724531

research-article2017
CCJXXX10.1177/1043986217724531Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeReed and Higgins

Article
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
1­–12
Measuring Complexity: A © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Confirmatory Factor Analysis sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1043986217724531
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986217724531
Approach journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

John C. Reed Jr.1 and George E. Higgins1

Abstract
This study examines complexity as a measure of support for organizational redirection.
This study considers whether 16 items (culture, mission, values, decentralization, policies
and procedures, administrative reporting practices, weapons, contract, pay, benefits,
patrol boundaries, equalization of workload, size of boundaries, communications,
10-codes, and car numbers) appropriately characterized a suppressed measure of
complexity related to complex organizational change, a police department merger.
The current study utilizes data collected from 390 sworn officers from two merged
law enforcement agencies in Kentucky. The results of the structural equation model
analysis supported the view that four factors (mission, logistics, benefits, and policy)
fashion an underlying construct for measuring complexity related to organizational
change/redirection. The implications of these findings are also considered.

Keywords
complexity, factor analysis, organizational change, organizational redirection, police
consolidation, merger

Introduction
Change and the characteristic complexity that accompanies much of it exists in all
organizations, especially during large-scale events such as a government merger. The
research on organizational change is plentiful, generating a mass of insights. However,
to date, the research on complexity related to organizational change, and support for
the redirection, is less abundant. Academics and practitioners are increasingly seeing
complexity theories as a way of understanding organizations and promoting change

1University of Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:
John C. Reed Jr., Southern Police Institute, McCandless Hall, University of Louisville, Louisville,
KY 40292, USA.
Email: jcreed01@louisville.edu
2 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 00(0)

(Black, 2000; Macbeth, 2002). However, the complexity paradigm uses a method of
universal inquiry to build vague and ambiguous representations of reality configured
at different levels and structured from many disciplines (Dooley, 1997).
One underlying theoretical stance is that an individual’s perception of the complex-
ity of merging certain organizational change components (OCCs) might affect atti-
tudes of support for the consolidation. Complexity could be important, as successful
organizational redirection is reliant upon generating officer support and enthusiasm
for the changes (Piderit, 2000). While the existing literature examines the complex
behavior of individuals, systems, and subsystems of organizations, complexity to redi-
rect different organizational components of change is not so clear and warrants con-
currence in definition. Lack of a definitive measure of complexity may inhibit literature
consistency and a congruous conceptualization of complexity.
Complexity theories have transcended from the natural sciences to the field of organi-
zational science to argue chaos is a necessary condition for the growth of dynamic sys-
tems, but that these systems are prevented from destruction by the presence of “simple
order-generating” rules (Gell-Mann, 1994; Gould, 1989). Many different interpretations
of complexity exist among researchers. Three key theories are most cited: chaos, dissipa-
tive structures, and complex adaptive systems (Stacey, Griffin, & Shaw, 2002). The chaos
and dissipative structures theories focus on entire sets and populations. In contrast, the
complex adaptive systems approach attempts to make meaning of the behavior of the
individual elements of systems and populations (Stacey et al., 2002). However, there has
been no examination of complexity variables and/or factors relating to merging OCCs,
nor has a complexity scale been proposed. In addressing policy and operational concerns,
this may prove precarious or misrepresentative of the exact issue at hand.
This research probes methodologies for conceptualizing and operationalizing the
model of complexity related to organizational redirection. We examine 16 OCCs uti-
lized in research at a large metropolitan police agency in the United States during a
government consolidation (Reed, 2013) to identify the practicality of this measure for
assessing complexity related to merging components of change. By utilizing structural
equation modeling (SEM), and in particular confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we
seek to contribute to a more thorough understanding of the validity of this measure and
how it relates to the perception of complexity in merging OCCs.
The study begins by reviewing the literature on complexity related to organizations
and an examination of the implications of complexity on organizational redirection
and on merging OCCs. Following this examination, we describe the OCCs utilized for
merging a police agency. Thereafter, we provide a case calling for a valid and uniform
measure of complexity. Subsequently, we report the methods and results, and conclude
with a discussion of the findings.

Literature Review
Complexity
Complexity is a state or quality of being complicated or intricate. Organizations are
complex systems made up of people and groups, sometimes forming coalitions, each
Reed and Higgins 3

of which having their own areas of interest, values, beliefs, preferences, and perspec-
tives (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2005). Complexity theories, initially utilized in the natural
sciences, have found application as a way of understanding organizations and promot-
ing organizational change (Black, 2000; Macbeth, 2002). Researchers in the natural
sciences posit chaos is a requisite condition for the growth of dynamic systems, but
that these systems are averted from destruction by rules that produce stability (Gell-
Mann, 1994; Gould, 1989).
Like complex systems in nature, an organizational change such as a consolidation
of police agencies is dynamic and characterized by continuous change, activity, or
progress. Because of the nonlinear nature of the system, rules are devised to provide a
focus, restraint, and/or order. The key to survival is for all organizations to develop a
set of rules, which keep the organization operating “on the edge of chaos” (Stacey
et al., 2002). Too much stability results in absence of change, while too much chaos
creates an overwhelming atmosphere where change cannot occur. Although several
interpretations regarding complexity exist, the most prominent are chaos, dissipative
structures, and complex adaptive systems (Stacey et al., 2002).
Chaos theory is resultant from research conducted on weather systems by Lorenz
(1993) and is defined as processes that appear to advance according to chance, even
though their behavior is in fact determined by precise laws. Chaos theory involves
dynamic systems that are continually changing themselves in an irreversible and thus
evolutionary manner (Bechtold, 1997; Haigh, 2002). According to the theory, small
changes in the environment can be augmented by chaos, which causes instability. This
instability is integral to the converting of an existing pattern of behavior into a new,
more suitable one. In a police department involved in consolidating OCCs, the changes
causing instability can occur internally or externally and can be planned, spontaneous,
or anywhere in between (Reed & Higgins, in press). In fact, managing stability may be
as important as managing the organizational change (Jacobs, Christe-Zeyse, Keegan,
& Polos, 2008).
The dissipative structures theory recognizes that unless energy is fed in from the
outside, structures will “dissipate.” Dissipative structures are similar to chaotic sys-
tems. A dissipative structure is a somewhat constant configuration that operates in
harmony with nonlinear logic (Prigogine, 1997). In certain positions, the structure can
attract considerable external pressure, while in others it can be completely changed by
even the smallest disturbances (Styhre, 2002). These structures can also experience
periods of instability and at certain points reorganize to form a structure or behavior
that cannot be foretold from knowledge of the prior condition, but rather from an inter-
nal dynamic (Stacey, 2003).
While chaos and dissipative structures theories concentrate on entire sets and popu-
lations, the complex adaptive systems take an individualistic approach to organiza-
tions attempting to make meaning of the behavior of the individual elements of systems
and populations (Stacey et al., 2002). It comprises many different components or
“agents” working together with one another under a set of rules so as to improve their
behavior and the behavior of the group which they comprise. These systems require
each agent to modify its behavior to that of other agents (Stacey, 2003) as behavior is
not influenced by a single entity but rather simultaneous and corresponding actions of
4 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 00(0)

agents within the system itself. Learning takes place during this interaction. In this
system, all of the complex adaptive systems form a larger system, which “learns its
way into the future” (Stacey, 1996, p. 183), and evolve.
We maintain police agencies involved in organizational redirection and, in particu-
lar consolidation initiatives, have elements in common with each of these theories. We
further theorize police organizations are dynamic systems fluid during and after the
consolidation phase. As new initiatives are implemented, the organization is constantly
changing and evolving. Some of the changes involve complex initiatives such as con-
solidating or redefining cultures, policies and procedures, communications, collective
bargaining contracts, and patrol boundaries. During these changes, the department(s)
display complex patterns of behavior. This occurs not only at the organizational and
group level but also at the individual level. While these behaviors are chaotic, restrain-
ing rules that govern behavior are established that allow for innovation, but discourage
excessive behaviors.
Organizations need to change to cope with instability in their external environ-
ments (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000) such as with dissipative structures. The exter-
nal environment includes customers, markets, and associations that influence the
responses of the organization. During a consolidation of police agencies, external
influences adding to complexity can include political considerations, labor unions,
community members, businesses, and special interest groups.
There are also components of complex adaptive systems encountered during a
police consolidation. Individuals work and learn from other members of the organiza-
tional system, especially in specialty units such as narcotics, communications, investi-
gations, and so on. These systems work with other systems as part of the entire larger
conglomerate.
Much of the complex organizational change during a consolidation process can be
generally categorized as cultural or structural. Organizational change is often related
to the violation of an organization’s core cultural values (Hannan, Pólos, & Carroll,
2007). We theorize that even if many organizational changes are structural, conceptu-
ally the change influences procedures, which induces habit-forming behavior. At this
level, behavior becomes a characteristic of the organization’s culture.
The organizational structure and the organizational culture provide the answer to
the basic question of who we are as an organization, our purpose, our mission, and so
on (Albert & Whetten, 1985). This process of recognition takes place internally and is
complex. These fundamental, long-term, and exclusive to the organization elements
institutionalize the requirements for a collective belief structure (Jacobs et al., 2008;
Jacobs, van Witteloostuijn, & Christe-Zeyse, 2013; Van Rekom & Whetten, 2007).
These elements guide behavior and make uniform and stable action possible. Mutual
beliefs can successfully influence organizational action due to inchoate policies, rules,
and procedures, and the inability to project every contingency that may occur. Thus,
certain actions are often derived from the common understanding of who we are as an
organization (organizational identity). Adding to the complexity is that some organiza-
tional changes or issues are not supported or affiliated with the organizational identity.
This may result from a practice that has yet to be formalized or one that presents
Reed and Higgins 5

fundamental challenges to valued organizational identities (Gioia et al., 2000;

Rousseau, 1998; Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima, 2002)
which adds to further complexity regarding the mechanics of organizational change.
The complex nature of organizational redirection is also evidenced by multiple
audiences, both internal (i.e., different divisions, departments, and/or units) and exter-
nal (i.e., the public, businesses, government offices) to the organization. With a police
agency merger, individuals may have different cultural interpretations of expectations
or relationships adding to the unification’s complexity. Ambiguous procedures and
regulations are interpreted in numerous ways, and different parties develop varied
responses in relation to procedural ambiguities (Magala, 2009; Weick, 1995) which
also added to the complexity of change.

OCCs
Culture is the most dominant dynamic in an organization and refers to the deep structure
of organizations, which is grounded in the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by orga-
nizational members (Denison, 1996). It is thought to influence individuals’ attitudes con-
cerning outcomes, such as support, motivation, morale, and satisfaction. These
fundamental, long-term, and exclusive to the organization elements institutionalize the
requirements for a collective belief structure (Jacobs et al., 2008; Jacobs et al., 2013). A
mission statement is a stainable statement of purpose that characterizes an organization
from other like organizations (David, 1989). It exemplifies the culture, principles, and
beliefs of the organization. Values are the norms and basic truths employees feel are
important to their organization (Schein, 1985). They are integral to the agency’s opera-
tion as they guide the behavior of personnel. Decentralization is a complex organiza-
tional change related to the structure and ultimately the culture of the agency.
For an organization to be viable, its policies and practices must be adaptable to its
current environment (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004). Besides policies, all administra-
tive reporting practices needed to be revised during the consolidation to conform to the
values and mission. In addition, to ensure uniformity, a weapon choice was made as
each agency carried a different weapon system.
At the time of the consolidation of the two organizations, 11 contracts existed with
different pay rates, benefit packages, and miscellaneous contractual provisions. Many
of these contracts were merged, redefined, or renegotiated to reconcile parity in pay
and benefits and minimize the number of contracts that existed. Restructuring of patrol
divisions was essential for optimal organizational effectiveness and efficiency as each
agency, prior to merger, had a disparate number of patrol divisions. When redefining
the patrol boundaries, equalization of workload and geographical size were important
factors for consideration. Calls for service, response times, population density, dis-
tance considerations, and officer safety were evaluated for each division and patrol
areas within each of the divisions.
Communications at the time of organizational change were handled by two different
radio systems with dissimilar wavelength ranges, both an ultra high frequency (UHF)
system and a very high frequency (VHF) system. These systems did not allow for
6 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 00(0)

effective radio communications, as they provided no interoperability unless a “link”

was manually selected. At the time of the consolidation, one agency used approxi-
mately 100 10-codes while the other used ten to twelve 10-codes. In addition, the car
numbers used and assigned by each agency were entirely different. One agency assigned
car numbers individually while the other agency assigned them to areas/units.

The Need for a Standardized Measure of Complexity

Due to the frequency of organizational change and the interests of scholars, an array of
research has been conducted. However, the complex nature of the organizational
change(s) has been far less studied. This is especially true when measuring the com-
plexity of change as it applies to different types of organizations, especially police
agencies. It is vital to have a standardized and validated method of measuring com-
plexity related to organizational change.
There is very little consensus on how to evaluate complex organizational change
processes (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). However, there is a prevalent practice in
the organizational change research to ignore the dominant influence of cultural and insti-
tutional differences of diverse organizations (Sorge, 2005). While this position has merit,
it is also apparent that there are many commonalities among types of organizations that
can be standardized. The analysis of organizational change needs an approach that can
account for typologies of organizations. While there may be exclusive differences in
organizations such as culture, mission, values, and so on, these organizational attributes
are generally found in all organizations and changing them could be more consistently
measured by a standardized method. We have formulated a list of 16 conjectural compo-
nents transformed to four factors that provide examples of core insights we believe to be
interesting to explore in future work measuring organizational change complexity.

The Present Study

The purpose of the present study is to examine the structure of the complexity of OCCs
as a measure during organizational redirection. We examine 16 components of change
(OCCs) to determine whether they culminate in a measure of complexity for organiza-
tional redirection in police agencies. To accomplish this, we use CFA by means of SEM.
This research seeks to enrich the understanding of complexity and organizational change
in police agencies and possibly in other organizations with like components of change.

Method
Procedures and Sample
The data for this study came from a population of 669 sworn police officers who were
working for a large metropolitan police agency in Kentucky, but had previously
worked for two police agencies, which were consolidated. Of the entire population,
435 or 65% were employed with one of the former agencies and 234 or 34.9% were
Reed and Higgins 7

formally employed by the other. The officers included in the study held the rank(s) of
Officer through Lieutenant Colonel. Patrol officers accounted for the greater part
(67%) of the population, followed by Sergeants and then members of middle manage-
ment. The majority of the population was male (85.7%) and Caucasian (86%) fol-
lowed in frequency by Black/African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and Asians.

Procedures
A survey instrument from which the data were drawn was divided into five sections:
(a) support (prior support and current support), (b) merger experience and participa-
tion, (c) satisfaction, (d) perceived complexity, and (e) demographic information/offi-
cer characteristics. The instrument consisted of 32 questions and was administered to
personnel in August 2012 via departmental email utilizing SurveyMonkey®.
The 16 OCCs used to test complexity were scored on a 7-point scale ranging from
1 (very easy) to 6 (very difficult). Seven was used for neutral responses (“no opinion”
responses were excluded from the data set prior to final analysis). The specific ques-
tion for the complexity items was as follows: “In your opinion, how difficult was it to
merge the following OCCs of the two agencies?” Exploratory factor analysis revealed
that the 16 items coalesced into four factors that were used as subscales, and the sub-
scales accounted for 75.97% of the variation. The four subscales were as follows:
Mission (culture, mission statement, decentralization of personnel from specialty
units, and value statement; Cronbach’s α = .74), Logistics (patrol division boundaries,
equalization of workload in merged patrol divisions, geographical size of the patrol
divisions, and communication sections; Cronbach’s α = .88), Benefits (type of weapon
patrol officers carry, contracts, reconcile pay scales, and reconcile employee benefits,
as defined by contract; Cronbach’s α = .88), and Policy (10-codes, car numbers, policy
and procedure manuals, and administrative reporting practices; Cronbach’s α = .71).

Statistical Analysis
The focus of the study was to provide information about the measurement of com-
plexity. Specifically, three steps produce the results. The first step was the develop-
ment of the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations). The second step
was the bivariate analysis via correlations. Correlations determine the amount of
shared variation among the subscales. The third step was the CFA via Mplus Version
6.12. CFA allowed for the examination of the measurement properties. Specifically,
the CFA provided information about the size of the factor loadings. Factor loadings
above 0.50 are considered strong factor loadings (Kline, 2010). Furthermore, four
indexes were used, in the CFA, to assess model fit. The first index was the chi-square
statistic. The chi-square statistic should be nonsignificant. The likelihood of this
occurring was small because the amount of data was large. This indicated consulting
other indexes. Other indexes consisted of the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA < 0.08), comparative fit index (CFI > 0.95), and standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR < 0.05) (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
8 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 00(0)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics.

Measure M SD Internal consistency

Mission 9.99 3.03 0.74
Logistics 15.55 4.65 0.88
Benefits 13.22 4.83 0.88
Policy 12.65 3.94 0.71

Table 2.  Bivariate Correlations.

Measure 1 2 3 4
1. Mission 1.00  
2. Logistics .21* 1.00  
3. Benefits .29* .28* 1.00  
4. Policy .28* .28* .31* 1.00

*p < .05.

Table 3.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Measure Factor loading

1. Mission 0.49
2. Logistics 0.48
3. Benefits 0.58
4. Policy 0.56

Results
Step 1
Table 1 presents the first step and is the report of the descriptive statistics. Primarily, the
means for each of the subscales are as follows: mission (M = 9.99), logistics (M = 15.55),
benefits (M=13.22), and policy (M = 12.65).

Step 2
Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations. The bivariate correlations show whether the
measures share appropriate amounts of variation to proceed to the CFA. The correla-
tions are significant and range from .21 to .31. This suggests that proper amounts of
shared variation exist among the measures.

Step 3
Table 3 presents the CFA. The CFA determines the strength and fit of the data to the
model. When the factor loadings are strong—above 0.50 (Kline, 2010)—the model
Reed and Higgins 9

fits the data and adequate measurement properties exist. Table 3 shows that half of the
factor loadings meet Kline’s threshold for large factor loadings. Two of the factor
loadings do not meet this threshold, but they do not indicate severe problems. We
believe the factor loadings are substantial. Furthermore, the factor loadings show the
subscales should be retained. In addition, the model fits the data (χ2 = 0.72, p = .70;
RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, and SRMR = 0.01).

Discussion
The present study tested the factor structure of 16 complexity OCCs from a large police
department consolidation. We assert these 16 items form a four-factor model: mission,
logistics, benefits, and policy. This model demonstrated desirable fit and strong fit
implications. The fit of the model in relation to the data indicates that the model has
discriminant validity, and the factor loadings indicate that convergent validity has been
identified in the data. In addressing sworn police agency employees related to com-
plexities of organizational change, it appears that this scale is appropriate.
Even though past research related to organizational change could be considered
sufficient, complexity related to organizational redirection is not. Organizations, espe-
cially police organizations, are constantly changing and redirecting their resources.
Until this study, measuring the complexity of components of change by discipline
typology was virtually nonexistent. This study may lead to a more sound development
of policy to dispel prechange misconceptions, ease the chaotic nature of the redirec-
tion, and help to mold positive perceptions and ultimately lead to support of the change
(Reed & Higgins, in press).
The CFA measure comprises items and ultimately factors that net several different
aspects of complexity. These items/factors are lacking in the literature. Specifically, the
measure contains items relevant to mission, logistics, benefits, and policy. Although
succinct, the items allow for a discussion and exchange that the measure is exploiting
several parts of the complexity concept. Also significant is that the measure affords suf-
ficient data to understand complexity among organizational change in police agencies.
It should be noted that the validity of the scale should be kept within the confines
of the study’s limits. While the population is sizable and adequate, the population
comes from one police agency involved in merging two law enforcement agencies.
Despite the limits of this study, it augments the literature by examining the structure of
complexity related to organizational change in a police agency. The results show that
the factors of mission, logistics, benefits, and policy constitute an unrealized measure
of complexity of organizational change in police agencies. Further study is warranted
that investigates a more theoretically focused approach. However, for judicious inquiry
related to complexity and organizational change in police agencies, the measure
implies validity to understand the complexity of redirection in police organizations.

Conclusion
When organizational redirection occurs, a multitude of complex changes can take place.
Understanding complexity during organizational redirection or change is important due
10 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 00(0)

to the effects it could have on employees. Complexity can be a very important obstacle
to adoption or support for innovations such as organizational redirection/change (Rogers,
2003). This study was undertaken to determine a standardized measure of complexity.
The findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role of complexity in
relation to organizational change initiatives in police agencies and ensure validity of
information interpretation in future research. This will help to gain support and to dispel
negative perceptions of complexity, such as believing changes are more complex than
they really are or avoiding changes that are believed to be too difficult.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Bechtold, B. L. (1997). Chaos theory as a model for strategy development. Empowerment in
Organizations, 5, 193-201.
Black, J. A. (2000). Fermenting change: Capitalizing on the inherent change found in dynamic non-
linear (or complex) systems. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 520-525.
David, F. R. (1989). How companies define their mission. Long Range Planning, 22, 90-97.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy Management
Review, 21, 619-654.
Dooley, K. (1997). A complex adaptive system model of organization change. Nonlinear
Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 1, 69-97.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Punctuated equilibrium in fact and theory. Journal of Social Biological
Structure, 12, 117-136.
Haigh, C. (2002). Using chaos theory: The implications for nursing. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 37, 462-469.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences,
codes, and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Jacobs, G., Christe-Zeyse, J., Keegan, A., & Polos, L. (2008). Reactions to organizational iden-
tity threats in times of change: Illustrations from the German police. Corporate Reputation
Review, 11, 245-261.
Reed and Higgins 11

Jacobs, G., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013). A theoretical framework of orga-
nizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 772-792.
Khandwalla, P. N., & Mehta, K. (2004). Design of corporate creativity. Vikalpa, 29, 13-28.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lorenz, E. (1993). The essence of chaos. London, England: UCL Press.
Macbeth, D. K. (2002). Emergent strategy in managing cooperative supply chain change.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22, 728-740.
Magala, S. (2009). The management of meaning in organizations. London, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational
change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 47, 461-524.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional
view of attitudes toward an organizational change. The Academy of Management Review,
25, 783-794.
Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Reed, J. (2013). Support of police consolidation: Assessing the impact of perceived complex-
ity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=2191&context=etd
Reed, J., & Higgins, G. (in press). Complexity and systemic organizational redirection. Policing:
An International Journal.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 217-233.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2005). Classics of organization theory (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sorge, A. M. (2005). The global and the local: Understanding the dialectics of business sys-
tems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (2nd ed.). London,
England: Pitman.
Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic management and organizational dynamics: The challenge of
complexity. Harlow, UK: Financial Times.
Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2002). Complexity and management: Fad or radical
challenge to systems thinking? London, England: Routledge.
Styhre, A. (2002). Non-linear change in organizations: Organization change management
informed by complexity theory. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23,
342-351.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (2002). Organizational
identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 233-252.
Van Rekom, J., & Whetten, D. (2007, August). How organizational identity beliefs cohere:
About essence, distinctiveness and continuity. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Meeting in Philadelphia, PA.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 00(0)

Author Biographies
John C. Reed Jr., PhD, is an associate director of the Southern Police Institute and an assistant
professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville. He holds a BS
in police administration, an MS in justice administration, and a PhD in urban and public affairs
from the University of Louisville. He served in the law enforcement profession for approxi-
mately 35 years, 28 of which with the Louisville Metro Police Department and seven as chief of
police with the Henderson, Kentucky Police Department. He has been a consultant to law
enforcement agencies as well as to the national police forces of Hungary and of Slovakia. His
research interests include organizational behavior, organizational change, and policing issues.
George E. Higgins is a full professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of
Louisville. He received his PhD in criminology from Indiana University of Pennsylvania in
2001. He is the current editor of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education. His most recent
publications appear or are forthcoming in Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice and
Behavior, Justice Quarterly, Deviant Behavior, and Youth & Society.