The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Framework for
A framework for facilitating facilitating
adaptation to organizational adaptation
transition
721
Mitchell Lee Marks
Department of Management, San Francisco State University,
San Francisco, California, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Transitions – including mergers, acquisitions, downsizings, and restructurings – are
used by organizational leaders to accelerate the achievement of strategic objectives. However, the
manner in which most transitions are implemented runs counter to research findings on the process of
effective change management and, in particular, disregards the natural process of human adaptation.
As a result, mismanaged transitions tend to have negative consequences for organizations and their
members. Ironically, the characteristic of transitions that prompts individual and organizational strife
– the capacity to disrupt the status quo – also enables an opportunity for individual and
organizational renewal. For that to occur, however, members must make progress through the natural
process of adaptation. This paper aims to propose a framework for facilitating adaptation to
organizational transition, to both overcome the undesirable consequences of transitions and to
accelerate achievement of the transition’s strategic objectives.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper based on a review of the literatures
on adaptation and transition and the author’s own experience as a researcher or consultant in over 100
major organizational transitions.
Findings – The framework presented here should contribute to both the practice of organizational
change management and empirical studies of interventions to facilitate individual adaptation to major
organizational transitions.
Originality/value – The framework introduced in this paper should have a direct and substantial
impact on transition management, employee well being and organizational effectiveness. It should
minimize the negative consequences of transitions and accelerate the process of adaptation to
organizational transition.
Keywords Transition management, Acquisitions and mergers, Downsizing
Paper type Conceptual paper

Organizational leaders regularly utilize transitions such as mergers, acquisitions,

downsizings and restructurings in hopes of accelerating the attainment of strategic and
financial goals. However, transitions are difficult events for organizational leaders to
manage, difficult events for organizational members to experience, and, as a result,
regularly detract from employee well being and organizational effectiveness. These
unintended consequences are due, in part, to the failure of executives and other designers
of organizational transitions to accommodate the individual adaptation process. In this
paper, I review current knowledge about the impact of transitions on work organizations
and their members, describe the process of human adaptation to transition, and propose Journal of Organizational Change
a framework for facilitating adaptation to organizational transition. Management
Vol. 20 No. 5, 2007
pp. 721-739
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in the 0953-4814
development of this manuscript. DOI 10.1108/09534810710779126
JOCM Transition
20,5 A transition is an event that results in a change in assumptions about oneself and the
world and thus requires a corresponding change in one’s expectations, behaviors, and
relationships (Schlossberg, 1981; Marks, 2003a). A transition may be either for better or
worse and may provide both an opportunity for psychological growth or psychological
deterioration (Moos, 1976). Often the outcome of a transition has both positive and
722 negative implications for the same person; however, individuals tend to “see the glass
half empty” and fixate on the real or perceived negative aspects of a transition (Marks
and Mirvis, 1998).

Organizational transitions
In their quest for competitiveness, organizational leaders have increasingly turned to
transitions to seek outcomes such as increased productivity, lower overhead, more
effective decision-making, greater innovativeness, and more rapid technological
enhancements (Hoskisson and Hitt, 1994)[1]. The worldwide value of M&A increased
from US$462 billion in 1990 to over US$3.5 trillion in 2000 (Stahl and Mendenhall,
2005). Despite this popularity, more than three-quarters of corporate combinations fail
to achieve anticipated business results (Marks and Mirvis, 1998). Downsizings and
restructurings are affecting organizations of all sizes, in all industries, and across all
geographic areas. However, most downsizings provide one-time-only cuts in the cost of
doing business, but fail to return organizations to financial health or result in any true
enhancements in how work is accomplished (Cascio et al., 1997).
To be fair, organizational transitions are difficult events to manage. The conditions
within which they are enacted tend to hinder the use of organizational change management
practices such as articulating a clear and compelling vision, communicating in a full and
timely manner, and building political coalitions (Kotter, 1995). Many combinations are
completed before leaders can clarify an organizational end state, are shrouded in secrecy,
and are afflicted by culture clash that pulls partners apart rather than brings them together
(Marks and Mirvis, 1985). Firing people is one of the most dreaded actions any manager
has to take – it is tough enough to do when someone is let go for performance issues and
even more difficult when someone is being laid off for reasons other than their personal
performance on the job – and, as a result, restructurings and downsizings tend to be
mismanaged as a self-imposed sense of urgency to get the cuts done quickly rather than
carefully, a fear of violence that exaggerates that actual risk of workplace retribution, and a
stigma of failure that prompts leaders to downplay the event and minimize communication
prevail over careful change management planning and implementation.

Undesirable consequences of organizational transition

Studies consistently show that, in the aftermath of transitions involving layoffs,
survivors’ report less job involvement, organizational commitment and intention to
remain with the organization (Fugate et al., 2002). Organizational trust falls (Cascio,
1993), while fear increases (Buch and Aldridge, 1991). Layoff survivor sickness has
been well documented, with symptoms including job insecurity, feelings of unfairness,
depression, lessened motivation, distrust and betrayal (Brockner, 1992).
The consequences of mismanaged transitions are manifested behaviorally as well
as attitudinally. Staw et al. (1992, p. 516) note that under conditions of threat, an event
or situation which individuals or groups perceive as having negative or harmful
consequences (e.g. downsizing), organizations undergo a “mechanistic shift” and Framework for
centralize information, restrict communication, and rely on habitual responses that are facilitating
likely to be dysfunctional. More specific to downsizings, mergers, and other major
transitions, studies have shown that organizational communication deteriorates adaptation
(Cascio, 1993) and managerial rigidity increases (Cameron et al., 1987). In addition,
employees who survive major transitions report a lack of direction in prioritizing work,
risk avoidance, and increases in role ambiguity, political behavior, and work team 723
dysfunction (Marks and DeMeuse, 2003). They also report working harder but not any
more effectively – the workload does not get smaller when the work force does
(Greenberg, 1990).

Adaptation
Adaptation to transition is a process through which an individual moves from being
preoccupied with the transition to integrating the transition into his or her life
(Schlossberg, 1981). This has obvious implications for the individual (e.g. adapting in a
manner that produces psychological growth versus psychological deterioration or that
equips the individual with new attitudes, expectations and behaviors that are more
congruent with post-transition realities than pre-transition realities), but also for
organizations engaged in transition (e.g. the extent to which member preoccupation
leads to distraction from performance or to which newly adopted attitudes,
expectations and behaviors are more or less congruent with the transition’s objectives).
Human adaptation to transition occurs through two stages. Parkes (1971) describes
adaptation as an internal process of, first, abandoning one set of assumptions and,
then, developing a fresh set to enable the person to cope with their newly altered
situation. Similarly, Moos (1976) discusses an initial stage of disequilibrium in which
an individual’s usual problem-solving mechanisms do not work and a second stage of
returning to equilibrium after the individual works out new ways of handling things.
Thus, in the first stage of adaptation, energy is directed at minimizing the undesirable
impact or debilitating aspects of the transition and, in the second stage, at maximizing
the growth or developmental opportunities inherent in the transition.

Adaptation to organizational transition

The capacity for a transition to disrupt the current equilibrium and jar people from
their status quo – that is, to unfreeze them (Lewin, 1947) – also gives transitions the
potential to be an impetus for renewal at both the organizational and individual levels.
If properly managed, a merger, acquisition, downsizing or restructuring can be used to
replace outmoded organizational structures, cultures, and processes with new ones
more consistent with emerging environmental conditions and competitive challenges.
Concurrently, a transition can be a stimulus for helping individuals abandon attitudes,
expectations and behaviors that may have been congruent with pre-transition realities
and identify and adopt new ones consistent with post-transition realities.
Despite this opportunity to spark renewal, research shows that “holding on” tends
to predominate over “letting go” during and after transitions as organizations and their
members tend to maintain the status quo during difficult times (Chattopadyhah et al.,
2001). Thus, employees are likely to experience real or perceived negative
consequences of transitions but not realize enhancements to their personal work
situation or to overall organizational effectiveness.
JOCM Contending with continuous discontinuous change
20,5 Adapting to a “discontinuous” transition is much more psychologically taxing than
coping with a “continuous” change (Marks, 2003b; Weick and Quinn, 1999). Change is
a path to a known state, with orderly, incremental, and continuous steps. Moving a
meeting from a 10:00 am to a 9:00 am starting time is an example of a change. It may
cause some disruption – attendees may have to leave other meetings earlier or
724 reschedule conference calls – but the discrete nature of change lets people know
exactly what to expect and allows them to get on with their organizational activities.
A transition, by comparison, is a path to an unknown state – something that involves
many simultaneous and interactive changes and adopting new ways of thinking,
organizing, or conducting activities (Bridges, 1991). Adaptation to transition poses a
break from the past. It involves death and rebirth; existing practices and routines must
be abandoned and new ones discovered and developed.
In many work organizations, discontinuous transitions have become a way of life: an
acquisition, followed by a downsizing, a restructuring, a change in strategy, a subsequent
restructuring, another wave of downsizing and so on. The effects of stressful events are
cumulative and the costs of “ongoing change” mount (Kiefer, 2005). O’Toole (1995) notes
that continual discontinuous change is not a natural condition of life, and that resistance is
a to-be-expected response. Importantly, the phenomenon of resistance to change is not
necessarily that of resisting the change per se but is more accurately a resistance to losing
something of value to the person – loss of the known and tried in the face of being asked, if
not forced, to move into the unknown and untried (Burke, 2002). In a merger or acquisition,
the potential for loss (both real and perceived) is extensive, as everything from one’s
anticipated career path to overall corporate identity are potentially threatened. A
downsizing or restructuring that involves involuntary dismissals can prompt the loss of
accustomed co-workers as well as the loss of the perception of fairness in the workplace.

The two tasks and two levels of facilitating adaptation

Every person and organization encounters forces for maintaining the status quo and
forces for change (Lewin, 1947). These forces operate counter to each other, with a
constantly shifting balance. Thus, there are two tasks involved in facilitating
adaptation to organizational transition: aid people in:
(1) ending the old by weakening forces for maintaining the status quo; and
(2) accepting the new by strengthening forces for growth.

The value of ending the old by weakening forces for the status quo is supported by
research findings, but its application in practice has lagged. While social learning
theory suggests that employees are more likely to accept and commit to proposed
changes that are communicated to them as an exciting and viable opportunity from
which they may benefit (Zimbardo and Leippe, 1991), employees also need to
experience a “felt need” that is strong enough to create a state of dissonance between
the status quo and what is required for success (Dalton, 1970).
Abandoning the old and developing the new occur more as a fading out and in than
a quick cut. Initially, forces for maintaining the status quo are strong and expressed
through outright resistance to change or, at best, the absence of a will to act. Over time,
the forces for new post-transition realities may predominate and provide the necessary
impetus for letting go and moving on. While people move through the stages of the
adaptation process in the same sequence, they do not do so at the same pace. Framework for
And, some never fully let go of old expectations, identities or behaviors, despite all the facilitating
changes that may be going on around them. Employees who do not loosen their grips
on the old cannot make progress toward embracing the new. adaptation
The forces for the old and for the new are varied and cover both emotional and
intellectual aspects of a transition or a series of transitions. Organizational transitions
typically stir up a broad array of emotions (Huy, 2002). Negative emotions – like 725
sadness over losing close friends in a downsizing – co-occur with positive emotions –
being happy that one’s own job has been spared (Frederickson, 2001). However, the
more changes a person experiences at work, such as is the case with a major transition
or series of transitions, the more negative emotions are reported (Kiefer, 2005).
Insofar as emotions are an inherent part of everyday functioning and a legitimate
expression of individual experiences (Lazarus, 1991), emotional expressions need to be
acknowledged by management and responded to in a respectful manner (Frost, 2003).
Leaders who manage transition effectively rely on and cope with emotions by bringing
them to the surface and understanding how they affect work activities and
relationships as groups face challenges and organizational changes (Urch Druskat and
Wolff, 2001). In the ending of the old phase, adaptation should be facilitated by
weakening emotional forces that individuals carry over with them from before the
transition and that may be inadvertently generated during a mismanaged transition. In
the accepting of the new phase, adaptation should be enabled by strengthening the
emotional pull of the characteristics of the post-transition organization that motivate
employees and attract their attention.
At the intellectual level, adaptation is facilitated by the process of “organizational
sensemaking” through which organization members interpret their environment
through interactions with others and construct accounts that allow them to comprehend
the world and act collectively (Weick, 1995). Sensemaking activities are particularly
critical in dynamic and turbulent contexts, where the need to create and maintain
coherent understandings that sustain relationships and enable collective action is
especially important and challenging (Gioia and Thomas, 1996). Organizational
members actively create the reality they inhabit, upon which they predicate future action
(Weick, 1979). To facilitate ending the old, certain aspects of the organization should be
abandoned or made less prominent – that is, the forces for their maintenance should be
weakened. To strengthen forces for accepting the new, employees should have sufficient
intellectual understanding of not only what is changing, but also why the changes are
being made and how those changes will contribute to both business and personal
success (Marks, 2003b). Thus, new intellectual models consistent with the desired
post-transition organization will need to be reinforced to replace old ones.

A framework for facilitating adaptation after transition

The two tasks (weakening forces for the old and strengthening forces for the new) and
two levels (emotional and intellectual) produce four elements for facilitating adaptation
to organizational transition (Figure 1):
(1) Empathy. Letting people know leadership acknowledges that things have been
difficult and, for at least awhile longer, will continue to be difficult.
(2) Engagement. Creating understanding of and support for the need to end the old
and accept new organizational realities.
JOCM A Framework for Facilitating Adaptation to Transition
20,5 Tasks
Weakening the Old Strengthening the New
Levels

726
Emotional
EMPATHY ENERGY

Figure 1. Intellectual ENGAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT

A framework for
facilitating adaptation to
transition

(3) Energy. Getting people excited about the new organizational realities and
supporting them in realizing them.
(4) Enforcement. Solidifying a fresh set of perceptions, expectations and behaviors
to help people cope with their newly altered work situation.

Empathy
The first element for facilitating individual adaptation to organizational transition
proposes to weaken emotional forces for holding on to the old by conveying empathy to
employees regarding what they have experienced during a difficult transition (Table I).
The objective of empathy is to make clear that leadership is cognizant of the needs,
feelings, problems, and views of employees who have lived through a merger,
acquisition, downsizing, or restructuring. Empathy facilitates adaptation by
legitimizing employees’ responses to the transition, raising their awareness of the
adaptation process and accelerating the pace at which they move through it.
Empathy is emerging as an important component of leadership during and after
difficult times. Recent research suggests that it is not enough for leaders to “be
emotional” and express feelings; instead, it is important for leaders to understand others’
feelings and be able to impart a sense of self-worth and value by conveying a recognition,
understanding, and consideration of their emotions (Kellett et al., 2006). The knowledge
and understanding gained from their sense of empathy enables leaders to influence
members’ support for organizational goals and objectives (Humphrey, 2002). In turn,
relationships stemming from empathy tend to enhance perceptions of a leader’s integrity

Objective Conveying empathy and understanding of the difficulty of transition

and the legitimacy of adaptation
Table I. Actions Acknowledging the emotional realties of transition
Objective and actions for Raising awareness of transition dynamics and the adaptation process
empathy Using symbols, ceremonies, and forums to end the old
and credibility and tend to engender cooperation and trust (George, 2000). Research and Framework for
practice suggest three strategies for conveying empathy in the post-transition facilitating
organization: acknowledging the difficulties of transition, raising awareness of
transition dynamics and the adaptation process, and using symbols, ceremonies, and adaptation
forums to help individuals let go of the old.
Acknowledging the emotional realities of transition. Forces for holding onto the old
should be weakened when high-profile senior executives acknowledge their own roles in 727
contributing to a difficult transition. In most workplaces, employees would be surprised
to hear their leaders admit awareness of and take responsibility for the difficulty people
have been through. Indeed, it is common for leaders to justify their decisions and avoid
admitting personal responsibility for mistakes and, instead, to attribute poor outcomes
to external factors like the economy (Ross and Staw, 1993). In contrast, seeing their
superiors talk and act in new ways should weaken forces for the status quo by getting
employees to think about their own responsibility in moving from holding on to
letting go.
One tactic for weakening forces against desired post-transition change is a
mea culpa in which leaders acknowledge their role in contributing to mismanaging the
transition and the resulting consequences (Marks, 1995). Borrowing from what is
known about how organizations recover a customer’s confidence after a service failure,
Kouzes and Posner (2002) discuss how leaders can recover from results like decreased
credibility and trust by accepting responsibility and admitting they made mistakes.
Leaders who fail to do this are more likely to be viewed as dishonest – as well as
incompetent – especially by those employees who have strong feelings of cynicism.
Admitting mistakes and then taking quick action to rectify forces against desired
change will enhance a leader’s credibility.
Raising awareness of transition dynamics and the adaptation process. Tannenbaum
and Hanna (1985) cite the value of “consciousness raising” in facilitating the process of
holding on and letting go. Consciousness raising helps employees acknowledge what
they are personally holding on to and become aware of their reasons for doing so.
Thus, organizations that act to raise awareness of the dynamics of organizational
transitions should weaken forces for holding on to the status quo.
Workshops that include content on the emotional aspects of living through a
transition promote consciousness raising in ways like educating employees on the
difficulties of transitions and making the internal process of adaptation explicit to
them. In a study of an acquired manufacturing firm, researchers found that employees
who received a realistic assessment of the transition and insight into the adaptation
process had less negative reactions in both job satisfaction scores and actual work
productivity than employees who received a more sanguine content (Schweiger and
DeNisi, 1991). A key benefit of these interventions is that people learn that they are not
“going it alone” and that their emotional responses to transition are legitimate and, in
fact, normal.
Using forums, ceremonies and symbols to end the old. The reasons for and
implications of holding on become more fully understood when they are expressed
experientially (Tannenbaum and Hanna, 1985). Talking through where they have been
and what they are currently experiencing as a result of the transition helps employees
bring their feelings to a conscious level. However, most employees find it difficult to
express negative emotions at the workplace (Ciulla, 2000). To counter this tendency,
JOCM some organizations create forums in which employees vent their pent up anger and
20,5 other negative feelings. For example, a carefully facilitated venting meeting can get
people to open up in a supportive and safe environment. Studies show that talking
about work stress is a socially acceptable way of expressing discomfort and regaining
a sense of importance in the organization (Harkness et al., 2005). Even for employees
who do not speak up, vicariously listening to others express similar views is beneficial
728 in weakening the negative emotions left over from living through a difficult transition
(Marks, 2003b).
Letting go is completed through an active mourning of what is being left behind – old
ways of seeing and doing things, abandoned hopes and expectations, and the loss
of what was once satisfying, meaningful, or simply familiar (Tannenbaum and Hanna,
1985). People need ways to honor and then let go of the pain and loss they feel that result
from transition, and they often benefit from doing this in a shared public ritual (Frost,
2003). Thus, adaptation is further facilitated through symbolic events, like mock
funerals or graduation ceremonies that mark the transition from ending the old to
accepting the new.

Engagement
The second element weakens forces against desired change by engaging employees at
an intellectual level in understanding the business imperatives associated with needing
to end the old and by identifying and eliminating roadblocks to the adaptation process
(Table II). Engaging employees directly or through representation has long been
advocated as a method to help people contend with disruptions to their work situation
(Coch and French, 1948). Engagement would seem especially pertinent to facilitating
adaptation to transitions such as mergers and downsizings in which survivors
experience a perceived lack of control over their fate (Mirvis and Marks, 1986).
Crafting communication for the transition situation. One way to engage people is to
communicate with them. Effective top-down communication that is open, timely, and
frequent has been shown to counter the feelings of distrust, fear, anger, and frustration
common in conditions of organizational change (Krackhardt and Hanson, 1993).
However, as Rousseau (1996) points out, people’s need for information dramatically
increases during times of transition because of the many uncertainties involved. Thus, to
more completely weaken resisting forces, communications should be tailored to fit the
dynamics of the transition situation. Research findings suggest three ways of doing this.
To begin, communication content should include straight talk about the principle
business challenges associated with the transition – in contrast to the practice of sugar
coating messages by executives who hope that employees – and other stakeholders – will
conclude that everything is under control (Pascale et al., 1997). In cases of discontinuous
transition, employees are asked to accept the need to change their behavior on the job.
Most people resist this kind of change unless they recognize a strong case for embracing it.

Objective Engaging employees at an intellectual level in understanding the

business imperatives associated with needing to end the old and
identifying and eliminating roadblocks to the adaptation process
Table II. Actions Crafting communications for the transition situation
Objective and actions for Involving people in prioritizing work
engagement Diagnosing and eliminating barriers to adaptation
To weaken their hold on the old, people should be fully educated about the necessity for Framework for
transition, the benefits of the post-transition organization, and the progress and problems facilitating
associated with moving from the current state to desired post-transition state. The
storyline conveyed through transition communications provides a context for people’s adaptation
work experience – a frame of reference – that allows them to put events in proper
perspective.
Second, communicators have to contend with the high degree of stress experienced by 729
people during and after transition. The effects of stress are cumulative – both positive and
negative changes disrupt the status quo – and at high levels can interfere with the
accurate processing of information (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Thus, weakening forces
against desired change requires a broad array of communication channels – including
newsletters, memos, web pages, e-mails, voice mail messages, letters, videos, large formal
meetings, and casual conversations. Given that people differ in their ability to understand
written and spoken communications, a variety of sources also helps ensure that employees
have a chance to receive information through their most preferred medium.
The third implication for crafting communications to facilitate adaptation to
transition is to spread communication responsibility across all hierarchical levels. While
CEOs, business unit presidents, function heads and other senior executives have a role in
discussing the broad-based business challenges and imperatives necessitating
transition, the front-line supervisors and middle- and lower-level managers who
oversee the vast majority of employees in an organization bring the “big picture” down
to the specifics and realities of the immediate work situation and convey the impact of
transition on practical matters of getting work accomplished. Supervisors who foster
effective communication have been shown to weaken forces against change by
minimizing cynicism and other undesirable consequences of living through a transition
(Reichers et al., 1997).
Involving people in prioritizing work. Employee participation in addressing matters
directly related to their work situation should also weaken forces against ending the
old and help movement through the adaptation process. Participation gives survivors a
sense of control over their destinies and a means of influencing events that heretofore
had been seen as threats to their livelihood and well-being (Graddick and Cairo, 1998).
In a four-year longitudinal study of survivors of a downsizing in which a full 40
percent of the workforce was eliminated, for example, there were significant increases
in both employee productivity and employee well-being despite an increase in demands
placed on the survivors (Parker et al., 1997). The potential negative effects of high
demands were counterbalanced by an engagement strategy that enhanced work
characteristics including clarity and participation.
Employees who are encouraged to re-examine assumptions about their work and
encouraged to find creative ways of improving their performance contribute to
successful organizational transitions. According to Bass (1985), such intellectual
stimulation is especially effective when organizations are confronted with ill-structured
problems. Thus, organizations in transition should encourage employees to contribute
their own ideas about what should be done to solve the problems. With this type of
engagement, employees are more empowered and involved, and thus less cynical toward
change (Bommer et al., 2005). Together, with an increased understanding of the business
case for transition, increased involvement influences employee perceptions that desired
change is possible.
JOCM One intervention used to enhance engagement is a “work expectation meeting” in
20,5 which individuals meet one-on-one with their superiors to set shared expectations and
priorities for conducting work. In these forums, superiors describe business
opportunities and challenges to employees. Employees, in turn, report limitations or
constraints in conducting work as well as emerging opportunities to approach work
differently in the post-transition organization. Together, the superior and subordinate
730 discuss priorities and set expectations regarding what work behaviors or activities are
to be let go of or given less prominence as the organization moves through transition.
In addition to involving lower level employees, these types of interventions also
enhance the engagement of middle managers and supervisors. Managers and
supervisors play a critical role in influencing subordinates’ perceptions of transition
(Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997). When superiors take an active role in encouraging
employees to be more involved, they simultaneously benefit from increased credibility
and trust which both enhance employee perceptions of competence (Bommer et al.,
2005). Concurrently, superiors should benefit from learning about dynamics affecting
work processes that may have been overlooked or ignored during the hectic transition
period.
Diagnosing and eliminating barriers to adaptation. Employee engagement also
should weaken forces that directly inhibit the adaptation process itself. It is likely that
many forces inhibiting letting go of the old are present in the work environment – such
as bonus schemes that measure and reward that which was valued in the pre-transition
organization, high-profile opinion leaders who keep talking about “the good old days,”
or simply not having the time or resources to modify work practices.
What is important here is to determine the forces blocking adaptation from the
employee perspective. Leaders frequently think they know what is going well and
what is not during and after transitions (Marks and Baitch, 2005). But when they
consult exclusively with their peers and direct reports, which typically is all they have
time for during and after transition, what executives hear is often censored and
self-serving (Marks and Mirvis, 1998). Compounding this problem is the tendency for
employees to censor themselves and anticipate repercussions for speaking up during
transition (Vince, 2006). Several organizations have responded by conducting formal
diagnostic efforts to identify and address workplace dynamics perceived by employees
to be blocking progress in adaptation. While common employee research methods
(e.g. attitude surveys or focus group interviews) are utilized, their content focuses on
adaptation rather than a wide-ranging assessment of employee attitudes.
Sagie and Koslowski (1994) have observed that during transitions and similar times
of organizational uncertainty, employees have an increased need to perceive that their
input is being considered and require frequent and accurate feedback. Employees must
believe that their opinions have been heard and given careful and respectful
consideration (Reichers et al., 1997). Thus, there is a need to use the data collected
through employee research, even if it means simply engaging employees in discussing
the findings and their implications. In this way, the process of diagnosing and
discussing barriers to adaptation itself contributes to facilitating letting go of the old.

