saved to data files. Only
the researcher and supervisor had access to the data file results.

The first email requesting potential participants to complete the survey was
sent to all employees at the beginning of May 2003, by the researcher. The
email requested potential participants to complete and submit the SWSI by
the end of May 2003. A reminder email was sent to all potential participants
approximately two weeks after the initial request. Three hundred and thirty six
employees responded to the survey with none of the respondents submitting
their completed surveys more than once. A check for duplicate surveys was
conducted by using the name, date of employment, and job tile submitted,
and comparing these with the organizations employee records. An email
thanking all potential participants for participating in the study was sent to all
employees. A summary of the findings of the survey was provided in this
email. At the beginning of January 2004 an email was sent requesting all
potential participants to complete the second survey by the end of January
2004. A reminder email was sent to all potential participants approximately
two weeks after the initial request. 102 employees responded to this survey
with none of the respondents submitting their surveys more than once. An
email thanking all potential participants for participating in the study was sent
to all employees.

4.7 Statistical Analysis

In chapter five the following statistical analysis will be used to determine the
effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The means and
standard deviations of the Nine Sources of Stress Scales and the General
Work Stress Scale will be discussed in order to describe how the sample
responded as a group to the main variables in the hypothesis. The rank order
of the means for the Nine Sources of Work Stress Scales will be presented in
order to establish the hierarchy of importance of the various sources of stress

GroveC Page 62
over time. The correlations between the Nine Sources of Stress Scales and
the General Stress Scale will be provided in order to determine the
relationships among the dependent variables. A repeated measures
MANOVA will be used to test the significance of differences among means for
the scores of the common respondents in both survey one and survey two,
with the nine SWSI scales as dependent variables. Finally, a repeated
measures ANOVA for the 47 common respondents, for both the Nine Sources
of Stress Scales and the General Work Stress Scale, will be provided in order
to test for the significance of the differences between the two group mea

GroveC Page 63
 CHAPTER FIVE
Results

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe and summarize the results obtained
by statistical analysis in order to address the research questions and
hypotheses established in preceding chapters. First, the means and standard
deviations of the Nine Sources of Stress Scales and the General Work Stress
Scale for the 47 common respondents are discussed in order to describe how
the sample responded as a group to the main variables in the hypothesis.
Second, the rank order of the means for the Nine Sources of Work Stress
Scales for the 47 common respondents are presented in order to establish
the hierarchy of importance of the various sources of stress over time. Third,
the correlations between the Nine Sources of Stress Scales and the General
Stress Scale for the 47 common respondents are provided, and the
interrelations of the variables are discussed. Fourth, a repeated measures
MANOVA for the Nine Sources of Work Stress Scales is presented for the
purpose of assessing the statistical significance of the independent variable
on the dependent variables. Finally, having established a multivariate effect, a
univariate analysis using a repeated measures ANOVA for the 47 common
respondents, for both the Nine Sources of Stress Scales and the General
Work Stress Scale, is discussed in order to determine the statistical
significance of the dependent variables.

5.2 Descriptive Statistics

The means and standard deviations of the SWISI scales for the 47 common
respondents are presented in Table 1. Inspection shows that there is a slight
tendency for the means and standard deviations to be higher on the second
test. This is especially pronounced for the variables of work environment,
career advancement, job security, and workload, and for the General Work
Stress Scale.

GroveC Page 64
TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for the SWSI scales (n = 47).
TEST 1 TEST 2
Scale Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation
RA 17.638 4.498 18.234 6.169
REL 21.426 7.339 21.830 7.388
WE 13.106 3.891 14.468 4.021
TE 22.043 7.564 22.426 7.128
CA 11.851 5.361 13.170 5.378
JS 12.234 3.846 13.213 3.342
BA 40.979 14.278 40.064 11.021
WH 15.617 5.523 15.894 5.333
WL 26.404 8.629 27.234 7.608
GWS 22.532 6.185 24.511 5.598
Note. RA = Role Ambiguity; REL = Relationship; WE = Work Environment; TE
= Tools and Equipment; CA = Career Advancement; JS = Job Security; BA =
Bureaucracy/ Autonomy; WH = Work/Home Interface; WL = Work Load GWS =
General Work Stress Scale.

5.3 Rank Order of the Sources of Stress

The rank order of the means for the Nine Sources of Stress Scales for the 47
common respondents are presented in Table 2. Inspection shows that there
has been only a slight change in the hierarchy of importance of the various
sources of stress over time. Job security remained the most important source
of stress on both occasions of testing, with workload being the second most
important source of stress. On the first test occasion bureaucracy/autonomy
preceded career advancement in importance, while on test occasion two
career advancement preceded bureaucracy/autonomy in order of importance.
Further, on the first test occasion work/home interface preceded role
ambiguity in importance, while on test occasion two role ambiguity preceded
work/home interface in order of importance. On both testing occasions work
environment and relationship remained the least important sources of stress.

GroveC Page 65
The Spearman rank order correlation was 0.98, indicating that the sources of
stress retained their relative order of importance after the merger.

TABLE 2
Rank Order of Sources of Stress (n=47)

TEST 1 TEST 2

Rank Scale Mean Rank Scale Mean

1 JS 3.059 1 JS 3.303
2 WL 2.934 2 WL 3.026
3 BA 2.411 3 CA 2.634
4 CA 2.370 4 BA 2.357
5 WH 2.231 5 RA 2.279
6 RA 2.205 6 WH 2.271
7 TE 2.204 7 TE 2.243
8 REL 1.948 8 REL 1.985
9 WE 1.638 9 WE 1.809
Note. RA = Role Ambiguity; REL = Relationship; WE = Work Environment; TE
= Tools and Equipment; CA = Career Advancement; JS = Job Security; BA =
Bureaucracy/ Autonomy; WH = Work/Home Interface; WL = Work Load.

5.4 Correlations between the Sources of Stress and General Stress

The correlations between the Nine Sources of Stress Scales and the General
Stress Scale for the 47 common respondents are presented in Table 3.
Correlations on the first test are given below the diagonal, whereas
correlations on the second test are given above the diagonal. The test-retest
correlation for each scale is given on the diagonal.

Inspection of the diagonal shows significant correlations between the two

scores on the scales on the two testing occasions, suggesting that those
respondents stressed on the first occasion tended to be stressed on the
second occasion. The off-diagonal correlations are all positive, except for
work/home interface and work environment (second test), work/home
interface and relationship (first test), and workload and work environment (first
test). Most of these off-diagonal correlations are of moderate size indicating

GroveC Page 66
 that individuals concerned about one source of stress are concerned about
the other sources of stress as well. The highest correlation was observed
between job security and career advancement. None of these correlations are
so high as to suggest however that some of the variables are redundant.

Looking at the correlations of the general stress scale on the first-test scores,
workload, work/home interface, and role ambiguity have high correlations with
the General Stress Scale, suggesting that these variables are the main
sources of general work stress. A similar pattern is observed on the re-test
correlations with the variables of workload, work/home interface, and role
ambiguity having the highest correlations with the General Stress Scale.

TABLE 3
Correlations Between Sources of Work Stress
GEN RA REL WE TE CA JS BA WH WL
GEN 0.440** 0.521** 0.167 0.174 0.329* 0.216 0.275 0.227 0.617** 0.681**
RA 0.540** 0.386** 0.347* 0.174 0.354* 0.575** 0.559** 0.583** 0.350* 0.416**
REL 0.300* 0.641** 0.474** 0.447** 0.280 0.617** 0.473** 0.615** 0.103 0.195
WE 0.104 0.089 0.197 0.387** 0.424** 0.297* 0.228 0.164 -0.040 0.072
TE 0.159 0.244 0.215 0.551** 0.552** 0.455** 0.393** 0.403** 0.269 0.376**
CA 0.135 0.489** 0.453** 0.380** 0.454** 0.619** 0.802** 0.735** 0.119 0.312*
JS 0.280 0.432** 0.341* 0.267 0.213 0.601** 0.456** 0.704** 0.305* 0.365*
BA 0.257 0.697** 0.556** 0.128 0.416** 0.540** 0.338* 0.810** 0.277 0.433**
WH 0.520** 0.387** -0.002 0.035 -0.046 0.181 0.262 0.317* 0.668** 0.614**
WL 0.688** 0.437** 0.127 -0.142 0.168 0.143 0.273 0.332* 0.564** 0.680**

Note. RA = Role Ambiguity; REL = Relationship; WE = Work Environment; TE = Tools

and Equipment; CA = Career Advancement; JS = Job Security; BA = Bureaucracy/
Autonomy; WH = Work/Home Interface; WL = Work Load GWS = General Work
Stress Scale.

GroveC Page 67
5.4 Repeated Measures MANOVA of the Nine Sources of Work Stress
Scales

The Nine Sources of Stress Scales for the 47 common respondents were
subjected to a repeated measures MANOVA. For the nine scales combined it
was found that F(9,38) = 1.368, Λ = 0.755, p = 0. 237, η2 = 0.245. While these
results show that the difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.237), it is
demonstrated that the independent variable explains approximately 25% of
the variance in the dependent variables (η2 = 0.245), which might be
interpreted as a medium effect. Although these results are not statistically
significant they may be interpreted as practically significant suggesting that
participants were moderately more stressed in the second test than in the
first.

5.5 Repeated Measures ANOVA

Having established a multivariate effect, we turn to the univariate analysis.

The results of the repeated measures ANOVA for the 47 common
respondents are summarized in Table 4. Inspection shows that there is a
practically significant effect for the dependent variables of work environment
(η2 = 0.09), career advancement (η2 = 0.075), and job security (η2 = 0.064).
An observable but not very strong effect is demonstrated for the variable of
workload (η2 = 0.016).

A repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference

between the General Work Stress Scale scores on the first and second
testings, F(1, 46) = 4.705, p = 0.035, η2 = 0.093. The effect size might be
described as a large effect.

GroveC Page 68
TABLE 4
Repeated Measures ANOVA for the Nine Sources of Stress Scales
Type III
Measure Sum df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Of Squares Squared
RA 8.34 1 8.34 0.453 0.504 0.01
REL 3.84 1 3.84 0.135 0.715 0.003
WE 43.574 1 43.574 4.541 0.038 0.09
TE 3.447 1 3.447 0.142 0.708 0.003
CA 40.894 1 40.894 3.724 0.06 0.075
JS 22.511 1 22.511 3.162 0.082 0.064
BA 19.67 1 19.67 0.558 0.459 0.012
WH 1.798 1 1.798 0.183 0.67 0.004
WL 16.181 1 16.181 0.752 0.39 0.016

Note. RA = Role Ambiguity; REL = Relationship; WE = Work Environment; TE

= Tools and Equipment; CA = Career Advancement; JS = Job Security; BA =
Bureaucracy/ Autonomy; WH = Work/Home Interface; WL = Work Load.

5.5 Conclusion

In the next chapter these results will be discussed in view of the theoretical
frameworks and research discussed in chapters two and three above.

GroveC Page 69
 CHAPTER SIX
Discussion

6.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the implications of the results presented
in chapter five of this study. A discussion of the results in relation to the two
hypotheses of this study is provided with specific reference to previous
research and theory. The theoretical implications of this study are considered
and recommendations with regard to future research and practice on
organisational change and workplace stress are given. Methodological
implications for the measurement of workplace stress in an organisational
change setting in general are outlined. As with all studies, this study has a
number of limitations which are detailed. Finally, a summary and conclusion
from the results drawn from this study is provided.

The aim of this study was to establish whether levels of work place stress
increased in an organisation undergoing change. Part of this goal was not
only to assess whether general levels of stress increased in a change
situation, but also to identify which specific sources of workplace stress were
the main sources or contributors to the increase in general stress levels.

6.2 Discussion of the Results of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 stated that employees scores on the General Work Stress Scale
would be higher on the second test than on the first test. This hypothesis was
soundly supported by the results. A statistically significant difference between
the General Work Stress Scale scores on the first and second testings was
found. As anticipated, employees in an organisation undergoing change
experienced increased levels of workplace stress as a result of the
organisational changes implemented. These findings are consistent with past
literature (Tosi & Neal 2003; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh 1999; Cartwright et al,
1996; Fisher, 1995; Schein, 1988; Zell, 2003).

GroveC Page 70
The effect size for the difference between the General Work Stress Scale
scores on the first and second testings was large. This significant increase in
general stress over time may be explained in terms of the particular type of
organisational change that took place from the time of the first test to the time
of the second test i.e. the merger of two organisations which was followed by
an organisational restructure and a downsizing exercise. Cooper et al. (2001)
contend that mergers may be viewed as a form of organisational bereavement
since the organisation, as employees know it, no longer exists. Since
Anderson and Anderson (2001) define transformational change as radical or
fundamental change in which employees must view both the internal and
external environment, as well as themselves, in a completely different way, it
follows then that a merger may be defined as a form of transformational
change. According to Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1999), transformational
change, whether planned or not, causes stress reactions in employees since
the change is of a dramatic and intense nature.

Both the first test and re-test correlations of the General Stress Scales with
the Nine Sources of Stress Scales found that workload, work/home interface,
and role ambiguity had the highest correlations with the General Stress Scale,
suggesting that these variables are the main sources of general work stress
for this particular staudy. Given the theoretical and research literature on the
relationship between organisational change and workplace stress, these
results are not surprising. Schabracq and Cooper (2000) point out that
employees in newly merged companies need to work with a new set of
working conditions, roles and responsibilities, and policies and procedures, all
of which can easily lead to role ambiguity. Further, since the merger in this
study resulted in a major restructure, cultural change or conflict more than
likely occurred. This change or conflict creates ambiguous working
environments and individual cultural incongruence (Cartwright et al, 1996).
The importance of workload as a main source of general stress is consistent
with the findings of research conducted by Amundson et al. (2004) in which it
was found that survivors of downsizings reported an increase in workload.
Further, increases in workload in a change situation may be attributed to the
employees conviction they do not have the necessary skills or capabilities to

GroveC Page 71
complete the new tasks given to them (Cooper et al, 2001). The high
correlation between work/home interface and general stress may be
explained in terms of research conducted by Amundson et al. (2004) in which
it was found that participants reported concerns with regard to the spill over
effects of a downsizing exercise on their support systems. Although employee
support systems such as family, friends, and spouses assist in reducing levels
of tension and stress, employees may still be concerned that the negative
emotions produced by the downsizing exercise may have a negative impact
on their non-work life.

Hypothesis 2 stated that employees scores on the Nine Sources of Work

Stress Scales would be higher on the second test than on the first test. The
results did not completely support the hypothesis in that the repeated
measures MANOVA for the Nine Sources of Stress Scales combined found
that the difference was not statistically significant. The independent variable
however explained approximately 25% of the variance in the dependent
variable and as such may be interpreted as were practically significant,
suggesting that participants were moderately more stressed in the second
test than in the first. This moderate effect may be explained in terms of the
coping strategies implemented by the organization in this study during the
period of change. These strategies included clear and regular communication
with regard to the change, the implementation of a reward system for
creativity and innovation, the roll out of a career path planning process, and
the implementation of a training plan for new systems and processes.
According to Schein (1988) coping is facilitated by the implementation of such
strategies, and as a result the effects of workplace stress are moderated.

A slight tendency for the means and standard deviations to be higher on the
second test was found. This was especially pronounced for the variables of
work environment, career advancement, job security, and workload. Similarly,
the univariate analysis showed that there was a practically significant effect
for the dependent variables of work environment, career advancement, and
job security, although an observable but not very strong effect was
demonstrated for the variable of workload.

GroveC Page 72
These findings are consistent with both theoretical and empirical literature.
Organisational change often means that employees are relocated to new
working environments and as a result may experience increased levels of
stress (Schabracq & Cooper, 2000). Bergh and Theron (2001) also cite a
poorly designed workplace and equipment as sources of environmental strain.
While these factors may not be specific to organisational change, it is possible
that employees who were relocated experienced their new working
environments as less satisfactory than their previous one. Further, since the
present study found most of the off-diagonal correlations to be of a moderate
size, individuals concerned about one source of stress tend to be concerned
over other sources of stress as well. In any case, work environment featured
as the least important source of stress on a rank order of the means for the
Nine Sources of Stress on both testing occasions. Employees concerns with
regard to job security and career advancement are cited in numerous
research findings and theories as the most salient sources of workplace
stress, particularly in the context of mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings
(Cartwright & Cooper, 1992; Armstrong-Strassen, 1998; Boardman et al,
2003; Cooper et al, 2001; Amundson,2004).

