This document discusses theories of employee commitment to organizational change. It begins by reviewing Meyer and Allen's three-component model of commitment. It then summarizes several models that view commitment to change as a process, including Conner's awareness-acceptance model and Armenakis and Harris' five key change beliefs model. Finally, it discusses Herscovitch and Meyer's multidimensional view of commitment to change. The document concludes by calling for more research taking an employee-centric approach to better understand how to facilitate commitment to change initiatives.

1. Running head: EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 1
Strategic Adaptability and Employee Commitment to Change
Andrew James Panneton
Sacred Heart University

2. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 2
Strategic Adaptability and Employee Commitment to Change
In today’s dynamic world, with markets becoming increasingly globalized, de-regulated,
and competitive, the importance of strategic adaptability has never been more salient for those
organizations who wish to survive: no organization is immune from the need to implement
organizational changes. Remarking on the necessity and true importance of an organization’s
ability to adapt strategically to change initiatives, W. Edwards Deming sarcastically notes, “It is
not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory” (as cited in Armenakis & Harris, 2009).
As Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) point out, given the accelerated and increasingly
complex nature of organizational changes occurring within the workplace environment, it is no
surprise that there is an extant and growing body of literature on the causes, consequences, and
strategies to be utilized for organizational change initiatives. What is surprising, however, is the
paucity of research on employees’ reactions to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002): Ultimately
this gap in the research literature has led to many researchers (cf. Aktouf, 1992; Bray, 1994;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000) suggesting a more “employee-centric” approach to the study of
commitment to organizational change initiatives (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Jaros, 2010).
Contextual Overview: Why is Employee Commitment-to-Change (C2C) Important?
Strategic adaptability is a planned ability to react effectively when business and
environmental factors change unexpectedly (Reeves & Deimler, 2011; Kokemuller, 2015).
Consequently, organizational leaders must be increasingly more vigilant regarding the context in
which their organizations are situated, paying particular attention to changes occurring within
both the general and task environments. Furthermore, in order to prosper, organizational leaders
must know how to successfully implement appropriate organizational changes that will be
effectively embraced by their employees (Armenakis & Harris, 2009).

3. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 3
In light of these recognitions, namely the realization that successful implementation of
change initiatives is heavily reliant upon employees’ willingness to commit to them, strategic
adaptability and commitment-to-change (C2C) has become a topic of extreme relevance and
importance to all organizational members; especially managers (Jaros, 2010). If managers can
enable their employees to commit to new goals, programs, policies, and procedures, the
organizations they represent may stand a better chance of successfully implementing these
critical business initiative (Jaros, 2010).
Finally, the importance of continued empirical investigations into C2C is elucidated by
recent statistical research on the effectiveness of organizational change initiatives. In a study
conducted by Meaney and Pung (2008) only one-third of business leaders surveyed considered
recent organizational change initiatives as “successful.” Moreover, according to the 3,199
executives surveyed, the amount of time organizations devoted towards planning the change was
six months (Armenakis & Harris, 2009).
The following purposive sampling of commitment research literature aims to review the
chronological development of C2C’s theoretical conceptualizations, explicate important C2C
research findings, identify inconsistencies, research gaps, and areas of alignment/agreement, and
finally, indicate potential areas for future research which will benefit both the academic
community and applied field settings.
Commitment-to-Change: A Chronological Review of C2C Theory
Commitment-to-Change (C2C) reflects a relatively new developmental trend in the
organizational behavior literature, and as such is of a more recent vintage than prior research into
other foci of commitment (Jaros, 2010). C2C is an action commitment which demonstrates an
employee’s level of attachment to the implementation of newly adopted initiatives, policies,

4. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 4
procedures, programs, etc. (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Therefore, unlike other forms of
organizational commitment that are primarily directed at static organizational entities (e.g.
“teams” or “the organization”) all of which have been extensively studied for several decades
(Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993), C2C is directed at a more dynamic process (Jaros, 2010). As
such, there has been a proclivity within both the research and practitioner communities to view
and model the development of C2C as a dynamic process as well (Jaros, 2010).
Three-Component Model: A Content-Focused Foundation
Although Meyer and Allen’s (1991) original “three-component model” was developed in
the context of organizational commitment, i.e. commitment towards a static entity, a brief
overview of their research, original model and measures of commitment are appropriate for the
present discussion as they have been successfully adapted to include, and measure, commitment-
to-change initiatives (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). In their review of the organizational
commitment literature, Meyer and Allen (1991) successfully identify three commitment
components within the various definitions of commitment: affective, i.e. attachment to the
organization; continuance, i.e. the perceived cost of leaving the organization; and normative, i.e.
the felt obligation to remain in the organization (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993, p. 539).
In a 1993 study aimed at developing valid measures of these commitment components
and, as well as the generalizability of the three-component model, Meyer, Allen, and Smith
utilized confirmatory factors analyses and both individual and composite measures of
commitment to analyze data collected from two separate samples: students and registered nurses.
Results of the study reveal that the three components of commitment, i.e. affective, continuance,
and normative, are “clearly distinguishable” from one another, as well as the composite measure
of all three, i.e. “organizational commitment,” thus contributing to the validity and potential

5. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 5
generalizability of the three-component model to other foci (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) such
as C2C initiatives (cf. Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
The C2C Process Perspective: Acceptance, Awareness, and Internalization
In contrast to the content-focused nature of Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) research,
Connor (1992) proposes that C2C reflects the internalization of a change program: Conner posits
that this process of internalization is the end result of a three-stage process beginning with an
employee’s awareness of, and acceptance of, the overall need for implementation of the change
initiative (Conner, 1992). Similarly, in further building upon Conner’s conceptualization,
Coetsee (1999) incorporates Lawler’s (1992) concept of involvement, suggesting that if an
employee is made aware of a necessary change, has the skill to implement the change, is
empowered and motivated to make the change by means of rewards or incentives, and finally,
shares the vision exemplified by the change, C2C initiatives can be successful (Coetsee, 1999).
Therefore, while Conner’s model is purely psychological in nature, Coetsee’s model
examines the dynamic interaction between psychological factors, e.g. awareness and acceptance,
and objective factors, e.g. employee skill and incentivization structure (Jaros, 2010) ultimately
resulting in the identification of those psychological conditions necessary for acceptance of, and
therefore commitment to, organizational change initiatives: this is only implicit in Conner’s
theoretical conceptualization of C2C (Conner, 1992; Coetsee, 1999; Jaros, 2010).
Comprehensive C2C: Armenakis & Harris’ (2009) “Five Key Change Beliefs”
Building on, and therefore further elaborating upon, the theoretical conceptualizations of
C2C offered by both Conner (1992) and Coetsee (1999), Armenakis and Harris (2009) have also
developed a model describing the various factors which contribute to employees’ motivation to
commit to organizational change initiatives (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Jaros, 2010). Their

6. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 6
model encompasses several additional factors which they term the “five key change beliefs:”
Discrepancy, Appropriateness, Efficacy, Principal support, and Valence (Armenakis & Harris,
2009; Jaros, 2010). Discrepancy refers to the belief that a change is needed, and moreover, that
there exists a large gap between the current state of the organization and what it ought to be;
Appropriateness refers to the belief that a specific change designed to solve a problem is the
right one for the situation; (c) Efficacy refers to the belief that the employee and the organization
can successfully implement a change; (d) Principal support refers to the employee believing that
organizational leaders are committed to the change, i.e. it is not just another passing fad or
program of the month; and Valence, refers to an employee believing the change is worth it, i.e.
there is something of benefit in it for them if they commit (p. 129).
Therefore, much like Conner (1992) and Coetsee (1999), Armenakis and Harris’ (2009)
model of C2C is also unidimensional in nature. However, in expanding upon both Conner
(1992) and Coetsee (1999) Armenakis and Harris are able to simultaneously clarify the specific
factors that determine employees’ awareness of the organization’s need for change and broaden
Coetsee’s contributory inclusion of “skills” to include those of the individual employees, as well
as those possessed by the organization itself. In this model, the notion of “perceived valance of
the change” may at first glance seem synonymous with Coetsee’s (1999) notion of goal/value
congruence, however, it goes further in that it also connotes a sense of economic interest,
whereas “the Coetsee view seems broader and thus could encompass altruistic values as well”
(Jaros, 2010, p. 81).
Motivating C2C with a “change-recipient, employee-centric approach
Despite many other organizational scholars adopting a change agent, leader-centric focus
on organizational change, Armenakis and Harris (2009) adopt a change recipient, employee-

7. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 7
centric approach which addresses the five key beliefs underlying change recipient motivation,
and the importance they play in each of the three steps involved in the change process: diagnosis,
creating readiness, and change adoption and institutionalization” (2009, p. 129). In fact, several
empirical investigations into both Discrepancy and Appropriateness (cf. Armenakis, Bedeian, &
Niebuhr, 1979; Oswald, Mossholder, & Harris, 1994, 1997; Cole, Harris, & Bernerth, 2006)
have elucidated the effect these two change beliefs have on change recipient attitudes, including
job satisfaction and organizational commitment (2009).
Moreover, the findings of these empirical investigations indicate organizational change
recipients’ perceptions of how “appropriate” the perceived change aligns with the “overall
strategic vision,” is positively correlated with increased affective reactions, job involvement, and
perceived competitive strengths (Armenakis et al, 1979; Oswald et al, 1994, 1997; Cole et al,
2006, Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Thus, within these findings there exists an implicit
recognition of the importance of a strategic, “goodness of fit,” between change agents’
perceptions of the organizational change initiative, and its’ alignment with the overall strategic
vision: In effect, this concept of “goodness of fit” is effectively encapsulated within the key
belief of “Appropriateness.” Therefore, the primary task facing change agents within the
organizational environment is to anticipate, consider, and effectively plan [emphasis added] to
influence and shape these change agent beliefs prior to, and in pursuit of, readiness for change,
implementation support, and change commitment (2009, p. 129).
C2C Comes Full Circle: From Meyer& Allen (1991) to Herscovitch & Meyer(2002)
Finally, and more recently, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) have expanded upon a three
dimensional conceptualization of C2C reflecting normative (obligation-based), continuance
(cost-based), and affective (feelings-based) attachments to organizational change initiatives

8. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 8
(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Jaros, 2010; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Herscovitch and Meyer
(2002) agree with Conner (1992), Coetsee (1999), and Armenakis and Harris (2009) regarding
the motivational nature of C2C, however, there is a clear demarcation between previous
conceptualizations of the dimensionality of the C2C construct and those held by Herscovitch and
Meyer: Herscovitch and Meyer posit that C2C is a multidimensional construct, a viewpoint
which clearly contradicts previous conceptualizations of C2C as a “psychologically
undifferentiated state” (Jaros, 2010, p. 81).
Consequently, the model offered by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) proposes that
different types of “goal/value congruence” (stated in Coetsee’s terms) or perceived change
valences (stated in Armenakis’ terms) will ultimately result in the development of differing
forms of C2C. Therefore, (a) Valence perceptions, based upon the perceived costs incurred from
failing to fully support the organizational change initiative, will lead to the development of
continuance C2C; (b) Those predicated upon positive feelings towards the organizational change
initiative will ultimately produce affective C2C, and (c) Those based purely upon a sense of
obligation, e.g. organizational commitment, towards the change effort will facilitate the
development of normative C2C (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Jaros, 2010).
Theoretical Conceptualizations of C2C: Commonalities and Congruence
Therefore, within all of these conceptualizations of C2C there exists several
commonalities, or areas of congruence. For example, within each of the aforementioned C2C
conceptualizations, there exists a shared notion inherently reflective of an attachment to, and
involvement in, the organizational change initiative. Moreover, this attachment to and
involvement in the organizational change initiative results from awareness of the organizational
change initiative and some combination of both motivational factors, e.g. goal congruence,

9. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 9
affective affinity, or self-interest, and “the mental/physical ability to work on behalf of the
[organizational] change initiative” (Jaros, 2010, p. 82). Thus, the evolution and intellectual
development of C2C models has resulted from a process of continuous elaboration, the basic
framework of which was provided by Meyer, Allen, and Conner, and further elaborated upon by
Coetsee, Armenakis and Harris, and Herscovitch and Meyer.
Implications for Future C2C Research
This purposive sampling of theoretical and empirical commitment-to-change (C2C)
literature highlights both areas of researcher and practitioner agreement, i.e. synthesis, as well as
areas of current theoretical and conceptual debate (e.g. dimensionality or relative importance of
the differentiation between continuance, affective, and normative commitment) (Jaros, 2010).
Unfortunately, however, our current understanding of C2C is predicated upon organizational
change research that has primarily taken a macro, or systems-oriented, approach, as opposed to
the approach many researchers have called for (e.g. Aktouf, 1992; Bray, 1994; Wanberg &
Banas, 2000): a change recipient, employee-centric approach to C2C research (Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002; Armenakis & Harris, 2009).
However, there now exists, amongst both the research and practitioner communities,
nearly universal agreement on “commitment” being the most important factor involved in
employees’ support for organizational change initiatives (Coetsee, 1999; Conner, 1992). Conner
furthers support for this notion by ultimately concluding that the biggest factor contributing to
failed organizational change initiative is a lack of commitment by the people (Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002, p. 474). Therefore, in remembering that research (Meaney & Pung, 2008) reveals
only one-third of business leaders consider recent organizational change initiatives as having
been “successful,” coupled with the fact that the average time organizations spent planning such

10. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 10
initiatives was a staggering six months, the need for further studies aimed at investigating the
core psychological processes that may inhibit or facilitate the development of C2C (e.g.
cognitive dissonance, habituation, socialization) on an individual employee level has never been
more dire (Armenakis & Harris, 2009).
Consequently, future investigations into the individual psychological processes inherent
within employees’ “acceptance” of or “resistance” to (Coetsee, 1993) organizational change
initiatives, the results of which would prove beneficial to both the research and applied
practitioner communities, should pay careful attention to the following: (a) selection of
empirically validated C2C scales; (b) selection of employees for study inclusion, giving careful
consideration to the change context, and organizational level, (e.g. department, subunits,
employee groups) as juxtaposed with a heterogeneous composite; (c) avoiding self-report
measures when assessing C2C behavioral impact; (d) utilization of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to distinguish constructs subsumed within C2C (e.g. three-component model); and finally,
(d) utilization of latent growth modeling (LGM) and longitudinal study designs for capturing
how C2C develops and influences outcome variables over time as organizational change
initiatives are implemented through the three stages of C2C: diagnosis, creating readiness, and
change adoption and institutionalization (Armenakis & Harris, 2009).

11. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 11
References
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and
Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.
Armenakis, A., Bedeian, A. & Niebuhr, R. (1979). Planning for organizational intervention: The
importance of existing socio-psychological situations in organizational diagnosis. Group
& Organization Studies, 4(1), 59-70. doi:10.1177/105960117900400105
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change
research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127-142.
doi:10.1080/14697010902879079
Coetsee, L. (1999). From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23, 204-
222.
Cole, M., Harris, S. & Bernerth, J. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness,
and execution of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 27(5), 352-367. doi: 10.1108/01437730610677963
Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and
prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a
three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474
Jaros, S. (2010). Commitment to Organizational Change: A Critical Review. Journal of Change
Management, 10(1), 79-108. doi:10.1080/14697010903549457
Kokemuller, N. (2015). What Is Strategic Adaptability? Houston Chronicle. Retrieved July 2,
2015, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/strategic-adaptability-78216.html

12. EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 12
Meaney, M. & Pung, C. (2008) McKinsey global results: Creating organizational
transformations. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1-7.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to Organizations and
Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.
Oswald, S., Mossholder, K. & Harris, S. (1994). Vision salience and strategic involvement:
Implications for psychological attachment to organization and job. Strategic Management
Journal, 15, 477-489.
Oswald, S., Mossholder, K. & Harris, S. (1997). Relations between strategic involvement and
managers’ perceptions of environment and competitive strengths. Group & Organization
Studies, 22(3), 343-365.
Reeves, M., & Deimler, M. (2011, July/August). Adaptability: The new competitive advantage.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 2, 2015, from
https://hbr.org/2011/07/adaptability-the-new-competitive-advantage