Read the article titled 

“The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process”

. Next, analyze the relationship between communication and resistance. Evaluate the major consequences of poor communication.

Business and Economics Research Journal

Volume 5 Number 4

2014

pp. 143-

166

ISSN: 1309-2448

www.berjournal.com

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of

Justice

during Organizational Change Process

Neşe Saruhan
a

a
PhD., Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkiye, neseasaruhan@gmail.com

Abstract: Today, researchers have been exploring employee’s resistance to change and how to

foresee these aversive behaviors during organizational change process (Armenakis & Harris, 2002, Dent

& Goldberg, 1999, Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011). Some employees view organizational change in a negative

way even if change efforts will results in favorable consequences for them. At this point,

communication process has a crucial effect on the perception of employees towards

change process.

In

addition, several studies confirm the role of perceived justice in the organization during organizational

change. So, the effects of communication and perception of justice on behaviors of employees during

change process and the contribution of communication on resistance to change through perception of

organizational justice was explored. The research was conducted among 583 employees in Turkey. The

results of the regression analysis showed that perception of organizational justice plays a mediating

role between communication to resistance and change.

Keywords: Change, resistance to change, perception of justice, communication.

JEL Classification: M10, M12

1. Introduction

Global competition, new age information technologies, global economic crises, new

political strategies and rapidly evolving consumption trends are stimulants for organizational

change. Organizations must implement continuous and transformational change to remain
competitive (Cohen, 1999). For instance, Forbes published its first Top 100 Companies list in

1917. It re-printed it in 1987, showing that 61 of the original 100 companies has no longer

existed (Foster & Kaplan, 2001). This shows that in today’s dynamic world, organizations must

change or go out of business.

So, organizational change has become a very popular subject for scholars and

researchers. Organizations have been spending huge amounts of money, time and human

capital to be successful in their change efforts. However, Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990)

noted that change programs often failed or made situations worse. Such results have led

researchers and practitioners to search how organizations can successfully accomplish

change processes. The reasons for failure in the change process were found as technological
difficulties and lack of money, but most importantly, human related problems (Lawrence,

1954 cited in Foster, 2008).

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process

Business and Economics Research Journal

5(4)2014

144

There are several studies that have attempted to understand and predict employee’s

behaviors towards organizational change process (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003; Oreg & Sverdlik,

2011; Dent & Goldberg, 1999). So, scholars investigated the factors that affect employee’s

attitudes toward new working conditions. For instance, Chawla & Kelloway (2004) examined
participation of employees during change process, Cobb, Foleger & Wooten, (1995) focused

their research on employee’s perception of justice, Mayer & Davis, (1999) indicated the

importance of supervisor/organizational trust and engagement during change process and

Armenakis & Harris, (2002) mentioned the inevitable role of effective communication during

organizational change. These research results indicated that many change efforts fail due to

underestimating the importance of understanding and predicting employee reactions during

organizational change process.

So, this research examined employees’ reactions to change in the light of Oreg’s

theoretical framework of dispositional resistance to change. Oreg stated that people show

different responses to change implementations. For example, During change process,
employees may respond to organizational change efforts differently. Employees with positive

attitudes towards the change effort will usually support its implementation because they feel

it will result in, for example, an optimal amount of task variety, a new position, better

working conditions, a new promotion structure, etc. On the other side, some employees

view organizational change in a negative way due to unfavorable consequences of the change

efforts due to a great deal of uncertainty and stress of major change processes.

As Palmer (2004) stated, employees should be considered the cornerstones of any kind

of organizational change because employee resistance is one of the biggest problems to

contend with. So, scholars determined several different variables as the main antecedents of

the change reaction. These are uncertainty and fear of poor outcome, participation,
personality factors, leadership styles, communication problems, perception of justice, and

lack of trust in

organization.

In this study, effective communication and perception of organizational justice were

selected for main antecedents of employee negative behaviors towards organizational

change.

The first dimension in this research is perception of organizational justice. During the

change process, it is common to reallocate organizational resources, and how resources are

distributed affects the perception of organizational justice in the workplace. Several studies

confirm the role of perceived justice in the organization during organizational change. Cobb,

Folger and Wooten (1995) found that positive perception of justice during the change process
resulted in organizational commitment, trust and willingness to accept change. Other findings

indicated that the amount of information shared by employees, participation in decision

making contributed to employee perception of organizational justice (Kilbourne, O’Leary-

Kelly &Williams, 1996).

So, Communication is considered as a second research variable which also plays an

important role during the change process. Communication is the means by which

organizations compete and survive in the global economy, especially as business

environments become more complex. Thus, understanding effective communication is an

indispensable goal for all organizations (Spillan, Mino & Rowles, 2002). In addition to the

significant role of communication in day-to-day processes, several researchers have explored
the crucial function of effective communication during the change process specifically.

N. Saruhan

Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

145

Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) and Wanberg and Banas (2000) stated that

accurate communication about change process enhances management credibility and

employee reaction to change. Communication also provides information on how change

process will take place and its consequences, which will increase sense of perception of
justice during change process. As it was indicated by Chawla (1999), providing accurate

information during change process results in positive perceptions of justice, which in turn can

decrease

resistance to change.

These findings indicated that both effective communication and perception of justice

have positive effects on decreasing employees’ aversive reaction to organizational change.

However, it is predicted that communication does not always decrease employee resistance

to organization change. So, effective communication would create positive attitudes toward

change process through first enhancing employee’s

perception of justice.

This research investigated the factors affecting individual response to organizational

change. The findings, then, may contribute to better understanding how organizational
change process could be more successful. Specifically, the contribution of communication on

resistance to change through perception of justice is an important finding of this study.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Organizational

Change

Today, organizations have to adopt themselves new economic, social and political

conditions in order to stay in the business. Connor and Lake (1994) observed that diversity,

globalization, change in customer needs, economic conditions and information technology

are the main environmental factors that lead a change.

Since change is inevitable for companies in order to survive and develop new

opportunities in such a competitive business environment, organizations have to understand
and predict employee’s attitudes and behaviors towards organizational change process.

However, it was not easy to foresee employees’ reactions and find ways to overcome

resistance to change.

As it was indicated by Walsh and Charalambides (1990, cited in Erim, 2009), employees

perceive their business environment through their schemas, which help understand and

interpret external events. The development of a schema is based on a person’s experiences

and beliefs; thus, some people have positive attitudes towards new experiences and consider

them as opportunities to improve themselves. Others have negative attitudes towards new

ideas and situations and generally resist change efforts. To determine what shapes a positive

attitude towards change and to avoid developing negative attitudes, resistance to change is

reviewed in detail.

2.2. Resistance to Organizational Change

Due to huge money and time invested in organizational change, how individuals

respond to changes has become a topic of interest in the organizational studies literature

(Bovey & Hede, 2001; Morgan & Zeffane, 2003; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Oreg & Sverdlik,

2011; Foster, 2010). Several studies attempt to explain why change efforts in technology,

production methods, management practices and compensation systems have fallen short of

expectations or resulted in failure (Oreg, 2006).

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

146

Oreg et al. (2008) stated that change affects every aspect of our lives. However,
people’s responses to change are quite different. It can be observed that there are several
people that accept the change process and actively participate change activities while other
people prefer to avoid from change practices if possible and resist them otherwise. Oreg
(2003) developed resistance-to-change (RTC) scale in order to explain individual differences
in people’s attitudes towards change. This scale composed of four factors: a) routine seeking,
b) emotional reaction to imposed change, c) short-term focus and d) cognitive rigidity.

a) Routine seeking: the change will be viewed either as an interruption to routines or as
an opportunity to increase stimulation. When individuals encounter new stimuli, familiar
responses may be incompatible with the situation, which may produce stress. This stress then
becomes associated with the new stimulus (Oreg, 2003). b) Emotional reaction: This states
the amount of stress and uneasiness an individual experiences when confronted with change.
For example, when employees perceive that change will reduce the control they have over
their lives, they will feel stressed and will more likely resist organizational changes. c) Short-
term focus: Because the initial aspects of change often involve more work and exerting more
energy than spent for maintaining the status quo, some employees resist change (Kanter,
1985), even though they may support the particular change in principle (Oreg, 2003). d)
Cognitive rigidity: Several researchers examined the cognitive processes underlying people’s
response to organizational change (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Lau & Woodman, 1995) and
determined that the way employees process information about change determine how they
react to it. Someone that is rigid and closed-minded might be less willing and unable to adjust
to new situations.

After discussing theoretical foundation of resistance to change, it would be beneficial
to examine two main antecedents of resistance in order to attain entire picture about
employees’ reaction towards organizational change.

2.3. Perception of Organizational Justice

The earlier theories of justice perception, which noted the key role of perceived
fairness in life, were developed mainly for general society rather than organizations. Until the
early 1970s, perceived fairness was discussed only in the social science literature (Greenberg,
1987). Several researchers then noted that perceptions of justice within an organization are
fundamental for understanding employee behaviors.

The basic premise behind the theories on the perception of justice in the organizations
is that fair treatment is important to people and is a major determinant in their reactions to
decisions. Greenberg (1990, p. 399) noted that the “social scientist has long recognized the
importance of the ideals of justice as basic requirements for the effective functioning of
organizations and the social satisfaction of individuals they employ”. In addition, Fryxell and
Gordon (1989) found justice to be a fundamental issue in the relationship between the
employees and management.

In addition to theoretical findings, several empirical studies point out the importance
of fairness perception in organization. According to Konovsky and Folger (1991), when
employees believe that their organizations are fair, they are more likely to adjust

to change

efforts. Deutsch found that an organization’s effectiveness is increased when resources are
fairly distributed instead of focusing on the interests of an individual or group (Deutsch,
1985). Human resource managers have also recognized the importance of the relationship
between organizational justice and organizational effectiveness (Tang & Sarsfield-Baldwin,
1996).

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

147

Because justice perception in an organization plays a critical role on the firm’s

effectiveness and sustainability, it is important to understand the construct of justice in detail

and its relationship to organizational change process.

2.3.1. Distributive Justice

The concept of distributive justice developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Initially, Homans

(1961 cited in Colquitt et.al., 2001) proposed his fairness theory, which depends on social

exchange theory. From an organizational point of view, distributive justice is present when

employees perceive that compensation, rewards and responsibilities are allocated

consistently and fairly. In other words, distributive justice refers to fairness in the firm’s

distribution of rewards such as salary, benefits, promotions, etc. Issues of distributive justice

arise when something valuable is scarce, when not everyone can have what he/she deserves

(Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005); distributive justice occurs when individuals do not get the

rewards that they expected in comparison with the rewards others received, such as new

tasks, new responsibilities, power, rewards and/or promotions (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).

2.3.2. Procedural

Justice

Procedural justice refers to fairness in organization policies and procedures while

distributing resources. The concept of procedural justice developed between the mid-1970s

and the mid-1990s. Thibaut and Walker (1975) are regarded as pioneers of the concept. They

indicated that if procedures were followed during the distribution of outcomes, people

perceived the outcomes fair and acceptable. Similarly, scholars of organizational studies

found that employees not only cared about the outcomes of decisions, but also about the

procedures used while making the decisions (Korsgaard, Schweiger & Sapienza, 1995).

Leventhal, Karuza and Fry (1980) extended the notion of procedural justice into

organizational settings. They found that individuals used several procedural dimensions to

assess the fairness of resource distribution procedures.

2.3.3. Interactional Justice

Interactional justice refers to the fairness and quality of treatment people receive

when procedures are implemented. In the mid-1980s, Bies and Moag (1986) modified the

overall fairness perceptions. They began to focus not only on outcomes and process control

during resources distribution but also on how people were treated during the process. They

referred to these aspects of justice as ‘interactional justice’. Today, interactional justice

consists of two distinctive constructs. Interpersonal Justice refers to the social interaction

between an individual and others in the workplace, such as colleagues, supervisors and

subordinates. It focuses on perceived fairness in interpersonal relationships. Interactional
justice is characterized by the politeness, dignity and respect shown by authorities or the

third party involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes. Informational Justice

focuses on explanations about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes

were distributed in a certain fashion (Colquitt et al., 2001); it is based on the quality and

quantity of relevant information.

Since organizational change corresponds with adaptation and exploration, the
perception of justice in the organization can have a significant effect on employee reaction to

desired behaviors. In other words, change efforts usually involve reallocation of resources,

which fundamentally affect perceptions of how fair the change effort is. For example, Tyler

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

148

and Lind (1992) note that when employees feel they are being treated fairly, they will accept

changes and sometimes comply voluntarily with unfavorable decisions. Thus, if employees

perceive fairness during resource allocation, they will exhibit more positive behaviors, such as

trust, organizational commitment and a willingness to accept change. So, it was claimed that
employees’ perception of fairness will negatively related to employee’s unfavorable reactions

to change

H1: Perception of organizational justice will negatively related to employee’s resistance

to change.

2.4.

Communication

Organizations have had to deal with more frequent organizational change due to

advancements in technology, global economic conditions and severe competition. At this

point, communication plays a strategic role in implementation of the change process as well

as in organizational continuity. Management must recognize that communication is a

strategic issue for the organization and should integrate communication into overall company
strategies. Similarly, Raina (2010) noted that communication is the process that plays the

most central role in a firm’s success or failure.

Many studies show that information may be interpreted differently depending on the
medium with which it is delivered (Nelson et al. 2007). Therefore, choosing the appropriate

medium or channel (informal or formal) is very important. For instance, informal

communication channels (social gatherings, small group networks and the grapevine) are not

established by management and do not follow a chain of authority. They are relatively less

structured and more spontaneous than formal channels. Informal channels are fast, effective

means of transmitting information and usually reliable (Fisher, 1993).

On the other side, formal communication channels (face-to-face communication,

memorandum, newsletters, booklets, annual reports) are established by the organization and

transmit messages about the firm’s professional activities. Formal channels follow an

organization’s authority chain and are divided into two categories: vertical communication

and horizontal (lateral) communication.

2.4.1. Vertical Communication Flows in Two Directions

Downward: Communication flows from one level of a group to a lower level, for

example, from managers to their employees. Managers identify processes of instruction, give

feedback on sustainability and emphasize organizational procedures (Katz and Kahn, 1966).

Then they communicate with employees to assign tasks and goals, explain company policies

and strategies, discuss employee behavior and give performance feedback performance.

Downward communication helps employees understand their responsibilities and how the

firm can assist to improve their performance. Channels of downward communication are

face-to-face contact, email, memos and letters or company newsletters.

Upward: Communication also flows from lower to higher levels. Employees

communicate with managers about progress reports, suggestions for improvement,

proposals of innovation, (Daft, Lengel & Trevino, 1987), problems with their job, customers or
market conditions, and/or new technologies. Above mentioned messages can be generalized

as information about employees themselves, information about their problems, information

about organizational practices and policies and information about what needs to be done

(Katz and Kahn, 1966).

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

149

2.4.2. Horizontal Communication

Horizontal communication occurs among members of the same group. Andrews and

Herschel (1996) defined it as passing messages between individuals on the same

organizational level. Horizontal communication occurs during staff meetings, information
presentation and at shift changes (Spillan et al., 2002). Horizontal communication is used to

keep personnel informed of current practices, policies and procedures (Spillan et al. 2002).

As it was indicated that effective communication plays an indispensable role within the

organizations to develop positive working conditions and improve employee efficiency. Many

empirical researchers have indicated the positive effects of effective communication on

perception of justice in the organization. For example, Kilbourne et al. (1996) claimed that a)

the amount of information shared by the organization, b) the degree of employee

participation and c) employee sense of the need for change are the key elements of

perception of fairness in the workplace. In addition, they indicated that the amount of

information shared by employees will contribute to employee perception of organizational
justice. So, it can be concluded that effective communication will improve perception of

justice within the

organization

H2: Effective communication will positively related to

perception of justice.

Poor communication is regarded as one of the main antecedents of resistance to

change. Several studies have indicated the importance of effective communication in general,

and especially during the change process (Miller et al., 1994; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Rogers,

2003). Ineffective communication results due to providing inadequate information about the

change and using inappropriate communication channels. Nelson et al. (2007) note that if

employees consider the information received inadequate and irrelevant, they will likely feel

suspicious about the change effort and react negatively. So, it was claimed that effective

communication will negatively related to employee’s unfavorable reactions to change

H3: Effective communication during change process will negatively related to

employee’s resistance to change.

2.5. Communication, Perception of Justice and Organizational Change

As indicated in Friedman’s (2005) book, cutthroat competition and easy access to

information on a global scale have created a world that is “flat”. In flat-world competition,

competitive advantage can no longer be attained only by new technological developments

and overcoming market entry barriers. Change management in the organizations has become

the key issue in dealing with severe competition. As the value and impact of change

management on organizational performance have increased, organizational studies have
begun to focus on the factors affecting the success rate of change initiatives.

Organizational

change initiatives are relatively high in risk because they usually require a radical shift in the

norms of the organization. Employees usually show unfavorable behaviors towards

organizational change efforts due to uncertainties during this process. At this point,

perception of fair treatment among employees and effective communication can be

considered as very important aspects to diminish employees’ negative attitudes toward

change process.

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

150

Theories on organizational justice indicate that fair treatment is central to people’s

relationships and is a major determinant in their reactions to third-party decisions. It was

indicated that perceptions fairness in the organization will fundamentally affect by

distribution of power, prestige, authority, responsibility, technology and financial resources.
In line with theories, many researchers pointed out that perception of justice within an

organization is fundamental for understanding employee behaviors. For instance, several

empirical studies have found a strong relationship between perception of justice and

attitudes towards change practices. If distribution of resources is perceived to be fair,

employees will behave more favorable and open to changes in the organization (Tyler and

Lind, 1992; Daly and Geyer, 1994; Cobb, Folger and Wooten, 1995).

Similarly, the communication process is considered as a very crucial aspect in order to

achieve successful results in organizational change. Cooperation and inter-personal

relationships occur much more easily with good communication and appropriate social

interaction (Bovee, Thill & Schatzman, 2003). Then, these aspects will assist to reduce anxiety
and uncertainty about the results of change implementations. There are several researches

indicating positive relationship between communication and employee support for change

effort (Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Milliken, 1987; Miller & Monge, 1985).

However, effective communication is not always enough to decrease negative attitudes

of employees towards organizational change process. To be successful with change efforts,

the communication should enhance employees’ perception of justice within the organization.

For instance, several empirical studies have emphasized the importance of effective

communication on justice perception. Daly and Geyer (1994) found that the positive effects

of communication on acceptance of change and turnover intention are mediated by the

perception of fairness. Chawla (1999) indicated that providing accurate information during
change process results in positive perceptions of justice, which in turn can decrease

resistance to change. So, accurate communication disseminated through memos, notice

boards, open-door policies and information meetings improve employees’ perception of

justice within organization. Then, perception of justice within organization will establish

trustworthiness towards management that creates less resistance to organizational change

process. So, it is hypothesized that communication within the organization will contribute to

a decrease in resistance to change through enhancing employees’ perception of justice within

organization

Perception of

Organizational
Justice

Resistance to

Change

Communication

H1
H2

H3

H4 H4

Figure 1. Research Model

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

151

H4: The relationship between communication and resistance to change is mediated by

perception of justice.

As a summary of the theoretical framework, the study model is shown in figure 1.

3. Method

3.1. Sample

This research was conducted among 583 employees in Turkey. Convenience sampling

was used for this study. 58,8 % (N=343) of the participants were male and 41,2% (N=240)

were female. In terms of their educational background, 34,5 % of the participants were

elementary and high school graduates, 54% had a bachelor’s degree, 11,5% had a master’s

degree / a PhD degree. 26,6% of the participants had tenure less than 5 years, 51,3 % had 5-

15 years of tenure and 22,1 % had more than 15 years of tenure. In addition, 49,6 % of the

participants had less than 3 years of tenure at their present job, 41,7 % had a 3-10 years of

tenure at their present job, 8,7% had above 10 years of tenure at their present job. Only 25%

of the participants had managerial position. The participants were working full time in private
and public sectors including retail & electronic retail sector (21,8%), educational sector (16,6

%), food sector (7%), information technologies sector (6%), medical sector (4,6) etc. The

distribution of the sample is presented in

table 6.

3.2.

Instrument

3.2.1. Resistance to change (RTC)

Resistance to change was measured by Oreg’s (2003) 17 items RTC (resistance to

change) scale. 16 items of this instrument were used in this research. RTC scale was

translated from English to Turkish by the researcher. Then four bilingual experts reexamined

the scale for semantic and syntactic equivalence. Also, the items were reviewed by the

academicians in Organizational Behavior field. Sample items from the instrument are “I
generally consider changes to be a negative thing”, “When I am informed of a change of

plans, I tense up a bit”, “Changing plans seems like a real hassle to me”. Oreg (2003) found

the Cronbach alpha value of the instrument as 0.92.

3.2.2. Communication

Communication was assessed by an instrument developed by Postmes, Tanis, and De

Wit (2001). This instrument has two factors. These factors are a) vertical communication b)

horizontal communication. The first translation of the scale from English to Turkish was made

by Melikoğlu (2009). Then the researcher overviewed the translation and four bilingual

experts reexamined the scale for semantic and syntactic equivalence. Sample items are

“There are sufficient opportunities within the organization to critically reflect on managerial
policies, or to give suggestions for improvement.” “Management of this organization pays

attention to employees’ suggestions.” Postmes, Tanis, De Wit (2001) found the Cronbach

alpha value of vertical communication scale as 0.90 and the Cronbach alpha value of

horizontal communication scale as 0.78. Also, Melikoğlu (2009) found the Cronbach alpha

value of vertical communication scale as 0.95 and horizontal communication as 0.85.

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

152

3.2.3. Perception of Organizational Justice

Justice perception was measured by Colquitt’s (2001) justice perception instrument.

The first translation of the instrument from English to Turkish was made by Karabay (2004).

Then four bilingual experts reexamined the items in order to correct semantic and syntactic

equivalence.

Justice perception instrument has three factors. These factors were a) procedural

justice b) distributive justice c) interactional justice (interpersonal/ informational). Sample

items are “My manager explains the procedures thoroughly”, “My outcomes reflect the effort

I put into my work”, “The procedures are based on accurate information”. Colquitt and Shaw

(2005) found the Cronbach alpha value of distributive justice as 0.92, procedural justice as

0.83, interpersonal justice as 0.92 and iteractional justice as 0.88.

The respondents evaluated the items of all scales on a 6 point scale. These scales

illustrate 1= Never, 2= Scarcely, 3= Rarely, 4= Sometimes, 5= Most of the time, 6= Always

3.3. Analysis and Results

3.3.1. Factor and Reliability Analysis of “Resistance to Change” Instrument

Factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation in order to determine the factors

of “Resistance to change” variable. As a result of the analysis, “Resistance to change” items

were collected under two factors. These factors explain 69,981 % of total variance. Item 15

was deleted since its factor loading was less than 0.50. Items 12, 7, 2 were discarded since

they were loaded on more than one factor. After reliability analysis, items 6, 9, 14, 16 were

discarded due to their low reliability scores.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin KMO value was found as 0.871 and the Bartlett’s test of

sphericity yielded a significant result with a p=.000. The seven items loaded on two factors

which account for 69,981 % of the total variance. According to the nature of items, these two
factors were named as “routine seeking” and “emotional reactions”. Moreover, the Cronbach

Alpha values of each factor were determined as 0.841 and 0.836 respectively. The table

presents details of factor analysis for “resistance to change” presented in appendix1.

3.3.2. Factor and Reliability Analysis of “Communication” Instrument

Factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation in order to determine the factors

of “communication” variable. The factor analysis for “communication” revealed a three-

factor structure. These factors explain 73,486 % of total variance. Item 7, 12, 15 were

discarded since they were loaded on more than one factor.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim KMO value was found as 0.904 and the Bartlett’s test of

sphericity yielded a significant result with a p=.000. The twelve items loaded under three
factors which account for 73,486 % of the total variance. According to the nature of items,

these three factors were named as “Vertical Communication- Contribution” having five items,

“Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” having four items and “Horizontal

Communication” having three items. Moreover, the Cronbach Alpha values of each factor

was determined as 0.888 , 0.895 and 0.823 respectively. The table presents the details of

factor analysis for “communication” presented in appendix 1.

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

153

3.3.3. Factor and Reliability Analysis of “Perception of Organizational Justice”

Instrument
Factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation in order to determine the factors

of “Perception of Organizational Justice” instrument. The factor analysis for “Perception of
Organizational Justice” revealed a four- factor structure. These factors explain 72,887 % of

total variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim KMO value was found as .940 and the Bartlett’s test

of sphericity yielded a significant result with a p=.000. The twelve items loaded under four

factors which account for 72,877 % of the total variance. According to the nature of the

items, these four factors were named as “Interactional Justice” having nine items,

“Distributive Justice” having four items, “Procedural Justice- application” having four items

and “Procedural Justice- participation” having three items. Moreover, the Cronbach Alpha

values of each factor were determined as 0.947, 0.897, 0.882 and 0.779 respectively. The

table3 presents details of factor analysis for “Perception of Organizational Justice” analysis

presented in appendix 1.

3.3.4. Means, Standard Deviation, Correlations

The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the factor variables (Routine

Seeking, Emotional Reaction, Vertical Communication- information sharing, Vertical

Communication- contribution, Horizontal communication, Distributive Justice, Procedural

Justice- participation, Procedural Justice- application, Interactional Justice) were analyzed.

Table 4 presents the means, standard deviation and the correlation among the

research variables. The correlation between the factors of resistance to change and other

variables was very low and in a negative direction. “Vertical Communication- contribution”

and “Procedural Justice – application” were correlated highly and significantly (r= 0.555,

p<0,01), and “Horizontal Communication” and “Distributive Justice” were correlated highly and significantly (r= 0.504, p<0,01). In addition, there was a high correlation between

“Vertical Communication- contribution” and “Interactional Justice” (r=0.624, p<0,01).

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations of Factor Variables

*Correlation is significant at 0,05 **Correlation is significant at 0,01

Means Standard
Deviation

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(1)Routine

seeking

2,10 0,94 1

(2) Emotional

reaction

3,02 1,15 ,431** 1

(3)Information

sharing

4,48 1,00 -.137** ,019 1

(4)Contribution 4,11 1,05 -.041 -.027 ,670** 1

(5) Horizontal

Comm.

4,91 0,98 -.228** -.052 .505** ,418** 1

(6) Distributive

Justice

4,18 1,15 -.064 -,077 .411** .504** ,374** 1

(7) Application 4,27 1,02 -.192** -,067 .542** .555** .453** ,588** 1

(8) Participation 3,77 1,24 -,192** -,092* ,348** ,446** ,292** ,386** ,570** 1

(9)Interactional

Jus.

4,82 0,97 -.226** -,101* ,624** ,559** ,536** ,561** ,627** ,390** 1

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

154

3.4 . Test of the Hypothesis

In this study, regression models are used to examine the relationship among

communication, perception of justice and resistance to change. At first step, effect of

communication on perception of justice was investigated. At second step, the effects of
communication and perception of justice on resistance to change were investigated

independently from each other.

The regression model of first analysis examined the effect of communication on

perception of justice and this model is statistically significant ( F=709,142; p=0,000). At this

model, “Communication” was regressed on “Perception of Justice”. The regression analysis
revealed that “Communication” had a significant contribution on the prediction of

“Perception of Justice” (β=,741, p=.000). This result showed that Hypothesis 2 was

supported.

The results of second step analysis showed that both regression models are statistically

significant (communication, F=6,128, p=,014; perception of justice, F=23,165, p= ,000). The

two regression analyses on second step were conducted independently between

“Communication” and “Resistance to Change” and between “Perception of Justice” and

“Resistance to Change”. The regression analysis revealed that “Communication” had a

significant contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Change” (β=-,102, p=,014). This

result showed that Hypothesis 3 was supported. In addition, The regression analysis revealed

that “Perception of Justice” had a significant contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to

Change” (β=-,151, p=,000). This result showed that Hypothesis 1 was supported.

In order to test mediating role of perception of justice between communication and

resistance to change, Baron & Kenny’s (1986) method was used. Baron & Kenny (1986)

mentioned three regression equations to test the linkages of the mediational model; to

establish mediation, the following conditions must hold: Firstly, the independent variable is

regressed on the mediator and as a result independent variable must affect the mediator in

the first equation. Secondly, independent variable is regressed on the dependent variable

Table 2. Regression Analysis Results of step 1

Β t F R Adj R² Sig.

709,142 0,741 0,549

Independent Variable: Communication 0,741 26,630 0,000

Dependent Variable: Perception of Justice

Table 3. Regression Analysis Results of step2

Β t F R Adj R² Sig.

6,128 0.102 0.009

Independent Variable: Communication -0.102 -2.476 ,014

Independent Variable: Perception of

Justice

-,151

-4,813

23,165

,196

,037

,000

Dependent Variable : Resistance to change

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

155

and as a result independent variable must affect the dependent variable in the second

equation. Thirdly, the mediator and the independent variable are regressed together on the

dependent variable. If there is a perfect mediation, the mediator must affect the dependent

variable alone in the third equation. If both continues to affect the dependent variable but
the effect of independent variable on dependent variable is diminished, we can say there is a

partial mediation.

According to explanation of Baron& Kenny (1986), the effect of mediator (perception

of justice) and the independent variable (communication) are regressed together on the

dependent variable (resistance to change). “Communication” and “Perception of Justice”

were

entered as independent variables to examine their contribution on the dependent

variable (Resistance to Change). The result of regression analysis is presented in table 7.

The result showed that regression model is statistically significant (F=12,856,

p=0,000).This regression results indicated that only “Perception of Justice”, which was the

mediating variable, had a significant effect on “Resistance to Change” (β= -,267, p= ,000)
while the significant contribution of “Communication” on “Resistance to Change” in second

regression disappeared during multiple regression (β=-,096 , p= ,115). This result showed that

“Perception of Justice” fully mediated the effect of “Communication” on “Resistance to

Change”. Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Testing mediating role of Perception of Justice between communication and resistance

to change with other factor variables showed that only three of them showed positive

results. This mediation analysis has been shown below.

3.4.1. The Mediating Role of Procedural Justice– Participation between

“Communication-Informational Sharing” and “Resistance to Change– Routine Seeking”

“Communication-informational sharing” is the independent variable, “Perception of

Justice factor (procedural Justice- participation) is the mediator and “Resistance to Change-

routine

seeking” is the dependent variable.

• In the first regression analysis, “Communication-informational sharing” was

regressed on Perception of Justice factor (procedural Justice- participation). The

regression analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a

significant contribution on the prediction of on “procedural justice-

participation” (β=.348, p=,000).

Table 4. The Mediating role of “Perception of Justice” between “Communication” and

“Resistance to Change”

B t F R Adj R² Sig.

12,856 0,206 0,039 0,000

Independent Variable: Communication 0,096 1,557 0,115

Mediating Variable: : Perception of Justice -0,267 -4,403 0,000

Dependent Variable: Resistance to change

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

156

• The second regression analysis was conducted between “Communication-

informational sharing” and “Resistance to Change- routine seeing”. The regression

analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant

contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-3.323,

p=,001).

• The third regression analysis was conducted for the mediating variable analysis.

Perception of Justice factor (procedural justice- participation) and “Communication-

informational sharing” were entered as independent variables to examine their

contribution on the dependent

variable

(Resistance to Change- routine seeking).

The results showed that “Procedural Justice- participation” which was the mediating

variables, had a significant effects on “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-.164,

p=,000) while the significant contribution of “Communication-informational sharing” on “

Resistance to change” in second regression did disappeared during multiple regression (β=-

.080, p=,367).

This result showed that Perception of Justice factor (procedural justice – participation)”

fully mediated the contribution of “vertical communication-information sharing” to

“resistance to change- routine seeking”. The results of regression analysis are presented in

table 5.

3.4.2. The Mediating Role of “Perception of Procedural Justice-Application” between

“Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” and “Resistance to Change– Routine

Seeking”

“Communication-informational sharing” is the independent variable, “Perception of

Justice factors (procedural justice- application)” is the mediator and “Resistance to Change-

routine seeking” is the dependent variable.

Table 5. The Mediating role of “Perception of Procedural Justice-participation” between

“Vertical

Communication- Information Sharing” and “Resistance to Change- routine seeking”

Β t F R Adj

R²

Sig

Analysis I 79,877 0.348 0.119

Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing

0,348 8,937 0.000

Dependent Variable: Perception of Justice participation

Analysis II 11,041 0.137 0.017

Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing

-3.323 -137 0.001

Dependent Variable : Resistance to change- routine seeking

Analysis III 12.973 0.206 0.039 0.000

Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing

-0.080

–

1,837

0.367

Mediating Variable: : Perception of Justice-

participation

–

0,

164

-3,781 0.000

Dependent Variable: Resistance to change-

routine seeking

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

157

• In the first regression analysis, “Communication-informational sharing” was

regressed on Perception of Justice factors (procedural justice – application). The

regression analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a

significant contribution on the prediction of on Procedural justice-

application

(β=.542, p=,000).

• The second regression analysis was conducted between “Communication-
informational sharing” and “Resistance to Change- routine seeing”. The regression
analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant
contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-3.323,

p=,001).

• The third regression analysis was conducted for the mediating variable analysis.

“Procedural justice – application” and “Communication-informational sharing” were

entered as independent variables to examine their contribution on the dependent
variable (Resistance to Change- routine seeking).

