Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Employee Engagement and Organizational Change

  • Chapter
Employee Engagement in Media Management

Part of the book series: Media Business and Innovation ((MEDIA))

Abstract

This chapter critically reviews previous literature on employee engagement in an organizational change context by first explaining how employee engagement can help achieve sensemaking, creativity and as a result a successful organizational change, and by then considering the way management can use communication and participation practices to engage employees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York, NY: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brockfield, S. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Technical report no. 10. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, F. M. (1979). Scientific productivity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. In J. Baum & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (Vol. 13, pp. 17–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 523–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations on CAT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, S., & Margulies, N. (1989). An ideological perspective on participation: A case for integration. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2, 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Decision-Making Studies. (1979). Report to the Leverhulme trust on company information to employees project. London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, J., & Gregory, W. J. (2000). Reflections on critical systems thinking and the management of change in rule-bound systems. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 140–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, A. T., Folger, R., & Wooten, K. (1995). The role justice plays in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 19, 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. A., & Goff, J. L. (2002). Coming of age with self-managed teams: Dealing with a problem employee. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16, 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. S., Maranville, S. J., & Obloj, K. (1997). The paradoxical process of organizational transformation: Propositions and a case study. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 10, pp. 275–314). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cock, C., & Rickards, T. (1996). Thinking about organizational change: Towards two kinds of process intervention. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, J. T., & Sockell, D. (1990). Employee involvement programs, unionization and organizational flexibility. In Academy of management proceedings (pp. 264–269).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G. A. (1996). Justifying work: Occupational rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 90–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creativity in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1995). Creativity in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1994). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, J. (1996). Communication- Is it really that simple? An analysis of a communication exercise in a case study. Personnel Review, 25, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 4, 584–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1081–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, D. N. (1995). Blue versus gray: A metaphor constraining sensemaking around a restructuring. Group & Organization Management, 20, 183–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45–99). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1993). Spontaneous humor as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 505–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21, 1057–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, P. (2000). Culture change. Executive Excellence, 17, 16–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson-Cox, J., McQueeney, J., & Thirkell, J. E. M. (1987). Strategies issues and events in industrial relations: Disclosure of information in context. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience and leaders guide it. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Fan (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 81–100). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, 131–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond selfmanagement: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. M. (1996). A management communication strategy for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research and methods in organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labianca, G., Gray, B., & Brass, D. J. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment. Organization Science, 11, 235–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E., III. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E., III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leana, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25, 253–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 330–344). New York, NY: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, B. (2001). Controlling change. Infoworld, 23, 40–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, C. C. (1990). Towards mapping the communication targets of organisational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 3, 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luscher, L., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 2, 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luscher, L., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. (2006). The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19, 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist, 20, 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high-performance companies. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, R. (2001). Open-book management. Journal for Quality & Participation, 24, 64–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, M. (1997). The stress factor: Another item for the change management agenda? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10, 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organizational restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25, 735–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. H. (2001). Accelerating corporate transformations by rapidly engaging all employees. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. H. (2001). Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, R. (1990). The effectiveness of research teams: A review. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 101–122). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, P., Gioia, D., & Gray, B. (1989). Influence modes, schema change, and organizational transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, D. E. (1996). A framework for the appreciation and use of financial management accounting data. In K. Vagneur, C. Wilkinson, & A. J. Berry (Eds.), Beyond constraint: Exploring the management control paradox (pp. 265–283), Management Control Association, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, D. E. (2003). Construing information and influence: A matrix approach. In G. Chiari, & M. L. Nuzzo (Eds.), Psychological constructivism and the social world. EPCA. Milano, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. (1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. Organization communication: Emerging perspectives (pp. 151–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & Rands, G. P. (1989). Sensemaking, understanding, and committing: Emergent interpersonal transaction processes in the evolution of 3 M’s microgravity research program. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation (pp. 337–366). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusaw, C. A. (2000). Uncovering training resistance - A critical theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwochau, S., & Delaney, J. (1997). Employee participation and assessments of support for organizational policy changes. Journal of Labor Research, 18, 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slappendel, C. (1996). Perspectives on innovation in organizations. Organization Studies, 17, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M., Noble, D. S., Mishra, A. K., & Cooke, W. N. (1999). Predicting process improvement team performance in an automotive firm: Explicating the roles of trust and empowerment. In E. Mannix & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 2, pp. 71–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susman, G. (1976). Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management. New York, NY: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Bianco, A., & Schermerhorn, J. (2006). Self-regulation, strategic leadership and paradox in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19, 457–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the context of participative work environments. Group and Organization Management, 24, 271–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 120–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological views (pp. 43–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkema, R. J., Farquhar, K., & Bergmann, T. J. (1996). Thirdparty sensemaking in interpersonal conflicts at work: A theoretical framework. Human Relations, 49(1437), 1454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, T., & Lisheron, J. A. (1977). Worker participation. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J., & Fahey, L. (1986). The role of negotiated belief structures in strategy making. Journal of Management, 12, 325–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warglien, M., & Masuch, M. (1996). The logic of organizational disorder. New York, NY: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, T. J. (1994). In search of management: Culture, chaos and control in managerial work. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14, 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economic Sciences and Administration, Frederick University, Limassol, Cyprus

    Stavros Georgiades

Authors
  1. Stavros Georgiades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Georgiades, S. (2015). Employee Engagement and Organizational Change. In: Employee Engagement in Media Management. Media Business and Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16217-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation