EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2006, 15 (1), 29 – 45

The relationships among commitment to change,

coping with change, and turnover intentions
George B. Cunningham
Dept. of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX, USA

Recent research has adopted a micro, people-oriented focus to the study of

organizational change, where the focus is on individual employee behaviours,
attitudes, and cognitions. The purpose of this study is to integrate and expand
this research by examining the relationship among commitment to change,
coping with change, and turnover intentions. Data were collected from 299
employees of 10 organizations undergoing significant organizational change.
Results from structural equation modelling indicate that (a) the relationship
between affective commitment to change and turnover intentions was fully
mediated by coping with change, (b) the relationship between continuance
commitment to change and turnover intentions was only partially mediated by
coping with change, and (c) normative commitment to change had a direct
impact on turnover intentions. Results are discussed in terms of implications
for managing organizational change.

As labour forces, technologies, and various environmental factors continue

to change, so too do organizations. As a result, considerable research has
been devoted to understanding the change and development process. Recent
reviews of this literature have demonstrated that theories used to study
change—such as population ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1977), institu-
tional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1992), and resource
dependence (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978)—are principally macro focused
(Cunningham, 2002; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). As a result, this research
largely focuses on organizational and systems-level variables, such as
institutional pressures for change, environmental factors, the firm’s strategic
orientation, age, and size, and various design factors. Of the studies that

Correspondence should be addressed to George B. Cunningham, Dept. of Health and

Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, TAMU 4243, College Station, TX 77843-4243, USA.
Email: gbcunningham@hlkn.tamu.edu

Ó 2006 Psychology Press Ltd

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320500418766
30 CUNNINGHAM

have examined individual factors, almost all have focused on top managers
(e.g., transformational leadership; Amis, Slack, & Hinings, 2004) or
management teams (e.g., upper echelon theory; Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
As an alternative perspective, researchers have begun to adopt a more
micro focus of change by examining the individuals within the organization
and the psychological factors influencing change efforts (Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Wanberg &
Banas, 2000). For example, Judge et al. (1999) examined antecedents (i.e.,
personality) and outcomes (i.e., job performance, job satisfaction) associated
with employees’ coping with organizational change, while Wanberg and
Banas (2000) found that lower levels of change acceptance were related to less
job satisfaction and stronger turnover intentions. More recently, Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) found validity evidence for a three-component model of
commitment to change, as well as support for the linkage between
commitment to change and subsequent behaviours associated with support-
ing change.
These studies have contributed to the change literature by demonstrating
the importance of psychological factors in the organizational change
process. The purpose of this study was to integrate and extend these studies
by further considering the relationship between commitment to change
and coping with change, as well as the relationship of these variables to
organizational turnover intentions. Specifically, it was expected that
affective and continuance commitment to change would be significantly
associated with coping with change, albeit in different directions, and that
coping with change would be negatively associated with turnover intentions.
The relationship between normative commitment to change and turnover
intentions was thought to be direct. The framework and specific hypotheses
are presented below.

FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

Commitment to change
Various scholars have discussed the importance of a commitment to the
change initiative taking place in an organization. For example, Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) argued that ‘‘commitment is arguably one of the most
important factors involved in employees’ support for change initiatives’’
(p. 474). Indeed, without such support, even the best-developed plans would
fall by the wayside. Others have expressed similar notions. Huy (2002)
commented that employees are more likely to collectively support organiza-
tional change programs when there is a sense of trust and attachment to the
organization. Huy further commented that ‘‘wavering commitment among
agents during implementation could . . . lead to organizational inertia’’ (p. 46;
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 31

see also Conner & Patterson, 1982). Finally, Conner (1992) argued that it was
commitment to the change that connected employees with organizational
goals for change.
Despite the noted importance of commitment to organizational change,
little research systematically attempting to measure the construct, its
antecedents, and its outcomes. The work by Herscovitch and Meyer
(2002) represents a notable exception. In drawing from Meyer and
Herscovitch (2001), these authors described commitment to change as ‘‘a
force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed
necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative’’ (p. 475).
Consistent with their previous work (e.g., Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993),
Herscovitch and Meyer further differentiated between three types of
commitment to change: affective, normative, and continuance. Affective
commitment to change entails supporting the initiative based on the belief
that it will provide benefits to the organization. Normative commitment to
change reflects a sense of obligation to the support the change programme.
Finally, continuance commitment to change involves supporting the change
initiative because of the recognition of the costs associated with failing to do
so. Herscovitch and Meyer also demonstrated that (a) their commitment to
change measure was empirically distinct from a multidimensional model of
organizational commitment and (b) affective and normative commitment to
change were related to various behavioural outcomes related to supporting
change (i.e., championing change).

Coping with change

Another important factor in the change process is the employees’ coping
behaviour when changes take place. Coping behaviour is generally defined
as ‘‘conscious psychological and physical efforts to improve one’s
resourcefulness in dealing with stressful events . . . or to reduce external
demands’’ (Anshel, Kim, Kim, Chang, & Hom, 2001, p. 45). Research has
suggested that coping is particularly important in the organizational context
of change because such transformations are often accompanied by
uncertainty, anger, stress, and conflict at work and at home (Ashford,
1988; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Marchione and English (1982), for
example, argued that ‘‘organizations must learn to cope with change’’
(p. 52), while Cunningham et al. (2002) suggested that employees who are
confident in their ability to cope with change are likely better equipped to
contribute to the change process.
Indeed, empirical research provides support as to the importance of the
ability cope with change. Cunningham et al. (2002), for example, found that
confidence in the ability to cope with organizational change was positively
related with readiness for change, participation in the change process, and
32 CUNNINGHAM

perceived contribution to the change. Additionally, Judge et al. (1999) found

that the coping behaviour was associated with several career outcomes,
including salary, organizational commitment, satisfaction, and job perfor-
mance. These studies suggest that employees who successfully cope with the
change initiatives are more likely to contribute to that process and to realize
desired career outcomes.

Relationship between commitment to change

and coping with change
Thus far, both commitment to change and coping with change have been
presented as important factors influencing the change process. This study
sought to integrate these findings by considering the relationship between
the two factors. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) suggested that two forms of
commitment to change—affective and continuance—are likely to influence
one’s coping behaviour. With respect to affective commitment, it is
expected that persons with high levels of affective commitment to change
will also be able to successfully cope with the changes taking place. Recall
that people with an affective commitment to change believe in the value of
the change, think that the change serves an important purpose to the
organization, and view the change as an effective strategy (Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002). If people hold such positive attitudes toward the change
process, it is likely that, although the change may be stressful at times,
they will be able to cope with such transitions because it ultimately benefits
the company. In this way, affective commitment serves to ‘‘buffer the effect
of change-related stress on employee health and well-being’’ (Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002, p. 485). Related research in the area of affective organi-
zational commitment has provided a similar rationale. Specifically,
Antonovsky (1979) argued that affective organizational commitment allows
employees to withstand the effects of tension in high-stress environments,
and Begley and Czajka’a (1993) research provided empirical evidence for
this contention. Based on this literature, the following hypothesis was
advanced:

Hypothesis 1: Affective commitment to change will be positively

associated with coping with change.

While affective commitment to change was expected to be positively

associated with coping with change, the opposite was expected for
continuance commitment to change. Recall that persons with a con-
tinuance commitment to change feel pressure to advocate the change, feel
that they have little choice but to follow the change, and perceive high risk
associated with not supporting the change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 33

Such pressures may be a source of stress themselves, in which case

continuance commitment would be expected to intensify the potentially
negative effects of the change rather than ameliorate them. Again, the
related research in the area of organizational commitment has provided
similar findings. In their study of organizations undergoing considerable
change, Irving and Coleman (2003) found that continuance organizational
commitment was positively associated with job tension. Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) provided similar findings in their
meta-analysis, where continuance organizational commitment was posi-
tively associated with job stress. In all, these findings suggest the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Continuance commitment to change will be negatively

associated with coping with change.

Although both affective and continuance commitment to change were

expected to be significantly associated with the coping behaviour, there is
little conceptual rationale to expect similar findings for normative
commitment to change. According to Herscovitch and Meyer (2002),
persons with a normative commitment to change perceive a sense of duty or
obligation to work towards the change and believe it would be irresponsible
to not support the change process. Based on this conceptualization of
normative commitment to change, it is difficulty to envisage a manner by
which such a commitment would influence one’s coping behaviour. Because
of this, a specific hypothesis concerning the relationship between normative
commitment to change and coping with change was not advanced.

Commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover

intentions
One potential outcome of organizational change efforts is employee
turnover; therefore, turnover intentions because of the change process was
included an outcome of commitment to change and the ability to cope with
change. Organizational change is oftentimes associated with several negative
outcomes, such as stress, conflict, ambiguity, and anger (Ashford, 1988;
Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). To the extent that these change side effects are
pervasive and employees do not feel they are able to cope with such effects,
they may choose to leave the organization all together. Indeed, Judge et al.
(1999) found a positive relationship between coping with change and several
work outcomes, such as job satisfaction and job performance, thereby
suggesting that persons who are able to cope with organizational change are
also likely to adapt well in the workplace and realize positive career
outcomes. Therefore, it was hypothesized:
34 CUNNINGHAM

Hypothesis 3: Coping with change will be negatively associated with

organizational turnover intentions.

In addition, it was also expected that affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to change would also hold significant associations
with organizational turnover intentions. Organizational turnover might be
expected for persons who do not see the value in the change efforts
(Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999) or who are only committed to the change
because of the perceived costs of not doing so (i.e., continuance
commitment). Indeed, if employees feel pressure to support change efforts
and believe there is risk involved for not doing so, they might believe they
are better off leaving the organization instead of remaining through the
entire change process. On the other hand, employees who support the
change because of its perceived value (i.e., affective commitment), or because
of the sense of duty to do so (i.e., normative commitment), are unlikely to
leave the organization because of the change process. For these persons,
seeing the change through to completion and ensuring that the change is a
success may serve as the focal point.
Of course, as both affective and continuance commitment to change are
expected to be positively related to coping with change, which in turn is
expected to be negatively related to turnover intentions, the relationships
between affective and continuance commitment and turnover intentions is
likely to be mediated, at least partially, by employee coping behaviour. As
Baron and Kenny (1986) note, seeking variables that partially, rather than
fully, mediate relationships is a more realistic research endeavour ‘‘because
most areas of psychology, including social, treat phenomena that have
multiple causes’’ (p. 1176). Indeed, partial mediation is theoretically
plausible because the effects affective and continuance commitment on
turnover intentions could be direct (as outlined above) or observed through
employee coping behaviour. On the other hand, because normative
commitment is not expected to be associated with coping with change, the
relationship between normative commitment to change and organizational
turnover intentions is likely to be direct. This reasoning led to the following
hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Normative commitment to change will be negatively related

to organizational turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 5: Coping with change will mediate, at least partially, the
negative relationship between affective commitment to change and
organizational turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 6: Coping with change will mediate, at least partially, the
positive relationship between continuance commitment to change and
organizational turnover intentions.
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 35

METHOD
Participants
Participants were 299 employees of National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) Division I-A athletic departments (n ¼ 10). The NCAA is the
primary administrative body for university athletics in the United States,
and Division I-A programmes are the largest and generally considered the
most prestigious departments in the NCAA. The sample consisted of slightly
more men (n ¼ 164, 54.8%) than women (n ¼ 135, 45.2%) and was largely
Caucasian (n ¼ 267, 90.2%). There was a relatively even age distribution:
20 – 30 years (n ¼ 87, 29.1%); 31 – 40 years (n ¼ 75, 25.2%); 41 – 50 years
(n ¼ 78, 26.1%); 51 – 60 years (n ¼ 49, 16.4%); 61 years or more (n ¼ 10,
3.3%). The mean organizational tenure was 9.01 years (SD ¼ 7.88).

Measures
Participants received a questionnaire requesting demographic information
(as listed above) and to respond to items pertaining to coping with change,
commitment to change, championing behaviour, and organizational turn-
over intentions. All items were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale
from 1 (‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 7 (‘‘strongly agree’’).

Coping with change. Judge et al. (1999) developed a scale to measure

problem-focused coping behaviour. Their instrument measured coping with
12 items; however, to reduce the space used on the questionnaire and the
number of items to which participants had to respond (see, for example,
Dillman, 2000), the scale was reduced to 6 items by selecting those items
with the highest factor leadings from Judge et al.’s original research. A
sample item is ‘‘I think I cope with change better than most of those with
whom I work.’’ In the present study, the reliability (a) of the scale was .63—
a value lower than was found in Judge et al.’s work. Further analyses
revealed that the reliability was not improved through item deletion. That
the reliability is under traditional cutoff limits (i.e., 70) presents a possible
limitation to the study.

Commitment to change. Commitment to change was measured with

the 18-item scale from Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). Sample items
include ‘‘this change is a good strategy for this organization’’ (affective), ‘‘I
feel a sense of duty to work toward this change’’ (normative), and ‘‘it would
be risky to speak out against this change’’ (continuance). In the current
study, the affective (a ¼ .93), normative (a ¼ .74), and continuance (a ¼ .89)
facets of commitment to change all demonstrated acceptable levels of
reliability.
36 CUNNINGHAM

Organizational turnover intentions. Three items were used to measure

organizational turnover intentions (e.g., ‘‘I plan on voluntarily leaving the
department within the next year as a result of these changes’’). The
reliability (a) of the measure was .96.

Procedures
All data were collected from NCAA Division I athletic department
personnel. Athletic departments were chosen for several reasons. First,
major changes within the departments are made public through newspaper
coverage, television coverage, and internet sites, thereby expediting identi-
fication of organizations undergoing significant change efforts. Second, and
in a related manner, identification of athletic department personnel is
publicly available through various sources, such as the department’s website
and NCAA directories. The availability of the information made it possible
to survey multiple persons within the department. Third, while athletic
departments are housed within the university community, they are largely
autonomous entities. Therefore, even absent change within the larger
university, athletic departments can undergo significant transformation.
Consequently, the study’s hypotheses were tested within the context of
intercollegiate athletic departments. Change within all of the selected
departments resulted from top management (i.e., athletic director) turnover,
a strategic decision to realign the structure and processes of the department,
or a combination of the two. These change processes had been made public,
with considerable media attention devoted to them.
All athletic department employees (excluding coaches and the head
athletic director) from 10 NCAA Division I athletic departments (n ¼ 797)
were sent a questionnaire packet, which included a cover letter explaining
the purpose of the study, a questionnaire, and a postage-paid envelope.
Athletic directors were excluded because it was expected that these persons
were likely to be implementing the change initiatives; thus, their commit-
ment and turnover intentions could be markedly different than other
employees. Coaches were not included because their work experiences and
point of attachment to the department are likely much different than that of
other athletic department employees. A total of 236 persons responded to
the first mailing. Three weeks after the initial mailing, a postcard was sent to
all employees in the sample thanking them for their participation and
encouraging nonrespondents to take part in the study. Three weeks later, an
additional questionnaire packet was sent to all nonrespondents. Another 63
persons responded, bringing the total sample to 299 (37.5% response rate).
Early and late respondents did not differ in their ability cope with
change, their commitment to the change, or their turnover intentions.
Further, there were no differences by school in the proportion of late and
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 37

early respondents. Given the lack of differences between early and late
respondents, nonresponse bias is likely not a concern (Dooley & Linder,
2003).