Energy
The third element enables adaptation by strengthening emotional forces for the desired
post-transition organization and generating energy for its attainment (Table III).
As organizational members abandon the accustomed old, they need something new to Framework for
latch onto to direct their contributions in the workplace and continue progress through facilitating
the adaptation process. Pederit (2000) notes that, especially when numbed by constant
and on-going change and transition, employees may be more ambivalent to change adaptation
rather than outright resistant to it. Thus, emotional energy facilitates adaptation by
getting people excited about the prospects of the post-transition organization and
reviving their confidence in themselves and their workplace as they move toward a 731
new equilibrium. Specifically, this occurs by giving people a clear sense of where the
organization is headed, helping people identify and become aligned with that vision,
and supporting people as they move through the adaptation process.
Clarifying a vision of a new and better organization. Kiefer (2005) has shown that
perceptions of an insecure future are key antecedents to negative emotions during
conditions of ongoing change. Unless people feel knowledgeable about where their
organization is headed overall, they will not feel capable of taking initiative
(Kanter, 1983).
The value of a well-articulated sense of strategic direction and a compelling mission
for the organization – that is, a clear vision of a new and better organization – is duly
noted in the change management literature (Kotter, 1995). Specific to the situation of
organizational transition, a vision contributes to strengthening forces for adaptation in
two ways – improving perceptions of future success and building faith in those
leading the transition. First, according to House and Shamir (1993), a vision is an
ideological goal that describes a better future for followers. It is this expression of a
“better future” that should impact employee perceptions that current conditions in the
organization can improve. Second, statements of high standards and expectations are
important in employees’ determination of whether or not their leaders possess the skills
needed to successfully move the organization into the desired post-transition state.
A leader who conveys specific and challenging standards as part of a broader vision is
assumed to be a more deserving recipient of employee effort than someone who
“doesn’t know what they are looking for” (Bommer et al., 2005).
Shared commitment to a vision can be built either through wide-scale participation
in the act of its creation or through involvement immediately thereafter in its
dissemination. Both approaches strengthen forces that enable adaptation in ways like
renewing trust and breeding confidence that leadership has a plan for realizing new
opportunities. Comprehending the vision should also counter the decreases in sense of
direction, risk taking and innovation that typically accompany major organizational
transitions (Chattopadyhah et al., 2001).
Creating opportunities for public reflection and short-term wins. With a clear and
compelling sense of where the organization is headed, forces for desired change can be
strengthened by building employee confidence that their efforts on the job are
becoming increasingly aligned with that vision. This process of abandoning old

Objective Getting people excited about the desired post-transition organization and support them
in realizing it
Actions Clarifying a vision of a new and better organization Table III.
Creating opportunities for public reflection and short term wins Objective and actions for
Providing people with emotional support energy
JOCM behaviors and developing new approaches to work occurs through trial-and-error
20,5 learning (Bridges, 1991). Trial-and-error is a powerful, yet potentially painful, way to
learn. Fears about the consequences of failure and feelings of powerlessness,
incompetence, disinterest and depression sap vigor from people who have been
through a transition (Vince, 2006).
These negative emotions can be countered and positive sentiments nurtured by
732 developing an environment in which employees can reflect on, experiment with, and be
rewarded for new approaches to achieving personal and organizational success. While
there are varied methods for cultivating a “learning environment” in workplaces, one
approach well suited to conditions of transition is “practical reflexivity” (Cunliffe,
2002) – a practical form of knowledge questioning and exploration about how shared
identities and realities are constructed through organizing. This is a dynamic learning
experience that confronts conventional practices as opposed to an intellectual activity
that seeks to give order to situations.
Adaptation to transition takes time, and risks losing momentum if there is no
feedback to employees about their performance and contributions to the greater
organizational good (Lawler, 1992). Rather than wait for established practices like the
annual performance review, some organizations strengthen forces for adaptation by
adopting short-term reward opportunities and celebrating small wins. Importantly,
they use attainable targets – stretch goals that go unmet only serve to further
disenchant employees in the post-transition organization – and provide frequent
feedback – employees need to be kept informed of progress as well as receive
validation and reassurance that their efforts are on the right track (Reichers et al.,
1997). In addition to feedback on their own performance, employees learn about and
take part in celebrating small wins elsewhere in the post-transition organization.
Employees become more optimistic about the future when they are aware of
successes – and when occasional failures are honestly acknowledged. Otherwise,
many employees are likely to give up or actively join the ranks of those people who are
resisting movement to the desired post-transition organization.
Providing people with emotional support. Adaptation to transition follows a
non-linear path. As people move through the adaptation process, they experience
confusion and conflict as they loosen their grips on the old, experiment with changes,
and cautiously adopt the new, but they also occasionally regress to the comfort of the
status quo. Organizations having leaders who connect with their people in a supportive
manner, accept the backsliding as normal, and provide their people with appropriate
time to move through the adaptation process, should be more likely to rebound from a
difficult transition with an energized work force looking forward to new approaches to
getting work done rather than holding onto the old. With research showing that
managers and supervisors have more impact on shaping employees’ reactions to a
transition than senior executives, this support would be most beneficial coming from
immediate superiors (Larkin and Larkin, 1996). Thus, a component of generating and
sustaining energy is to set expectations with middle managers and lower level
supervisors to be sources of emotional as well as practical support for employees.
Emotional support has been linked with lower levels of appraised stress and higher
levels of self-efficacy which, in turn, are linked with the use of problem-focused coping
strategies and psychological well being (Terry et al., 1996). Employees infer perceived
organizational support from their superior’s actions (Eisenberger et al., 2002).
As a result, employees consider support from their supervisor, and therefore the Framework for
organization, as an indication that employees are cared for and that material aid and facilitating
emotional support are available in the post-transition organization. In turn,
organizations can expect increased effort on the part of their employees which adaptation
strengthens the momentum for desired change and adaptation.

Enforcement 733
The fourth element for facilitating adaptation to transition solidifies perceptions,
expectations, and workplace behaviors that are congruent with the desired
post-transition organization (Table IV). Enforcement brings the momentum for
desired change to the level of consistency required for true cognitive and cultural
change. It complements the emotional base of energy by supporting people on a
practical level in conducting work and, in particular, by linking individual roles and
responsibilities with the post-transition vision and business strategy. And, it aligns the
obvious and subtle components of the organization – systems, procedures, actions,
impressions, innuendos, and so on – to send as clear a message as possible to
strengthen the forces for the desired post-transition organization.
The ease and speed with which survivors adapt to the desired post-transition
organization is directly related to the clarity and consistency of the messages they
receive. Forces against desired change may have been weakened through interventions
that generate empathy and engagement, but they have not been eliminated. It is all too
easy for people and organizations to regress to accustomed routines when confronted
by inconsistent signals regarding life in the post-transition organization. Enforcement
counters this tendency and helps people progress through the adaptation process by
giving them some tangible and practical anchors to latch onto.
Involving people in bringing the post-transition vision to life. Involvement is a basic
component of organizational change management (Burke, 2003), and its role in
weakening forces against adaptation has been discussed. Involvement also can
contribute to strengthening forces for adaptation. Giving employees a voice by soliciting
their input into the design of post-transition changes increases employee acceptance of
and commitment to the post-transition organization by helping them maintain a sense of
control. Pursar and Petranker (2005) note that transformational change occurs when a
critical mass of people can actually “live the vision” in everyday organizational life. This
occurs, however, not by engaging in detached, rational planning in order to avoid
uncertainty, but only after the constricting structures of the old organization have been
unfrozen and people – as well as their time and other resources – are freed up to dream,
think about, and enliven the post-transition organization.
“Living the vision” harnesses employee involvement to build upon senior
leadership’s vision and strategic direction for the post-transition organization.
Working from the organizational vision, managers and supervisors develop business

Objective Solidifying perceptions, expectations, and behaviors that are congruent with
the desired post-transition organization
Actions Involving people in bringing the post-transition vision to life Table IV.
Aligning systems and operating standards with new organizational realities Objective and actions for
Tracking the development of the desired post-transition organization enforcement
JOCM unit or functional mission statements as well as guidelines for employee behavior.
20,5 Then, in work groups, employees translate the vision, mission, and behavior guidelines
into day-to-day operating procedures. This clarifies how employees can align their
work with the vision and provides an answer to the prominent question of how they
can contribute to overall organizational success. Moving back up the hierarchy,
supervisors and managers review proposed new ways of approaching work to ensure
734 they support the mission and vision and to provide coordination across work areas.
With this type of opportunity to participate in generating new ideas via intellectual
stimulation, employees are more empowered and involved in the process of creating
the post-transition organization, more optimistic that desired change is possible, and
more likely to settle into a new equilibrium of true commitment to the organization
(Bommer et al., 2005). And, when employees look ahead and understand how they
contribute to the desired post-transition organization, this is “living the vision” at its
fullest.
Aligning systems and operating standards with post-transition realities. The
congruence among an organization’s elements should influence its effectiveness under
any conditions (Nadler and Tushman, 1988), but is especially critical following a
difficult transition when employees are looking for signs and signals to aid in making
sense of the post-transition organization and their role in it. As Weick (1995) notes, in a
situation like organizational transition in which things appear unstable – that is, an
absence of fixed points, dependable principles, or stable benchmarks – people tend to
make up their own rules. They make sense of the ambiguity and chaos they experience
by deciding for themselves what is real and what is appropriate – based on criteria
such as personal past experience, immediate payoff, expediency, or personal reward.
Alignment should compel people to accept new organizational realities and modify
or abandon old perceptions or expectations based on the criteria for the desired
post-transition organization and not necessarily on the “rules” and other conclusions
individual contributors draw based on their transition experiences. However,
some elements of the organization typically lag behind others as transition unfolds.
A compensation system that punishes team leaders for short-term declines in
productivity when they experiment with new ways of approaching work will not
sustain a CEO’s vision of “innovation.” Boring staff meetings plagued by dysfunctional
group dynamics will not contribute to a desired culture of “teamwork and respect.”
Managers and supervisors who feel their authority is undermined by involving rank
and file employees in determining how to approach work will sabotage efforts like
“living the vision.” So, there is a need to examine the systems, procedures and other
formal and informal components of the organization to determine their alignment with
desired end state.
Tracking the development of the desired post-transition organization. As forces for
accepting the new begin to predominate over forces for holding on to the old, a new
equilibrium will emerge for both the organization and its members. The question is
whether this new equilibrium adequately reflects the desired post-transition
organization. The answer comes from ongoing feedback to track the building of the
post-transition organization and to alert leaders when things are veering off course.
This type of tracking is critical, given that even the most carefully planned and
successfully implemented transitions are characterized by flexibility and significant
mid-course corrections (Marks and Mirvis, 1998). More positively, valid data collected
from within the organization provides an opportunity for leadership to discuss the Framework for
progress of transition as well as the perceived forces that may be enabling or inhibiting facilitating
employee adaptation.
Organizations have used a wide range of methods to track the development of the adaptation
desired new organization. Some are objective (e.g. measures of productivity, quality, and
voluntary turnover); others, like attitude surveys and focus group interviews, have the
added benefits of involving people and enhancing upward and downward communication. 735
This is especially important when the vision of the desired post-transition organization
includes intentions to increase involvement and communication.

Implications for research and practice

The framework presented here guides both research and action in understanding and
facilitating the process of individual adaptation to organizational transition. The basis
of the model – facilitating adaptation by weakening forces for the status quo and
strengthening forces for the new at both the emotional and intellectual levels – has solid
conceptual support through enduring models of organizational change management as
well as anecdotal support through practitioner reports. The four elements of empathy,
engagement, energy, and enforcement – along with their component activities – should
direct empirical inquiry into factors that can facilitate the adaptation process during and
after organizational transitions. However, researchers seeking to study organizational
transitions face some substantial hurdles. To begin, gaining access to organizations
approaching, in the midst of, or recovering from a transition is difficult. And, there are
many methodological dilemmas when studying transitions such as when a merger
“begins” (i.e. does a merger begin when it is planned, when it is announced, or when it
receives legal approval from regulators?) or is “over.” Still, the framework has
applications for generating knowledge regarding how to help people contend with this
era of “continuous discontinuous” change.
The framework for facilitating adaptation to transition presented here underscores
the need for leaders who hope to use transition as a force for organizational renewal –
or, at the very least, to minimize the unintended consequences of transition – to
acknowledge the adaptation process and provide means for facilitating it. One reason
so many organizational transitions fall short of their objectives is that the leaders who
initiate them and the staffers who implement them fail to recognize that people have to
end the old before they can accept the new. In many work places, the legitimacy of the
need for ending the old before moving on to the new may be denied by executives with
the capacity to make resources available to accelerate this natural process. In other
organizations, the adaptation process is understood, but not wholeheartedly embraced.
These employers dismiss allowing people to deal with their feelings as an
inappropriate use of time and other resources. This reasoning ignores the fact that
people will go through the stages of ending the old and accepting the new whether
organizational leaders like it or not. Time and attention get diverted away from work
activities in any event.
Formal efforts in organizations to facilitate the adaptation process should counter
the many undesirable consequences of difficult transitions by focusing people on
looking ahead and weakening their attachments to the “good old days” before the
transition or the “dark days” of the transition itself. In addition to wringing out pent up
emotions and loosening grips on the old, interventions should contribute to building
JOCM optimism for the future and strengthening attention to new ways of thinking and
20,5 acting in the post-transition organization. A formal effort to facilitate adaptation
provides employees with a clear sense of where the post-transition organization is
headed and how individual success can be achieved as that vision is attained. And, it
contributes to a sense of workplace stability in the ever changing business
environment.
736 The pace of change and the intensity of transitions are much more likely to increase
rather than decrease in organizational life. Given the negative impact that poorly
managed mergers, acquisitions, downsizings, and restructurings have had on
organizational effectiveness and employee well being, the need to facilitate the
adaptation process is substantial and, in fact, essential if transitions are truly to be
used by organizational leaders as vehicles for becoming more highly competitive and
responsive to environmental demands.

Note
1. According to Burke (2002), mergers and acquisitions (M&A) along with restructurings and
downsizings are the types of organizational transitions that have received increased
attention during the past few years. Thus, this paper focuses on adaptation following
mergers, acquisitions, downsizings, and restructurings.

