5  Controlling, Organizational Behaviour and ChangeControlling

A First Short Story of Controlling and Change

Controlling, the need for perceived contingency between behaviour and outcomes, is the third core social motive and one of the two (relatively) cognitive motives (the other is understanding). The social motive to control “encourages people to feel competent and effective in dealing with their environment and themselves… . People want to be effective, to have some sense of control and competence, and a lack of control provokes information seeking, in an effort to restore control” (Fiske, 2004, p. 20). ‘Effectance’, the need for control and competence, is important for effective organizational behaviour and change. In times of change the existing sense of control and competence may be challenged or threatened. Routines, habits, cultural patterns and cognitive schemes often have to be replaced or significantly adjusted. Existing control mechanisms may be the reason that organizational and behavioural change is needed and difficult. As a consequence of change people may have to unlearn and learn in order to regain control. Changes may lead to breach of psychological contract and the related expectancies. In times of change people may experience serious stress; the way they react may be a result of the way they appraise the change. Controlling is related to change and management topics like change capacity, culture, resistance to change, commitment and performance management.

In this chapter the following theories and concepts are presented and assessed:

• Expectancy theory
• Social cognitive theory
• Stress appraisal theory
• Self-perception theory
• Self-determination theory
• Social dominance theory
• Theory of planned behaviour
• Minority influence theory
• Motivation crowding theory

Expectancy Theory

Individuals will act in a certain way based on the expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome.

What Is Expectancy Theory?

Controlling as the third core social motive is described by Fiske (2010) as the need for perceived contingency between behaviour and outcomes. A first related theory is the expectancy theory. The theory helps to understand controlling as a social motive. Expectancy theory is a motivational theory and explains the processes that an individual undergoes to make certain choices. Expectancy theory can be defined as a theory that “predicts that an individual will act in a certain way based on the expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome… . Simply put, the theory states that the actions of an individual are driven by expected consequences” (Renko, Kroeck, & Bullough, 2012, pp. 668–669). This motivation theory is first proposed by Vroom and asserts “that motivation is based on people’s beliefs about the probability that effort will lead to performance (expectancy), multiplied by the probability that performance will lead to reward (instrumentality), multiplied by the perceived value of the reward (valence)” (Greenberg & Baron, 2008, p. 269). According to Holford and Lovelace-Elmore (2001, p. 8), Vroom stated: “Intensity of work effort depends on the perception that an individual’s effort will result in a desired outcome”.

The expectancy theory, or ‘the expectancy theory of motivation’, is related to drive theory (Hull, 1943; Spence, 1958), which stated that behaviour is determined by Drive × Habit and incentives, and a competing theory, which stated that behaviour is directed by Expectancy × Value (Atkinson, 1957). Drive theory is discussed in Chapter 7, which deals with the fifth core social motive, enhancing self. Expectancy theory here is related to controlling because Vroom asserts that “intensity of work effort depends on the perception that an individual’s effort will result in a desired outcome” (Holford & Lovelace, 2001, p. 8). Expectancy is the belief that the right effort will lead to the desired performance. It is in most cases based on self-efficacy, goal difficulty and perceived control (e.g. Chiang, Jang, Canter, & Prince, 2008), the belief that one is able to successfully perform a certain behaviour in a certain context; the belief that goals or desired performance are attainable or not unattainable; and the belief that one has the ability to influence, has a certain control over the expected outcome. Expectancy theory defines motivation as a multiplicative function of expectancy, instrumentality and valence. If they are all high, motivation will be high. If one of the three components is zero, the motivation will be zero. Given the core social motive, controlling people want a (perceived) contingency between (their) behaviour and outcomes. In organizations, managers want the right performance and contributions to change. Therefore, in accordance with the principles of expectancy theory, the following things have to be done to motivate employees: clarify people’s expectancies that their effort will lead to performance; administer rewards that are positively valent to employees and clearly link valued reward and performance (Greenberg & Barron, 2008).

What Is the Relevance of Expectancy Theory for Organization and Change?

Expectancy theory explains the motivation to work (e.g. effort and intensity). When people have certain expectations about the outcome that they desire, they will work harder and longer to achieve that specific outcome. For example, an athlete who desperately wants to take part in the Olympic Games and expects that he or she will be able to reach that goal by training long hours every day will train these hours because of the expected and desired outcome. This motivation can also be used in organizational settings, based on intrinsic (e.g. ambition, interest) and/or extrinsic (e.g. money, goods) outcomes. When employees expect the effort they put in to result in the desired outcome, whether intrinsic and/or extrinsic, this will motivate employees to work harder and for longer hours. This can backfire when people work harder but do not get the expected outcomes, resulting in a decline in motivation and work ethic. From an organizational and change perspective, expectancy theory is strongly related to goal-setting and feedback and the debate about extrinsic motivation, for example financial incentives, as a part of performance management. Watkins (2013) advocates the definition and monitoring of goals and performance metrics: “On the push side, establishing—and sticking to—clear and explicit performance metrics is the best way to encourage accountability” (p. 183). With regard to managing changes, Bridges (1991) links feedback to reinforcement through consistency and reward: “It is common and always disastrous to tell people to act and react in new ways—and then to reward them for the old actions and reactions. You won’t manage to hold a new beginning for long if you preach teamwork and then reward individual contribution, if you preach customer service and then reward following the rules, if you preach risk taking and then reward no mistakes… .” (pp. 61–62). These insights are built on and can be better understood in terms of the principles and mechanisms central to expectancy theory. Regarding financial incentives and reward as a way to reinforce commitment to change, Heller (1998) advises very clearly: “Be willing to pay generously for achievement. People may change their behaviour radically for significant pay rewards” (p. 51). He explains: “People want to feel that their reward will match their efforts; if it does, this will reinforce their commitment to the new ways” (p. 51). Kriegel is also very straightforward: “The most obvious way to motivate employees to get excited about your plans is through rewards” (p. 260). But he is also more specific: “There are two kinds of rewards: extrinsic incentives, like the corner office, money, gifts and titles, and intrinsic rewards, which appeal to more abstract personal needs. People do things not just to get an object or the cash to buy it. They’re also motivated by such intangibles as recognition, fairness, flexibility, creativity, meaningfulness and freedom. These internal factors have more impact on readiness for change than traditional extrinsic rewards do” (p. 261). Connor (2006) states: “A lack of willingness stems from a shortage of motivation and should be addressed through consequence management (the combination of rewards and punishments)” (p. 129).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘expectancy theory’, and ‘expectancy theory’ in combination with ‘organization’, ‘employee’, ‘change’, ‘meta-analysis’ and ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 200 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. After thorough examination, another eight studies were excluded, leaving six relevant studies with a highest evidence level of C.

Main Findings

Most included studies find positive relationships between expectancy and variables like motivation, effort, performance and quantity of work. Two studies found a positive relationship between expectancy and (job) satisfaction (Ferris, 1977, Level E; Futrell, Parasuraman, & Sager, 1983, Level D-). Furthermore, three studies describe a positive relationship between expectancy and work motivation and effort (Chian & Jang, 2008, level E; Hackman & Porter, 1968, Level E-; Renko et al., 2012, Level C). Hackman and Porter (1968, Level E-) even found positive relationships between expectancy and multiple variables (e.g. quantity of work, ability to learn and sales). However, Ferris (1977, Level E) found positive relationships only between expectancy and satisfaction, not between expectancy and performance. Reinharth and Wahba (1975; Level D-) do not find any support for the classical expectancy model, but find that “at best the expectancy model accounts for less than 10 percent of the variance in effort and performance, and in most cases for only one percent to five percent of the variance” (Reinharth & Wahba, 1975, p. 530). This might sound insignificant, but a 10% increase in performance can be the difference between being a very successful organization and bankruptcy. Even an increase of 5% in performance can be valuable for an organization.

What Is the Conclusion?

Five of the six included studies point in the same direction: organizations and change can benefit from expectancy theory and the underlying principles and mechanisms when used properly. These five studies show one or more positive relationships between expectancy and multiple factors like motivation, effort and performance. Expectancy theory translated into organizational and managerial instruments and concepts such as goal-setting, feedback, performance appraisals and reward systems may help to increase satisfaction, performance and effort.

Practical Reflections

Expectancy theory can be used to promote and support change, especially by operationalizing and rewarding or appreciating new desired behaviours. In addition, expectancy theory can also be helpful in understanding how people become frustrated during change processes. They may have learned that certain behaviours and performance lead to appreciation and when these are rewarded over a longer period, expectations develop in a certain way and define the psychological contract. Changes may lead to (the experience of) a breach of that contract and the underlying expectancies, and hence disappointment, frustration, resistance to change and a lack of commitment to the change and organization. Expectancy theory is a very straightforward concept. However, for practitioners it is very important to be aware of the contingencies and specific conditions involved, in particular when we talk about the effects of extrinsic motivation (like financial incentives) on the one hand and intrinsic motivation on the other hand. Other research shows that intrinsic motivation is a better predictor for quality of performance, whereas financial incentives are a better predictor for quantity of performance (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014) (Level B). In addition, research by Weibel, Rost, and Osterloh (2009) shows that financial incentives increase performance of non-interesting tasks but decrease performance of interesting tasks.

Social Cognitive Theory

People learn by observing others.

What Is Social Cognitive Theory?

Social cognitive theory was developed by Bandura (1986) and is a learning theory with the central idea that people learn by observing others. The assumption is that each witnessed behaviour of others (social) has the potential to change a person’s way of thinking (cognition). More fundamentally: “Social cognitive theory—the social portion of the title acknowledges the social origins of much human thought and action; the cognitive portion recognizes the influential contribution of cognitive processes to human motivation, affect and action” (Van Lange, Kruglanski, & Higgins, 2012a, p. 350). In Chapter 4, on the second social motive, understanding, we discussed Bandura’s social learning theory (1977). With that theory and the related experiments (‘the Bobo doll experiments’ in 1961 and 1963) Bandura already demonstrated the relevance of learning from others, social learning, the value of modelling for acquiring new or additional behaviours. With the social cognitive theory Bandura (1986) elaborates and renames social learning theory. Social cognition further contributes to the insight in the social core motive of understanding. It does so by emphasizing the importance of cognition in encoding and performing behaviours. Social cognition theory defines behaviour as a result of personal, behavioural and contextual or environmental influences. However, social cognitive theory also sheds further light on the social motive of controlling (as Bandura’s social learning theory also does, in fact, with its emphasis on a person’s perceived self-efficacy and behavioural change). The idea relates to the need for perceived contingency between behaviour and outcomes. By observing others, and others in specific contexts, people are able not only to learn and understand causal relationships between behaviours and effects or outcomes, but also to develop a repertoire to control their environment and be in control in social situations. Conversely, the models, leaders, parents, institutions and societies (can) also use social cognitive theory as a way to influence others. Modelling can be executed in various ways, by interpersonal imitation but also by using (mass) media sources. Leaders may ‘lead by example’; parents raise their children by being a role model. Organizations design introduction programmes to socialize new members. Societies may deliberately diffuse certain behaviours by using psychosocial factors that influence and govern behavioural change, for example by using symbolic communication to influence the human thought, affect and action referred to earlier (Bandura, 2009). Social learning and social cognition theory provide an alternative to the dominant psychological view that emphasizes learning through the rewarding and punishing effects that behaviours produce. This alternative way of learning is more positive and efficient; direct experience, based on response consequences, is often the ‘hard way’; errors can be highly costly and wrong actions can be fatal. Before one gets in control, one may be bankrupt, disqualified or ‘dead’. Social cognitive theory shows the way to an abbreviated, more efficient and human way of acquiring mores, routines, social practices, skills and content. It does so by emphasizing the relationship between learning and the observation of models. It shows how cultural patterns, modelling and socialization can be used for control, survival and effective human development. Social cognitive theory puts the social context in a central position, but does not see human beings as static or passive. Neither are they seen as the product of simple stimulus-response mechanisms or solely shaped by their environment as in behaviourism. Nor are they seen as the product of inner forces, a mix of rational and irrational, conscious and unconscious drives and forces like in the psychodynamic perspective. Instead, they are seen as human agents that have their own will and ability, being self-reflecting, proactive, self-developing and self-regulating (Bandura, 1986). The perspective that social cognitive theory takes on individuals is illustrated by the four core properties of human agency: intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness and self-reflectiveness. These properties can be described as follows: “Intentionality refers to the creation of and engagement in plans and strategies by which people realize pre-determined intentions to act. Forethought is the property whereby people set goals and anticipate future events: ‘they foresee likely outcomes of prospective actions to guide and motivate their efforts anticipatorily’ (Bandura, 2009, p. 8). Self-reactiveness is about the translation of plans into successful courses of action and the processes of self-management and self-motivation, necessary to do this. Finally, through self-reflectiveness, people reflect on their capabilities, the soundness of their thoughts and actions, and the meaning of their pursuits” (Pajares, Prestin, Chen, & Nabi, 2009, p. 285). With regard to human thought, affect and action, social cognitive theory has broadened the scope of modelling influences and the functions it serves (Bandura, 1986). Bandurastates: “In addition to cultivating cognitive and behavioural competencies, modelling influences were shown to alter motivation, create and modify emotional proclivities, serve as social prompts that activate, channel and support given styles of behaviour, and shape images of reality” (Van Lange, Kruglanski, & Higgins, 2012a, p. 351).5.2.2 What Is the Relevance of Social Cognitive Theory for Organization and Change?

The social cognitive theory states that the acquisition of an individual’s knowledge can be directly related to observing others in a social context. When an individual observes the behaviour of others (e.g. giving a presentation) and see the consequences of that behaviour (e.g. reaction of the crowd), the individual learns from that experience, as he or she remembers the steps taken by the observed individual. The theory states that people do not learn solely by performing certain actions (trial and error) but rather by replicating the actions of other human beings. Central in the social cognitive theory is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be defined as “beliefs about one’s ability to successfully perform particular behaviours or courses of action” (Lent, Lopez, Jr., Lopez, & Sheu, 2008, p. 53). Self-efficacy is the confidence one has to achieve the desired result. It overlaps with self-esteem; people need to feel confident enough to perform certain actions. Observing behaviour of others increases individuals’ knowledge, which in turn is beneficial for their performance, as they learn from observing others. In combination with self-efficacy, this might also increase job satisfaction and overall happiness. From an organizational and managerial perspective, social cognitive career theory (SCCT) is relevant. As the name implies, SCCT builds on the social cognitive theory and applies it to people’s careers. “SCCT posits that individuals are more likely to pursue and be successful in occupations for which they have high self-efficacy” (Diegelman & Subich, 2001, p. 394). Chang and Edwards (2015) state: “SCCT posits that links between social cognitive variables (e.g. self-efficacy), person input (e.g. personality), goal-related behaviours and contextual factors all contribute to job outcomes (e.g. satisfaction; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Lent & Brown, 2006, 2008) and can be considered as an integrative model of job satisfaction that consists of all theoretically relevant constructs” (p. 36). Social cognitive theory may also add to a better understanding of change and organizational topics like leadership (‘lead by example’), team development (the role of ‘relevant others’), change capacity and culture. Sinek’s (2014) first two leadership lessons are ‘so goes the culture, so goes the company’ and ‘so goes the leader, so goes the culture’. Leadership, ‘model learning’ and socialization are important factors in developing organizational culture, understanding organizational behaviour and facilitating and frustrating change. Self-efficacy is probably an important element of change capacity. Connor (2006) states: “People can only change when they have the capacity to do so. Ability means having the necessary skills and knowing how to use them. Willingness is the motivation to apply those skills to a particular situation. If you lack either ability or willingness, it is unlikely that you will successfully adapt to a change” (p. 129). Kriegel and Brandt (1996) advise: “Emphasizing strengths builds esteem and encourages people to do better in everything, including those things that give them trouble. When you’re introducing change, remind people of their competence. Show them how the skills they already have will help them to excel in the new task” (p. 209).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the terms ‘social’, ‘cognitive’, ‘theory’, ‘proxy’, ‘agency’, ‘collective’ and ‘individual’ in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ and ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 200 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. After thorough examination, another six studies were excluded. The five included studies had a low level of evidence ranging from C to D-. Given the central role of self-efficacy in social cognitive theory, an additional quick scan was carried out on that concept. We included two meta-analyses (level B-) and three case studies (level D-).

Main Findings

1. Both self-efficacy and outcome expectations accounted for significant variance in predicting interest and pursuit intentions, generally supporting the social cognitive career theory (Diegelman & Subich, 2001; Level C).
2. Self-efficacy has a positive effect on performance (Level B-).
   • A meta-analytical study found a positive effect between self-efficacy and work-related performance (Stajkovic & Fred, 1998).
3. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) has a positive effect on firm performance (Level B-).
   • A meta-analytical study found a positive effect between ESE and firm performance (Miao, Qian, & Ma, 2016).
4. (Leadership) Self-efficacy has a positive effect on organizational commitment, self-esteem, job satisfaction and managers’ job autonomy (Level D-).
   • Researchers found that leadership self-efficacy has positive effects on multiple factors, including organizational commitment, performance and managers’ job autonomy (Paglis & Green, 2002). Another study found that self-efficacy was positively correlated with organizational performance (Jacobsen & Andersen, 2017).
5. Self-efficacy has an effect that leads to fewer turnover intentions (Level D-).
   • Increasing self-efficacy among employees results in fewer turnover intentions. This can be useful in keeping employees inside the organization (Lai & Chen, 2012).

What Is the Conclusion?

McCormick (2001 states that: “Social cognitive theory is a conceptual framework of human functioning that is well supported by a large body of empirical research” (p. 30). However, our search provided us with limited evidence regarding the social cognitive theory as such. Therefore, we searched in addition for both self-efficacy (as an essential part of social cognitive theory) and social cognitive career theory. This generated stronger evidence, including two high-level meta-analyses. The evidence not only supports the social cognitive career theory but also shows that self-efficacy is crucial, as it is positively related to multiple important factors for organizations, employees and change practitioners.

Practical Reflections

Social cognitive theory, but in particular the concept of self-efficacy, is a highly relevant concept for the understanding of organizational behaviour and change processes. Self-efficacy, or ‘action control’, can be an important basis for creating the right conditions and context for change. Providing supervisory support and constructive feedback can increase employees’ self-efficacy. Other interventions are celebrating achievements, giving sincere compliments and treating colleagues with respect. Therefore, Kouzes and Posner emphasize that a leader must “invest in strengthening the capacity and the resolve of everyone in the organization” (p. 256), especially in situations of change. Exemplary leaders strive to create conditions in which people perform effortlessly and expertly despite the challenging or even difficult situation. Kriegel and Brandt (1996) advise: “Emphasizing strengths builds esteem and encourages people to do better in everything, including those things that give them trouble. When you’re introducing change, remind people of their competence. Show them how the skills they already have will help them to excel in the new task” (p. 209).

Stress Appraisal Theory

Peoples’ emotions are extracted from their evaluations of events. These appraisals or estimates will lead to individual variances of emotional reactions to the same stimulus or event.

What Is Stress Appraisal Theory?

The core idea of appraisal theory is that people’s emotions are extracted from their evaluations of events (Lazarus, 2000). These appraisals or estimates will lead to individual variances of emotional reactions to the same stimulus or event (Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Stress appraisal theory refers to the evaluation process by which individuals evaluate stressful events and cope with them (e.g. Lazarus, 1966, 1974). Coping can be defined as ‘the cognitive and behavioural efforts made to master, tolerate or reduce external and internal demands and conflicts among them’ (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, p. 223). Individuals differ in the evaluation of what is happening (to them), how they perceive the circumstances and how they react to and cope with circumstances (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The social nature of stress appraisal is related to two precursory conditions that affect the process of evaluation, environmental and personal variables. Environmental variables are outside the person and related to rules of behaviour that are governed by societal norms. These variables include demands, constraints, opportunity and culture. Personal variables are inside the person and include the person’s goals and goal hierarchies, beliefs about self and context, and personal resources. In personality psychology, emotions are a function of personality or character; in neuropsychology they are a function of the chemical processes in the brain and in social psychology (within the context of appraisal theory) they are a function of the appraisal of and cognitive response to a situation. According to Lazarus, stress appraisal comes in two forms and two stages, a primary and a secondary stage. At the stage of primary appraisal one decides whether an event is stressful and relevant. Based on the appraisal an event can be associated with a threat, harm or loss, or a challenge. Consequently, stress can be related to negative (harm) and positive (challenge) types of stress. Harm appraisals are about past losses. Threat and challenge are about the future, about possible losses and gains. These appraisals provide insight into employees’ expectations and concerns about potential consequences (Fugate, 2013). At the stage of secondary appraisal the central question is how to cope with a stressful, relevant event and which coping options are available. The decision on which available option to choose can be supported by a reference framework based on prior experience of exposure to similar situations. In dealing with stress, individuals constantly evaluate coping options in order to deal with stress in the context of personal goals and resources and environmental constraints. Primary appraisal is grounded in three components: goal relevance, goal congruence and type of ego involvement. Goal relevance refers to the extent to which an event refers to issues about which the person cares. Goal congruence describes the extent to which the developments and goals related to an event are in accordance with personal goals. The type of ego-involvement concerns aspects of personal commitment related to the event; to what extent are self-esteem, ego-identity, moral values and ego-ideal related or at stake. Secondary appraisal is defined by the components of blame or credit, coping potential and future expectations. Blame or credit results from an individual’s evaluation of who is responsible, to blame or to credit for a certain event. According to Lazarus, coping potential can be defined as ‘a person’s evaluation of the prospects for generating certain behavioural or cognitive operations that will positively influence a personally relevant encounter’ (Krohne, 2001, p. 4). Future expectations are the result of the appraisal of the further course or consequences of an encounter with respect to goal (in)congruence.

What Is the Relevance of Stress Appraisal Theory for Organization and Change?

The perspective that stress appraisal provides is highly relevant for organizations and organizational behaviour in general and change management and change processes in particular. It is related to subjects like change vision, change capacity, leadership, communication, performance management and resistance and commitment. Fugate (2013) illustrates this in his article ‘Capturing the positive experience of change: antecedents, processes, and consequences’. Building on the insights of Oreg (2003), he states: “For any given change in a particular organization, some employees react negatively and suffer tremendous stress and negative health consequences … while others react positively and view change as an opportunity for development and advancement” (p. 15). Central are the causes of differences in individuals’ reactions to change. Stress appraisal theory provides the basics for doing this. Like the theory, Fugate focuses on employees’ cognitive appraisals of change by making use of the ‘antecedent→process→outcome perspective’, partly based on systems theory and systems management. The premise is that control over inputs and premises is a means of managing outcomes. Fugate states: “A person’s cognitive appraisal of organizational change is important because it represents an evaluation of a person-situation transaction in terms of its meaning for social well-being (see Dewe, 1991)” (p. 16). Appraisals give meaning to (change) experiences and are predictors of affective, behavioural and other responses to organizational change (Fugate, 2013). The stress appraisal theory in general and Fugate’s perspective of change appraisals in particular provide a relevant and helpful perspective for change management. Fugate defines personal and situation antecedents of employee appraisal of organizational change. Personal antecedents are: positive change orientation, positive psychological capital and employability. Situation antecedents are: change-related fairness, trust in management and perceived organizational support. The appraisal perspective helps to understand why and how people react to change visions and a concept like sense urgency (Kotter, 2008). In the change management literature these concepts sometimes seem to be undisputed. Ibarra, for example, emphasizes the importance of having a clear and inspiring vision. She states that “across studies and research traditions, vision has been found to be a defining feature of leadership” (p. 41). Bridges (1991) emphasizes the importance of clarifying the purpose: What is the idea behind what you’re doing? People need a picture of how the outcome will look; participation asks for imagination. Kotter (2012) is very outspoken: “By far the biggest mistake people make when trying to change organizations is to plunge ahead without establishing a high enough sense of urgency in fellow managers and employees” (p. 4). Kriegel (1996) considers urgency as one of the four keys to lighting a firestorm in your organization (the other three are inspiration, ownership and rewards and recognition). Conner (2006) states that the urgency of burning-platform situations provides motivation for major change. Urgency can be generated by the high price of unresolved problems or the high cost of missed opportunities. Heath and Heath (2010) are more nuanced and provide an alternative. There is a cliché that “the bar must be raised” to motivate people to perform and to change. But they emphasize that you need to lower the bar and ‘shrink the change’ to motivate reluctant people. Bridges (1991) is very clear; he emphasizes the importance of conveying the problem and the necessity of change: people don’t act if they do not see, acknowledge and understand the problem. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) teach that ‘visions’ and a ‘sense of urgency’ are not ‘givens’ from the perspective of the people involved. Depending on the person and the situation, a vision or sense of urgency can be associated with a threat, harm or loss, or a challenge. Thus the (change) appraisal perspective may also help to understand why resistance or commitments develop. In addition, it sheds light on the role and position in the change process of factors such as fairness and trust.

Search Strategy

We started to search relevant databases using the terms ‘stress appraisal theory’, ‘appraisal theory’ and ‘model of appraisal’. The search yielded 315 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, no studies met the inclusion criteria. In addition, we focused on Fugate’s change appraisal. Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘change apprais*’. The search yielded ten articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies have evidence levels B-, C- and D-.

Main Findings

1. The relationship between appraisal of organizational change and subsequent withdrawal behaviour is completely mediated (Level B-).
   • Structural equation model results showed that coping with organizational change is a completely mediated process best represented by the stimulus-response theoretical structure, whereby negative appraisal is associated with reduced control and increased escape coping, which are positively related to positive and negative emotions, respectively. Negative emotions predicted sick time used and intentions to quit, which then predicted voluntary turnover (Fugate, Kinicki & Prussia, 2008).
   • Results indicate that the stimulus-response model is the most accurate structural representation of how employees cope with organizational change. This finding aligns with arguments that emotions are a consequence of the appraisal-coping relationship and reinforces propositions derived from behavioural psychology. In addition, it supports research in which coping was found to mediate the appraisal-emotion relationship (e.g. Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) (Fugate, Kinicki & Prussia, 2008).
   • Our findings also cast doubt on the benefits of simply “emphasizing the positive” when attempting to manage organizational change. This study therefore shows a disconnect between the form and function of affect in the context of organizational change, and it seems to support the contention of Cacioppo et al. (1999) that “it is useful to think of the affect system as an entity intimately related to yet distinguishable from the cognitive system” (p. 840) (Fugate, Kinicki & Prussia, 2008).
2. Managers’ engagement was associated with followers’ appraisal of change (Level B-).
   • Transformational and transactional leadership styles were positively related to the engagement of managers. Managers’ engagement was associated with followers’ appraisal of change. The two leadership styles also had a direct, long-term effect on followers’ change appraisal; positive for transformational leadership and negative for transactional leadership (Holten, 2015).
   • The findings of our study support the contingency approach to leadership behaviour (Fiedler, 1967) and the theory of situational leadership (Vroom and Jago, 2007), suggesting that there may be a “right style for the right situation” (Holten, 2015).
   • Transformational leadership may be an effective approach to enhance followers’ positive appraisal of change. As this leadership style reveals both long-term and short-term positive effects, directly and indirectly, strategically increasing managers’ transformational potential may well benefit the entire process of change. During the last stages of change, managers’ direct engagement in change is associated with followers’ change appraisal (Holten, 2015).
3. Employees’ change history in an organization is a key antecedent of their appraisals about organizational change (Level C-).
   • Change appraisals (challenge and harm appraisals) are associated with psychological contract violation, which in turn is associated with intentions to leave the organization, and, ultimately, with voluntary employee turnover.
   • • When employees report that previous change efforts in that company have not been successful and have been poorly managed, they are less likely to report that current changes present an opportunity for growth (Rafferty & Restubog, 2017).
4. Top Management Team (TMT) and supervisory leaders play distinctly different, but both important, roles in driving employees’ adjustment to change (Level C-).
   • Overall, results suggested that TMT and supervisory leaders play distinctly different roles in driving employees’ adjustment to change. TMT transformational leadership displayed indirectly reduced psychological contract violation at Time 2 (T2) by increasing openness toward change at Time 1 (T1). In addition, TMT transformational leadership was also directly associated with affective commitment to the organization at T2. By contrast, supervisory leaders indirectly reduced psychological contract violation at T2 by reducing cynicism about change at T1 (Rafferty & Restubog, 2009).
   • Results provided support for both direct and indirect relationships among leadership and employee adjustment. Of theoretical interest is the failure of psychological uncertainty about change to emerge as an important mediator of relationships in this study. Rather, TMT and supervisory transformational leadership influenced change outcomes through change attitudes (Rafferty & Restubog, 2009).
   • Strategic uncertainty about change T1 displayed an indirect positive relationship with psychological contract violation T2 by increasing cynicism about change T1. Contrary to our expectations, however, while TMT transformational relationship was negatively correlated with strategic uncertainty, the indirect relationships between TMT leadership, strategic uncertainty, and cynicism about change were not significant. As such, in this particular study, it seems that factors other than the TMT were driving strategic uncertainty about change (Rafferty & Restubog, 2009).
   • Contrary to expectations, job-related uncertainty was not significantly associated with any of the substantive constructs in the model (Rafferty & Restubog, 2009).
   • There is considerable benefit to be gained by incorporating a range of conflicting employee attitudes when examining the processes that influence employees’ adjustment to change (Rafferty & Restubog, 2009).
5. Appraisal is central to coping with social change (Level D-).
   • Transformational leadership was related positively to the perception of change as a challenge and controllable, and negatively to threat and loss, but not to coping, although there was an association with positive affect (Ben-Zur, Yagil, & Oz, 2005).
   • Challenge/controllability appraisals will be related positively to problem-focused coping and positive affect, whereas threat/loss appraisals will be related to emotion-focused coping and negative affect (Ben-Zur et al., 2005).
   • The results support the cognitive model developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), which posits that appraisals of stress in terms of threat, loss or challenge affect coping strategies that in turn lead to emotional outcomes of the stressful encounter (Ben-Zur et al., 2005).
   • Problem-focused coping was related to positive affect, while emotion-focused coping was related to negative affect (Ben-Zur et al., 2005).

What Is the Conclusion?

Stress appraisal as such and its sibling the concept of change appraisal are highly relevant and informative for the practice of management and change. The findings show that the appraisal of change is a key factor in change processes and the way people involved react to change, commit or resist. The concept underscores the important role of change history in change processes and the influence it has on the people involved. This appraisal is strongly related to the way people adjust to and cope with times of change.

Practical Reflections

For organizational and change practitioners the concept of change appraisals and its evidence has a set of lessons to learn and guidelines to provide. To start, employee experience is critically important because employees are ultimately responsible for executing change initiatives, and change succeeds or fails depending on employee behaviour (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). This study shows that negative appraisals influence employee withdrawal via a mediated process involving coping and emotions. The degree of such withdrawal (sick time used versus quitting) has serious implications for change effectiveness and organizational competitiveness (cf. Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002). Notably, a lack of employee commitment and engagement (e.g. withdrawal) erodes the competitive advantages that presumably motivated the changes. This is especially salient in knowledge-based organizations and industries. Voluntary turnover of key personnel not only costs an employer organizational knowledge, skills and abilities, but also their competitive position is further eroded if such employees then join competitors (Fugate, Kinicki, & Prussia, 2008). In addition, past change failures, whether they are real or perceived only in the minds of employees, continue to affect organizational change implementation success far into the future of a company (Rafferty, 2017). And: change management practitioners should consider whether there are groups within an organization that have especially negative perceptions of their change management history (Rafferty, 2017). By increasing the followers’ confidence in their ability to achieve desirable outcomes, and by enhancing the perceived importance of communal values, transformational leaders have the ability to motivate followers in times of crisis to promote the necessary changes (Ben-Zur et al., 2005). Another lesson: transformational leadership may be considered an external coping resource, similar to social support, and may affect the stressful encounter processes in much the same way as other substantial resources, such as economic status. The perception by the individual that the leader can be relied on, can help during a crisis, and can implement change is one facet of the ability of transformational leadership to facilitate positive appraisal of change. Moreover, transformational leaders, through their vision, their ability to link their followers’ self-concept to the collective mission, and their inspirational appeals, can present social change as both necessary and challenging and motivate their followers to play a role in it (Ben-Zur, 2005). And: appraisal, coping and personal well-being are likely to affect one another, so that the appraisal of the situation both affects and is affected by coping with it and the emotional reactions to it (Ben-Zur, 2005). Awareness of managers’ role in communicating important information, interpreting the individual consequences and working actively and positively toward the change may be an area of positive investment for organizations in change (Holten, 2015). While transformational leadership is “trainable” (Kelloway & Barling, 2000), our findings suggest taking a training, sensibilizing approach to developing managers’ change leadership skills (Holten, 2015). And finally, there is a need to provide training and development opportunities for leaders at all hierarchical levels regarding the demands and requirements of leading change. Such leadership development needs to recognize that presenting a vision and inspiring followers entails slightly different issues at different hierarchical levels. In the TMT, vision and inspirational leadership are directed toward organization-wide issues and concerns. In contrast, at the supervisory level, leader vision and inspiration involve translating organizational-level issues into a team-level change vision that addresses day-to-day issues and problems when implementing and managing change efforts (Rafferty & Restubog, 2009).

Self-Perception Theory

Individuals come to ‘know’ their own attitudes, emotions and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own overt behaviour and/or the circumstances in which this behaviour occurs.

What Is Self-Perception Theory?

Self-perception theory was developed by Bem (1967, 1972) and concerns attitude formation, presented as an alternative (like self-affirmation theory) to dissonance theory (with its ‘negative drive state’). The theory argued that ‘attitudes were inferences stemming from observation from one’s behaviour’ (Fazio, 1987, p. 129). The assumption is that we observe our behaviour, and as a result reach conclusions about who we are. This is noteworthy, because conventional wisdom is that attitudes determine behaviours. Self-perception is sometimes described as being counterintuitive in nature. The simplicity of this theory is part of its elegance. Bem summarizes his own theory very simply: “Individuals come to ‘know’ their own attitudes, emotions and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own overt behaviour and/or the circumstances in which this behaviour occurs” (1972, p. 2). One’s attitude could be directly detected from the overt behaviour by means of an implicit selection rule: “What must be my attitude if I am willing to behave in this fashion in this situation?” The theory emphasizes the critical role of behaviour, suggesting a partial equivalence between self and interpersonal perception: “To the extent that internal cues are weak, ambiguous or uninterpretable, the individual is in the same position as an outside observer, an observer who must necessarily rely upon those same external cues to infer the individual’s inner states” (Bem, 1972, p. 2). Attitudes are induced directly and rationally, without internal cognition and mood states and in the same way people attempt to explain the behaviour of others (Robak, Ward, & Ostolaza, 2005). Fazio (1987) points to research (see: Fazio & Cooper, 1983) that has shown that self-perception is no longer an adequate alternative to dissonance theory. However, much evidence that is beyond the domain of dissonance theory, in particular concerning social influence phenomena, supports the theory. Fazio (1987) points to the fact that self-perception processes are central to the interpretation of foot-in-the-door phenomena: “People are more likely to comply with a large request, when that request has been preceded by a less demanding act of compliance” (p. 130). Another contribution of the theory is related to the over-justification effect. This effect is described as “the undermining of intrinsic interest in an activity that stems from the perception that one has engaged in the activity only as a means of reaching some desirable end” (Fazio, 1987, p. 130).

Self-perception theory and its mechanisms can be further illustrated by the way they are applied in therapies. The starting point of a lot of traditional therapies is the assumption that psychological problems come from the inner part of the patient. The focus is on the (inner) problems. Self-perception theory, conversely, starts from the assumption that people derive attitudes, feelings and abilities from their external behaviours (Bem, 1972; Fazio, 1987). Here the focus is on external behaviours. Therapies are focused on guiding patients to first change their behaviours. Haemmerlie and Montgomery (1982, 1984) describe the application of self-perception theory to ‘heterosocial anxiety’: “A treatment for heterosocial anxiety based on D. J. Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory, involving use of prearranged, purposefully biased interactions with members of the opposite sex, was compared with an imaginal therapy technique and a no-treatment control group… . The biased interaction technique, unaffected by expectancy, caused significant changes in all three modes of responding and for both expectancy conditions. Results suggest that the biased interaction treatment, whereby the focus was on the observation of one’s own successful performance in an area in which difficulty is normally encountered, was more effective for reducing anxiety than an imaginal technique in which the focus was on a client’s internal states” (Haemmerlie and Montgomery, 1984¹).

What Is the Relevance of Self-Perception for Organization and Change?

Self-perception theory provides relevant insights related to organizational and change subjects like change capacity, resistance, commitment and leadership. The central idea is that individuals will first show behaviour and as a result that behaviour will determine their attitude toward that kind of (social) behaviour. In accordance with self-perception theory and translating it into an organizational setting, employees who show a certain kind of behaviour will form their attitudes based on that behaviour. Helping people to behave out of their comfort zone, and positively reinforce this behaviour, may positively change their attitude. In this way, certain desirable behaviour that may benefit organizational change can be endorsed and reinforced.

The following example of the possible effect of self-perception is illustrative: “The self-perception effect might also carry over to later behaviour. For example, imagine that ordinarily you are shy at parties but have recently decided that you want to make new friends. You have decided that at the next party you will make an effort to be especially talkative to meet new people and it goes well. This behaviour influences your attitude toward social behaviour and leads you to perceive a greater outgoingness in yourself. The next time you are at a party you exhibit outgoing social behaviour without nearly as much effort. Act as if you are outgoing and you might become more so”.² The perspective of self-perception may be helpful in the learning and adoption of new behaviours and teaches leaders about the conditions and possibilities they have to offer their people in order to change and adapt. It shows that experience as a result of external behaviours may be more effective than trying to change problems by confronting them with ‘a sense of urgency’ or vision and focusing on the inner problems these create for the people involved. The theory also explains foot-in-the-door phenomena (Fazio, 1987). These phenomena may lead managers to start their change process with small changes and interventions instead of large, transformational initiatives. Another contribution of the theory, related to the over-justification effect, warns against interventions that undermine the intrinsic interest in change as a result of being too focused on or driven by extrinsic motivators.

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘self-perception’, and ‘self-perception’ in combination with ‘organization’, ‘employee’, ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 250 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, three studies met the inclusion criteria.

Main Findings

1. More effective leaders have a greater level of self-perception accuracy (Level D-).
   • Managers tend to be overly optimistic about their own abilities and traits, which undermines the effectiveness of the manager. Self-perception accuracy is seen as a crucial ingredient for authentic leaders and in making a shared purpose, thus increasing the leaders’ effectiveness (Herbst & Conradie, 2011).
2. Leaders perceived as more authentic by themselves and employees are better at fostering higher follower job satisfaction (Level D-).
   • When leaders themselves and followers perceive them as being more authentic, leaders are better at fostering high follower job satisfaction (Černe, Dimovski, Marič, Penger, & Škerlavaj, 2014).
3. Followers who see themselves as possessing both follower and leader qualities are prime candidates for leader emergence (Level E).
   • When followers have the self-perception of having both follower and leader qualities, they are prime candidates for leadership functions. Trust in the leader plays a vital role: “Findings about trust suggest that when followers work to build trust with their leader, they shore up their own potential and see themselves as having transformational behaviours” (Baker, Mathis, Stites-Doe, & Javadian, 2016, p. 223).

What Is the Conclusion?

Bem conducted multiple experiments to test his theory. These resulted in important insights and evidence. Building on these experiments, numerous studies have been conducted, providing evidence for the self-perception theory. In social psychology, self-perception theory is one of the “blockbuster theories” in terms of popularity, impact and scientific evidence. Even today, there are numerous studies that support the self-perception theory, making the theory valuable for social psychologists. The relevance and potential of the theory for organizations, management and change are clear. The specific evidence is limited but illustrative. The relevant studies focus in particular on leaders, followers and the interaction between them.

Practical Reflections

Self-perception theory as such, its evidence and results and also the specific evidence in the context of leadership and organization, encourage a continued search for interventions and applications to help people to change and develop.

Self-Determination Theory

People are not only moulded by their social contexts, but are inherently active, intrinsically motivated and oriented toward developing naturally through integrative processes.

What Is Self-Determination Theory?

Self-determination theory is an empirically derived, macro theory of human motivation and personality in social contexts that differentiates motivation in terms of being autonomous and controlled (Ryan & Deci, 2011). Ryan & Deci (2011) point to the dominant so-called standard social science model, characterized by “a relatively plastic human nature, moulded by its social contexts” (p. 416). Learning, being the acquisition of attitudes, values, motivations and behaviours, is primarily viewed as the product of social environments. These environments ‘teach’ individuals and define their values, needs, attitudes and behaviours. This perspective is manifest in social learning theory, with modelling and reinforcement as the most important behavioural and learning mechanisms. Self-determination theory (SDT) also focuses on social environments and their impact. However, it views human beings as “inherently active, intrinsically motivated and oriented toward developing naturally through integrative processes” (Deci & Ryan, 2011, p. 417). These qualities are inherent in human nature, develop over time, are essential to learning and impacted by social environments. The research findings of Ryan and Deci (2000) have led to insight that there are at least three innate psychological needs—competence, autonomy and relatedness—which when satisfied yield enhanced self-motivation and mental health and when thwarted lead to diminished motivation and well-being. These three basic needs are implicated across development (Ryan, Grant, Tigbe, & Granat, 2006). It thus rejects Maslow’s (1971) hierarchy of needs. Theories like Maslow’s do not address the interaction between inherent needs and social conditions that support functioning. SDT instead is about linking environmental factors to fundamental human needs (in order to explain and predict the impact of the social environment on intrinsic motivation) and emphasizes the conditions under which developmental processes like effective therapeutic change and prosocial behaviour will function most effectively: “Specifically, it will function effectively to the degree that the needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness are satisfied” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 429). SDT is defined by three essential elements: (1) humans are inherently proactive with their potential and mastering their inner forces, like drives and emotions; (2) humans have an inherent tendency toward growth, development and integrated functioning; and (3) optimal development and actions are inherent in humans, but do not happen automatically; the inherent potential needs to be nurtured by the social environment (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004). The level and quality of functioning, development and growth is dependent on the satisfaction of the three innate psychological needs. Competence is about controlling the outcome and experiencing mastery. Autonomy is about the universal urge to be a causal agent of one’s own life and to act in harmony with one’s integrated self. Relatedness is about the universal psychological need to interact with others, to be connected and to care and to be taken care of. The needs are universal, but their relative importance and the way they are expressed will depend on factors like culture, experience and specific context. SDT is the basis for a variety of research projects and predictions. It evolved out of the research of Deci (1971) on the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. More than 100 similar studies confirm the controversial idea that rewards do not always motivate persistent desired behaviour, and may even undermine intrinsic motivation. Further research puts the three basic needs in a central position. For example, research confirmed the prediction that feedback and choice would enhance experiences of competence and self-determination, fostering greater intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999a; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, & Deci, 1978).

What Is the Relevance of Self-Determination for Organization and Change?

The underlying mechanism of self-determination is fairly simple: when employees can fulfil their innate needs, it will allow them to function optimally and make personal growth possible. This will in turn have a positive effect on their job performance and probably more relevant factors for organizational functioning and change initiatives. It helps to see the human perspective on organization and change. It puts a set of psychological needs in the centre: competence, autonomy and relatedness. By doing this, it provides a framework and coordinates the development of change programmes, processes and interventions. As a result, the concept of self-determination is relevant and has potential for change management subjects like leadership, change capacity, cultural change, resistance and commitment. In addition, it is relevant in deciding on the way to motivate people for change and for the design of structures, (reward and appraisal) systems, goal-setting and feedback and hence performance management. Self-determination can be illustrated with popular change management ideas about commitment and autonomous teams. In sport the importance of commitment is undisputed. The legendary athlete Haile Gebrselassie teaches: “You need three things to win: discipline, hard work and, before everything maybe, commitment. No one will make it without those three. Sport teaches you that”. And the world champion racing driver Mario Andretti states: “Desire is the key to motivation, but it’s determination and commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of your goal—a commitment to excellence—that will enable you to attain the success you seek”. Employee commitment to change objectives is often considered a prerequisite for successful change. Conner (1992) is very clear: “Successful change is rooted in commitment. Unless key participants in a transition are committed to both attaining the goals of the change and paying the price those goals entail, the project will ultimately fail. In fact, most change failures can be traced back to this lack of commitment, with obvious symptoms like sponsors terminating projects and more subtle signs such as target apathy as leading indicators” (p. 147). And: “Given that committed people will devote the time, money, endurance, persistence, loyalty and ingenuity necessary, it is easy to see why commitment is critical for successful change. It is the glue that provides the vital bond between people and change goals. It is the source of energy that propels resilient people and organizations through the process at the fastest, most effective pace possible—the optimum speed of change” (p. 148). With regard to the three psychological needs put forward by self-determination theory, that is, competence, autonomy and relatedness, Laloux’s ideas with regard to teams are illustrative. Laloux (2014) provides us with ‘A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness’ and considers self-management (structures) and self-managing teams as defining elements. A team-based organization (TBO) is often described in very positive, attractive terms. An example can be found in the ‘Business Dictionary’³: “non-traditional, innovative work environment relying on teams to achieve its objectives. TBOs’ major characteristics include (1) mutual trust; (2) employee empowerment in planning, organization and goal-setting; (3) shared responsibility for self-management; (4) shared accountability for performance and (5) shared leadership”.

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘self-determination’, and ‘self-determination’ in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 400 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, six studies met the inclusion criteria. After critically appraising the studies, one study was excluded because of serious methodological flaws.

Main Findings

1. Perceived self-determination is positively related to multiple relevant factors for organizations (Level D-).
   • Perceived self-determination is positively related to perceived organizational support, mood and job performance of employees (Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999). Eisenberger et al. (1999) state: “The stronger the desire for control, the greater was the observed relationship between performance reward expectancy and intrinsic motivation” (p. 1036). And: “Employees who were most concerned with self-determination took the greatest interest in their work activities when those activities were associated with expectations of reward for high performance” (p. 1036).
2. Self-determination predicts organizational citizenship behaviour (Level D-).
   • Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is behaviour that is not formally written down in a contract. Employees who engage in OCB are beneficial to organizations, as they do extra work on top of their formal contract. Self-determination predicts this kind of beneficial behaviour (Zhang & Chen, 2013).
3. Turnover intentions are directly influenced by the degree of autonomy (Level D-).
   • The more autonomy the volunteers had in this cross-sectional study, the lower their intentions to quit were (Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans, 2013).

What Is the Conclusion?

The self-perception theory is a well-researched one. Based on its insights and ‘track record’ it may be concluded that it is highly relevant and useful for the field of change and organization. The specific evidence provides helpful insights with regard to the way in which beneficial behaviour for the organization and the positive functioning of employees can be stimulated and facilitated.

Practical Reflections

The evidence points in the direction that self-determination is positively related to multiple factors that contribute to more effective, but also more ‘human’ change. Self-determination theory addresses the psychological needs of the people involved in the change. The evidence shows that there are positive effects of self-determination on relevant factors like organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). This underlines the relevance of the theory for practitioners in change processes. The three innate needs are coordinates for the design and development of change capacity, structures (like a team structure) and leadership (styles) that facilitate or enable ‘better’ and more effective change.

Social Dominance Theory

People are part of group-based social hierarchies in which concepts like stereotyping and group oppression are instrumental to the maintenance and stability of those hierarchies.

What Is Social Dominance Theory?

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a theory of intergroup relations and social hierarchy. The theory focuses on the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies. It provides coherent and comprehensive theory that integrates insights into the nature of dynamics of intergroup conflict, stereotyping and group oppression (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Important sources for the theory include Blumer’s group positions theory, social identity theory (SIT) and evolutionary psychology. SDT is influenced by personality psychology, social psychology and political sociology. Sidanius and Pratto characterize their theory as ‘an attempt to connect the worlds of individual personality and attitudes with the domains of institutional behaviour and social structure’ (1999, p. 31). The purpose of SDT is to identify the various intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup and institutional mechanisms that produce and maintain the group-based social hierarchy and how these mechanisms interact. SDT starts with the basic observation ‘that all human societies tend to be structured as systems of group-based social hierarchies’ (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, p. 31). Hierarchies consist of a small number of dominant groups at the top combined with subordinate groups at the bottom. The dominant group is characterized by the possession of a disproportionately large share of the positive social value. Social value can be symbolic or material; examples are social status, wealth, and authority and power. If there is group-based inequality with regard to social value, according to SDT this will be maintained through three mechanisms or primary intergroup behaviours. The three mechanisms are aggregated individual discrimination, aggregated institutional discrimination and behavioural asymmetry. Widely shared cultural ideologies, like so-called legitimizing myths, provide the moral and intellectual justification for these behaviours (Sidanius & Pratto, 2011).

The social hierarchy can be further understood with the aid of stratification systems. Sidanius and Prato (1999) mention an age system, a gender system and an arbitrary-set system. In the first system it is adults and middle-aged people (versus children and younger adults) and males (versus females) who have disproportionate social and political power. The third system comprises socially constructed and highly salient groups. The groups are based on characteristics such as clan, caste, social class or religious sect. Sidanius and Pratto (1999, p. 38) formulate three primary assumptions on which SDT is based:

1. While age- and gender-based hierarchies will tend to exist within all social systems, arbitrary-set systems of social hierarchy will invariably emerge within social systems, producing a sustainable economic surplus.
2. Most forms of group conflict and oppression (e.g. racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, nationalism, classism, regionalism) can be regarded as different manifestations of the same basic human predisposition to form group-based social hierarchies.
3. Human social systems are subject to the counterbalancing influences of hierarchy-enhancing (HE) forces, producing and maintaining ever-higher levels of group-based social inequality, and hierarchy-attenuating (HA) forces, producing greater levels of group-based social equality.

The three mechanisms or proximal processes mentioned earlier drive group-based social hierarchy (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Aggregated individual discrimination consists of ‘simple, daily and sometimes quite inconspicuous individual acts of discrimination of one individual against another’ (pp. 39–41). Aggregated institutional discrimination is discrimination by the rules, procedures and actions of social institutions. Institutions also support the stability of the social hierarchy by the use of systematic terror. That is, ‘the use of violence or threats of violence disproportionately directed against subordinates’ (p. 41). This terror is likely to be the most ferocious if subordinates directly challenge and confront the hegemony of the dominant group. Systematic terror has three basic forms: official, semi-official and unofficial, and behavioural asymmetry. The first is the public and legally sanctioned violence and threat by organs of the state. Semi-official terror is carried out by officials of the state, but not overtly, not formally sanctioned by the state. Private individuals from dominant groups carry out unofficial terror. The third proximal process is that of behavioural asymmetry. This asymmetry has two forms: ideological asymmetry and asymmetrical in-group bias (Sidanius, Levin, Federico, & Pratto, 2001). The hierarchy-enhancing mechanism of behavioural asymmetry suggests “that dominants will behave in a more group-interested fashion than subordinates due to the consensual endorsement of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideologies. Moreover, under certain circumstances, not only will subordinates not behave in as group-interested a fashion as dominants, but they will actually work against their own group’s interests” (Sidanius et al., 2001, p. 318). That is to say that subordinates are not only passive victims; they may also actively participate in their own oppression. This can be defined as a form of group treason; the rationale may be that by doing this the current structure is stabilized and not replaced by one that is possibly worse.

Legitimizing myths drive the three proximal processes. Social dominance theory focuses on the roles beliefs play in the maintenance of group-based social inequality. The myths are therefore not only hegemonic, but also counter-hegemonic beliefs. The two functional types of legitimizing myths are hierarchy enhancing and attenuating. The first kind of ideology (like racism or meritocracy) provides support for group-based inequality; the second (like anarchism or feminism) provides support for group-based equality. People will endorse one of the two ideologies, depending on their social dominance orientation (SDO); people with higher SDO endorse the enhancing ideology; people with lower SDO endorse the attenuating ideology. With regard to ideologies, SDT draws a conceptual and empirical distinction between consensual and dissensual legitimizing ideology (Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996). Consensual ideology can be defined as ‘that portion of the ideological space which does not separate groups and where different groups agree’ (Sidanius et al., 2001, p. 328). Dissensual ideology, by contrast, separates socially constructed groups. To operationalize social dominance, researchers often use social dominance orientation (SDO), which is a personality trait. To measure SDO, the fourteen-item social dominance orientation scale was developed.

What Is the Relevance of Social Dominance for Organization and Change?

Social dominance is about hierarchy between groups in both society and organizational settings. This hierarchy creates difference in the allocation of resources. Social dominance can be used to ‘protect’ the already established hierarchy or to create inequality and therefore increase the differences in resource allocation for high- and low-status social groups. In the context of organization and change, social dominance is relevant for subjects like organizational culture (and subcultures), cultural change, leadership, teams, cooperation, communication, commitment and resistance to change. The social dominance orientation helps to understand why people are in favour of or against change. Consensual and dissensual legitimizing ideologies contribute to the understanding of different, formal and informal, groups or teams involved in organizational change and their change appraisal or orientation. The perspective of social dominance can help to develop a more precise, nuanced or realistic view of the way people react to a sense of urgency or (change) vision communicated by the leaders of an organization. In Guiding Change Journeys, Chan Allen (2002) describes the achievement of a change vision as a new emergence or discovery that is a necessary, essential part of the change journey. She notes that a key job in guiding change is to help a system clarify its change intention, including goals and purpose: “Change intention shapes the course and quality of a change journey. Intention is like the needle of a compass. It points you in the right direction no matter what the circumstances” (p. 67). Zaffron and Logan (2009) talk about the creation of a new game by declaring that something is important. By using future-based language, you invite others to commit to the game. Watkins (2013) pleads for an inspiring vision, built on a foundation of intrinsic motivators, making people part of the story and containing evocative language in order to inspire and motivate people. However, the appraisal of such a vision (like a sense of urgency) may be influenced by the position of the people and groups involved in the hierarchy. The social dominance orientation will probably influence how people appreciate the change that is embedded in or a consequence of the vision or sense of urgency communicated. Hesselbein and Johnston (2002) consider a compelling aspiration as a conditio sine qua non in change; without it you will not overcome the many sources of resistance. Lippitt (in: Holman and Devan) (1999) considers a vision even as a necessary part of the ‘change equation’: C = D × V × F > R, Change + Dissatisfaction × Vision × First step > Resistance. With the perspective of social dominance, the change equation can be better understood; not only because of the vision as a factor, but also given ‘dissatisfaction’ as a factor.

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the terms ‘social dominance’, and ‘social dominance’ in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 300 articles. After screening the titles and abstracts for relevance, sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. After thorough examination, another five studies were excluded. Four studies were randomized, controlled, before-after studies with a high evidence level (around A).

Main Findings

1. People with higher SDO (regardless of their own background) react negatively to members of low-status groups (Level A-).
   • Organizations often place individuals from traditionally low-status groups in certain leadership roles or staffing committees to enhance diversity. However, results from a randomized, controlled, before-after study show that individuals with high SDO will react negatively to individuals in low-status groups, even if they belong to this group themselves. A more effective strategy for organizations to overcome this problem would be to ensure that individuals with lower levels of SDO are involved in staffing decisions (Umphress et al., 2008).
2. High-SDO individuals care more about voice and procedural fairness than individuals with low SDO (Level A).
   • Individuals who score high in terms of SDO “care most about procedural fairness in group settings because it may help them to control the social environment (e.g. by maintaining social inequality)” (De Cremer, Cornelis, & Van Hiel, 2008, p. 72). Paradoxically, procedural fairness can be used to maintain the current ‘unfair’ social status difference and therefore protect individuals that are in a high social group. When engaging in procedural fairness, transparency and communication are required. Using your ‘voice’ for this matter can serve to maintain the difference in social status.
3. Engaging in service learning has a positive effect on empathy and a negative effect on SDO (Level A-).
   • Students who engage in service learning scored higher for empathy and lower for SDO compared with students who did not engage in a helping experience. Service learning is an effective way to reduce SDO and increase empathy (Brown, 2011).
4. Employees who are part of a low-status group can be denied a leadership position when SDO is high within the organization (Level A).
   • It is important to note that our findings are unfortunate because the most qualified person may potentially be overlooked for reasons not related to job performance. An organization, therefore, could be damaged because the most qualified individual, who is likely to contribute at a higher level, is denied the position (Simmons & Umphress, 2015, p. 1221).
5. Intergroup contact can reduce SDO levels and prejudice (Level C).
   • Making use of intergroup contact can be beneficial for the organization as it lowers the levels of SDO and prejudice (Dhont, Van Hiel, & Hewstone, 2014).
6. Men are more social dominance–oriented than women (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994, Level D-).

What Is the Conclusion?

Social dominance is a well-researched concept, including in the organizational context. The evidence shows that a social dominance orientation can be detrimental to organizations because it increases negative attitudes toward individuals in lower social groups, decreases empathy and can hinder the promotion of employees who perform outstandingly but that are part of lower social groups. This hindering of promotion can undermine the performance of organizations, because the best skilled/suited employees are not in the ‘right’ hierarchical place. These findings are also relevant to organizational change practitioners. Having the right people in the right place can be the difference between change success or total failure. The evidence also contributes to the understanding of the reason why people, from different informal or formal groups, do or do not cooperate and develop resistance or commitment with regard to a change initiative. The perspective of social dominance also helps to understand differences in orientation of groups during change, for example with regard to important concepts like voice and fairness. Procedural fairness is seen as beneficial for organizational change, as it has a positive effect on multiple factors such as work performance, change commitment and the acceptance of organizational changes. However, procedural fairness can also be used by employees who score highly in terms of SDO for their own position or benefit. They can use their voice (opinion) to influence and even control the social environment, further increasing the social inequality and ultimately creating more unfairness.

Practical Reflections

For the practice of organization and change, several implications of the concept (and its evidence) can be used to prevent or limit social dominance within organizations. First, to compete optimally with competition, organizations should select the most qualified candidate for a certain position, even if this candidate is considered part of a low-status group. In addition, employers should select individuals with low levels of SDO and involve them in staffing decisions, no matter what their own demographic background is. Also, be aware that procedural fairness can be used to maintain or even increase social inequality as individuals with high SDO can use this fairness to express their own voice and therefore control the social environment. Letting all involved employees express their voice in an equal manner can be used to decrease social inequality. In addition, promote intergroup contact to reduce both SDO levels and prejudice among employees. Finally, make use of service learning to decrease SDO and increase empathy. This might only be relevant in a school setting, as (community) service learning focusses on this particular group. However, organizations can reap the rewards of service learning later on, when the students become employees with increased empathy and lower levels of SDO.

Theory of Planned Behaviour

A person’s attitude toward behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control in combination shape that person’s behavioural intentions and behaviours.

What Is the Theory of Planned Behaviour?

The central idea of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is that a person’s attitude toward behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control in combination shape that person’s behavioural intentions and behaviours (Ajzen, 1985). Ajzen proposed TPB in order to further develop and improve the predictive power of a former theory, that of the reasoned action (Ajzen, 2005). The theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) focuses on a person’s basic motivation to perform an action. The theory posits ‘that behavioural intentions are a function of salient information or beliefs about the likelihood that performing a particular behaviour will lead to a specific outcome’ (Madden, Scholder Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992, p. 3). In other words, if the suggested behaviour is evaluated positively (attitude) and the perception is that significant others want the person to perform it (subjective norm), then this results in a higher intention (motivation) and a higher probability that the behaviour will be performed. TPB is a very influential theory: “The theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) is perhaps the most influential theory for the prediction of social and health behaviours” (Rivis, Sheeran, & Armitage, 2009, p. 2985). Alok, Raveendran, and Prasuna (2014) add: “Ajzen’s (1991) well-established Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is a very robust model which explicitly captures the motivational factors driving behaviour. It attempts to explain the relationship between attitudes and social influences on intentions and behaviour. Behavioural Intention (BI), in turn, is determined by an individual’s attitude towards the behaviour, the Subjective Norms (SN) concerning the behaviour and Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC)” (p. 118).

Based on a meta-analysis (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988), we may conclude that the model of reasoned actions proves to ‘predict behavioural intentions quite well and is useful for identifying where and how to target strategies for changing behaviour’ (p. 3). TPB is an extension of the theory of reasoned action. The core remains the same: general attitudes, beliefs and preferences related to behaviour predict intentions; intentions predict behaviour (Barber, 2011). But TPB also incorporates perceived behavioural control as an antecedent to behavioural intentions. Perceived behavioural control is based on Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (1977) in which two types of expectations are central. Self-efficacy is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to perform and can cope with the situation. Outcome expectancy refers to the estimation of the extent to which behaviour will lead to a certain outcome. Bandura considers self-efficacy to be the most important precondition for behavioural change. The importance and contribution of self-efficacy or perceived behavioural control (Fishbein & Cappella, 2006) is illustrated by research in which TRA and TPB were compared. TPB proves to be superior for the prediction of target behaviour and explained more variation in behavioural interventions (Madden et al., 1992). This supports the inclusion and underlines the relevance of perceived behavioural control.

What Is the Relevance of the Theory of Planned Behaviour for Organization and Change?

The theory of planned behaviour states that attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control influence the intentions of a person’s behaviour. The intentions are the motivational factors that predict performance and influence the performance of the behaviour. Some scholars criticize the theory, because it is based on cognitive processing and does not include an emotional component. Clearly, many behaviours are influenced by emotions. These can influence the beliefs and other constructs of planned behaviour. The theory with the important concept of perceived behavioural control is relevant to change-related subjects such as change capacity, change vision, performance management, communication, resistance, commitment and cooperation. Perceived behavioural control is key to change capacity, for example. For this reason, we again refer to the statement of Connor (2006): “People can only change when they have the capacity to do so. Ability means having the necessary skills and knowing how to use them. Willingness is the motivation to apply those skills to a particular situation. If you lack either ability or willingness, it is unlikely that you will successfully adapt to a change” (p. 129).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the terms ‘planned behaviour’ and ‘theory’ in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 450 articles. After screening the titles and abstracts for relevance, eleven studies were included. After thorough examination, another three studies were excluded. Of the total of eight studies included, two used a meta-analytical approach.

Main Findings

1. Increasing moral norms/anticipated regret can influence behaviour (Level B-).
   • “Increasing the salience of moral norms/anticipated regret may be particularly useful in strengthening intentions to engage in health-promoting behaviours (e.g. Abraham & Sheeran, 2004, Study 2) and weakening intentions to engage in health-risk behaviours. For example, asking people to focus on their feelings after engaging in a risky behaviour should reduce people’s intentions to engage in the behaviour and, subsequently, should reduce risk-taking behaviour” (Rivis et al., 2009, p. 3009).
2. Self-identity is an important predictor of intentions and behaviour and should be incorporated in the theory of planned behaviour (Level C).
   • “Multiple regression analyses showed that self-identity explained an increment of 6% of the variance in intention after controlling for the TPB components, and explained an increment of 9% of the variance when past behaviour and the TPB components were controlled. The influence of self-identity on behaviour was largely mediated by the strength of behavioural intentions” (Rise, Sheeran, & Hukkelberg, 2010, p. 1085). Self-identity relates to aspects of one’s self-perception (e.g. I see myself as a ‘social person’).
3. Attitude and subjective norm (as part of the theory of planned behaviour) are predictors of behavioural intention (Level D-).
   • Attitude was found to be the strongest predictor of intention and the theory of planned behaviour was most effective for smaller and easier-to-implement decisions than bigger and harder-to-implement decisions (Arnold et al., 2006).
4. In a relationship conflict setting, the theory of planned behaviour can be used to understand intention and predict behaviour accurately before it occurs (Level D-).
   • “The findings support TPB as a model for understanding the type of style adopted in case of a relationship conflict. Understanding intention means that behaviour can, in effect, be accurately predicted before it occurs, thus offering organizations a timeframe for intervention” (Alok, Raveendran, & Prasuna, 2014, p. 129).
5. During organizational relocation, attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control all predicted intentions to support the change (Level E).
   • “The TPB also contributed to our understanding of the relationship between two specific change management strategies (communication and participation) and intentions to behaviourally support change” (Jimmieson, Peach, & White, 2008, p. 28).
6. Theory of planned behaviour was found to be a better predictor of unethical behaviour than the theory of reasoned action (Level E).
   • Results from a low-level, cross-sectional study show that the theory of planned behaviour can be used successfully to predict the intention to perform unethical behaviour and that TPB is a better predictor of unethical behaviour than the theory of reasoned action (Chang, 1998).

What Is the Conclusion?

The theory of planned behaviour proves to be important for predicting behavioural intentions. By predicting intentions, TPB influences behaviour. Evidence illustrates that this may also be the case in an organizational change setting (relocation). The possible implications of the perspective of TPB for change management practitioners can be illustrated as follows: “TPB is a useful framework for pre-implementation assessments of readiness for change as it can provide organizations with an early indication of employee beliefs and determinants of their intentions prior to the change event” (Jimmieson et al., 2008, p. 28). Including self-identity in the TPB model seems to make TPB even more effective in predicting intentions and behaviour.

Practical Reflections

The evidence shows that the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) probably contributes to a better understanding and execution of change. An important question is how to effectively use TPB to optimally benefit from it. Some initial answers can be given based on the evidence. With regard to communication, an initial practical guideline focuses on consistency and alignment: “Norms will be more effective when there is consistency between the message of descriptive and injunctive norms. When we are trying to change behaviour or promote new behaviour, these messages need to be aligned. A normative message from managers and peers enhances the effectiveness of the message. The important referent should be the role model for the behavioural change. Moreover, if group members observe a referent performing obliging style, they are likely to view such behaviour as typical and appropriate and in turn exhibit such behaviours” (Alok et al., 2014, pp. 129–130). In addition to communication, training can also contribute: “Longitudinal research has shown that training can increase people’s confidence to accept a more proactive and interpersonal role within the workplace (Axtell & Parker, 2003). Regular meetings at which employees are coached to handle situations they find ‘difficult’ can prove to be effective. The change agent can design self-statements to examine the specific ways in which he/she talks to them before, during and after confrontations. These self-statements will be helpful to trainees in effectively assessing the results of their own behaviour, in anger management, in reflective thinking, in active listening and in handling conflict in different situations. Organizations should also consider these skills to be an important criterion for selection” (Alok et al., 2014, p. 130).

Minority Influence Theory

A strongly held and consistently expressed minority view can have extensive influence on the majority, as most majority members just follow the rest and lack strongly held views.

What Is Minority Influence?

Minority influence is a form of social influence where a minority position in a group has a certain amount of influence on the majority to accept the minority’s beliefs and/or behaviour. To have disproportionate influence as a minority, a strongly held view is required. As most people in the majority do not hold strong views, they are vulnerable to influence from strongly held minority views. This may sound negative, but minority influence can be beneficial for groups, as it fosters divergent thinking and reduces conformity pressures (Ng & Van Dyne, 2001). Most of the research conducted into minority influence focuses on how the majority influenced the minority, because the general idea was that the minority had little influence on the majority. In the 1960s, Serge Moscovici had a different vision. The Romanian psychologist believed it was possible for a minority to influence the majority. In 1969, he investigated behavioural styles in minority influence in his studies. He found that a consistent minority was more successful in changing the views of the majority than an inconsistent minority (McLeod, 2007).

What Is the Relevance of Minority Influence for Organization and Change?

The perspective of minority influence shows that a strongly held and consistently expressed minority view can have extensive influence on the majority, because most majority members just follow the rest and lack strongly held views. In the context of organization and change, minority influence is relevant to subjects like change vision and change capacity, (overcoming) resistance and (building) commitment, communication, cooperation and performance management. Minority influence can be important for groups, because it is positively linked to effectiveness and performance. For example, looking at alternatives minorities propose in a group can be beneficial for the quality of the final decision made. Minority influence can also be linked to Kotter’s concept of the guiding coalition (or ‘Gideon gang’). The guiding coalition can be seen as a minority with a strongly held view or belief that is the ‘avant-garde’ in a change process. By being passionate and consistent in their vision or view, they kick-start the change and influence the majority. Starting with the minority instead of focusing (immediately) on the majority can also be seen as an alternative change strategy. Hesselbein (2002) states that change starts with the passionate few. He introduces a more ‘organic’, strong, meritocratic variant of the guiding coalition: “Leaders (and teachers) spend too much time trying to remediate weaknesses and too little building on strengths. Remember Georg Solti, conductor of the Chicago Symphony, who found twenty musicians who had passion to do something new: rather than trying to push the entire organization forward, he focused on the top performers. It’s an atypical strategy, but it’s the most effective one” (p. 27).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the terms ‘minority’ and ‘influence’ in combination with ‘organization’, ‘employee’, ‘change’, ‘work’, ‘meta-analysis’ and ‘systematic review’. The search yielded close to 250 articles. After screening the titles and abstracts for relevance, one meta-analysis and five studies met the inclusion criteria. After thorough examination, two more studies were excluded.

Main Findings

1. Individuals who avoid conflict and strive for harmony within the group are less likely to benefit from minority influence (Level A).
   • Individuals who prefer harmony, therefore avoiding conflict, will increase the chance of ignoring possible better alternatives in group decision-making (Ng & Van Dyne, 2001).
2. Individuals exposed to a minority influence agent who held a leadership position in the group were more likely to improve the quality of their decisions (Level A).
   • Furthermore, the “results suggest that being in a leadership role might provide minority influence agents with a sense of legitimacy so that they feel more empowered and less uncomfortable voicing a different opinion” (Ng & Van Dyne, 2001, p. 220).
3. Minority influence on the public is higher when minorities do not expect future interaction with the same group members and majorities do (Level A).
   • “Minorities were more likely to express dissent when they expected future interaction with different group members, whereas majorities were more open toward divergent information when they expected future interaction with the same members” (San Martin, Swaab, Sinaceur, & Vasiljevic, 2015, p. 10). This led to an increase in systematic information processing by the group, increasing group effectiveness. Another study (Level D-) shows that “remote and argument-consistent minority opinion holders caused more majority change and improvement in majority and group correctness compared to a collocated argument-consistent minority” (Bazarova, Walther, & McLeod, 2012, p. 310).
4. Minorities judged by targets to be especially consistent wielded greater influence than less consistent-appearing sources (Level B-).
   • Being consistent seems important for group members that form a minority, as it increases their influence on the majority (Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994).

What Is the Conclusion?

The evidence on minority influence provides relevant and helpful insights to groups, individual members and their leaders. They can help to develop better decision-making, and better team or organizational development and have the potential to contribute to more effective change. Minority influence is very important for the effectiveness and quality of (group) decision-making: “Making sure that minority arguments get heard in group discussions can be critical for the quality of decision-making” (San Martin et al., 2015, p. 11). Looking properly at ideas and alternatives that minorities suggest can positively affect the quality of decision-making and ultimately decisions. To improve minority influence, minorities need to be consistent in their communication, as it increases their influence on the majority. Furthermore, minorities in leadership positions are more likely to improve the quality of group decisions. A possible threat for minority influence is a group that strives for harmony and avoids conflict. This is in line with a social psychological phenomenon called ‘groupthink’, which can be potentially harmful for organizations.

Practical Reflections

Decisions and their quality, decision-making and the decision-making process, and the involvement of different relevant groups and the dynamics within and between these groups are essential for change initiatives and change processes. Poor or suboptimal decision-making can have severe and even damaging effects on organizations and groups and individuals within these organizations. Minority influence proves to have the potential to positively impact the quality and effectiveness of the decisions and the underlying decision-making processes. The concept and its perspective are therefore very relevant and potentially helpful in designing and managing change. To illustrate in a practical way how the concept can be translated for the practice of organizations and change, some guidelines can be formulated. Begin by reinforcing group and organizational norms to encourage consideration of (minority) ideas and alternatives. Then give change agents legitimacy and authority to enhance their confidence in expressing divergent options. In addition, adopt computer-mediated group decision-making systems to reduce conformity pressure associated with face-to-face interaction. Another helpful guideline: assign a person in the group to be the devil’s advocate. This stimulates constructive conflict, improving group decision-making. “Giving authority to or appointing high-status individuals as change agents also sends strong cues to others that the organization encourages and rewards speaking up” (Ng & Van Dyne, 2001, p. 221). This also counteracts the threat of groupthink.

Motivation Crowding Theory

External motivators may undermine the intrinsic motivation of individuals.

What Is Motivation Crowding Theory?

The motivation crowding theory states that external motivators (like monetary incentives or punishments) may undermine the intrinsic motivation of individuals. The underlying mechanism is simple: when extrinsic motivators such as monetary incentives are given, this can undermine intrinsic motivation because of a ‘crowd out’ effect. An individual is intrinsically motivated to perform a certain activity when the person receives no apparent reward from the activity other than the activity itself. When adding extrinsic motivators, this intrinsic motivation is undermined, because there is an additional reward besides the activity itself. The motivational crowding theory emanates from two different scientific perspectives and is used in both (labour) economics and (social) psychology (see: Frey & Jegen, 1999). One of the first to write about this theory was Richard Titmuss in 1970 in his book The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy (1970). Titmuss wrote that financially compensating blood donors has a negative effect on the willingness of people to donate blood. The second perspective is that of psychology, in particular that of cognitive social psychology (see: Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999a, 1999b; Pittman & Heller, 1987; Lane, 1991). In this area, it first appeared in 1971 when it was introduced by Deci in an article about ‘the effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation’. Psychologists “have identified that under particular conditions monetary (external) rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. The application of rewards for undertaking an activity thus has indirect negative consequences, provided intrinsic motivation is considered to be beneficial” (Frey & Jegen, 1999, p. 2). Frey and Jegen (1999) mention several terms that have been used to describe this effect: ‘the hidden cost of reward’, ‘overjustification hypothesis’ and ‘corruption effect’. The idea is also coined as ‘Cognitive Evaluation Theory’ (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999a). Frey and Jegen call Timuss’s idea a ‘mere hunch’ and point to the many experiments that support the described motivational effect: “the evidence for a detrimental effect comes from a wide variety of works in which a large number of subjects and methodological parameters have been varied” (McGraw, 1978, pp. 55–58). In 2001 Deci, Koestner and Ryan stated that the finding that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation has been highly controversial since it first appeared in 1971. To illustrate, in 1988 Rummel and Feinberg employed a meta-analysis focused on the question of whether the supposed detrimental effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation exist. The analysis showed that the phenomenon defined by Deci exists within strictly defined parameters. But in 1994 Cameron and Pierce, for example, published a meta-analysis and concluded that the undermining effect was minimal and largely inconsequential for educational policy. Based on this meta-analysis, Cameron and Pierce advocated abandoning the cognitive evaluation theory of Deci and Ryan (1980). However, in 1999 a meta-analysis was published by Deci, Koestner and Ryan that not only showed that the 1994 meta-analysis was seriously flawed from a methodological perspective and that its conclusions were incorrect, but also provided strong support for cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Porac, 1978; Deci & Ryan, 1980; Ryan, 1982).

What Is the Relevance of Motivation Crowding for Organization and Change?

The motivation crowding theory is relevant and helpful with regard to the context of organization and change, in particular behavioural change. It can be related to change-related topics such as leadership, culture and cultural change, change capacity, commitment, cooperation and compliance, and, last but not least, performance management. Focusing on cultural change, change capacity and performance management, one of the central questions is which behaviour has to be or can be stimulated or reinforced in what way. An answer calls for choices with regard to the stimuli, interventions, ‘reward and appraisal’. The concept of motivation crowding helps to understand what kind of interventions and rewards facilitate or possibly frustrate change and performance, as well as a factor such as job satisfaction. With regard to cooperation, commitment and compliance, Frey and Jegen (1999) provide research and insights into government rules and civic virtues (e.g. Schultz & Weingast, 1994). From the perspective of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB, see: 5.5) and change, one could see an analogy that can be helpful in the context of organization and change. Frey and Jegen (1999) point to a body of research indicating that “people’s perceptions of how they are treated by the authorities strongly affect their evaluation of authorities and laws, and their willingness to cooperate with them… . Citizens who consider the constitution and its laws, and the authorities acting on the basis of them, to be fair and treating them respectfully tend to be more compliant than those with more negative perceptions of government” (p. 18).

These insights relate (at least in an analogical way) to essential topics in the area of change and organization such as trust (or confidence) in leaders, participation and fair process. Kriegel (1996), for example, emphasizes that resistance to change increases as trust in an organization’s leader decreases. Trustworthiness and believability are seen as the foundations of leadership. Watkins (2013) emphasizes the importance of credibility and trust in demanding situations: “As people come to trust your judgment, your ability to learn accelerates, and you equip yourself to make sound calls on tougher issues” (p. 8). Kouzes and Posner (2012) state that exemplary leaders create a climate of trust. Without trust you cannot accomplish extraordinary things. They state: “Trust is a strong, significant predictor of employee satisfaction, the quality of communication, honest sharing of information, acceptance of change, acceptance of the leader’s influence, and team and organizational performance” (pp. 219–220). Maurer (2010) states: “Trust can make or break a change. But sadly, many who lead change seem to ignore this critically important ingredient. They seem to believe that a good idea will win the day. It won’t” (p. 14). With regard to participation, an important element of the way people are treated (whether it is by ‘government’, leaders or change agents), Watkins (2013) points to the use of consultation to gain commitment: “Be clear on which elements of your vision are non-negotiable, but beyond these, be flexible enough to consider the ideas of others and allow them to have input and to influence the shared vision. In that way, they share ownership” (p. 187). Kriegel (1996) advocates a fair change process: “The way you introduce change makes a world of difference in how people feel about it” (pp. 218–219). He explains that if major changes are implemented, employees will be less resistant when they understand the decision in context and feel that they are being treated honestly. However, in practice a fair process is often lacking and employees experience major changes as if a bombshell has been dropped. According to Kriegel: “Many companies simply announce a downsizing scheme like it was a new health plan or accounting procedure. No input. No Q&A. No dialogue. It’s not just the bad news, but the form of delivery that bends employees out of shape. No wonder people feel victimized and disrespected. The rumour mills start racing and the resistance starts rising” (p. 219). He emphasizes the importance of providing a structure for employees to express their natural disappointment and sense of loss. This is not the same as involving people in the creation of change, but helps them move to acceptance. In addition, a reputed author and consultant states on his website: “How you lead the change—not what you are changing—is the key to raising the success rate of change projects to 8 out of 10 … rather than 3 out of 10 that 30 years of research indicates is the average success rate”. Bo Vestergaard explains both the concept and its effects in a very clear way: “What is Fair Process? Simply put, fair process is honest communication about 1) What is already decided, 2) What your employees can influence (or decide for themselves) and 3) By what criteria their input to your decisions will be judged. Effects of fair process: The most common effect of fair process is building employees’ trust in you as a manager and a rise in employee engagement and inner motivation to develop solutions and implement decisions. The tangible results are quicker and better implementation”.

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the terms ‘motivational crowding’, ‘crowding’ and ‘effect’, also in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded close to 250 articles. After screening the titles and abstracts for relevance, one meta-analysis and 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. After thorough examination, five studies were excluded. Using the snowball technique, we found another relevant meta-analysis. In total, we included two meta-analyses and five studies.

Main Findings

1. Psychological needs play a central role in performance contexts (Level B-).
   • “Addressing psychological need satisfaction, as we show here, can have performance benefits to organizations for employees, students and even athletes. But beyond this, there are many indirect benefits as well. Organizations seeking to be better corporate citizens can boost engagement, intrinsic motivation and psychological well-being by instituting policies and programmes that help employees meet their need for autonomy, competence and relatedness. In turn, an extensive body of work has shown that improved engagement (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011), intrinsic motivation (Cerasoli et al., 2014) and psychological well-being (Ford et al., 2011) are associated with higher performance” (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Nassrelgrgawi, 2016, p. 805). In another study with a low level of evidence (E), it was found that intrinsic motivation plays an important role in improving employees’ work engagement and that intrinsic motivation did not diminish when extrinsic motivation entered (Putra, Cho, & Liu, 2017).
2. Intrinsic motivation has a positive effect on quality of performance; extrinsic motivation has a positive effect on quantity of performance (Level B).
   • This meta-analysis found that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation have a positive effect, but on a different factor. Intrinsic motivation is better for the quality of the performance and extrinsic for the quantity of performance (Cerasoli et al., 2016). However, in a 2017 study with a low level of evidence (E), this distinction is disconfirmed, as only intrinsic motivation has a positive effect on employees’ vigour, dedication and absorption when both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are measured together (Putra et al., 2017).
3. ‘Hard’ enforcement actions have a detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation, whereas ‘soft’ enforcement actions do not (Level D-).
   • ‘Hard’ enforcement actions (based on the use of directives, monitoring and threats of punishment) have a negative effect on the intrinsic motivation of employees, whereas ‘soft enforcement actions’ (based on dialogue and suggestions) do not. A combination of both forms is also detrimental for intrinsic motivation (Mikkelsen, Jacobsen, & Andersen, 2017).
4. Monetary incentives may have a positive effect on job satisfaction, as long as they are large enough (Level D).
   • Extrinsic incentives like a bonus can have a positive effect on job satisfaction. However, if an employee gets a small bonus, this can lead to negative effects on job satisfaction. Managers should therefore pay enough, or not pay at all (Pouliakas, 2010).

What Is the Conclusion?

The evidence is very clear: there is little doubt about the positive effects of intrinsic motivation on both job satisfaction and (organizational) performance. Creating and maintaining intrinsic motivation of employees is very important. Given the positive effects on the people involved, their organizations and their performance, it should be central in the way people and organizations are motivated, managed and led. However, the often mentioned negative effect of extrinsic motivators needs to be nuanced. Extrinsic motivators like money can be helpful and effective in changing and managing organizational behaviour, if properly used. For example, evidence shows that the quantity of performance can be improved by monetary incentives. Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is important in positively influencing the quality of work. Furthermore, there is some evidence that indicates that extrinsic motivation does not undermine intrinsic motivation, if intrinsic motivation already exists. The evidence also shows that when using monetary incentives they have to be large or significant enough, as small incentives can have a negative effect on job satisfaction.

Our earlier research (REAs) (ten Have et al., 2017) focused on the question of whether financial incentives are an effective way to encourage change and improve performance. A first and important finding (based on a Level-A evidence) was that there is strong evidence that, overall, financial incentives have a moderate positive effect on performance (e.g. Cerasoli et al., 2014; Weibel et al., 2009). This positive effect is often referred to as the price effect: the financial incentive increases the intention to perform well because of the monetary benefit. However, this effect differs among forms of incentives, types of motivation and performance outcomes.⁴ The specific findings with regard to the motivation crowding theory in the organizational context contribute to the insights into when and how the effect differs. The (final) conclusion of the earlier research (ten Have et al., 2017) already indicated this: “The scientific research literature strongly supports the claim that financial incentives are an effective way to encourage behavioural change and improve performance. However, the opposition of the price effect and crowding-out effect, which can occur under certain circumstances, requires a thoughtful approach as outcomes can vary widely when financial incentives are used” (p. 165).

Practical Reflections

For the practice of organization and change the scientific research and insights are helpful, if not necessary. This applies to the specific research on the motivation crowding theory and financial incentives as an instrument in general. Several management gurus write about and emphasize the importance of financial incentives and the related principles and underlying mechanisms. The scientific research and insights help to assess and nuance the more popular statements and help to operationalize the necessary differentiation. To illustrate the more popular perspectives, with regard to financial incentives and reward as a way to reinforce commitment to change, Heller (1998) advises very clearly: “Be willing to pay generously for achievement. People may change their behaviour radically for significant pay rewards” (p. 51). He explains: “People want to feel that their reward will match their efforts; if it does, this will reinforce their commitment to the new ways” (p. 51). Kriegel and Brandt (1996) are also very straightforward: “The most obvious way to motivate employees to get excited about your plans is through rewards” (p. 260). But he is also more specific: “There are two kinds of rewards: extrinsic incentives, like the corner office, money, gifts and titles, and intrinsic rewards, which appeal to more abstract personal needs. People do things not just to get an object or the cash to buy it. They’re also motivated by such intangibles as recognition, fairness, flexibility, creativity, meaningfulness and freedom. These internal factors have more impact on readiness for change than traditional extrinsic rewards do” (p. 261). Connor (2006) states: “A lack of willingness stems from a shortage of motivation and should be addressed through consequence management (the combination of rewards and punishments)” (p. 129). An international consultant states: “Employees are going to inevitably repeat behaviours for which they are rewarded. For example, if an employee is rewarded for his or her productivity, he or she is going to focus on productive behaviours and, as a result, this will help to drive productivity”. Watkins (2013) talks about ‘aligning incentives’ and a ‘baseline question’: “how best to incentivize team members to achieve desired goals. What mix of monetary and non-monetary rewards will you employ?” (p. 183). In addition, for practice it is important to emphasize that extrinsic motivation factors, when used properly, do not necessarily lead to a crowding-out effect. It is important to make sure that the incentives are large and significant enough. If aimed at improving the quantity of work, they can be very effective. Managers and other practitioners have to be aware of the important and essential role of intrinsic motivation in organizations and for people. This is particularly important when one considers extrinsic motivation as an instrument or intervention in order to improve performance or implement change. One has to be very sensitive to the possible detrimental effects of extrinsic motivational factors on intrinsic motivation. It is noted again that in particular the use of ‘hard’ enforcement actions (e.g. monitoring and threats of punishment) likely have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. For that reason, one should prefer ‘soft’ enforcement actions like dialogues, coaching and consultation.