A rank order of the means of the sources of stress scales found that job
security was the most important source of stress for employees on both
testing occasions. This finding is consistent with the literature and research
findings discussed above. The second most important source of stress on
both testing occasions was workload. On the first test occasion
bureaucracy/autonomy was viewed as the third most important source of
stress, preceding career advancement in importance. On test occasion two
career advancement preceded bureaucracy/autonomy in order of importance.
This change in importance over time is not surprising since although
bureaucracy/autonomy as a source of stress may be indicative of a change in
organisational culture, policies and procedures, and responsibilities,
employees surviving a downsizing exercise would be more concerned over
career advancement issues as discussed above. Surprisingly relationship
remained one of the least important sources of stress on both testing
occasions. Boardman et al. (2003) sited relationships as a major concern

GroveC Page 73
voiced by employees after having undergone a merger. This concern over
having to cope with new groups of unpredictable and apprehensive
colleagues, and uncertainty and questioning of leadership is mirrored in a
number of other findings (Schabracq & Cooper, 2000; Cartwright et al, 1996;
Amundson, 2004). Practically however, it should be noted that the merger
took place between two organizations owned by the same holding company
and many of the employees knew each other or had worked together in the
past.

6.3 Theoretical Implications

An important contribution of this study is that it examined a number of sources

of workplace stress in relation to organisational change, rather than using a
general measure of workplace stress alone. By doing so not only were the
main sources of workplace stress that contributed to general levels of stress
in the organisational change situation highlighted, but the most salient of the
nine sources of stress could be identified.

One of the theoretical aims of this study was to identify the relative importance
and magnitude of a number of sources of workplace stress in an
organisational change context. While previous research has established the
importance of a number of these variables, and previous literature has
suggested that certain of these variables are more important than others, the
identification of the main sources of general stress in an organisational
change context has significant theoretical implications.

Although it is widely accepted that organisational change may lead to

increased levels of stress for employees, and that these increased levels of
stress carry with them negative consequences for both the employee and the
organisation, most contemporary change models used today focus on
managing or leading change (Jick, 1991; Kotter, 1995; Mento et al, 2002),
rather than on human or people factors and how these are affected by
change. These models lack insight and understanding with regard to how
individuals and groups process their resistance to change and ultimately deal

GroveC Page 74
with the changes forced on them (Zell, 2003). While a number of these
contemporary models address ways in which successful coping for the
individual may occur, including human focused elements such as
communication, training, participation, consultation or coercion, these
elements however, merely form part of an overall business strategy.
Ultimately the aim of this business strategy is to ensure individual compliance
with the proposed or required organisational changes. No specific reference is
made to the salient sources of stress for employees in organisational change
situations. Since a number of studies (Amundson et al, 2004; Shein, 1988;
Davies et al, 2003; Armstrong-Strassen, 1998; Boardman et al, 2003) have
pointed out that job security, career advancement, and workload are all
important sources of stress in change situations, these specific sources of
stress should be taken into account in organisational change models and
theories.

6.4 Implications for practice and future research

The findings of this study in context of past research have significant

implications for the provision of employee support during organisational
change initiatives, which involve mergers, restructures and downsizings.
Taken as a whole the results of this study confirm that transformational
change results in increased levels of stress for employees, with the variables
of job security, career advancement, and work overload being of particular
concern. Although a number of coping strategies were implemented by the
organisation in this study, during the period of change, in order to reduce
levels of stress amongst employees, it appears that the effect of these three
sources of stress amongst employees continued to be significant. The coping
strategies employed by the organisation included the implementation of a
transparent and regular communication process, the implementation of a
reward system for creativity and innovation displayed by employees, the roll
out of a career path planning process in order to ensure that employees
personal needs were integrated with organisational goals, and the provision of
training for new systems and processes. These coping strategies however
failed to address a number of positive incidents or factors, as outlined by

GroveC Page 75
Amundson et al. (2004), which, it is argued, should be applied to ensure
better coping by employees who survived organisational downsing. These
incidents include the express involvement of downsizing survivors in the
restructuring process, the acknowledgement by the organisation that the
downsizing survivors would not only need time to grieve the loss of their
colleagues who had been retrenched, but also the acknowledgement on the
part of the organisation of this loss, and the offer of an Employee Assistance
Programme by the organisation in acknowledgement that the changes
implemented had caused emotional upheaval and could be damaging to the
mental health of the employees. It seems reasonable to assume that the
implementation of these recommendations by Amundson et al. (2004) would
indeed specifically address and reduce levels of stress stemming from
concerns over job security, career advancement, and workload. Further, it
intuitively appears as if these positive incidents as recommended by
Amundson et al. (2004) would in fact address the argument made by Zell
(2003, p.89) that rather than being “herded” through the three stage models
for change, individuals should be viewed and treated as human beings who
need to mourn their losses while having some extent of control over their own
healing process and future. It is therefore suggested that future research
examine the effectiveness of the implementation of a more human-centered
approach to managing organisational change, in order to establish whether
this is indeed a more effective moderator of stress.

6.5 Methodological Implications

This study has methodological implications for the measurement of workplace

stress in an organisational change setting in general. The improvement in
prediction offered by the use of an instrument that measures both general
stress levels as well as a number of sources of stress levels allows for a
better indication of the specific causes or sources of stress in a particular
situation.

GroveC Page 76
6.6 Limitations

As with all studies, this study has a number of limitations. The use of a self
report instrument may be viewed as a limitation since self report measures
tend to inflate the correlations found among variables. Further, researchers
are unable to know whether respondents have answered truthfully as social
desirability may affect the way in which participants answer items (). This may
be especially true in the context of the current study.

A further limitation of this study is the inattention given to individual

characteristics that may affect responses to change. Madson (2003) points
out that while some employees appear to search for and invite change, readily
participating and adjusting to proposed changes, others tend to be more
hesitant and need more time and support in order to successfully take part in
proposed changes. Further, some employees purposefully resist or obstruct
change, refusing to participate in the organisations proposed goals or plans.
These individual differences with regard to change are known as the
individuals change readiness characteristics. Individuals differ in their levels of
self-efficacy, or their perceived capacity to cope with change (Cunnigham et
al, 2002). Employees who believe that changes proposed will exceed their
coping capabilities usually resist change. In contrast, employees with high
levels of self-efficacy are less likely to resist change and are more likely to
positively participate in change efforts.

6.7 Summary and Conclusion

Based on the preceding discussion of the results, a number of conclusions

were drawn from this study. First, it appeared that this study achieved its goal
of tracking changes in workplace stress levels over time in an organisation
undergoing a number of changes through the administration of a
questionnaire, namely the Sources of Work Stress Inventory, in order to
provide a measure of general levels of stress as well as possible triggers or
sources of stress, and to compare the results of the first test with the second
test and relate these results to the changes in the organisation.

GroveC Page 77
Second, both hypothesis were supported by the results in that it was found
that employee’s scores on the General Work Stress Scale were higher on the
second test than on the first test, and that employee’s scores on the Nine
Sources of Work Stress Scales were higher on the second test than on the
first test.

The study provided empirical support for the theorized notion that
organizational change initiatives lead to increased levels of stress among
employees. Further, the results supported theoretical and research findings
which propose that job security, career advancement, and work overload are
all salient sources of stress in an organisational change setting that involves a
merger, restructure and downsings activities.

Finally, the results of this study demonstrated that the implementation of a

number of contemporary change management strategies did not fully assist in
improving the coping ability of employees in this specific change setting. As a
result it was recommended that future change management strategies or
more specifically coping strategies, should include a more humanistic and
psychologically supportive approach as demonstrated in the research findings
proposed by Amundson et al. (2004) and Zell (2003).

GroveC Page 78
References

Amundson, N.E., Borgen, W.A., Jordan, S. & Erlebach, A.C. (2004). Helpful
and hindering experiences. The Career Development Quarterly, 52 (3) 256-
271.

Anderson, D. & Anderson, L. (2001). Beyond change management. San

Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Armstrong-Strassen, M., Cameron, S., & Horsburgh, M. (1996). The impact of

organisational downsizing on the job satisfaction of nurses. Canadian Journal
of Nursing Administration, 9 (4) 8-32.

Beer, T.A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routelage.

Bergh, Z. & Theron, A. (Eds.). (2000). Psychology in the work context. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Boardman, K., Kelpe, M., Straub, D., & VanFleet, R. (2003). Shining through a
merger. Nursing Management, 34 (5) 45-48.

Bonn, D. & Bonn, J. (2000). Work-related stress: Can it be a thing of the past?
The Lancet, 355 (9198), 124.

Burke, R.J. (1988). Sources of professional stress in large organizations. In

C.L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress
at work (pp. 77-114). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Cartwright, S. & Cooper, C.L.(1997). Managing workplace stress. CA: Sage.

Cartwright, S., Cooper, C.L., & Murphy, L.R. (1996). Diagnosing a health
organization: A proactive approach to stress in the workplace. In L.R. Murphy,
J.J. Hurrell, Jr., S.L. Sauter, and G. Puryear Keita (Eds.), Job stress

GroveC Page 79
interventions, (pp. 217-233). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.

Clarke, S.L. & Cooper, C.L. (2000). The risk management of occupational
stress. Journal of Health, Risk & Society, 2 (2), 220-235.

Collins, G. (2003). The economic case for mergers: old, new, borrowed, and
blue. Journal of Economic Issues, 37 (4), 987-998.

Cooper, C.L. (1987). The experience and management of stress: Job and
organizational determinants. In A.W. Riley and S.J. Zaccaro (Eds.),
Occupational stress and organizational effectiveness (pp. 53-69). New York:
Praeger.

Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P.J. & O’Driscoll, M.P. (2001). Organisational stress. A
review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oakes
CA: Sage.

Cooper, C.L., & Marshall, J. (1978). Sources of managerial and white color
stress. In C.L. Cooper and R.Payne (Eds.), Stress at work, (pp. 81-105). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2001). Organization development and change.

Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.

Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum,

B., Rosenbloom, D. & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change:
A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates.
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75 (4), 337 - 350.

Davis, J.A., Savage, G., Stewart, R.T. & Chapman, R.C. (2003).
Organisational downsizing: A review of literature for planning and research.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 48 (3), 181 - 200.

GroveC Page 80
Doyle, C., & Hind, P. (1998). Occupational Stress, Burnout and Job Status in
Female Academics. Gender, Work & Organisations, 5, 67 – 82.

Eisenberger, R., Fasalo, P. & Davis-Lamastro, V. (1990). Perceived

organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.

Fisher, S. (1994). Stress in academic life: The mental assembly line. London:
The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Fletcher, B.C. (1991). Work, stress, disease and life expectancy. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Friedman, R.A. (2002). Conflict style and coping with role conflict: An
extension of the uncertainty model of work stress. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 13 (3), 236-254.

Gill, R. (2003). Change management – or change leadership? Journal of

Change Management, 3 (4), 307 - 323.

Greenberger, E. & O’Neil, R. (1993). Spouse, parent, worker: Role

commitments and role-related experiences in the construction of adults’ well-
being. Developmental Psychology, 29, 181-197.

Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and
family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Greenhaus, J.H., & Parasuraman, S. (1987). A work-nonwork perspective of

stress and its consequences. In J.M. Ivancevich & D.C. Ganster (Eds.), Job
stress: From theory to suggestion (pp. 37-60). New York, NY: The Haworth
Press.

GroveC Page 81
Irving, G.P. & Coleman, D.F. (2003). The moderating effect of different forms
of commitment on role ambiguity-job tension relations. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 20 (2), 97-113.

Jick, T. (1991). Implementing Change. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Jones, B., Flynn, D.M., & Kelloway, E.K. (1996). Perception of support from
the organisation in relation to workstress, satisfaction, and commitment. In
S.L. Sauter and L.R. Murphy (Eds.), Organisational risk factors for job stress,
(pp. 41-52). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Joiner, T.A. (2001). The influences of national culture and organizational

culture alignment on job stress and performance: evidence from Greece.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16 (3), 229-242.

Jones, F., & Fletcher, B.C. (1996). Job control and health. In M.J. Schabracq,
J.A.M. Winnubst, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health
psychology (pp. 33-55). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Karasek, Jr., R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
285-308.

Kerlinger, F. (1992). Foundations of behavioral research. Florida: Harcourt

Brace College Publishers.

Korunka, C., Weiss, A., Huemer, K.H., & Karetta, B. (1995). The effects of
new technologies on job satisfaction and psychosomatic complaints. Applied
Psychology: International Review, 44, 123-142.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
74(2) (reprint No.95204).

GroveC Page 82
Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. & Buelens, M. (1999). Organizational behaviour.
London: McGraw-Hill.

Madson, S.R. (2003). Wellness in the workplace: Preparing employees for

change. Organizational Development Journal, 21 (1) 46 - 56.

McLagan, P.A. (2003). The change-capable organization. Training and

Development, 57 (1), 50 - 55.

Melhuish, A.H. (1981). A doctor’s role in educating managers about stress. In

J. Marshall and C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Coping with stress at work: Case studies
from industry, (pp. 3-40). Aldershot: Gower.

Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M. & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management

process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change
Management, 3, 45-59.

Nahavandi, A. & Malekzadeh, A.R. (1999). Organisational behavior. New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1997). Organisational behaviour: human behaviour

at work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Driscoll, M.P. (1996). The interface between job and off-job roles:
Enhancement and conflict. International Review of Individual and
Organisational Psychology, 11, 279-306.

Phillips-Miller, D.L., Campbell, N.J., & Morrison, C.R. (2000). Work and family:
Satisfaction, stress, and spousal support. Journal of Employment Counseling,
37 (1), 16-30.

Revicki, D.A., & Whitley, T.W. (1996). Work related stress and depression in
emergency medicine residents. In S.L. Sauter, and L.R. Murphy (Eds.),

GroveC Page 83
Organisational risk factors for job stress, (pp. 247-257). Washington:
American Psychological Association.

Quick, J.C. & Quick, J.D. (1984). Organisational stress and preventative
management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sauter, S. & Murphy, L.R. (Eds.). (1996). Organisational risk factors for job
stress. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Schabracq, M.J. & Cooper, C.L. (2002). The changing nature of work and
stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15 (3), 227-241.

Schabracq, M.J., Winnubst, J. & Cooper, C.L. ( 2003). The handbook of work
and health psychology. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Schein, E. (1980). Organizational psychology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Senior, B. (1997). Organisational change. London: Pitman Publishing.

Streubel, P. (1998). Why do employees resist change. Harvard: Harvard

Business School Press.

Sutherland, V.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1988). Sources of stress. In J.J. Hurrell, Jr.,
L.R. Murphy, S.L. Sauter, and C.L.Cooper (Eds.), Occupational stress: Issues
and developments in research, (pp. 3-40). London: Taylor & Francis.

Taris, T.W., Schreurs, P.J.G., & van Iersel-van Silhout, I.J. (2001). Job stress,
job strain and psychological withdrawal among Dutch university staff: Towards
a dual-process model for the effects of occupational stress. Work & Stress,
15, 283-296.

Theorell, T., & Karasek, R.A. (1996). Current issues relating to job strain and
cardiovascular disease research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
1, 9-26.

GroveC Page 84
Thomas, A. & Robertshaw, D. (1999). Achieving employment equity: a guide
to effective strategies. Randburg: Knowledge Resources (Pty) Ltd.

Toppinen-Tanner, S., Kalimo, R., &Mutanen, P. (2002). The process of

burnout in white-collar and blue-collar jobs: Eight-year prospective study of
exhaustion. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 23, 555-570.

Tosi, H.L. & Mero, N.P. (2003). The fundamentals of organizational behavior.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Tosi, H.L., Mero, N.P. & Rizzo, J. (2001). Managing organizational behavior.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Wagar, T.H. (2001). Consequences of work force reduction: Some employer

and union evidence. Journal of Labour Research, 32 (4), 851 – 862.

Zell, D. (2003). Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and

rebirth. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (1), 73-96.

GroveC Page 85