References
Bass, B. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. and Rubin, R.S. (2005), “Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal
effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational
change”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 733-53.
Bridges, W. (1991), Managing Transitions, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Brockner, J. (1992), “Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors”, California Management
Review, Vol. 34, pp. 9-28.
Buch, K. and Aldridge, J. (1991), “OD under conditions of organizational decline”, Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 1-5.
Burke, R.J. (2002), “Organizational transitions”, in Cooper, C.L. and Burke, R.J. (Eds), The New
World of Work, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Burke, W.W. (2003), Organization Change, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cameron, K.S., Sutton, R.I. and Whetton, D.A. (1987), Research in Organizational Decline:
Frameworks, Research, and Prescriptions, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Cascio, W.F. (1993), “Downsizing: what do we know? What have we learned?”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 7, pp. 95-104.
Cascio, W.F., Young, C.E. and Morris, J.R. (1997), “Financial consequences of employment-change
decisions in major U.S. corporations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40,
pp. 1175-89.
Chattopadyhah, P., Glick, W.H. and Huber, G.B. (2001), “Organizational actions in response to
threats and opportunities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 937-55.
Ciulla, J.B. (2000), The Working Life, Times Books, New York, NY.
Coch, L. and French, J.R.P. Jr (1948), “Overcoming resistance to change”, Human Relations,
August, pp. 512-32.
Cunliffe, A. (2002), “Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning”, Management Framework for
Learning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 35-61.
facilitating
Dalton, G. (1970), “Influence and organizational change”, in Dalton, G., Lawrence, P. and
Greiner, L. (Eds), Organizational Change and Development, Irwin-Dorsey, Homewood, IL. adaptation
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002),
“Perceived survivor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 565-73. 737
Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1997), “Middle management’s strategic influence and
organizational performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 465-85.
Frederickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 56, pp. 218-26.
Frost, P.J. (2003), Toxic Emotions at Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. and Scheck, C.L. (2002), “Coping with an organizational merger over four
stages”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 905-28.
George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53, pp. 1027-55.
Gioia, D.A. and Thomas, J.B. (1996), “Identity, image and issue interpretation: sensemaking
during strategic change in academia”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41,
pp. 370-403.
Graddick, M.M. and Cairo, P.C. (1998), “Helping people and organizations deal with the impact of
competitive challenge: an AT&T case study”, in Gowing, M.K., Kraft, J.D. and Quick, J.C.
(Eds), The New Organizational Reality: Downsizing, Restructuring and Revitalization,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Greenberg, E.R. (1990), “The latest AMA survey on downsizing”, Compensation & Benefits
Review, Vol. 22, pp. 66-71.
Harkness, A.M.B., Long, B.C., Bermbach, N., Patterson, K., Jordan, S. and Kahn, H. (2005),
“Talking about work stress: discourse analysis and implications for stress interventions”,
Work & Stress, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 121-36.
Hoskisson, R.E. and Hitt, M.A. (1994), Downscoping: How to Tame the Diversified Firm, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
House, R.J. and Shamir, B. (1993), “Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories”, in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and
Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Humphrey, R.H. (2002), “The many faces of emotional leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13,
pp. 493-504.
Huy, Q.N. (2002), “Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the
contribution of middle managers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 31-69.
Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Kellett, J.B., Humphrey, R.H. and Sleeth, R.G. (2006), “Empathy and the emergence of task and
relations leaders”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 146-62.
Kiefer, T. (2005), “Feeling bad: antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing
change”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 875-97.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 2, pp. 59-67.
JOCM Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
20,5
Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J.R. (1993), “Informal networks: the company behind the chart”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, pp. 104-11.
Larkin, T.J. and Larkin, S. (1996), “Reaching and changing frontline employees”, Harvard
Business Review., Vol. 74, pp. 95-104.
738 Lawler, E.E. III (1992), The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High Involvement Organization,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, London.
Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in group dynamics”, Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 5-41.
Marks, M.L. (1995), “The CEO’s mea culpa”, Across the Board, Vol. 26, pp. 36-40.
Marks, M.L. (2003a), Charging Back Up the Hill: Workplace Recovery after Mergers, Acquisitions,
and Downsizings, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Marks, M.L. (2003b), “Revitalization after resizing”, in DeMeuse, K.P. and Marks, M.L. (Eds),
Resizing the Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Marks, M.L. and Baitch, D.J. (2005), “Measuring employee opinions during mergers and
acquisitions”, in Kraut, A.I. (Ed.), Getting Action from Organizational Surveys: New
Concepts, Methods, and Applications, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Marks, M.L. and DeMeuse, K.P. (2003), “The realities of resizing”, in DeMeuse, K.P. and
Marks, M.L. (Eds), Resizing the Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Marks, M.L. and Mirvis, P.H. (1985), “Merger syndrome: stress and uncertainty”, Mergers and
Acquisitions, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 50-5.
Marks, M.L. and Mirvis, P.H. (1998), Joining Forces: Making One Plus One Equal Three in
Mergers, Acquisitions, and Alliances, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Mirvis, P.H. and Marks, M.L. (1986), “Merger syndrome: managing organizational crises”,
Mergers and Acquisitions, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 71-7.
Moos, R.H. (1976), Human Adaptation: Coping with Life Crises, Heath, Lexington, MA.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1988), Strategic Organizational Design, Scott/Foreman,
Glenview, IL.
O’Toole, J. (1995), Leading Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Parker, S.K., Chmiel, N. and Wall, T.D. (1997), “Work characteristics and employee well-being
within a context of strategic downsizing”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 2, pp. 289-303.
Parkes, C.M. (1971), “Psycho-social transitions”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 101-15.
Pascale, R., Millemann, M. and Goija, L. (1997), “Changing the way we change”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 75, pp. 126-39.
Pederit, S.K. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional
view of attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 25, pp. 783-95.
Pursar, R.E. and Petranker, J. (2005), “Unfreezing the future: exploring the dynamic of time in
organizational change”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 41, pp. 182-203.
Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P. and Austin, J.T. (1997), “Understanding and managing cynicism
about organizational change”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 48-59.
Ross, J. and Staw, B.M. (1993), “Organizational escalation and exit: lessons from the Shoreham Framework for
nuclear power plant”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 701-32.
Rousseau, D.M. (1996), “Changing the deal while keeping the people”, Academy of Management
facilitating
Executive, Vol. 10, pp. 50-61. adaptation
Sagie, A. and Koslowski, M. (1994), “Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of
participation in strategic and tactical change decisions: an application of path-goal
theory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 37-47. 739
Schlossberg, N.K. (1981), “A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition”, The
Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 2-18.
Schweiger, D.M. and DeNisi, A.A. (1991), “Communication with employees following a merger:
a longitudinal field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 110-35.
Stahl, G.K. and Mendenhall, M.E. (2005), Mergers and Acquisitions: Managing Culture and
Human Resources, Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA.
Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E. and Dutton, J.E. (1992), “Threat-rigidity effects in organizational
behavior: a multi-level analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 501-24.
Tannenbaum, R. and Hanna, R.W. (1985), “Holding on, letting go, and moving on: understanding
a neglected perspective on change”, in Tannenbaum, R., Margulies, N. and Massarik, F.
(Eds), Human Systems Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 95-121.
Terry, D.J., Callan, V.J. and Sartori, G. (1996), “Employees’ adjustment to an organizational
merger: stress, coping and intergroup differences”, Stress Medicine, Vol. 12, pp. 105-22.
Urch Druskat, V. and Wolff, S.B. (2001), “Building the emotional intelligence of groups”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 80-90.
Vince, R. (2006), “Being taken over: managers’ emotions and rationalizations during a company
takeover”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 343-65.
Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), “Organization change and development”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 361-86.
Zimbardo, P.G. and Leippe, M.R. (1991), The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Mitchell Lee Marks can be contacted at: marks@sfsu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints