Resistance to Change" Please respond to the following:Read the article titled “The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process”. Next, analyze th

Business and Economics Research Journal Volume 5 Number 4 2014 pp. 143-166 ISSN: 1309-2448 www.berjournal.com The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Nee Saruhan a a PhD., Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkiye, nes [email protected] Abstract: Today, researchers have been exploring employee’s resistance to change and how to foresee these aversive behaviors during organizatio nal change process (Armenakis & Harris, 2002, Dent & Goldberg, 1999, Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011). Some empl oyees view organizational change in a negative way even if change efforts will results in favorabl e consequences for them. At this point, communication process has a crucial effect on the p erception of employees towards change process. In addition, several studies confirm the role of perce ived justice in the organization during organizatio nal change. So, the effects of communication and percep tion of justice on behaviors of employees during change process and the contribution of communicatio n on resistance to change through perception of organizational justice was explored. The research w as conducted among 583 employees in Turkey. The results of the regression analysis showed that perc eption of organizational justice plays a mediating role between communication to resistance and change . Keywords : Change, resistance to change, perception of justi ce, communication.

JEL Classification : M10, M12 1. Introduction Global competition, new age information technologie s, global economic crises, new political strategies and rapidly evolving consumpti on trends are stimulants for organizational change. Organizations must implement continuous a nd transformational change to remain competitive (Cohen, 1999). For instance, Forbes pub lished its first Top 100 Companies list in 1917. It re-printed it in 1987, showing that 61 of the original 100 companies has no longer existed (Foster & Kaplan, 2001). This shows that in today’s dynamic world, organizations must change or go out of business. So, organizational change has become a very popular subject for scholars and researchers. Organizations have been spending huge amounts of money, time and human capital to be successful in their change efforts. H owever, Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990) noted that change programs often failed or made sit uations worse. Such results have led researchers and practitioners to search how organiz ations can successfully accomplish change processes. The reasons for failure in the ch ange process were found as technological difficulties and lack of money, but most importantl y, human related problems (Lawrence, 1954 cited in Foster, 2008). The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 144 There are several studies that have attempted to un derstand and predict employee’s behaviors towards organizational change process (Mo rgan & Zeffane, 2003; Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011; Dent & Goldberg, 1999). So, scholars investig ated the factors that affect employee’s attitudes toward new working conditions. For instan ce, Chawla & Kelloway (2004) examined participation of employees during change process, C obb, Foleger & Wooten, (1995) focused their research on employee’s perception of justice, Mayer & Davis, (1999) indicated the importance of supervisor/organizational trust and e ngagement during change process and Armenakis & Harris, (2002) mentioned the inevitable role of effective communication during organizational change. These research results indic ated that many change efforts fail due to underestimating the importance of understanding and predicting employee reactions during organizational change process.

So, this research examined employees’ reactions to change in the light of Oreg’s theoretical framework of dispositional resistance t o change. Oreg stated that people show different responses to change implementations. For example, During change process, employees may respond to organizational change effo rts differently. Employees with positive attitudes towards the change effort will usually su pport its implementation because they feel it will result in, for example, an optimal amount o f task variety, a new position, better working conditions, a new promotion structure, etc. On the other side, some employees view organizational change in a negative way due to unfavorable consequences of the change efforts due to a great deal of uncertainty and stre ss of major change processes. As Palmer (2004) stated, employees should be consid ered the cornerstones of any kind of organizational change because employee resistanc e is one of the biggest problems to contend with. So, scholars determined several diffe rent variables as the main antecedents of the change reaction. These are uncertainty and fear of poor outcome, participation, personality factors, leadership styles, communicati on problems, perception of justice, and lack of trust in organization.

In this study, effective communication and percepti on of organizational justice were selected for main antecedents of employee negative behaviors towards organizational change.

The first dimension in this research is perception of organizational justice. During the change process, it is common to reallocate organiza tional resources, and how resources are distributed affects the perception of organizationa l justice in the workplace. Several studies confirm the role of perceived justice in the organi zation during organizational change. Cobb, Folger and Wooten (1995) found that positive percep tion of justice during the change process resulted in organizational commitment, trust and wi llingness to accept change. Other findings indicated that the amount of information shared by employees, participation in decision making contributed to employee perception of organi zational justice (Kilbourne, O’Leary- Kelly &Williams, 1996). So, Communication is considered as a second resear ch variable which also plays an important role during the change process. Communica tion is the means by which organizations compete and survive in the global eco nomy, especially as business environments become more complex. Thus, understandi ng effective communication is an indispensable goal for all organizations (Spillan, Mino & Rowles, 2002). In addition to the significant role of communication in day-to-day pro cesses, several researchers have explored the crucial function of effective communication dur ing the change process specifically. N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 145 Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) and Wanberg and Banas (2000) stated that accurate communication about change process enhance s management credibility and employee reaction to change. Communication also pro vides information on how change process will take place and its consequences, which will increase sense of perception of justice during change process. As it was indicated by Chawla (1999), providing accurate information during change process results in positi ve perceptions of justice, which in turn can decrease resistance to change. These findings indicated that both effective commun ication and perception of justice have positive effects on decreasing employees’ aver sive reaction to organizational change.

However, it is predicted that communication does no t always decrease employee resistance to organization change. So, effective communication would create positive attitudes toward change process through first enhancing employee’s p erception of justice.

This research investigated the factors affecting in dividual response to organizational change. The findings, then, may contribute to bette r understanding how organizational change process could be more successful. Specifical ly, the contribution of communication on resistance to change through perception of justice is an important finding of this study.

2. Literature Review 2.1. Organizational Change Today, organizations have to adopt themselves new e conomic, social and political conditions in order to stay in the business. Connor and Lake (1994) observed that diversity, globalization, change in customer needs, economic c onditions and information technology are the main environmental factors that lead a chan ge.

Since change is inevitable for companies in order t o survive and develop new opportunities in such a competitive business enviro nment, organizations have to understand and predict employee’s attitudes and behaviors towa rds organizational change process.

However, it was not easy to foresee employees’ reac tions and find ways to overcome resistance to change. As it was indicated by Walsh and Charalambides (199 0, cited in Erim, 2009), employees perceive their business environment through their s chemas, which help understand and interpret external events. The development of a sch ema is based on a person’s experiences and beliefs; thus, some people have positive attitu des towards new experiences and consider them as opportunities to improve themselves. Others have negative attitudes towards new ideas and situations and generally resist change ef forts. To determine what shapes a positive attitude towards change and to avoid developing neg ative attitudes, resistance to change is reviewed in detail. 2.2. Resistance to Organizational Change Due to huge money and time invested in organization al change, how individuals respond to changes has become a topic of interest i n the organizational studies literature (Bovey & Hede, 2001; Morgan & Zeffane, 2003; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011; Foster, 2010). Several studies attempt to exp lain why change efforts in technology, production methods, management practices and compen sation systems have fallen short of expectations or resulted in failure (Oreg, 2006). The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 146 Oreg et al. (2008) stated that change affects every aspect of our lives. However, people’s responses to change are quite different. I t can be observed that there are several people that accept the change process and actively participate change activities while other people prefer to avoid from change practices if pos sible and resist them otherwise. Oreg (2003) developed resistance-to-change (RTC) scale i n order to explain individual differences in people’s attitudes towards change. This scale c omposed of four factors: a) routine seeking, b) emotional reaction to imposed change, c) short-t erm focus and d) cognitive rigidity. a) Routine seeking: the change will be viewed either as an interruption to routines or as an opportunity to increase stimulation. When indivi duals encounter new stimuli, familiar responses may be incompatible with the situation, w hich may produce stress. This stress then becomes associated with the new stimulus (Oreg, 200 3). b) Emotional reaction: This states the amount of stress and uneasiness an individual e xperiences when confronted with change.

