1. Introduction
Strategic change is a radical transition within an organization that encompasses strategy, structure, processes, and culture (Balogun et al., 2015). It focuses on how to align the firm’s internal environment with the external one (Müller & Kunisch, 2018; Rajagopalan & Spreitzer, 1997). For the last few years, the rate of change faced by organizations has become bigger and more challenging because of several recent management trends such as increased pressure to compete in the international market, swift technological changes, unpredictable economic conditions, demanding customers and management changes, etc. (Balogun et al., 2015). Thus, change is considered an inevitable aspect of organizational life these days (Burnes, 2004), and it has a long-term effect on the organization’s survival and performance (Carpenter, 2000). However, in reality, most of the change initiatives do not achieve the targeted outcomes. The reported failure rate is over 70 percent (Balogun & Hailey, 2008; Balogun et al., 2015; Tran et al., 2020). Therefore, successful management of organizational change has become a dominant concern in today’s business world (Senior, 2002; Balogun et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2019).
A lot of research has been done in strategic change management in the current decade. However, there exist a few grey areas in the cumulative body of knowledge that needs further investigation to build a good understanding of strategic change management (Müller & Kunisch, 2018). Although the literature has discussed different types of strategic changes that take place in an organization, studies investigating different types of strategic change regarding their outcomes are insufficient in the extant knowledge sources (Müller & Kunisch, 2018). The recent categorization of the strategic change is based on the extent and speed of the change (Balogun et al., 2015). Accordingly, the four major types of strategic change are Evolution, Revolution, Adaptation, and Reconstruction. To study the fundamental strategic change, the emphasis of the current investigation is on Transformation that includes Evolution (incremental) and Revolution (all at once or big bang). Evolution is a transformational change that is proactive and executed in response to the expected future needs. It is a pre-planned change and is implemented step by step through different phases and interconnected activities. On the other hand, Revolution is a transformational change that is taken simultaneously on all fronts in a short span of time. This is a reactive approach and is executed in response to internal or external pressure. This type of change is more likely to be forced (Balogun et al., 2015). The information regarding the nature of the change helps to deal with it accordingly. Therefore, the existing research has selected Revolution and Evolution to be explored with respect to their antecedents, explicit reactions, and consequences.
Most investigations conducted in organizational change focus on how do organizations react to the change. However, another significant factor determining the success of the change project is how do change recipients react to the change (Oreg et al., 2011). The reasons for most of the change projects’ failures are related to human disputes rather than technical issues (Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Canning & Found, 2015). One of the reasons could be a lack of the change agent’s consideration towards the change recipient’s reactions which has a meaningful part to play. In addition, the literature suggests that the appropriate fit between content, context, and process may better determine the eventual change success (Damanpour, 1991; Self et al., 2007). Variables in content, context, and process have been studied separately, in the past, having a distinct effect on employees’ reactions towards change, but there are inadequate inquiries regarding their simultaneous effects for understanding employees’ reactions (Oreg et al., 2014; Ahmad & Cheng, 2018). Therefore, the current research is focusing on how explicit positive reactions of the change recipients (considering affective commitment to change) and positive change consequences (Job satisfaction) can be achieved in the implementation of the transformation (Evolution and Revolution) by considering content, context, and process together.
Furthermore, change researchers have studied several antecedent variables, but the exploration of their relationships, incorporating mediation and moderation effects, demands much greater concentration (Oreg et al., 2011). In this regard, the literature suggested that there are not enough studies available that have investigated job satisfaction as an antecedent to affective commitment to change by acting as a mediator to content, context, and process (Devos et al., 2007). Correspondingly, the model is testing a change consequence (job satisfaction) acting as a mediator between change antecedents (context and process) and explicit change reactions (affective commitment to change). Lastly, most of the research on organizational change is conducted on western economies (Yousef, 2000; Ahmad & Cheng, 2018). According to the literature, change is situational, which works in one organization, or culture may not produce the same results in other cultures (Jacobs et al., 2013). The studies regarding a strategic change in developing Asian countries such as Pakistan are insufficient. Thus, the existing inquiry is expected to generalize the strategic change research outcomes to non-western economies. Accordingly, research questions are:
1. What is the relationship between the perceived change impact with affective commitment to change and job satisfaction for different types of strategic change (Revolution and Evolution)?
2. How do the context influence job satisfaction and explicit reactions such as affective commitment to change in Revolution and Evolution?
3. How do the change process influence job satisfaction and explicit reactions such as affective commitment to change in different types of strategic change (Revolution and Evolution)?
