A Dependence-Regulation Account of Psychological Distancing in Response to Major Organizational Change

Abstract

Building on previous studies that documented psychological withdrawal or distancing from one's employing organization as one kind of response to major organizational change, this study developed and tested a dependence-regulation account of psychological distancing responses. This account was derived from social psychological analysis of interpersonal relationships and interdependence theory. It emphasizes the self-protective function of psychological distancing when the employment relationship is threatened by changes such as corporate mergers or acquisitions. The theory holds that people can reduce threatened losses to identity as a member of their organization or to the tangible benefits of organizational membership through psychological distancing actions such as devaluing the organization or disengaging cognitively or behaviourally (e.g. through reduced organizational identification, increased thoughts of quitting or absenteeism). Applicability of the theory to explain reactions to major organizational change was supported in findings of a survey of 62 bank employees whose organization was seeking a merger with another bank. Dependence on the employer (prospects for getting a comparable job elsewhere) was found to moderate the association between anticipated negative consequences of the merger (‘uncertainty’) and two indicators of distancing, namely affective commitment to the organization and satisfaction with the organization as employer. Other findings pointed to a degree of realism in employees' threat appraisals. Implications for management and for future research were derived, partly by considering the possible role of employee self-esteem in distancing oneself from the organization.

Keywords:

• Dependence regulation
• employer–employee relationship
• interdependence
• organizational change
• psychological withdrawal

Acknowledgements

Order of authorship is alphabetical. The authors sincerely thank John Holmes and Joanne Wood for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript; Ramona Bobocel and Doug Brown for suggestions about the final version; and Lance Ferris for contributions to analysis of data.