For example, when employees perceive that change wi ll reduce the control they have over their lives, they will feel stressed and will more likely resist organizational changes. c) Short- term focus: Because the initial aspects of change often invol ve more work and exerting more energy than spent for maintaining the status quo, s ome employees resist change (Kanter, 1985), even though they may support the particular change in principle (Oreg, 2003). d) Cognitive rigidity: Several researchers examined the cognitive processe s underlying people’s response to organizational change (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Lau & Woodman, 1995) and determined that the way employees process informati on about change determine how they react to it. Someone that is rigid and closed-minde d might be less willing and unable to adjust to new situations. After discussing theoretical foundation of resistan ce to change, it would be beneficial to examine two main antecedents of resistance in or der to attain entire picture about employees’ reaction towards organizational change.

2.3. Perception of Organizational Justice The earlier theories of justice perception, which n oted the key role of perceived fairness in life, were developed mainly for general society rather than organizations. Until the early 1970s, perceived fairness was discussed only in the social science literature (Greenberg, 1987). Several researchers then noted that percepti ons of justice within an organization are fundamental for understanding employee behaviors. The basic premise behind the theories on the percep tion of justice in the organizations is that fair treatment is important to people and i s a major determinant in their reactions to decisions. Greenberg (1990, p. 399) noted that the “social scientist has long recognized the importance of the ideals of justice as basic requir ements for the effective functioning of organizations and the social satisfaction of indivi duals they employ”. In addition, Fryxell and Gordon (1989) found justice to be a fundamental iss ue in the relationship between the employees and management.

In addition to theoretical findings, several empiri cal studies point out the importance of fairness perception in organization. According t o Konovsky and Folger (1991), when employees believe that their organizations are fair , they are more likely to adjust to change efforts. Deutsch found that an organization’s effec tiveness is increased when resources are fairly distributed instead of focusing on the inter ests of an individual or group (Deutsch, 1985). Human resource managers have also recognized the importance of the relationship between organizational justice and organizational e ffectiveness (Tang & Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996). N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 147 Because justice perception in an organization plays a critical role on the firm’s effectiveness and sustainability, it is important t o understand the construct of justice in detail and its relationship to organizational change proce ss. 2.3.1. Distributive Justice The concept of distributive justice developed in th e 1960s and 1970s. Initially, Homans (1961 cited in Colquitt et.al., 2001) proposed his fairness theory, which depends on social exchange theory. From an organizational point of vi ew, distributive justice is present when employees perceive that compensation, rewards and r esponsibilities are allocated consistently and fairly. In other words, distributi ve justice refers to fairness in the firm’s distribution of rewards such as salary, benefits, p romotions, etc. Issues of distributive justice arise when something valuable is scarce, when not e veryone can have what he/she deserves (Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005); distributive justice occurs when individuals do not get the rewards that they expected in comparison with the r ewards others received, such as new tasks, new responsibilities, power, rewards and/or promotions (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).

2.3.2. Procedural Justice Procedural justice refers to fairness in organizati on policies and procedures while distributing resources. The concept of procedural j ustice developed between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s. Thibaut and Walker (1975) are re garded as pioneers of the concept. They indicated that if procedures were followed during t he distribution of outcomes, people perceived the outcomes fair and acceptable. Similar ly, scholars of organizational studies found that employees not only cared about the outco mes of decisions, but also about the procedures used while making the decisions (Korsgaa rd, Schweiger & Sapienza, 1995).

Leventhal, Karuza and Fry (1980) extended the notio n of procedural justice into organizational settings. They found that individual s used several procedural dimensions to assess the fairness of resource distribution proced ures.

2.3.3. Interactional Justice Interactional justice refers to the fairness and qu ality of treatment people receive when procedures are implemented. In the mid-1980s, Bies and Moag (1986) modified the overall fairness perceptions. They began to focus n ot only on outcomes and process control during resources distribution but also on how peopl e were treated during the process. They referred to these aspects of justice as ‘interactio nal justice’. Today, interactional justice consists of two distinctive constructs. Interperson al Justice refers to the social interaction between an individual and others in the workplace, such as colleagues, supervisors and subordinates. It focuses on perceived fairness in i nterpersonal relationships. Interactional justice is characterized by the politeness, dignity and respect shown by authorities or the third party involved in executing procedures or det ermining outcomes. Informational Justice focuses on explanations about why procedures were u sed in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion (Colquitt et al., 2001); it is based on the quality and quantity of relevant information. Since organizational change corresponds with adapta tion and exploration, the perception of justice in the organization can have a significant effect on employee reaction to desired behaviors. In other words, change efforts u sually involve reallocation of resources, which fundamentally affect perceptions of how fair the change effort is. For example, Tyler The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 148 and Lind (1992) note that when employees feel they are being treated fairly, they will accept changes and sometimes comply voluntarily with unfav orable decisions. Thus, if employees perceive fairness during resource allocation, they will exhibit more positive behaviors, such as trust, organizational commitment and a willingness to accept change. So, it was claimed that employees’ perception of fairness will negatively r elated to employee’s unfavorable reactions to change H1: Perception of organizational justice will negat ively related to employee’s resistance to change.

2.4. Communication Organizations have had to deal with more frequent o rganizational change due to advancements in technology, global economic conditi ons and severe competition. At this point, communication plays a strategic role in impl ementation of the change process as well as in organizational continuity. Management must re cognize that communication is a strategic issue for the organization and should int egrate communication into overall company strategies. Similarly, Raina (2010) noted that comm unication is the process that plays the most central role in a firm’s success or failure. Many studies show that information may be interpret ed differently depending on the medium with which it is delivered (Nelson et al. 20 07). Therefore, choosing the appropriate medium or channel (informal or formal) is very impo rtant. For instance, informal communication channels (social gatherings, small gr oup networks and the grapevine) are not established by management and do not follow a chain of authority. They are relatively less structured and more spontaneous than formal channel s. Informal channels are fast, effective means of transmitting information and usually relia ble (Fisher, 1993). On the other side, formal communication channels (f ace-to-face communication, memorandum, newsletters, booklets, annual reports) are established by the organization and transmit messages about the firm’s professional act ivities. Formal channels follow an organization’s authority chain and are divided into two categories: vertical communication and horizontal (lateral) communication.

2.4.1. Vertical Communication Flows in Two Directio ns Downward: Communication flows from one level of a group to a lower level, for example, from managers to their employees. Managers identify processes of instruction, give feedback on sustainability and emphasize organizati onal procedures (Katz and Kahn, 1966).

Then they communicate with employees to assign task s and goals, explain company policies and strategies, discuss employee behavior and give performance feedback performance.

Downward communication helps employees understand t heir responsibilities and how the firm can assist to improve their performance. Chann els of downward communication are face-to-face contact, email, memos and letters or c ompany newsletters. Upward: Communication also flows from lower to higher level s. Employees communicate with managers about progress reports, s uggestions for improvement, proposals of innovation, (Daft, Lengel & Trevino, 1 987), problems with their job, customers or market conditions, and/or new technologies. Above m entioned messages can be generalized as information about employees themselves, informat ion about their problems, information about organizational practices and policies and inf ormation about what needs to be done (Katz and Kahn, 1966). N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 149 2.4.2. Horizontal Communication Horizontal communication occurs among members of th e same group. Andrews and Herschel (1996) defined it as passing messages betw een individuals on the same organizational level. Horizontal communication occu rs during staff meetings, information presentation and at shift changes (Spillan et al., 2002). Horizontal communication is used to keep personnel informed of current practices, polic ies and procedures (Spillan et al. 2002). As it was indicated that effective communication pl ays an indispensable role within the organizations to develop positive working condition s and improve employee efficiency. Many empirical researchers have indicated the positive e ffects of effective communication on perception of justice in the organization. For exa mple, Kilbourne et al. (1996) claimed that a) the amount of information shared by the organizatio n, b) the degree of employee participation and c) employee sense of the need for change are the key elements of perception of fairness in the workplace. In additio n, they indicated that the amount of information shared by employees will contribute to employee perception of organizational justice. So, it can be concluded that effective co mmunication will improve perception of justice within the organization H2: Effective communication will positively related to perception of justice. Poor communication is regarded as one of the main a ntecedents of resistance to change. Several studies have indicated the importan ce of effective communication in general, and especially during the change process (Miller et al., 1994; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Rogers, 2003). Ineffective communication results due to pro viding inadequate information about the change and using inappropriate communication channe ls. Nelson et al. (2007) note that if employees consider the information received inadequ ate and irrelevant, they will likely feel suspicious about the change effort and react negati vely. So, it was claimed that effective communication will negatively related to employee’s unfavorable reactions to change H3: Effective communication during change process w ill negatively related to employee’s resistance to change.

2.5. Communication, Perception of Justice and Organ izational Change As indicated in Friedman’s (2005) book, cutthroat c ompetition and easy access to information on a global scale have created a world that is “flat”. In flat-world competition, competitive advantage can no longer be attained onl y by new technological developments and overcoming market entry barriers. Change manage ment in the organizations has become the key issue in dealing with severe competition. As the value and impact of change management on organizational performance have incre ased, organizational studies have begun to focus on the factors affecting the success rate of change initiatives. Organizational change initiatives are relatively high in risk beca use they usually require a radical shift in the norms of the organization. Employees usually show u nfavorable behaviors towards organizational change efforts due to uncertainties during this process. At this point, perception of fair treatment among employees and ef fective communication can be considered as very important aspects to diminish em ployees’ negative attitudes toward change process. The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 150 Theories on organizational justice indicate that fa ir treatment is central to people’s relationships and is a major determinant in their r eactions to third-party decisions. It was indicated that perceptions fairness in the organiza tion will fundamentally affect by distribution of power, prestige, authority, respons ibility, technology and financial resources. In line with theories, many researchers pointed out that perception of justice within an organization is fundamental for understanding emplo yee behaviors. For instance, several empirical studies have found a strong relationship between perception of justice and attitudes towards change practices. If distribution of resources is perceived to be fair, employees will behave more favorable and open to ch anges in the organization (Tyler and Lind, 1992; Daly and Geyer, 1994; Cobb, Folger and Wooten, 1995).

Similarly, the communication process is considered as a very crucial aspect in order to achieve successful results in organizational change . Cooperation and inter-personal relationships occur much more easily with good comm unication and appropriate social interaction (Bovee, Thill & Schatzman, 2003). Then, these aspects will assist to reduce anxiety and uncertainty about the results of change impleme ntations. There are several researches indicating positive relationship between communicat ion and employee support for change effort (Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Milliken, 1987; Mill er & Monge, 1985). However, effective communication is not always enou gh to decrease negative attitudes of employees towards organizational change process. To be successful with change efforts, the communication should enhance employees’ percept ion of justice within the organization.

For instance, several empirical studies have emphas ized the importance of effective communication on justice perception. Daly and Geyer (1994) found that the positive effects of communication on acceptance of change and turnov er intention are mediated by the perception of fairness. Chawla (1999) indicated tha t providing accurate information during change process results in positive perceptions of j ustice, which in turn can decrease resistance to change. So, accurate communication di sseminated through memos, notice boards, open-door policies and information meetings improve employees’ perception of justice within organization. Then, perception of ju stice within organization will establish trustworthiness towards management that creates les s resistance to organizational change process. So, it is hypothesized that communication within the organization will contribute to a decrease in resistance to change through enhancin g employees’ perception of justice within organization Perception of Organizational Justice Resistance to Change Communication H1 H2 H3 H4 H4 Figure 1. Research Model N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 151 H4: The relationship between communication and resi stance to change is mediated by perception of justice. As a summary of the theoretical framework, the stud y model is shown in figure 1. 3. Method 3.1. Sample This research was conducted among 583 employees in Turkey. Convenience sampling was used for this study. 58,8 % (N=343) of the part icipants were male and 41,2% (N=240) were female. In terms of their educational backgrou nd, 34,5 % of the participants were elementary and high school graduates, 54% had a bac helor’s degree, 11,5% had a master’s degree / a PhD degree. 26,6% of the participants ha d tenure less than 5 years, 51,3 % had 5- 15 years of tenure and 22,1 % had more than 15 yea rs of tenure. In addition, 49,6 % of the participants had less than 3 years of tenure at t heir present job, 41,7 % had a 3-10 years of tenure at their present job, 8,7% had above 10 year s of tenure at their present job. Only 25% of the participants had managerial position. The pa rticipants were working full time in private and public sectors including retail & electronic re tail sector (21,8%), educational sector (16,6 %), food sector (7%), information technologies sect or (6%), medical sector (4,6) etc. The distribution of the sample is presented in table 6. 3.2. Instrument 3.2.1. Resistance to change (RTC) Resistance to change was measured by Oreg’s (2003) 17 items RTC (resistance to change) scale. 16 items of this instrument were use d in this research. RTC scale was translated from English to Turkish by the researche r. Then four bilingual experts reexamined the scale for semantic and syntactic equivalence. A lso, the items were reviewed by the academicians in Organizational Behavior field. Samp le items from the instrument are “I generally consider changes to be a negative thing”, “When I am informed of a change of plans, I tense up a bit”, “Changing plans seems lik e a real hassle to me”. Oreg (2003) found the Cronbach alpha value of the instrument as 0.92. 3.2.2. Communication Communication was assessed by an instrument develo ped by Postmes, Tanis, and De Wit (2001). This instrument has two factors. These factors are a) vertical communication b) horizontal communication. The first translation of the scale from English to Turkish was made by Melikoğlu (2009). Then the researcher overviewed the translation and four bilingual experts reexamined the scale for semantic and synta ctic equivalence. Sample items are “There are sufficient opportunities within the orga nization to critically reflect on managerial policies, or to give suggestions for improvement.” “Management of this organization pays attention to employees’ suggestions.” Postmes, Tani s, De Wit (2001) found the Cronbach alpha value of vertical communication scale as 0.90 and the Cronbach alpha value of horizontal communication scale as 0.78. Also, Melik oğlu (2009) found the Cronbach alpha value of vertical communication scale as 0.95 and h orizontal communication as 0.85. The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 152 3.2.3. Perception of Organizational Justice Justice perception was measured by Colquitt’s (200 1) justice perception instrument.

The first translation of the instrument from Englis h to Turkish was made by Karabay (2004). Then four bilingual experts reexamined the items in order to correct semantic and syntactic equivalence.

Justice perception instrument has three factors. Th ese factors were a) procedural justice b) distributive justice c) interactional ju stice (interpersonal/ informational). Sample items are “My manager explains the procedures thoro ughly”, “My outcomes reflect the effort I put into my work”, “The procedures are based on a ccurate information”. Colquitt and Shaw (2005) found the Cronbach alpha value of distributi ve justice as 0.92, procedural justice as 0.83, interpersonal justice as 0.92 and iteractiona l justice as 0.88. The respondents evaluated the items of all scales o n a 6 point scale. These scales illustrate 1= Never, 2= Scarcely, 3= Rarely, 4= Som etimes, 5= Most of the time, 6= Always 3.3. Analysis and Results 3.3.1. Factor and Reliability Analysis of “Resistan ce to Change” Instrument Factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation in order to determine the factors of “Resistance to change” variable. As a result of the analysis, “Resistance to change” items were collected under two factors. These factors exp lain 69,981 % of total variance. Item 15 was deleted since its factor loading was less than 0.50. Items 12, 7, 2 were discarded since they were loaded on more than one factor. After rel iability analysis, items 6, 9, 14, 16 were discarded due to their low reliability scores.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin KMO value was found as 0.871 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a significant result with a p=.0 00. The seven items loaded on two factors which account for 69,981 % of the total variance. A ccording to the nature of items, these two factors were named as “routine seeking” and “emotio nal reactions”. Moreover, the Cronbach Alpha values of each factor were determined as 0.84 1 and 0.836 respectively. The table presents details of factor analysis for “resistance to change” presented in appendix1. 3.3.2. Factor and Reliability Analysis of “Communica tion” Instrument Factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation in order to determine the factors of “communication” variable. The factor analysis fo r “communication” revealed a three- factor structure. These factors explain 73,486 % of total variance. Item 7, 12, 15 were discarded since they were loaded on more than one f actor. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim KMO value was found as 0.904 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a significant result with a p=.0 00. The twelve items loaded under three factors which account for 73,486 % of the total var iance. According to the nature of items, these three factors were named as “Vertical Communi cation- Contribution” having five items, “Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” havin g four items and “Horizontal Communication” having three items. Moreover, the Cr onbach Alpha values of each factor was determined as 0.888 , 0.895 and 0.823 respectiv ely. The table presents the details of factor analysis for “communication” presented in ap pendix 1. N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 153 3.3.3. Factor and Reliability Analysis of “Perceptio n of Organizational Justice” Instrument Factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation in order to determine the factors of “Perception of Organizational Justice” instrumen t. The factor analysis for “Perception of Organizational Justice” revealed a four- factor str ucture. These factors explain 72,887 % of total variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim KMO value wa s found as .940 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a significant result with a p =.000. The twelve items loaded under four factors which account for 72,877 % of the total var iance. According to the nature of the items, these four factors were named as “Interactio nal Justice” having nine items, “Distributive Justice” having four items, “Procedur al Justice- application” having four items and “Procedural Justice- participation” having thre e items. Moreover, the Cronbach Alpha values of each factor were determined as 0.947, 0.8 97, 0.882 and 0.779 respectively. The table3 presents details of factor analysis for “Per ception of Organizational Justice” analysis presented in appendix 1.

3.3.4. Means, Standard Deviation, Correlations The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the factor variables (Routine Seeking, Emotional Reaction, Vertical Communication - information sharing, Vertical Communication- contribution, Horizontal communicati on, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice- participation, Procedural Justice- applica tion, Interactional Justice) were analyzed. Table 4 presents the means, standard deviation and the correlation among the research variables. The correlation between the fac tors of resistance to change and other variables was very low and in a negative direction. “Vertical Communication- contribution” and “Procedural Justice – application” were correla ted highly and significantly (r= 0.555, p<0,01), and “Horizontal Communication” and “Distri butive Justice” were correlated highly and significantly (r= 0.504, p<0,01). In addition, there was a high correlation between “Vertical Communication- contribution” and “Interac tional Justice” (r=0.624, p<0,01).

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations of Factor Variables *Correlation is significant at 0,05 **Correlation is significant at 0,01 Means Standard Deviation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (1)Routine seeking 2,10 0,94 1 (2) Emotional reaction 3,02 1,15 ,431** 1 (3)Information sharing 4,48 1,00 -.137** ,019 1 (4)Contribution 4,11 1,05 -.041 -.027 ,670** 1 (5) Horizontal Comm. 4,91 0,98 -.228** -.052 .505** ,418** 1 (6) Distributive Justice 4,18 1,15 -.064 -,077 .411** .504** ,374** 1 (7) Application 4,27 1,02 -.192** -,067 .542** .555** .453** ,588** 1 (8) Participation 3,77 1,24 -,192** -,092* ,348** ,446** ,292** ,386** ,570** 1 (9)Interactional Jus. 4,82 0,97 -.226** -,101* ,624** ,559** ,536** ,561** ,627** ,390** 1 The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 154 3.4 . Test of the Hypothesis In this study, regression models are used to examin e the relationship among communication, perception of justice and resistance to change. At first step, effect of communication on perception of justice was investig ated. At second step, the effects of communication and perception of justice on resistan ce to change were investigated independently from each other. The regression model of first analysis examined the effect of communication on perception of justice and this model is statistical ly significant ( F=709,142; p=0,000). At this model, “Communication” was regressed on “Perception of Justice”. The regression analysis revealed that “Communication” had a significant con tribution on the prediction of “Perception of Justice” (β=,741, p=.000). This res ult showed that Hypothesis 2 was supported.

The results of second step analysis showed that bot h regression models are statistically significant (communication, F=6,128, p=,014; percep tion of justice, F=23,165, p= ,000). The two regression analyses on second step were conduct ed independently between “Communication” and “Resistance to Change” and betw een “Perception of Justice” and “Resistance to Change”. The regression analysis rev ealed that “Communication” had a significant contribution on the prediction of “Resi stance to Change” (β=-,102, p=,014). This result showed that Hypothesis 3 was supported. In addition, The regression analysis revealed that “Perception of Justice” had a significant cont ribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Change” (β=-,151, p=,000). This result showed that Hypothesis 1 was supported.

In order to test mediating role of perception of ju stice between communication and resistance to change, Baron & Kenny’s (1986) method was used. Baron & Kenny (1986) mentioned three regression equations to test the li nkages of the mediational model; to establish mediation, the following conditions must hold: Firstly, the independent variable is regressed on the mediator and as a result independe nt variable must affect the mediator in the first equation. Secondly, independent variable is regressed on the dependent variable Table 2. Regression Analysis Results of step 1 Β t F R Adj R² Sig. 709, 142 0,741 0,549 Independent Variable: Communication 0,741 26,630 0,000 Dependent Variable: Perception of Justice Table 3. Regression Analysis Results of step2 Β t F R Adj R² Sig. 6,128 0.102 0.009 Independent Variable: Communication -0.102 -2.476 ,014 Independent Variable: Perception of Justice -,151 -4,813 23,165 ,196 ,037 ,000 Dependent Variable : Resistance to change N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 155 and as a result independent variable must affect th e dependent variable in the second equation. Thirdly, the mediator and the independent variable are regressed together on the dependent variable. If there is a perfect mediation , the mediator must affect the dependent variable alone in the third equation. If both conti nues to affect the dependent variable but the effect of independent variable on dependent var iable is diminished, we can say there is a partial mediation.

According to explanation of Baron& Kenny (1986), th e effect of mediator (perception of justice) and the independent variable (communica tion) are regressed together on the dependent variable (resistance to change). “Communi cation” and “Perception of Justice” were entered as independent variables to examine th eir contribution on the dependent variable (Resistance to Change). The result of regr ession analysis is presented in table 7.

The result showed that regression model is statisti cally significant (F=12,856, p=0,000).This regression results indicated that onl y “Perception of Justice”, which was the mediating variable, had a significant effect on “Re sistance to Change” (β= -,267, p= ,000) while the significant contribution of “Communicatio n” on “Resistance to Change” in second regression disappeared during multiple regression ( β=-,096 , p= ,115). This result showed that “Perception of Justice” fully mediated the effect o f “Communication” on “Resistance to Change”. Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Testing mediating role of Perception of Justice bet ween communication and resistance to change with other factor variables showed that o nly three of them showed positive results. This mediation analysis has been shown be low.

3.4.1. The Mediating Role of Procedural Justice– Pa rticipation between “Communication-Informational Sharing” and “Resistance to Change– Routine Seeking” “Communication-informational sharing” is the indepe ndent variable, “Perception of Justice factor (procedural Justice- participation) is the mediator and “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” is the dependent variable. In the first regression analysis, “Communication-in formational sharing” was regressed on Perception of Justice factor (procedur al Justice- participation). The regression analysis revealed that “Communication-in formational sharing” had a significant contribution on the prediction of on “p rocedural justice- participation” (β=.348, p=,000). Table 4. The Mediating role of “Perception of Justice” betwe en “Communication” and “Resistance to Change” B t F R Adj R² Sig.

12, 856 0,206 0,039 0,000 Independent Variable: Communication 0,096 1,557 0,115 Mediating Variable: : Perception of Justice -0,267 -4,403 0,000 Dependent Variable: Resistance to change The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 156 The second regression analysis was conducted betwee n “Communication- informational sharing” and “Resistance to Change- r outine seeing”. The regression analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Ch ange- routine seeking” (β=-3.323, p=,001). The third regression analysis was conducted for the mediating variable analysis.

Perception of Justice factor (procedural justice- p articipation) and “Communication- informational sharing” were entered as independent variables to examine their contribution on the dependent variable (Resistance to Change- routine seeking). The results showed that “Procedural Justice- partic ipation” which was the mediating variables, had a significant effects on “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-.164, p=,000) while the significant contribution of “Comm unication-informational sharing” on “ Resistance to change” in second regression did dis appeared during multiple regression (β=- .080, p=,367).

This result showed that Perception of Justice facto r (procedural justice – participation)” fully mediated the contribution of “vertical commun ication-information sharing” to “resistance to change- routine seeking”. The result s of regression analysis are presented in table 5.

3.4.2. The Mediating Role of “Perception of Procedur al Justice-Application” between “Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” and “Res istance to Change– Routine Seeking” “Communication-informational sharing” is the indepe ndent variable, “Perception of Justice factors (procedural justice- application)” is the mediator and “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” is the dependent variable. Table 5. The Mediating role of “Perception of Procedural Just ice-participation” between “Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” and “ Resistance to Change- routine seeking” Β t F R Adj R² Sig Analysis I 79,877 0.348 0.119 Independent Variable: Ver. Comm. Information Sharing 0,348 8,937 0.000 Dependent Variable: Perception of Justice participation Analysis II 11,041 0.137 0.017 Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing -3.323 -137 0.001 Dependent Variable : Resistance to change- routine seeking Analysis III 12.973 0.206 0.039 0.000 Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing -0.080 - 1,837 0.367 Mediating Variable: : Perception of Justice- participation - 0,164 -3,781 0.000 Dependent Variable: Resistance to change- routine seeking N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 157 In the first regression analysis, “Communication-in formational sharing” was regressed on Perception of Justice factors (procedu ral justice – application). The regression analysis revealed that “Communication-in formational sharing” had a significant contribution on the prediction of on Pr ocedural justice- application (β=.542, p=,000). The second regression analysis was conducted betwee n “Communication- informational sharing” and “Resistance to Change- r outine seeing”. The regression analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Ch ange- routine seeking” (β=-3.323, p=,001). The third regression analysis was conducted for th e mediating variable analysis.

“Procedural justice - application” and “Communicati on-informational sharing” were entered as independent variables to examine their c ontribution on the dependent variable (Resistance to Change- routine seeking). The results showed that “Procedural justice - appli cation”, which was the mediating variables, had a significant effects on “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” (β=-.166, p=,001))” while the significant contribution of “C ommunication-informational sharing” on “ Resistance to change” in second regression did dis appeared during multiple regression (β=- .046, p=340). This result showed that “Perception of Justice fact ors (procedural justice - application)” fully mediated the contribution of “vertical commun ication-information sharing” to “resistance to change- routine seeking”. The result s of regression analysis are presented in table 6. Table 6. The Mediating role of “Perception of Procedural Jus tice-application” between “Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” and “ Resistance to Change- routine seeking” Β t F R Adj R² p Analysis I 241,802 0.542 0.293 Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing 0,542 15,550 0.000 Dependent Variable: Perception of Justice- application Analysis II 11,041 0.137 0.017 Independent Variable:

Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing -3.323 -137 0.001 Dependent Variable : Resistance to change - routine seeking Analysis III 11.523 0.195 0.035 0.000 Independent Variable:

Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing -0.046 -0,956 0.340 Mediating Variable: : Perception of Justice-application -0,166 -3,435 0.001 Dependent Variable: Resistance to change- routine seeking The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 158 3.4.3. The Mediating Role of “Perception of Interact ional Justice” between “Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” and “Resistance t o Change– Routine Seeking” “Communication-informational sharing” is the indepe ndent variable, “Perception of Justice factors (interactional justice)” is the med iator and “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” is the dependent variable. In the first regression analysis, “Communication-in formational sharing” was regressed on Perception of Justice factors (interac tional justice). The regression analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant contribution on the prediction of on “ Interactiona l justice” (β=.624, p=,000) . The second regression analysis was conducted betwee n “Communication- informational sharing” and “Resistance to Change- r outine seeing”. The regression analysis revealed that “Communication-informational sharing” had a significant contribution on the prediction of “Resistance to Ch ange- routine seeking” (β=-3.323, p=,001). The third regression analysis was conducted for the mediating variable analysis.

“Interactional justice” and “Communication-informat ional sharing” were entered as independent variables to examine their contribution on the dependent variable (Resistance to Change- routine seeking). The results showed that “Interactional justice”, wh ich was the mediating variables, had a significant effects on “Resistance to Change- rou tine seeking” (β=-.230, p=,000))” while the significant contribution of “Communication-informat ional sharing” on “ Resistance to change” in second regression did disappeared durin g multiple regression (β=-.007, p=,891)). Table 7. The Mediating role of “Perception of Interactional Justice” between “Vertical Communication- Information Sharing” and “Resistance to Change- routine seeking” Β t F R Adj R² p Analysis I 370,704 0.624 0.388 Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing 0,624 19,254 0.000 Dependent Variable: Interactional Justice Analysis II 11,041 0.137 0.017 Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing -3.323 -0.137 0.001 Dependent Variable : Resistance to change- routine seeking Analysis III 15.580 0.226 0.048 0.000 Independent Variable: Ver. Comm.

Information Sharing 0.007 0,137 0.891 Mediating Variable: Interactional Justice -0,230 -4,446 0.000 Dependent Variable: Resistance to change- routine seeking N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 159 This result showed that “Perception of Justice fact ors (interactional justice)” fully mediated the contribution of “vertical communicatio n-information sharing” to “resistance to change- routine seeking”. The results of regression analysis are presented in table 7.

4. Discussion and Conclusion Employee reaction to change has been studied from m any different perspectives to determine how to conduct organizational change succ essfully (Armekanis et al., 1993; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Van Dam, O reg & Schyns, 2008; Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011). Researchers found that several variables inf luence employee reactions towards the change process. In this research, communication and perception of justice were examined to understand their impact on employees’ resistance to organizational change.

Several studies indicated that employees’ negative reactions to change process would decrease if there was effective communication withi n organization. As it was stated by Barrett (2002), the function of employee communicat ion is much more than just sending messages to employees. Effective communication is t he glue that holds an organization together and during major change that glue must be even stronger. So, effective communication reduces employees anxiety related to uncertainty and improves credibility of management in organization. Communication also pro vides information on how the intervention will take place and its consequences, which provides employees a sense of control over the change process (Neves & Caetano, 2 006). As a result, they become less resistant to it (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; Wanb erg & Banas, 2000) The regression analysis showed that communication h as a positive impact on employee resistance to change. This finding is consistent wi th the notion that to be successful in organizational change efforts, effective communicat ion activities within the working environment will support employees’ positive behavi ors. In addition, communication has strong relationship with perception of justice in organization. When communication is perceived as ac curate and forthcoming by employees, they are more likely perceive organizational applic ation as fair. So, researchers conducted several studies to investigate the importance of ef fective communication on organizational justice perception. For example, Pitts (2006) indic ated that communication had a strong influence on perception of justice within organizat ion. Daly and Geyer (1994) found that the positive effects of communication on the perception of fairness. The results of these studies are similar to our finding that there is positive i mpact of effective communication on perception of justice.

Many of the research indicated the positive impacts of effective communication and perception of justice on employee resistance to org anizational change initiatives. In this study, the mediating role of perception of justice between communication and resistance to change was examined. The results of analysis showed that perception of justice has a mediating role between communication and resistance to change. This result is in line with the organizational beha vior literature. There are numerous studies have explored the role of communication and perception of justice during change efforts. For example when communication was conside red as timely and provided adequate information for justification of decision, this eff ective communication process significantly affects the perception of justice within organizati on (Gopinath & Becker, 2000; Pitts, 2006). The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 160 Also, the findings of Chawla & Kelloway (2004) have indicated that effective communication within the organization will improve perception of justice and help employees react more favorably towards organizational change. Thus, this research showed that both communication and perception of justice would have positive effects on decrease in resistance to change. However, effective communicat ion would create positive outcomes on employees’ resistance to change process through fir st enhancing perception of justice within organization.

So, it can be concluded that effective communicatio n activities within the organization will improve perception of justice in the organizat ion. Then, high perception of justice will decrease employee unfavorable behaviors towards cha nge process and thus employees’ resistance to change will decrease during the chang e process. Also, it is interesting to investigate the mediatin g role of perception of justice between communication and resistance to change with factor variables. The results showed that even all factors of perception of justice have significa nt results, only vertical communication- information sharing variable played significant rol e on this analysis. This result will be explained by the importance of effective communicat ion within organization. Vertical communication- information sharing items indicates how management shares important information about company with their employees. Whe n employees receive timely and useful information about the situation, their perce ption of justice within organization will increase. At this point, employees’ perception of h igh justice due to sensitive and respectful manner communication would increase openness toward s organizational change process. As a result, perception of justice with all factors wo uld play the mediating role between vertical communication-information sharing and resistance to change.

As a result, a number of studies showed that severa l factors such as technological difficulties, lack of time and money investment aff ect organizational change implementation process, but the most important factor is the react ion of employee towards change efforts.

So, managers should pay significant attention to un derstand and predict employees’ behavior towards organizational change initiatives. As it wa s stated in this study, effective communication and perception of justice within orga nization are crucial factors in order to decrease employee’s resistance to change. By means of effective communication and perception of justice, employees show favorable beh avior towards change process, thus the possibility of accomplishing successful change proc ess will be increased.

There are several limitations regarding this resear ch, with the major ones regarding sampling issues. For instance, because the research was in the form of a self-reporting survey, it only reflects individual concerns about his or her workplace environment. In addition, the scales of this research use subjectiv e measurement, not objective measurement. In addition, 75% of data was collected from employees while 25% was collected from managers. The sampling size of manag ers should be increased for a more equal sample distribution.

N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 161 References Andrews, P.H. & R.T. Herschel (1996). Organizationa l Communication Empowerment in a Technological Society. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Armenakis, A.A. , S. G. Harris, and K.W., Mossholde r, (1993). Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations. 46 ,(6) , 681-703.

Armenakis, A.A. & S.G., Harris, (2002). Crafting a Change Message to Create Transformational Readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Managem ent, 15, (2), 169-183.

Baron, R.M. & D.A. Kenny (1986). The Moderator-Medi ator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51, (6), 1173-11 82.

Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change Communication: Using Strategic EmployeeCommunication to Facilitate Major Change. Corporate Communications, 7, (4), 219-231.

Bartunek, J.M. & M.K. Moch (1987). First-order, Sec ond-order, and Third-order Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483- 500.

Beer, M., R.A. Eisenstat & B. Spector, ( 1990). Why Change Programs don’t Produce Change.

Harvard Business Review, 68, (6), 158-166. Bies, R. J. & J. F. Moag (1986) Interactional Justi ce Communication of Fairness. In R.J.

Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard & M.H. Bazerman (Eds) Resear ch on negotiations in organization (Vol.1 pp 43-55) Greenwich, CT. Jar Press.

Bovee, C.L., J.V. Thill & E.B. Schatzman (2003). Bu siness Communication Today. Delhi:Pearson Education.

Bovey, W. and A. Hede (2001). Resistance to Organiz ational Change: The Role of Cognitive and Affective Processes. Leadership and Organizatio n Development Journal. 22, (8), 372- 382.

Chawla, A. (1999). Organizational Change Initiative s as Predictors of Resistance to Change.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University o f Guelph. Chawla, A. and E.K. Kelloway (2004). Predicting Ope nness and Commitment to Change.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. 25, (6), 385-498.

Cobb, A.T., R. Folger, & K. Wooten, (1995). The Rol e Justice Play in Organizational C h a n g e .

Public Administration Quarterly, 3, 135-151.

Cohen, M.( 1999). Commentary on the Organization Sc ience Special Issue on Complexity.

Organizational Science, 10, 373- 376.

Cohen- Charash, Y., P.E. Spector (2001). The Role o f Justice in Organizations: A Meta Analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe s, 86, 278-321.

Colquilt, J.A.(2001). On the Dimensionality of Orga nizational Justice: a Construct Validation of a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 , (3) , 386-400.

Colquilt, J.A., Donald E. Coston, Michael J. Wesson , Christopher O.L.H. Porter & K. Leens (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A Meta- Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , (3), 425-445. The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 162 Colquitt, J. A. & J. C. Shaw (2005). How should Org anizational Justice be Measured? In J.

Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Orga nizational Justice (pp.113-152).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Connor , P.E. & L.K. Lake (1994). Managing Organiza tional Change. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Daft, R.L., R.H. Lengel, L.K. Trevino (1987). Messa ge Equivocality, Media Selection and Manager Performance: Implications for Information S ystems. MIS Quarterly, 9, 335- 368.

Daly, J.P.& P.D. Geyer ( 1994). The Role of Fairnes s in Implementing Large-scale Change:

Employee Evaluations of Process and Outcomes in Sev en Facility Relocation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 623-638.

Dent, E. B. and S.G. Goldberg (1999). Challenging “ Resistance to Change”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, (1), 25-41.

Deutsch, M.( 1985). Distributive Justice: a Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Erim, F.N.A.( 2009). Individual Response to Organiz ational Change: Creating Façade of Conformity, its Antecedents and Effects on Particip ation in Decision making, Work Engagement, Job Involvement, Intention to Quit. Unp ublished doctoral dissertation , Marmara Üniversitesi.

Fisher, D.(1993). Communication in Organization. We st Publishing Company. Folger, R., & M. A. Konovsky (1989). Effects of Pro cedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy of Manage ment Journal, 32, 115-130.

Foster, R.D. (2008). Individual Resistance, Organiz ational Justice and Employee Commitment to Planned Organizational Change. Unpublished docto ral dissertation ,The University of Minnesota.

Foster, R.D. (2010). Resistance, Justice and Commit ment to Change. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 21, 1.

Foster, R.N.& S. Kaplan (2001). Creative Destructio n: Why Companies That are Built to Last Under-perform the Market- and How to Successfully T ransform them. New York:

Currency.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fryxell, G.E.& E. Gordon (1989). Workplace Justice and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Satisfaction with Union and Management. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851- 866.

Gopinath, C., & T. Becker (2000). Procedural Justic e, and Employee Attitudes: Relationships under Conditions of Divestiture. Journal of Managem ent, 26, (1), 63- 81.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. The Academy of Management Review, 12, (1) , 9-22.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yeste rday, Today, Tomorrow. Journal of Management, 6, 399-432.

Hubbell, A.P. & R.M. Chory-Assad, (2005). Motivatin g Factors: Perceptions of Justice and their Relationship with Managerial and Organizational tru st. Communication Studies, 56, (1), 47-50. N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 163 Kanter, R.M.(1985). Managing the Human Side of Chan ge. Management Review, 74, 52-56. Karabay, E.Z.( 2004). Kamuda ve Özel Sektörde Örgüt sel Adalet Algısı ile Örgütsel Bağlılık Arasındaki İlişkiler. Unpublished Master Thesis, H acettepe Üniversitesi.

Katz, D. & R. Kahn (1966). The Social Psychology o f Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Kilbourne, L.M., A.M. O’Leary-Kelly & S.D. Williams (1996). Employee Perceptions of Fairness When Human Resources Systems Change: the Case of Em ployee Layoffs. In R.W.

Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.). Research in Organiz ational Change and Development, 9, 49-80. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press. Konovsky, M.A. & R. Folger, ( 1991). The Effects of Procedures, Social Accounts and Benefits Level on Victims’ Layoff Reactions. Journal of Appl ied Social Psychology, 21, 630-650.

Korsgaard, M. A., D. M. Schweiger, & H. J. Sapienza (1995). Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-making teams: The Role of Procedural Justice. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, (1) , 60-84.

Lau, C.M. & R.W. Woodman (1995). Understanding Orga nizational Change: A Schematic Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537 .

Leventhal, G.S., J. Karuza & W.R. Fry, (1980). Beyo nd Fairness: a Theory of Allocation Preferences. In G. Mikula ( Ed.) Justice and Social Interaction (pp. 167- 218). New York / Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Mayer, R. C., & J. H. Davis (1999). The Effect of t he Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi- experiment. Journal of A pplied Psychology, 84, 123– 136. Melikoğlu, M.( 2009). The Distinctive Role of Prest ige, Communication and Trust:

Organizational Identification versus Affective Comm itment. Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi.

Miller, K.I & P.R. Monge (1985). Social Information and Employee Anxiety about Organizational Change. Human Communication Research , 11, 365-386.

Miller, V.D., J.R. Johnson, & J. Grau ( 1994). Ante cedents to Willingness to Participate in a Planned Organizational Change. Journal of Applied C ommunication Research, 22, 59- 80. Milliken,F.J. (1987). Three types of Perceived Unce rtainty about the Environment. Academy of Management Review, 12, 133-143 Morgan, D.E. and R. Zaffane (2003). Employee Involv ement, Organizational Change and Trust in Management. The International Journal of Human R esources Management. 14, (1), 55-75.

Nelson, S., Y. Brunetto, R. Farr-Wharton & S. Ramsa y (2007). Organizational Effectiveness of Australian Fast Growing Small to Medium Sized Enter prises. Management Decisions, 45, (7), 1143-1162.

Neves, P. & A. Caetano ( 2006). Social Exchange Pro cesses in Organizational Change: The Roles of Trust and Control. Journal of Change Manag ement, 6, (4), 351-364 Oreg, S.(2003). Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Difference Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88, (4), 680-693.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, Context and Resistenc e to Organizational Change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, (1), 73-101. The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 164 Oreg, S., Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., Bozionelos, N. , Gonzalez, L., Hrebickova, M.; Kordacova, J., Mlacic, b., Saksvik, P.; Bayazıt, M., Arciniega , L., Barkauskiene, R., Fujimoto, Y., Han, J., Jimmieson, N., Mitsuhashi, H.; Ohly, S.; Hetlan d, H. (2008). Dispositional Resistance to Change: Measurement Equivalence and the Link to Personal Value Across 17 Nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, (4), 93 5-944.

Oreg, S. and N. Sverdlik (2011). Ambivalence Towar d Imposed Change: The Conflict between Dispositional Resistance to Change and the Orientat ion Toward the Change Agent.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, (2), 337-349.

Palmer, B. (2004). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Quality Progress. 37, (4), 35.

Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking Resistance and Rec ognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes Toward an Organizational Change. Academy of Management Review, 10, 783–794.

Pitts, J.P. (2006). The Effects of Managerial Commu nication and Justice Perceptions n Employee Commitment to Organizational Change: a Mix ed Method Field Theory.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Graduate Fac ulty of Aubrun University.

Postmes, T., M. Tanıs, B.De Wit ( 2001). Communicat ion and Commitment in Organization: A Social Identity Approach. Group processes and Inter group Relations, 4, (3), 227-246.

Raina, R. ( 2010). Timely, Continuous & Credible Co mmunication & Perceived Organizational Effectiveness. The Indian Journal of Industrial Rel ationships, 46, (2), 345-359.

Rogers, E.M.( 2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.). New York : Free Press.

Spillan, J.E., M. Mino, & M.S. Rowles (2002). Shari ng Organizational Messages through Effective Lateral Communication. Communication Quar terly, 50, (2), 96-104.

Tang, T. L., & S. R. Sarsfield-Baldwin, (1996). Dis tributive and Procedural Justice as Related to Satisfaction and Commitment. S.A.M. Advanced Manage ment Journal, 61, (3), 25-32.

Thibaut J. & L. Walker (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R. & E. A. Lind (1992). A Relational Mod el of Authority in Groups. In M. P.

Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychol ogy, (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Van Dam, K., S. Oreg, B. Schyns (2008). Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organizational Change: The Role of Leader-member Exchange, Develop ment Climate and Change Process Characteristics. Applied Psychology: an Int ernational Review, 57, (2), 313-334.

Wanberg,C.R.& J.T. Banas, (2000). Predictors and Ou tcomes of Openness to Changes in a Reorganizing Workplace. Journal of Applied Psycholo gy, 85, 132-142.

N. Saruhan Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 165 Appendix Table 1 . Results of the Factor Analysis for Resistance to Ch ange Factor 1: Routine Seeking Cronbach's Alpha= , 841 Factor Loadings D11. Often, I feel a bit uncomfortable even about changes that may potentially improve my life.

D13. I sometimes find myself avoiding changes that I kn ow will be good for me. D4. I generally consider changes to be a negative thing .

D5. I’d rather be bored than surprised.

D10. Changing plans seems like a real hassle to me. ,843 ,811 ,800 ,786 ,770 Factor 2: Emotional Reactions Cronbach's Alpha= , 836 Factor Loadings D8. When things don’t go according to plans, it stresse s me out. D9. If my manager changed my responsibilities, it woul d probably make me feel uncomfortable even if I thought I’d do just as well without having to do any extra work. ,919 ,712 Table 2 . Results of the Factor Analysis for Communication Factor 1:Vertical Communication - Contribution Cronbach's Alpha= , 888 Factor Loading C10 . Management gives sufficient opportunities within th e organization to critically reflect on managerial policies, or to give suggestions for improvement C 8. Management gives opportunity to take part in decis ion making concerning issues involving the organization as a w hole C 11 . Management of this organization pays attention t o employees’ suggestions.

C 6. Management takes the initiative to discuss organiz ational issues with the employees. C 9. Management gives feedback about the work employee do. 0,843 0,825 0,783 0,728 0,655 Factor 2: Vertical Communication - Information Sharing Cronbach's Alpha= , 895 Factor Loading C 2. My company gives info rmation about personnel management C 1. My company gives information about changes within the organization C 3. My company gives information about the overall per formance of the organization C 4 .My company gives information about the organizatio n’s strategy . 0,827 0,808 0,805 0,691 Factor 3: Horizontal Communication Cronbach's Alpha= , 823 Factor Loading C 13. I communicate within my unit informally and for soc ial reasons C 14. I communicate with colleagues who are not in my un it informally and for social reasons C 15. I communicate with my collogues in other departmen ts about non- business issues 0,845 0,837 0,782 The Role of Corporate Communication and Perception of Justice during Organizational Change Process Business and Economics Research Journal 5(4)2014 166 Table 3. Results of the Factor Analysis for Perception of Organizational Justice Factor 1: Interactional Justice Cronbach's Alpha= ,947 Factor Loadings IJ3. I was treated with respect IJ1. I was treated in a polite manner.

IJ2. I was treated with dignity.

IJ4. My manager (and/or any other authority figure) refrai ned from improper remarks or comments. IJ8. My manager seemed to tailor communications to individual s' specific needs IJ7 . My manager communicated details in a timely manner .

IJ6. My manager explained the procedures thoroughly.

IJ9. My manager's explanations regarding the procedures w ere reasonable.

IJ5 . My manager was candid while communicating with me. 0,844 0,831 0,823 0,773 0,765 0,762 0,743 0,735 0,724 Factor 2: Distributive Justice Cronbach's Alpha= , 897 Factor Loadings DJ1. My outcomes reflect the effort I put into my work. DJ4. My outcomes were justified, given my performance DJ3. My outcomes reflect what I have contributed to the org anization DJ2. My outcomes were appropriate for the work I have complet ed. 0,832 0,809 0,797 0,770 Factor 3: Procedural Justice - application Cronbach's Alpha= , 882 Factor Loadings PJ4. The procedures were free of bias. PJ5. The procedures were based on accurate information PJ7. The procedures upheld ethical and moral standards. 0,788 0,747 0,668 PJ3. The procedures were applied consistently. 0,662 Factor 4: Procedural Justice - participation Cronbach's Alpha= , 779 Factor Loadings PJ2. I had influence over the outcomes arrived at by the proce dures. 0,860 PJ1. I was able to express my views and feelings during the procedures 0,802 PJ6. I was able to appeal the outcomes arrived at by the proc edures. 0,660 Copyright ofBusiness &Economics ResearchJournalisthe property ofAdem Anbar andits content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.