RESULTS
Degree of change
Two checks were made to ensure that the departments were undergoing
significant change and to assess the extent to which there was agreement
about that change. The first item read, ‘‘the changes that are being made
will impact the entire department’’, and was anchored by a dichotomous
response format including ‘‘agree’’ or ‘‘disagree’’. A strong majority
(n ¼ 289, 97%) agreed that the changes being made would impact the entire
athletic department. The interrater agreement for the measure was high,
rwg ¼ .79, while the interclass correlation, ICC(2) ¼ .36, and eta-square
value, Z2 ¼ .05, for the measure were both low.
A second set of items examined the degree of change taking place within
the department. The degree of change was assessed using three semantic
differential scales in response to the following item, ‘‘For this department,
the change currently taking place is . . . .’’ The three scales were significant –
insignificant (reverse scored), considerable – trivial (reverse scored), and
extremely minor – extremely major (a ¼ .82). The mean for the variable was
high (M ¼ 5.46, SD ¼ 1.23) and significantly greater than the mid-point of
the scale (4), t ¼ 19.26, p 5 .001. As with the other change variable,
agreement among department employees was high, rwg ¼ .79, while variance
between departments was low, Z2 ¼ .09, ICC(2) ¼ .64.
Together, these results have several implications. First, participants
believed that the change taking place in the department was considerable
and would impact the entire entity, thereby indicating the appropriateness of
the selected departments for inclusion in the study. Second, there was
significant agreement among the members of the departments concerning
the degree and impact of the change. Third, there was not significant
variance among the departments, meaning that the degree and impact of the
changes taking place was consistent across departments.

Harmon’s single-factor test

Because the data were collected on a single questionnaire, method variance
becomes a potential concern. Therefore, Harmon’s single-factor test (e.g.,
Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) was computed through competing confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) procedures to inspect the severity of method variance.
According to Korsgaard and Roberson (1995), ‘‘if method variance is a
38 CUNNINGHAM

significant problem, a simple model (e.g., single factor model) should fit the
data as well as a more complex model’’ (p. 663). Therefore, three separate
CFA procedures were carried out to test this possibility: (a) a single-factor
model in which all items loaded to a single factor; (b) an alternative model,
in which items from coping and turnover were specified as a single construct
as were the items from the various facets of commitment; and (c) a
hypothesized model, in which items from the turnover intentions, coping
with change, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and norma-
tive commitment factors all loaded accordingly.
The single-factor model was a poor fit to the data, w2(324) ¼ 3543.14,
p 5 .001; root mean square residual (RMSEA) ¼ .20; comparative fit index
(CFI) ¼ .71; normed fit index (NFI) ¼ .68. Results indicated that the
alternative model had improved fit statistics, w2(318) ¼ 1122.13, p 5 .001,
RMSEA ¼ .10; CFI ¼ .92, NFI ¼ .88. Further, the alternative model was a
significantly better fit to the data than was the single-factor model,
Dw2(6) ¼ 2421.01, p 5 .001. Finally, the hypothesized model demonstrated
the best fit statistics, w2(314) ¼ 709.96, p 5 .001, RMSEA ¼ .07; CFI ¼ .95,
NFI ¼ .92. This model was also a significantly better fit than the alternative
model, Dw2(4) ¼ 412.17, p 5 .001. Therefore, results of the competing CFA
procedures show that (a) the single-factor model was not a good fit to
the data and (b) the hypothesized model provided the best fit to the data of
the competing models. These results suggest that although the data were
collected on the same questionnaire, method variance is not a significant
concern.

Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations are presented in
Table 1. Mean scores for organizational turnover intentions were relatively
low, while mean scores for coping with change and continuance commit-
ment were moderate. Finally, the average scores for affective commitment
and normative commitment were both generally high. As expected, affective

TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics

Item M SD a 1 2 3 4 5

1. Affective commitment 5.20 1.32 .93 –

2. Continuance commitment 4.05 1.66 .89 7.45 –
3. Normative commitment 4.56 1.07 .74 .49 .01 –
4. Coping with change 4.34 0.89 .63 .51 7.41 .21 –
5. Turnover intentions 2.14 1.70 .96 7.49 .33 7.34 7.32 –

r
j.21j, p 5 .05.
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 39

and continuance commitment to change both held significant, bivariate

correlations with the coping behaviour. Finally, all forms of commitment
and coping with change were significantly related to organizational turnover
intentions in the expected directions.

Hypothesis testing
Structural equation modelling was used to test the study hypotheses. In line
with the argument that partial mediation, rather than full mediation was
possible, competing models were tested. In the first model (full mediation),
the effects of affective and continuance commitment on turnover intentions
are only seen through coping with change. This model was a close fit to the
data, w2(317) ¼ 723.05, p 5 .001, RMSEA ¼ .07; CFI ¼ .95, NFI ¼ .91.
In the second model (partial mediation), the effects of both affective and
continuance commitment on turnover intentions were seen directly and
through coping with change. This model was also a close fit to the data,
w2(315) ¼ 710.25, p 5 .001, RMSEA ¼ .07; CFI ¼ .95, NFI ¼ .92. Further,
the chi-square difference test showed that this model was statistically
superior to the full mediation model, Dw2(2) ¼ 12.80, p 5 .01. Therefore, this
model was accepted over the full mediation model.
In the third model (affective commitment partial mediation), coping with
change partially mediated the relationship between affective commitment
and turnover intentions but fully mediated the relationship between
continuance commitment and turnover intentions. This model was also a
close fit to the data, w2(316) ¼ 719.71, p 5 .001, RMSEA ¼ .07; CFI ¼ .95,
NFI ¼ .91. However, this model was a poorer fit than was the partial
mediation model, Dw2(1) ¼ 9.46, p 5 .01. Thus, the partial mediation model
was accepted relative to the affective commitment partial mediation model.
Finally, the last model (continuance commitment partial mediation)
specified coping with change as partially mediating the continuance
commitment – turnover intentions relationship and fully mediating the
association between affective commitment and turnover intentions. This
model was a close fit to the data, w2(316) ¼ 710.65, p 5 .001, RMSEA ¼ .07;
CFI ¼ .95, NFI ¼ .92. Furthermore, the model did not significantly differ from
the partial mediation model, Dw2(1) ¼ 0.55, p 4 .05. Because the continuance
commitment partial mediation model was the more parsimonious of the two
models, it was accepted as the final model and used to test the hypotheses. The
model explained 18% of the variance in organizational turnover intentions,
and 58% of the variance in coping with change. An illustrative summary of the
model is presented in Figure 1. For simplicity’s sake, factor loadings for each
latent variable are not included in the figure.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that affective commitment to change would be
positively associated with the coping with change. The strong relationship
40 CUNNINGHAM

Figure 1. Illustrative summary of partially mediated model. w2(316) ¼ 710.65, p 5 .001,

RMSEA ¼ .07; CFI ¼ .95, NFI ¼ .92. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .001.

between the two variables, b ¼ .72, p 5 .001, provides support to the

hypothesis. Also, in support of Hypothesis 2, continuance commitment held
a significant, negative association with coping with change, b ¼ 7 .17,
p 5 .05.
Hypothesis 3, which predicted that coping behaviour would be negatively
associated with organizational turnover intentions, was supported,
b ¼ 7 .36, p 5 .05, as was Hypothesis 4, which predicted that normative
commitment to change would be negatively associated with organizational
turnover intentions, b ¼ 7 .25, p 5 .001. Hypothesis 5 predicted that coping
with change would mediate the relationship between affective commitment
to change and organizational turnover intentions. This hypothesis was
supported, as the effects of affective commitment on organizational turnover
intentions were only seen through coping behaviour. Finally, Hypothesis 6,
which predicted that coping with change would mediate the relationship
between continuance commitment to change and organizational turnover
intentions, received only partial support. The effects of continuance
commitment to change on organizational turnover intentions were seen
through coping with change and directly, b ¼ .29, p 5 .001, thereby
supporting partial mediation.

DISCUSSION
Previous change research has predominantly adopted a macro approach,
studying such elements as environmental factors, pressures for change,
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 41

strategic orientation, and the like (Cunningham, 2002; Van de Ven & Poole,
1995). In recognizing the potential limited nature of this emphasis, other
authors have focused more on micro, people-oriented issues pertaining to
change (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Judge et al., 1999; Wanberg &
Banas, 2000). The purpose of this study was to continue this micro focus on
change by integrating and extending the previous research in this area.
Specifically, this study examined the effects of the various forms of
commitment to change on employee coping with change and, ultimately,
organizational turnover intentions.
Several points are noteworthy concerning the outcomes of the three forms
of commitment to change. First, coping with change fully mediated the
relationship between affective commitment to change and organizational
turnover intentions. Recall that people with an affective commitment believe
in the value of the change and view it as an effective organizational strategy;
furthermore, employees with such a commitment are unlikely to leave the
organization because of the change efforts taking place (see Table 1).
However, results from the structural equation model show coping behaviour
serves as an intervening variable in the negative relationship between
affective commitment and turnover intentions. Specifically, employees who
see the value in the change process are also likely to engage in problem-
focused coping behaviour (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Judge et al., 1999).
And, although coping can sometimes lead to negative outcomes (Folkman &
Moskowitz, 2004), in the current study, the coping behaviour resulted in low
turnover intentions. Second, continuance commitment to change was related
to organizational turnover intentions both directly and through coping with
change. The negative relationship between continuance commitment to
change and coping with change may indicate that the stress associated with
pressures of continuance commitment contributes to feelings of tension and
strain in the change process. Consequently, as feelings of tension and stress
mount, employee coping behaviour is thought to decrease (Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002) and intentions to leave the organization increase. Finally,
normative commitment to change held a significant, negative association
with organizational turnover intentions. These findings suggest that as
employees feel a sense of duty and obligation to support the change process,
they will also be unlikely to leave the organization because of such initiatives.
Given these findings, considering the possible antecedents of affective and
continuance commitment to change may prove useful. In drawing from
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), affective commitment may increase when
employees see the value of or participate in the change process. Indeed,
others have also expressed the positive benefits of participation in the
change process (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Furthermore, it is
possible that change coalitions within the organization could champion the
change and help others see the value of such efforts (Hirschhorn, 2002;
42 CUNNINGHAM

Kanter, 2004; Kotter, 2004). On the other hand, continuance commitment

might develop when employees believe they have something to lose or feel
they have few alternatives other than to support the change initiatives
(Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). It is possible that change coalitions could also
influence pressures to ‘‘go along with’’ the change process. Furthermore,
significant changes in one’s job or responsibilities within the organization
could also influence levels of continuance commitment. Finally, according to
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), ‘‘normative commitment develops through
socialization, the receipt of benefits that induces the need to reciprocate, or
acceptance of the terms of a psychological contract’’ (p. 484). Additional
research is needed to further explore these antecedents.
Furthermore, results indicate that the coping with change was negatively
associated with organizational turnover intentions. Of course, coping is not
always effective and can lead to negative outcomes (for a review, see
Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). However, this finding, coupled with those of
Judge et al. (1999) related to the positive career outcomes associated with
coping behaviour, bring to light question of whether staffing decisions should
be geared toward, at least in part, attracting persons to the organization who
can effectively cope with change. Judge et al. identified two general
personality characteristics that reliably predicted coping with change:
positive self-concept and risk tolerance. Positive self-concept consists of an
internal locus of control, high generalized self-efficacy, high self-esteem, and
positive affectivity. Risk tolerance, on the other hand, is comprised of
openness to experience, tolerance for ambiguity, and a low level of risk
aversion. Not only are these personality characteristics reliably related to
coping with change, but the elements of positive self-concept have also been
shown to relate to organizational commitment (Judge et al., 1999), job
satisfaction (Judge et al., 1999), and job performance (cf. Barrick, Mount, &
Judge, 2001). Given these positive outcomes and the need to cope with a
continually changing environment (Marchione & English, 1982), managers
may do well to consider such characteristics, if only in part, when making
staffing decisions.
Finally, results indicate that the commitment and coping with change
variables explained 18% of the variance in turnover intentions. While this
portion of explained variance would certainly be meaningful to managers
seeking to reduce turnover, there is still a considerable portion of
unexplained variance. Research has demonstrated that several factors could
also contribute to the participants’ turnover intentions, including dynamics
specific to the organization, personal demographics (O’Reilly, Caldwell, &
Barnett, 1989), work attitudes and affect (Meyer et al., 2002), and
community-related factors external to the organization (Mitchell, Holtom,
Lee, & Erez, 2001). While there were no differences in turnover intentions
between the different departments’ employees, the other aforementioned
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 43

factors could contribute additional variance to the understanding of

turnover intentions; thus, future researchers might consider incorporating
these factors into future studies of change and turnover intentions.

Limitations
It is also important to remain cognizant of the study’s limitations. First, while
there were several reasons, as outlined in the Method section, for choosing
the sample, that participants were all employees of athletics departments
could potentially limit the generalizability of the results. However, it should
be noted that there is little research to show that such employees react
differently to change than do employees in other settings, and other
authors have used similar samples to examine organizational behaviour-
related research questions (e.g., Cunningham & Rivera, 2001; Wolfe &
Putler, 2002).
Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study means that the results are
simply correlational in nature, and statements of causality should be
reserved. In a related way, because the data were collected on a single
questionnaire, method variance is a potential concern. It should be noted,
however, that these concerns are mitigated due to the encouraging results
from Harmon’s single-factor test (e.g., Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). In
addition, the self-report nature of the study opens the possibility for socially
desirable responses. The latter two concerns could be alleviated by collecting
data from multiple sources, as was done by Judge et al. (1999).
Finally, as previously addressed, the low reliability (a ¼ .63) of the coping
with change measure represents another limitation to the study. Future
research in this area should consider using the 12-item measure developed by
Judge et al. (1999) or revising the items to improve the reliability of the
measure.
In summary, while previous research has examined organizational change
from predominantly a macro perspective, this study adopted a micro,
people-oriented approach. Results indicate that coping with change at least
partially mediates the relationships between affective and continuance
commitment to change and turnover intentions. Further, the relationship
between normative commitment to change and turnover intentions is direct.
In short, this study integrates much of the previous research with a micro-
focus and further demonstrates the importance of garnering employee
commitment to change.

REFERENCES
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2004). Strategic change and the role of interests, power,
and organizational capacity. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 158 – 198.
44 CUNNINGHAM

Anshel, M. H., Kim, K. W., Kim, B. H., Chang, K. J., & Hom, H. J. (2001). A model for coping
with stressful events in sport: Theory, application, and future directions. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 43 – 75.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681 – 703.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational
transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19 – 36.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173 – 1182.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9 – 30.
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment
on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 552 – 556.
Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and
prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books.
Conner, R. D., & Patterson, R. W. (1982). Building commitment to organizational change.
Training and Development Journal, 36, 18 – 30.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,
Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal
study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75, 377 – 392.
Cunningham, G. B. (2002). Removing the blinders: Toward an integrative model of
organizational change in sport and physical activity. Quest, 54, 276 – 291.
Cunningham, G. B., & Rivera, C. A. (2001). Structural designs within American intercollegiate
athletic departments. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, 369 – 390.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147 – 160.
Dooley, L. M., & Linder, J. R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 14, 99 – 110.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 745 – 774.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its
top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193 – 206.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American
Journal of Sociology, 83, 929 – 964.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a
three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474 – 487.
Hirschhorn, L. (2002). Campaigning for change. Harvard Business Review, 80(7), 98 – 104.
Huy, O. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The
contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31 – 69.
Irving, P. G., & Coleman, D. F. (2003). The moderating effect of different forms of commitment
on role ambiguity – job tension relations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2),
97 – 106.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107 – 122.
 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 45
Kanter, R. M. (2004). The middle manager as an innovator. Harvard Business Review, 82(7/8),
150 – 161.
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The
role of instrumental and noninstrumental voice in performance – appraisal discussions.
Journal of Management, 21, 657 – 669.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73(2), 59 – 67.
Marchione, A. R., & English, J. (1982). Managing the unpredictable: A rational plan for coping
with change. Management Review, 71(2), 52 – 57.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occu-
pations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 538 – 551.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment to the workplace: Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299 – 326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,
and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 – 52.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using
job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
1102 – 1121.
Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13, 563 – 588.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Executive team demography, social
integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21 – 37.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper &
Row.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69 – 82.
Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger:
A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110 – 135.
Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employee’s reaction to the change to work teams: The
influence of ‘‘anticipatory’’ injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12,
51 – 66.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510 – 540.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a
reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132 – 142.
Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups?
Organization Science, 13, 64 – 80.

Manuscript received December 2004

Revised manuscript received August 2005