4. What is the significance of job satisfaction as a mediator of process, context, and content towards affective commitment to change?
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. Change Antecedents
2.1.1. Change Content
The change content deals with the “what” of a change. It refers to a type of change that takes place (Self et al., 2007; Baines et al., 2017) and how that change is perceived by the change recipients (Armenakis et al., 2000). People’s attitude towards change is associated with their perception regarding that specific change. There are many implications of organizational transformations. Some changes have considerable effects, such as downsizing or re-engineering., which may lead people to quit their jobs or change the nature of their work completely.
Conversely, some changes are not very severe and do not carry long-lasting effects, such as the change of a procedure on a reporting mechanism. Most of the times’ the recipient’s attitude towards the change is directly proportional to their perception regarding the change, and it makes them whether to support the change or not (Grant & Ashford, 2008). People resist those changes which they think will affect them adversely (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). When the severity of the change impact increases, people perceive their jobs as less tolerable and may develop a negative perception and attitude towards it (Self et al., 2007).
The current research considers two types of strategic change: Revolution and Evolution. Perceived change impact (PCI) varies in both cases. Evolution is a proactive approach, which is taken in response to the anticipation of future needs in the external environment. Therefore, the process of the shift involves ongoing communication, personal development, and participation of the staff, and it doesn’t directly affect the life of the change recipients. Consequently, people acknowledge the change impact as positive (Balogun et al., 2015). At the same time, Revolution is a strategic change that is implemented in all parts of the organization with limited time constraints. This is more likely to be a forced transformation undertaken in response to the changing market conditions faced by the organization. Therefore, this change tends to directly impact the change recipient’s life. Hence, it is marked by a general resistance of the employees, and they establish a negative impression about it (Balogun et al., 2015). Perceived benefits and harm of change may affect employee’s job satisfaction, stress level, openness to change (Oreg et al., 2011), and change explicit reactions, specifically, affective commitment to change (Lines, 2005; Self et al., 2007; Oreg et al., 2011; Ahmad & Cheng, 2018)). Therefore, it can be argued that when the severity of the change increases, people perceive change as less acceptable, which leads them towards lower job satisfaction and lower affective commitment to change, as in the case of Revolution. Likewise, when the severity of the change decreases, people perceive change as more acceptable, which leads them towards higher job satisfaction and higher affective commitment to change, as in the case of Evolution. Thus, we hypothesize:
H1: Perceived change impact (PCI) has a significant negative impact on employees’ job satisfaction.
H2: Perceived change impact (PCI) has a significant negative impact on employees’ affective commitment to change.
2.1.2. Change Context
The changing context refers to the “why” of a change, i.e., why a particular change is unavoidable (Self et al., 2007). It refers to all those circumstances happening in organizational internal and external environments that become a driving force for organizational transformation (Barnett & Carroll, 1995; Finstad, 1998; Ahmad & Cheng, 2018). However, the focus of the current research is on internal context, which represents the forces internal to the organization and is more likely to be in control of the system. The present research is considering change climate (Dave et al., 2009) as an internal change context. The literature has shown a positive relationship between organizational climate factors and employee attitudes, such as job satisfaction and commitment (Jyoti, 2013). Change resistance is low in a supportive and flexible climate, and chances of successful changes outcomes are highly likely in such environments (Burnes & James, 1995). Likewise, if the organization’s climate refuses to accept the change, efforts will lead to unsuccessful outcomes. A convenient and supportive climate leaves a positive impact on the performance and behavior of workers (Turnipseed, 1988). Conversely, an unfavorable climate exerts an equal and opposite force on employee performance. Therefore, to deliver the desired change successfully, it is imperative to create a favorable climate at the workplace (known as change climate) (Appelbaum et al., 2017).
The literature has shown that job satisfaction is strongly associated with the elements of organizational climate (Jyoti, 2013; Claiborne et al., 2013; Iljins et al., 2015). People driven by non-supportive climate will have a different perception regarding the change than those provided with a very supportive change climate (Iljins et al., 2015). Revolution is the type of change that is generally marked by great resistance from the change agents due to its speed and force. However, if people are provided with the changing climate during its implementation, it may reverse the negative attitude towards change and lead to higher job satisfaction. The same argument gets even stronger in the case of Evolution. This type of change is generally not faced by the resistance of the people. Employees are already provided with the opportunity to participate in the change process. If they are offered the changing climate additionally in the implementation process, they may become more motivated towards the change and become highly job satisfied. Already, the literature has provided the support for a significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and affective commitment to change (Herold et al., 2007). Thus, we assume that change climate is a way to reach affective commitment to change through job satisfaction. Thus, we hypothesize in the case of Revolution:
HR3: Change Climate (CC) has a significant positive impact on employees’ job satisfaction.
HR4: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between change climate (CC) and affective commitment to change. Therefore, we expect in the case of Evolution:
HE3: Change Climate (CC) has a significant positive impact on employees’ job satisfaction.
HE4: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between change climate (CC) and affective commitment to change.
2.1.3. Change Process
The change process is concerned with the “how” factor of a change. The change process encompasses all the steps which are initiated to implement the specific change. The success of change projects depends upon how their process has been carried out (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Self et al., 2007; Kuipers et al., 2014). The focus of the present study is on the participation of the change recipients in the change process.
One of the major reasons for the failure of change initiatives is the lack of employee participation in the change process (Devos et al., 2007). Transformation creates uncertainty and fear of the unknown, leading to resistance and opposition to the change. One way to reduce the insecurity and threat of unfamiliar circumstances is to have employees participate in the change process (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Participation gives change recipients an opportunity to consider the need and process of change, and therefore, they may create a positive impact on it. Employee’s participation in the change process is associated with a higher level of support for change (Manville & Ober, 2003; Msweli-Mbanga & Potwana, 2006; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Devos et al., 2007; Kuipers et al., 2014; Petrou, et al., 2018; Kang et al., 2020). Many academics have cited the link between participation in the change process with many positive outcomes, including the work’s commitment and job satisfaction (Balogun et al., 2015). No matter what type of change the organization is going through, whether it’s Revolution (fast pace and high pressure) or Evolution (slow speed and low pressure), the effect of participation in the change process stays the same. Involvement of change recipients in the process of implementing change not only leads them to a higher level of job satisfaction (Alas, 2007; Teo et al., 2013; Petrou et al., 2018), but also towards readiness, affective commitment to change, and lower change resistance (Rogiest et al., 2015; Balogun et al., 2015). Previous research has already demonstrated the significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and affective commitment to change (Herold et al., 2007). Therefore, it can be argued that participation in the change process leads to high affective commitment to change through job satisfaction. Thus we hypothesize in the case of Revolution:
HR5: Participation in the change process has a significant positive impact on employees’ job satisfaction.
HR6: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between participation in the change process and affective commitment to change.
Therefore, we expect in the case of Evolution:
HE5: Participation in the change process has a significant positive impact on employees’ job satisfaction.
HE6: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between participation in the change process and affective commitment to change.
2.2. Explicit Reactions to Change
Explicit reactions to change refer to the direct reactions that recipients give in response to the change. The most important reaction of the organizational change is the commitment of the people towards the change. It is one of the vital considerations in determining employee’s assistance for change initiatives (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Following Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component commitment model, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) stated commitment to change as a drive that connects an employee to a plan considered important for the success of a change initiative. It has three basic approaches: (a) affective commitment to change is a person’s internal wish to reinforce the change initiatives based on his fundamental beliefs (Mangundjaya & Amir, 2021) (b) continuance commitment to change is acknowledging that the cost related to not supporting the change initiative is much higher than supporting it, and (c) normative commitment to change is a sense of responsibility to provide support for the change. The focus of the current inquiry is on affective commitment to change as an explicit reaction, i.e., how much the recipients prefer to assist the change centered on their inherent beliefs.
2.3. Change Consequences
Change consequences represent the resulting attitude or behavior of the change recipients towards their organization, specifically in the change situation. The frequently considered change consequence is job satisfaction (Axtell et al., 2002; Amiot et al., 2006). Rapidly changing external environments put a lot of pressure on firms to go for strategic adaptability, which means the setting of new goals and implementation of change initiatives. Job satisfaction plays a critical part in making change projects successful because unsatisfied employees do not support changes rather resist them. Various researches have determined a positive relationship between job satisfaction and attitude towards change (refers to a commitment to change) (Cordery et al., 1993; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Yousef, 2000; Axtell et al., 2002). Satisfied workers with their jobs perceive the organizational change as beneficial and more likely to get effectively committed to the change (Herold et al., 2007; Farahnak et al., 2019). This phenomenon works for both scenarios, either Revolution or Evolution. Therefore, we hypothesize, for Revolution,
HR7: Job satisfaction has a significant positive impact on employees’ affective commitment to change.
For Evolution,
HE7: Job satisfaction has a significant positive impact on employees’ affective commitment to change.
The conceptual framework of this study is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
PCI (Perceived Change Impact), CC (Change Climate), PICP (Participation in the Change Process), ACC (Affective Commitment to Change), JS (Job Satisfaction).
3. Methodology
3.1. Procedure
The selected sector to conduct this study is the banking sector of Pakistan. Technological advancement at an unprecedented rate, Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2007- 08, unstable political situation, National Financial inclusion strategy (NFIS), and declining economic growth of the country led to bringing major changes in the overall financial framework of the country. These changes caused banks to go through major transformations such as changes in business model, more focus on the use of technology, additional background checks, and enhanced focus on management measures (MoF-GoP, 2019). Against this backdrop, the banking sector of Pakistan seems appropriate to investigate a strategic change.
The total number of registered commercial banks in the year 2019, as per the annual report of the state bank, is 33.Since the focus of the current research is to study a strategic change, therefore our population comprises only those banks who have gone through either Revolution or Evolution in the last five years. To acquire that information, we conducted a preliminary survey (adopted from the types of strategic change’s definitions given by Balogun et al. (2015) from the head offices of all the registered banks, to find out how many banks have implemented either Revolution or Evolution. After the survey, we found that seven banks comprising National Bank of Pakistan, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd, United Bank Ltd, JS Bank, Muslim Commercial Bank, Habib Bank Ltd, and The Bank of Khyber have gone through Revolution and seven banks Meezan Bank, Ltd, Bank Alflah, Bank Islami, Bank of Punjab, Dubai Islamic Bank, Faisal Bank Ltd, and first Women Bank Ltd. have gone through Evolution in last five years.
3.2. Sample
The selection of the sample of the present investigation is based on the size of the banks (measured by the assets’ size) and the sector of the banks (whether private or public). Big banks in the private sector have been chosen for this study. The first reason for this inclusion criteria is that it is easier to observe the impact of the change in bigger organizations. Secondly, the implementation of the change projects is more strictly and effectively followed in private banks than in public ones. Accordingly, for Revolution, we selected the three biggest private banks; United Bank Ltd., Muslim Commercial Bank (MCB), and Habib Bank Ltd (HBL). The total number of employees in the head offices of these banks is 3750. The selected sample size on a 95% confidence interval is 349 employees for Revolution. Likewise, for Evolution, we selected Meezan Bank, Faisal Bank, and Bank Alfalah Ltd. The total number of employees in the head offices of these banks is 3193. The selected sample size on a 95% confidence interval is 347 employees for Evolution.
3.3. Measures
All measures are based on a 5-point Likert-Type scale. Previously determined scales are used to ensure adequate measurement of each variable.
. Perceived Change Impact: This variable is measured by a scale developed by Caldwell et al. (2004).
. Participation in the Change Process: This variable is measured by a scale developed by Dave et al. (2009).
. Change Climate: This variable is measured by a scale developed by (Dave et al., 2009).
. Job satisfaction: This variable is measured by a scale developed by Macdonald and Maclntyre (1997).
. Affective Commitment to Change: This variable is measured by a scale developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) and Michaelis et al. (2009).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Response Rate and Demographic Characteristics
The questionnaire was prepared using Google forms, which made the online distribution very easy. For Evolution, the survey was sent to 400 employees of the concerned banks through emails and WhatsApp. We received 347 completed surveys back, making a response rate of 85%. Since the response rate was fulfilling the minimum requirement of the sample, so we ran an analysis on the completed questionnaires.
For Revolution, the survey was sent to 350 employees of the concerned banks through emails and WhatsApp. After continuous reminders to employees and their managers, we only received 254 filled questionnaires back, which makes a response rate of 72%. Since 30% of the response is acceptable in survey studies for analysis (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010; Aminu & Mohd Shariff, 2014), therefore, we decided to continue the analysis with 254 filled questionnaires (Table 1).
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics
4.2. Measurement Model
The current research has used SmartPLS to check the measurement model for assessing the reliability and validity of the constructs. Internal consistency reliability is determined through Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. The threshold value for Cronbach’s alpha is 0.707 and for Composite reliability is 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017). All the latent variables under the current research represent higher reliability both for Revolution and Evolution. Convergent validity is established through Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The threshold value for AVE is generally specified as 0.5 or above (Hair et al., 2017). In the present research, the values of AVE for all the latent constructs are greater than 0.5, which demonstrates that latent variables represent over 50 percent of the variation, both for Evolution and Revolution (See Appendix, Table A1 and Table A2).
Appendix
Factor loadings of values greater than 0.5 are generally considered if the value of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is above 0.5 (Hair et al., 2018). The factor loadings of all the items were observed for Evolution. The factor loadings of PCI1, CC15, CC16, and CC17 were found to be relatively less; therefore, those items were deleted, and the model was recalculated. All loadings are found to be above 0.5 along with AVE more than 0.5, after the recalculation. For Revolution, the factor loadings of a few items, including PCI 5, PICP 2, CC 13, CC 15, CC 16, and CC 17, were fairly low; consequently, these items were deleted, and the model was recalculated. Later on, all loadings in the model came above 0.5 along with AVE more than 0.5 (See Appendix, Table 3, and Table 4).
4.3. Hypothesis Testing
The first hypothesis establishes a negative relationship between perceived change impact (PCI) and job satisfaction (JS). According to the results, perceived change impact (PCI) has no significant relationship (β (evolution) = 0.91, β (revolution) = 0.131) with job satisfaction (JS), in both scenarios, consequently rejecting the first hypothesis (H1). The second hypothesis establishes a negative relationship between perceived change impact (PCI) and affective commitment to change (ACC). Perceived change impact (PCI) has a significant negative relationship (β (evolution) = −0.128, p < 0.1, β (revolution) = −0.170, p < 0.1) with affective commitment to change (ACC), approving the second hypothesis (H2).
According to the results, change climate (CC) has a significant positive relationship (β (evolution) = 0.648, p < 0.001, β (revolution) = 0.554, p < 0.001) with job satisfaction (JS). CC explained 64.8 percent of the variation in JS, in case of evolution, and CC explained 55.4 percent of the variation in JS, in case of revolution, thus proving the hypothesis HE3 & HR3.
The next hypothesis establishes a relationship between change climate (CC) and affective commitment to change (ACC) through job satisfaction (JS). Indirect relationship between CC and ACC through JS is proved significant (β (evolution) = 0.224, p < 0.001, β (revolution) = 0.244, p < 0.001). Direct relationship between CC and ACC is also significant (β (evolution) = 0.295, p < 0.05, β (revolution) = 0.299, p < 0.05). Therefore, the results proved the partial mediation between change climate (CC) and affective commitment to change (ACC) through job satisfaction (JS), consequently approving hypothesis HE4 & HR4.
Participation in the change process (PICP) has a significant positive relationship (β (evolution) = 0.164, p < 0.001, β (revolution) = 0.265, p < 0.001) with job satisfaction (JS). PICP explained 16.4 percent of the variation in JS in case of evolution, and PICP explained 26.4 percent of the variation in JS in case of revolution, thus proving the hypothesis HE5 & HR5.
The next hypothesis establishes a relationship between participation in the change process (PICP) and affective commitment to change (ACC) through job satisfaction (JS). Indirect relationship between PICP and ACC through JS is proved significant (β (evolution) = 0.062, p < 0.05, β (revolution) = 0.107, p < 0.05). As, direct relationship between PICP and ACC is not significant (β (evolution) = 0.046, β (revolution) = 0.002). Hence, the results proved the full mediation between participation in the change process (PICP) and affective commitment to change (ACC) through job satisfaction (JS), resulting in the acceptance of HE6 & HR6.
JS has a significant positive relationship (β (evolution) = 0.376, p < 0.001, β (revolution) = 0.404, p < 0.001) with ACC. JS explained 37.6 percent of the variation in ACC in case of evolution, and 40.4 percent of the variation in case of revolution, leading towards the acceptance of HE7 & HR7.
Table 2: Hypothesis Testing
a, b, and c represent the path coefficients of three paths from independent variable to intermediate variable, from intermediate variable to dependent variable, and from independent variable to dependent variable, respectively; ab represents the size of the mediation effect; c represents the direct effect of the independent variable to the dependent variable. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
4.4. Discussion
The objective of the present investigation is to comprehend how do types of strategic change (Revolution & Evolution) are influenced by the content, context, and process, and how does change recipients react to the particular kind of change as measured by the change explicit reactions (affective commitment to change) and change consequences (job satisfaction). In this framework, the first hypothesis establishes a negative relationship between the perceived change impact and job satisfaction for Evolution and Revolution. However, the relationship did not prove significant according to the results for both scenarios. Even though the previous literature has depicted a significant relationship between job satisfaction and perception of a change. A good number of studies have examined this relationship as taking job satisfaction as an antecedent to the positive perception regarding the change (Van De Ven & Poole, 2005; Yousef, 2017). Whereas the current research has studied the relationship by taking perceived change impact as an antecedent to job satisfaction. But, the findings did not provide proof of this hypothesis. The literature has discussed many other factors including income, organizational resources, relationship with team members, training and promotion opportunities, etc. (Vuong et al., 2021), more dominantly influencing job satisfaction than perceived change impact. Furthermore, Yousef (2017) stated that various dimensions of organizational commitment mediate the relationship between perceived change impact and job satisfaction. Therefore, we can be implied that job satisfaction is not directly influenced by the perceived change impact. Conversely, a satisfied employee may establish a positive perception concerning the change (whether Evolution or Revolution). Thus, it is imperative for the organizations who plan to implement a strategic change at their workplace to acquire job satisfaction from their employees initially. Subsequently, job-satisfied workers may develop a positive perception regarding the change and turn into big support in making a change initiative successful.
The relationship between perceived change impact and affective commitment to change proved significant for both cases, Evolution and Revolution, as consistent with the previous studies (Fedor et al., 2006; Self et al., 2007; Ahmad & Cheng, 2018). The results are no more different from the studies conducted in developed economies. Therefore, it is assumed that the change recipient’s commitment towards change is not influenced by the work settings or the type of change. Whenever the impact of the change is significant, modifying the nature of one’s job entirely leads to great resistance from the recipients as this is human psychology to oppose any transformation which makes a considerable difference in daily life (Quinn, 2004). Revolution is a perfect case for this type of scenario where an organization implements the change on all fronts simultaneously in a short time because of high external pressure. Consequently, change recipients do not get effectively committed to the change, and the possibility of success is very low. The literature has already supported the fact that an employee’s affective commitment to change is positively related to the successful implementation of a change (Herold et al., 2007; Rogiest et al., 2015; Ahmad & Cheng, 2018). Therefore, management should be aware of the fact that their employees’ commitment towards change will be low in the implementation of the Revolution. Hence, organizations should take precise measures in advance to make their employees committed to the change. Such measures may include explaining to people the need and purpose of a change, providing them with a variety of incentives, keeping rewards for the success of change initiatives, and helping them through training and motivational sessions to adapt to new work requirements, etc. Alternatively, the changes with low impact on the recipient’s life are more likely to receive effective commitment towards the change, as in the case of Evolution. This is an additional benefit that organizations may obtain in implementing the evolutionary type of strategic change. However, the management should try to maintain the same level of commitment of their employees throughout the implementation process for winning the targeted outcomes.
Moreover, the results proved a significant positive relationship between change climate and job satisfaction and partial mediation between change climate and affective commitment to change through job satisfaction. The findings are the same for both types of change, Evolution and Revolution. The previous sources have also established a significant positive relationship between a favorable organizational climate and job satisfaction (Kopelman et al., 1990; Jyoti, 2013; Claiborne et al., 2013; Iljins et al., 2015; Ahmad & Cheng, 2018). Consistent with previous studies, it is concluded from the existing results that the same relationship prevails in the implementation of revolutionary and evolutionary change. Evolution is a type of transformation that is implemented gradually in all parts of the organization. In that case, the management has the opportunity to get enough time to provide the change receipts with a healthy change climate, which will lead them towards better outcomes such as job satisfaction. While revolution is the type of transformation that faces significant resistance because of its high force and less time. The resistance can be noticeably reduced in the presence of the changing climate, as it leads the employees towards higher job satisfaction. Previous research has also determined the fact that a favorable climate in the workplace is very important for delivering the desired change successfully (Appelbaum et al., 2017). Hence, it is inferred from the findings that the changing climate plays a very important role in the successful completion of the change, as it precedes the desirable positive outcomes, job satisfaction, and affective commitment to change. By providing the changing climate, the high resistance and negative perception can be reversed in the case of Revolution, and positive perception can be further enhanced in the case of Evolution.
The results of the current investigation also proved a significant direct relationship between participation in the change process and job satisfaction, and full mediation between participation in the change process and affective commitment to change through job satisfaction. Again the findings are the same for both types of changes, Evolution and Revolution, as consistent with the preceding research (Alas, 2007; Teo et al., 2013; Balogun et al., 2015; Petrou et al., 2018). Hence, it can be deduced that participation in the change process is critical in making any change initiative successful. Evolution is marked by the participation of the recipients in the change process, which according to the findings, will bring high job satisfaction and affective commitment to the change. Eventually, there will be high chances for success. However, this doesn’t happen in revolution, as the biggest problem in its implementation is the time constraint. Generally, management does not have time to get involved in the tiring process of the participation from the employees, consequently, they overlook this process. However, if the time limit is very inflexible, management may take certain quick measures to engage managers from different departments, explain to them the need and reason for the change and, if possible, delegate a few duties to them. Those managers may further update their departments, taking almost everyone in the loop. The entire process will ensure participation almost from everyone in an organization. Consequently, employees will have a feeling that they are valuable members of the organization, and they will work hard to make the change initiative effective.
The current research supported a significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and affective commitment to change under both scenarios, Evolution and Revolution. Several previous studies have established a positive relationship between commitment to change with job satisfaction (Herold et al., 2007; Axtell et al., 2002; Yousef, 2017; Farahnak et al., 2019). The indicators of the current analysis depict the fact that job satisfaction is a key to the productive execution of any change project. A job-satisfied worker receives a new change positively and is more likely to get affectivity committed to that. Affective commitment to change is the most desirable commitment from the change recipients because it makes a person committed to change based on his internal beliefs, not because of any force or pressure (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Consequently, this type of commitment is expected to conclude any change initiative with positive, long-lasting outcomes.
5. Conclusion and Limitations
The literature has discussed different types of strategic change based on the extent and speed of the change. Future researchers may also consider other types to explore with respect to the change antecedents, explicit reactions, and change consequences. There is a lot of potentials to further investigate several other factors under change context, content, process, explicit reaction, and consequences. The current research is based on a quantitative study; however, a qualitative survey can be carried out to acquire further detailed and open-ended answers of change recipient reactions. Types of changes may be studied in any other sector of the country, which might contribute to distinct results.
References
- Ahmad, A. B., & Cheng, Z. (2018). The role of change content, context, process, and leadership in understanding employees' commitment to change: The case of public organizations in Kurdistan region of Iraq. Public Personnel Management, 47(2), 195-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017753645
- Alas, R. (2007). The impact of employee participation on job satisfaction during the change process. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 5(4), 28-33. https://www.businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/1982/PPM_EN_2007_04_Alas.pdf
- Ali, H. M. A., Ajmal, M. M., Gunasekaran, A., & Helo, P. T. (2019). Managing change in the constant evolving sustainable energy market: An exploratory study of motivators, enablers, and barriers. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 20, 84-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.05.005
- Aminu, I. M., & Mohd Shariff, M. N. (2014). Mediating role of access to finance on the relationship between strategic orientation and SMEs performance in Nigeria: A proposed research framework. International Journal of Management Research and Review, 4(11), 1023-1035.
- Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of coping processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32(4), 552-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306287542
- Appelbaum, S. H., Cameron, A., Ensink, F., Hazarika, J., Attir, R., Ezzedine, R., & Shekhar, V. (2017). Factors that impact the success of an organizational change: A case study analysis. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(5), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-02-2017-0006
- Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500303
- Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Making change permanent a model for institutionalizing change interventions: Research in organizational change and development. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
- Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner, P., & Bolden, R. (2002). Familiarity breeds content: The impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(2), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1348/09631790260098596
- Baines, T., Ziaee, A., Oscar, B., Bustinza, F., Shi, V. G., Baldwin, J., Ridgway, K., Ziaee Bigdeli, A., & Bustinza, O. F. (2017). International Journal of Operations & Production Management Servitization: revisiting the state-of-the-art and research priorities. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(2), 256-278. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM06-2015-0312%5Cnhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0348%5Cnhttp://
- Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2008). Exploring strategic change. London, UK: Pearson Education.
- Balogun, J., Hailey, V. H., & Gustafsson, S. (2015). Exploring strategic change. London, UK: Pearson Education.
- Barnett, W. P., & Carroll, G. R. (1995). Modeling internal organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001245
- Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133-41, 216. https://hbr.org/2000/05/cracking-the-code-of-change
- Burnes, B., & James, H. (1995). Culture, cognitive dissonance, and the management of change. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(8), 14-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510094062
- Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics (4th ed). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868-882. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.868
- Canning, J., & Found, P. A. (2015). The effect of resistance in organizational change programs. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7(2/3), 274-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-02-2015-0018
- Carpenter, M. A. (2000). The price of change: the role of CEO compensation in strategic variation and deviation from industry strategy norms. Journal of Management, 26, 1179-1198. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600606
- Claiborne, N., Auerbach, C., Lawrence, C., & Schudrich, W. Z. (2013). Organizational change: The role of climate and job satisfaction in child welfare workers' perception of readiness for change. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 2013-2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.012
- Cordery, J., Sevastos, P., Mueller, W., & Parker, S. (1993). Correlates of employee attitudes toward functional flexibility. Human Relations, 46(6), 705-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600602
- Dave, B., Geert, D., & Herman Van. Den, B. (2009). Organizational change questionnaire-climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(6). 559-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980903218216
- Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590. https://www.jstor.org/stable/256406 https://doi.org/10.2307/256406
- Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content, context, and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 607-629. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.6.607-630
- Farahnak, L. R., Ehrhart, M. G., Torres, E. M., & Aarons, G. A. (2020). The influence of transformational leadership and leader attitudes on subordinate attitudes and implementation success. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 27(1), 98-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818824529
- Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00852.x
- Finstad, N. (1998). The rhetoric of organizational change. Human Relations, 51(6), 717-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679805100602
- Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
- Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2018). The results of PLS-SEM article information. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR11-2018-0203
- Hair, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
- Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees' commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 942-951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.942
- Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474
- Iljins, J., Skvarciany, V., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2015). Impact of organizational culture on organizational climate during the process of change. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 944-950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.509
- Jacobs, G., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013). A theoretical framework of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 772-792. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2012-0137
- Jyoti, J. (2013). Impact of organizational climate on job satisfaction, job commitment and intention to leave: An empirical model. Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 1(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.22158/jbtp.v1n1p66
- Kang, E., Nantharath, P., & Hwang, H. J. (2020). The strategic process of merger and acquisition (M&A) market using integrating change management. Journal of Distribution Science, 18(6), 57-62. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.18.6.202006.57
- Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In: Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282-318). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.195
- Kotter, J., & Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106-114. https://hbr.org/2008/07/choosing-strategies-for-change
- Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73, 59-67. https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
- Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040
- Lines, R. (2005). The structure and function of attitudes toward organizational change. Human Resource Development Review, 4(1), 8-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304273818
- Macdonald, S., & Maclntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1300/J022v13n02_01
- Mangundjaya, W. L., & Amir, M. T. (2021). Testing resilience and work ethics as mediators between charismatic leadership and affective commitment to change. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(2), 401-410. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0401
- Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). What the world's first democracy teaches leaders about creating great organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
- Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: The role of charismatic leadership and employees' trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010903360608
- MoF-GoP. (2019). A road map for stability, growth, and productive employment. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan.
- Msweli-Mbanga, P., & Potwana, N. (2006). Modeling participation, resistance to change, and organizational citizenship behavior: A South African case. South African Journal of Business Management, 37(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v37i1.595
- Muller, J., & Kunisch, S. (2018). Central perspectives and debates in strategic change research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 457-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12141
- Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., & Lee, G. (2014). A model of recipients' change proactivity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 10554. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.10554abstract
- Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
- Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2018). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1766-1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
- Quinn, R. E. (2004). Building the bridge as you walk on it: A guide for leading change. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
- Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 48-79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180259
- Rogiest, S., Segers, J., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2015). Climate, communication, and participation impact commitment to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(6), 1094-1106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2015-0101
- Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
- Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schraeder, M. (2007). Organizational change content, process, and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions. Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701461129
- Senior, B. (2002). Organizational change (2nd ed). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Teo, S. T. T., Pick, D., Newton, C. J., Yeung, M. E., & Chang, E. (2013). Organizational change stressors and nursing job satisfaction: The mediating effect of coping strategies. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(6), 878-887. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12120
- Tran, D. T., Pham, H. T., & Bui, V. T. (2020). The effect of contextual factors on resistance to change in lean transformation. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(11), 479-486. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.479
- Turnipseed, D. L. (1988). An integrated, interactive model of organizational climate, culture, and effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 9(5), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb053644
- Van De Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377-1404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605056907
- Vuong, B. N., Tung, D. D., Tushar, H., Quan, T. N., & Giao, H. N. K. (2021). Determinates of factors influencing job satisfaction and organizational loyalty. Management Science Letters, 11, 203-212. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.014
- Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
- Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of attitudes toward organizational change in a non-western setting. Personnel Review, 29(5), 567-592. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480010296401
- Yousef, D. A. (2017). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: A study in the local government. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1072217