The results showed that “Procedural justice – application”, which was the mediating

variables, had a significant effects on “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-.166,

p=,001))” while the significant contribution of “Communication-informational sharing” on “

Resistance to change” in second regression did disappeared during multiple regression (β=-

.046, p=340).

This result showed that “Perception of Justice factors (procedural justice – application)”

fully mediated the contribution of “vertical communication-information sharing” to
“resistance to change- routine seeking”. The results of regression analysis are presented in
table 6.

Table 6. The Mediating role of “Perception of Procedural Justice-application” between
“Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” and “Resistance to Change- routine seeking”

Β t F R Adj R² p

Analysis I 241,802 0.542 0.293

Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing

0,542 15,550 0.000

Dependent Variable: Perception of Justice-

application

Analysis II 11,041 0.137 0.017
Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing
-3.323 -137 0.001
Dependent Variable : Resistance to change- routine seeking

Analysis III 11.523 0.195 0.035 0.000

Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing

-0.046 -0,956 0.340

Mediating Variable: : Perception of

Justice-application

-0,166 -3,435 0.001

Dependent Variable: Resistance to

change- routine seeking

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

158

3.4.3. The Mediating Role of “Perception of Interactional Justice” between “Vertical

Communication- Information Sharing” and “Resistance to Change– Routine Seeking”

“Communication-informational sharing” is the independent variable, “Perception of

Justice factors (interactional justice)” is the mediator and “Resistance to Change- routine

seeking” is the dependent variable.
• In the first regression analysis, “Communication-informational sharing” was

regressed on Perception of Justice factors (interactional justice). The regression

analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant

contribution on the prediction of on “ Interactional justice” (β=.624, p=,000) .

• The second regression analysis was conducted between “Communication-
informational sharing” and “Resistance to Change- routine seeing”. The regression
analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant

contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-3.323,

p=,001).
• The third regression analysis was conducted for the mediating variable analysis.

“Interactional justice” and “Communication-informational sharing” were entered as

independent variables to examine their contribution on the dependent variable

(Resistance to Change- routine seeking).

The results showed that “Interactional justice”, which was the mediating variables, had

a significant effects on “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-.230, p=,000))” while the

significant contribution of “Communication-informational sharing” on “ Resistance to

change” in second regression did disappeared during multiple regression (β=-.007, p=,891)).

Table 7. The Mediating role of “Perception of Interactional Justice” between “Vertical

Communication- Information Sharing” and “Resistance to Change- routine seeking”

Β t F R Adj R² p

Analysis I 370,704 0.624 0.388

Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing

0,624 19,254 0.000

Dependent Variable: Interactional Justice

Analysis II 11,041 0.137 0.017
Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing

-3.323 -0.137 0.001

Dependent Variable : Resistance to change- routine seeking

Analysis III 15.580 0.226 0.048 0.000

Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.
Information Sharing

0.007 0,137 0.891

Mediating Variable: Interactional Justice -0,230 -4,446 0.000

Dependent Variable: Resistance to
change- routine seeking

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

159

This result showed that “Perception of Justice factors (interactional justice)” fully

mediated the contribution of “vertical communication-information sharing” to “resistance to

change- routine seeking”. The results of regression analysis are presented in table 7.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

Employee reaction to change has been studied from many different perspectives to

determine how to conduct organizational change successfully (Armekanis et al., 1993; Dent &

Goldberg, 1999; Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008; Oreg & Sverdlik,

2011). Researchers found that several variables influence employee reactions towards the

change process. In this research, communication and perception of justice were examined to

understand their impact on employees’ resistance to organizational change.

Several studies indicated that employees’ negative reactions to change process would

decrease if there was effective communication within organization. As it was stated by

Barrett (2002), the function of employee communication is much more than just sending

messages to employees. Effective communication is the glue that holds an organization
together and during major change that glue must be even stronger. So, effective

communication reduces employees anxiety related to uncertainty and improves credibility of

management in organization. Communication also provides information on how the

intervention will take place and its consequences, which provides employees a sense of

control over the change process (Neves & Caetano, 2006). As a result, they become less

resistant to it (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; Wanberg & Banas, 2000)

The regression analysis showed that communication has a positive impact on employee

resistance to change. This finding is consistent with the notion that to be successful in

organizational change efforts, effective communication activities within the working

environment will support employees’ positive behaviors.

In addition, communication has strong relationship with perception of justice in

organization. When communication is perceived as accurate and forthcoming by employees,

they are more likely perceive organizational application as fair. So, researchers conducted

several studies to investigate the importance of effective communication on organizational

justice perception. For example, Pitts (2006) indicated that communication had a strong

influence on perception of justice within organization. Daly and Geyer (1994) found that the

positive effects of communication on the perception of fairness. The results of these studies

are similar to our finding that there is positive impact of effective communication on

perception of justice.

Many of the research indicated the positive impacts of effective communication and
perception of justice on employee resistance to organizational change initiatives. In this

study, the mediating role of perception of justice between communication and resistance to

change was examined. The results of analysis showed that perception of justice has a

mediating role between communication and resistance to change.

This result is in line with the organizational behavior literature. There are numerous

studies have explored the role of communication and perception of justice during change

efforts. For example when communication was considered as timely and provided adequate

information for justification of decision, this effective communication process significantly

affects the perception of justice within organization (Gopinath & Becker, 2000; Pitts, 2006).

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

160

Also, the findings of Chawla & Kelloway (2004) have indicated that effective communication

within the organization will improve perception of justice and help employees react more

favorably towards organizational change. Thus, this research showed that both

communication and perception of justice would have positive effects on decrease in
resistance to change. However, effective communication would create positive outcomes on

employees’ resistance to change process through first enhancing perception of justice within

organization.

So, it can be concluded that effective communication activities within the organization

will improve perception of justice in the organization. Then, high perception of justice will

decrease employee unfavorable behaviors towards change process and thus employees’

resistance to change will decrease during the change process.

Also, it is interesting to investigate the mediating role of perception of justice between

communication and resistance to change with factor variables. The results showed that even

all factors of perception of justice have significant results, only vertical communication-
information sharing variable played significant role on this analysis. This result will be

explained by the importance of effective communication within organization. Vertical

communication- information sharing items indicates how management shares important

information about company with their employees. When employees receive timely and

useful information about the situation, their perception of justice within organization will

increase. At this point, employees’ perception of high justice due to sensitive and respectful

manner communication would increase openness towards organizational change process. As

a result, perception of justice with all factors would play the mediating role between vertical

communication-information sharing and resistance to change.

As a result, a number of studies showed that several factors such as technological
difficulties, lack of time and money investment affect organizational change implementation

process, but the most important factor is the reaction of employee towards change efforts.

So, managers should pay significant attention to understand and predict employees’ behavior

towards organizational change initiatives. As it was stated in this study, effective

communication and perception of justice within organization are crucial factors in order to

decrease employee’s resistance to change. By means of effective communication and

perception of justice, employees show favorable behavior towards change process, thus the

possibility of accomplishing successful change process will be increased.

There are several limitations regarding this research, with the major ones regarding

sampling issues. For instance, because the research was in the form of a self-reporting
survey, it only reflects individual concerns about his or her workplace environment. In

addition, the scales of this research use subjective measurement, not objective

measurement. In addition, 75% of data was collected from employees while 25% was

collected from managers. The sampling size of managers should be increased for a more

equal sample distribution.

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

161

References

Andrews, P.H. & R.T. Herschel (1996). Organizational Communication Empowerment in a

Technological Society. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Armenakis, A.A. , S. G. Harris, and K.W., Mossholder, (1993). Creating Readiness for
Organizational Change. Human Relations. 46 ,(6) , 681-703.

Armenakis, A.A. & S.G., Harris, (2002). Crafting a Change Message to Create Transformational

Readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, (2), 169-183.

Baron, R.M. & D.A. Kenny (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social

Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 51, (6), 1173-1182.

Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change Communication: Using Strategic EmployeeCommunication to

Facilitate Major Change. Corporate Communications, 7, (4), 219-231.

Bartunek, J.M. & M.K. Moch (1987). First-order, Second-order, and Third-order Change and

Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 23, 483- 500.

Beer, M., R.A. Eisenstat & B. Spector, ( 1990). Why Change Programs don’t Produce Change.

Harvard Business Review, 68, (6), 158-166.

Bies, R. J. & J. F. Moag (1986) Interactional Justice Communication of Fairness. In R.J.

Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard & M.H. Bazerman (Eds) Research on negotiations in organization

(Vol.1 pp 43-55) Greenwich, CT. Jar Press.

Bovee, C.L., J.V. Thill & E.B. Schatzman (2003). Business Communication Today. Delhi:Pearson

Education.

Bovey, W. and A. Hede (2001). Resistance to Organizational Change: The Role of Cognitive

and Affective Processes. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 22, (8),
372- 382.

Chawla, A. (1999). Organizational Change Initiatives as Predictors of Resistance to Change.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Guelph.

Chawla, A. and E.K. Kelloway (2004). Predicting Openness and Commitment to Change.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. 25, (6), 385-498.

Cobb, A.T., R. Folger, & K. Wooten, (1995). The Role Justice Play in Organizational C h a n g e .

Public Administration Quarterly, 3, 135-151.

Cohen, M.( 1999). Commentary on the Organization Science Special Issue on Complexity.

Organizational Science, 10, 373- 376.

Cohen- Charash, Y., P.E. Spector (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta Analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

Colquilt, J.A.(2001). On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: a Construct Validation of

a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 , (3) , 386-400.

Colquilt, J.A., Donald E. Coston, Michael J. Wesson, Christopher O.L.H. Porter & K. Leens

(2001). Justice at the Millennium: A Meta- Analytic Review of 25 Years of

Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , (3), 425-445.

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

162

Colquitt, J. A. & J. C. Shaw (2005). How should Organizational Justice be Measured? In J.

Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp.113-152).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Connor , P.E. & L.K. Lake (1994). Managing Organizational Change. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Daft, R.L., R.H. Lengel, L.K. Trevino (1987). Message Equivocality, Media Selection and

Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 9, 335-

368.

Daly, J.P.& P.D. Geyer ( 1994). The Role of Fairness in Implementing Large-scale Change:

Employee Evaluations of Process and Outcomes in Seven Facility Relocation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15, 623-638.

Dent, E. B. and S.G. Goldberg (1999). Challenging “Resistance to Change”. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 35, (1), 25-41.

Deutsch, M.( 1985). Distributive Justice: a Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Erim, F.N.A.( 2009). Individual Response to Organizational Change: Creating Façade of

Conformity, its Antecedents and Effects on Participation in Decision making, Work

Engagement, Job Involvement, Intention to Quit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation ,

Marmara Üniversitesi.

Fisher, D.(1993). Communication in Organization. West Publishing Company.

Folger, R., & M. A. Konovsky (1989). Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on

Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.

Foster, R.D. (2008). Individual Resistance, Organizational Justice and Employee Commitment

to Planned Organizational Change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation ,The University of

Minnesota.

Foster, R.D. (2010). Resistance, Justice and Commitment to Change. Human Resources

Development Quarterly, 21, 1.

Foster, R.N.& S. Kaplan (2001). Creative Destruction: Why Companies That are Built to Last

Under-perform the Market- and How to Successfully Transform them. New York:

Currency.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fryxell, G.E.& E. Gordon (1989). Workplace Justice and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of

Satisfaction with Union and Management. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851-

866.

Gopinath, C., & T. Becker (2000). Procedural Justice, and Employee Attitudes: Relationships
under Conditions of Divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, (1), 63- 81.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. The Academy of

Management Review, 12, (1) , 9-22.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 6, 399-432.

Hubbell, A.P. & R.M. Chory-Assad, (2005). Motivating Factors: Perceptions of Justice and their

Relationship with Managerial and Organizational trust. Communication Studies, 56, (1),

47-50.

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

163

Kanter, R.M.(1985). Managing the Human Side of Change. Management Review, 74, 52-56.

Karabay, E.Z.( 2004). Kamuda ve Özel Sektörde Örgütsel Adalet Algısı ile Örgütsel Bağlılık

Arasındaki İlişkiler. Unpublished Master Thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

Katz, D. & R. Kahn (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Kilbourne, L.M., A.M. O’Leary-Kelly & S.D. Williams (1996). Employee Perceptions of Fairness

When Human Resources Systems Change: the Case of Employee Layoffs. In R.W.

Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.). Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 9, 49-80. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Konovsky, M.A. & R. Folger, ( 1991). The Effects of Procedures, Social Accounts and Benefits

Level on Victims’ Layoff Reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 630-650.

Korsgaard, M. A., D. M. Schweiger, & H. J. Sapienza (1995). Building Commitment,

Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-making teams: The Role of Procedural

Justice. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, (1), 60-84.

Lau, C.M. & R.W. Woodman (1995). Understanding Organizational Change: A Schematic
Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537.

Leventhal, G.S., J. Karuza & W.R. Fry, (1980). Beyond Fairness: a Theory of Allocation

Preferences. In G. Mikula ( Ed.) Justice and Social Interaction (pp. 167- 218). New York /

Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Mayer, R. C., & J. H. Davis (1999). The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for

Management: A Field Quasi- experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123– 136.

Melikoğlu, M.( 2009). The Distinctive Role of Prestige, Communication and Trust:

Organizational Identification versus Affective Commitment. Unpublished Master

Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi.

Miller, K.I & P.R. Monge (1985). Social Information and Employee Anxiety about
Organizational Change. Human Communication Research, 11, 365-386.

Miller, V.D., J.R. Johnson, & J. Grau ( 1994). Antecedents to Willingness to Participate in a

Planned Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 59-

80.

Milliken,F.J. (1987). Three types of Perceived Uncertainty about the Environment. Academy

of Management Review, 12, 133-143

Morgan, D.E. and R. Zaffane (2003). Employee Involvement, Organizational Change and Trust

in Management. The International Journal of Human Resources Management. 14, (1),

55-75.

Nelson, S., Y. Brunetto, R. Farr-Wharton & S. Ramsay (2007). Organizational Effectiveness of
Australian Fast Growing Small to Medium Sized Enterprises. Management Decisions,

45, (7), 1143-1162.

Neves, P. & A. Caetano ( 2006). Social Exchange Processes in Organizational Change: The

Roles of Trust and Control. Journal of Change Management, 6, (4), 351-364

Oreg, S.(2003). Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Difference Measure. Journal

of Applied Psychology , 88, (4), 680-693.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, Context and Resistence to Organizational Change. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, (1), 73-101.

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014
164

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., Bozionelos, N., Gonzalez, L., Hrebickova, M.; Kordacova,

J., Mlacic, b., Saksvik, P.; Bayazıt, M., Arciniega, L., Barkauskiene, R., Fujimoto, Y., Han,

J., Jimmieson, N., Mitsuhashi, H.; Ohly, S.; Hetland, H. (2008). Dispositional Resistance

to Change: Measurement Equivalence and the Link to Personal Value Across 17
Nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, (4), 935-944.

Oreg, S. and N. Sverdlik (2011). Ambivalence Toward Imposed Change: The Conflict between

Dispositional Resistance to Change and the Orientation Toward the Change Agent.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, (2), 337-349.

Palmer, B. (2004). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Quality Progress. 37, (4), 35.

Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional

View of Attitudes Toward an Organizational Change. Academy of Management Review,

10, 783–794.

Pitts, J.P. (2006). The Effects of Managerial Communication and Justice Perceptions n

Employee Commitment to Organizational Change: a Mixed Method Field Theory.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Graduate Faculty of Aubrun University.

Postmes, T., M. Tanıs, B.De Wit ( 2001). Communication and Commitment in Organization: A

Social Identity Approach. Group processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, (3), 227-246.

Raina, R. ( 2010). Timely, Continuous & Credible Communication & Perceived Organizational

Effectiveness. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relationships, 46, (2), 345-359.

Rogers, E.M.( 2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.). New York : Free Press.

Spillan, J.E., M. Mino, & M.S. Rowles (2002). Sharing Organizational Messages through

Effective Lateral Communication. Communication Quarterly, 50, (2), 96-104.

Tang, T. L., & S. R. Sarsfield-Baldwin, (1996). Distributive and Procedural Justice as Related to

Satisfaction and Commitment. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 61, (3), 25-32.

Thibaut J. & L. Walker (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R. & E. A. Lind (1992). A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. In M. P.

Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Van Dam, K., S. Oreg, B. Schyns (2008). Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organizational

Change: The Role of Leader-member Exchange, Development Climate and Change

Process Characteristics. Applied Psychology: an International Review, 57, (2), 313-334.

Wanberg,C.R.& J.T. Banas, (2000). Predictors and Outcomes of Openness to Changes in a

Reorganizing Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.

N. Saruhan
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014

165

Appendix

Table 1. Results of the Factor Analysis for Resistance to Change

Factor 1: Routine Seeking

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,841 Factor Loadings

D11. Often, I feel a bit uncomfortable even about changes that may

potentially improve my life.

D13. I sometimes find myself avoiding changes that I know will be good for

me.

D4. I generally consider changes to be a negative thing.

D5. I’d rather be bored than surprised.

D10. Changing plans seems like a real hassle to me.

,843

,811

,800

,786

,770

Factor 2: Emotional Reactions

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,836 Factor Loadings

D8. When things don’t go according to plans, it stresses me out.

D9. If my manager changed my responsibilities, it would probably make me

feel uncomfortable even if I thought I’d do just as well without having to do

any extra work.

,919

,712

Table 2. Results of the Factor Analysis for Communication

Factor 1:Vertical Communication- Contribution

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,888 Factor Loading

C10. Management gives sufficient opportunities within the organization

to critically reflect on managerial policies, or to give suggestions for
improvement

C 8. Management gives opportunity to take part in decision making

concerning issues involving the organization as a whole
C 11. Management of this organization pays attention to employees’

suggestions.

C 6. Management takes the initiative to discuss organizational issues with

the employees.
C 9. Management gives feedback about the work employee do.

0,843

0,825

0,783

0,728

0,655

Factor 2: Vertical Communication- Information Sharing

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,895 Factor Loading

C 2. My company gives information about personnel management

C 1. My company gives information about changes within the organization

C 3. My company gives information about the overall performance of the
organization

C 4.My company gives information about the organization’s strategy .

0,827

0,808

0,805

0,691

Factor 3: Horizontal Communication

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,823 Factor Loading

C 13. I communicate within my unit informally and for social reasons

C 14. I communicate with colleagues who are not in my unit informally and
for social reasons

C 15. I communicate with my collogues in other departments about non-

business issues

0,845

0,837

0,782

The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process
Business and Economics Research Journal
5(4)2014
166

Table 3. Results of the Factor Analysis for Perception of Organizational Justice

Factor 1: Interactional Justice

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,947 Factor Loadings

IJ3. I was treated with respect

IJ1. I was treated in a polite manner.

IJ2. I was treated with dignity.

IJ4. My manager (and/or any other authority figure) refrained from improper

remarks or comments.

IJ8.My manager seemed to tailor communications to individuals’ specific

needs

IJ7. My manager communicated details in a timely manner.

IJ6. My manager explained the procedures thoroughly.

IJ9. My manager’s explanations regarding the procedures were reasonable.

IJ5. My manager was candid while communicating with me.

0,844

0,831

0,823

0,773

0,765

0,762

0,743

0,735

0,724

Factor 2: Distributive Justice

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,897 Factor Loadings

DJ1. My outcomes reflect the effort I put into my work.

DJ4. My outcomes were justified, given my performance

DJ3. My outcomes reflect what I have contributed to the organization

DJ2. My outcomes were appropriate for the work I have completed.

0,832

0,809

0,797

0,770

Factor 3: Procedural Justice- application

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,882 Factor Loadings

PJ4. The procedures were free of bias.

PJ5. The procedures were based on accurate information

PJ7. The procedures upheld ethical and moral standards.

0,788

0,747

0,668

PJ3. The procedures were applied consistently. 0,662

Factor 4: Procedural Justice- participation

Cronbach’s Alpha= ,779 Factor Loadings

PJ2. I had influence over the outcomes arrived at by the procedures. 0,860

PJ1. I was able to express my views and feelings during the procedures 0,802

PJ6. I was able to appeal the outcomes arrived at by the procedures. 0,660

Copyright of Business & Economics Research Journal is the property of Adem Anbar and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.