Repetitive reorganizations, uncertainty and change fatigue

Figures & data

Table 1. Factor loadings of items used in the analysis.

Reform fatigue: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.856
1. Too many change initiatives have been introduced at Bank 2.0	.804
2. I am tired of all the changes in this company	.710
3. The amount of change that takes place at Bank 2.0 is overwhelming.	.858
4. We are asked to change too many things at Bank 2.0	.749
Uncertainty: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.901
1. I am often uncertain about how to respond to change.	.771
2. I am often unsure about the effect of change on my work unit	.823
3. I am often unsure how severely a change will affect my work unit	.917
4. I am often unsure about the future of my job	.737
5. I am often unsure about my job	.732
Workload: Cronbach’s alpha = .815
1. During the last years, I increasingly have to meet scheduled deadlines	.741
2. I have fewer and fewer time to finish the job	.728
3. I work more and more under time pressure	.853
Success of prior reorganization: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.885
1. The prior reorganization was implemented in a meticulous way	.805
2. The prior reorganization was effective	.628
3. The prior reorganization resulted in cost savings	.565
Confidence in transformative leadership: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.950
My supervisor …
1. … Inspires others with their plans for the future	.829
2. … Is able to get others committed to their dream	.862
3. … Provides a good model for me to follow	.826
4. … Leads by example	.836
5. … Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways	.807
6. … Asks questions that prompt me to think	.906
7. … Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things.	.852
8. … Has ideas that have challenged me to re-examine some of my basic assumptions about my work	.798
Communication during prior reorganization: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.904
1. There was good communication between project leaders and staff members about the organization’s policy toward changes	.843
2. The corporate management team kept all departments informed about its decisions	.842
3. Two-way communication between the corporate management team and the departments was very good	.884
4. The corporate management team clearly explained the necessity of the change	.772
Participation during prior reorganization: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.876
1. Changes were always discussed with all the people concerned	.773
2. Decisions concerning work were taken in consultation with the staff who were affected	.726
3. Departments were sufficiently consulted about the change	.866
4. Staff members were consulted about the reasons for change	.805
5. Our department provided sufficient time for consultation	.718
6. Staff members were sufficiently involved in the implementation of the changes	.830

Table 3. Correlation matrix.

	Reform fatigue	Intensity of previous reorgan-izations	Number of previous reorganizations	Workload	Uncert-ainty	Leadership	Success	Communication	Partici-pation	Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and commun-ication	Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and participation	Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and leadership	Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and success
Reform fatigue	1
Intensity of previous reorganizations	,242**	1
Number of previous reorganizations	,335**	0,088	1
Workload	,216**	,248**	0,121	1
Uncertainty	,462**	,188*	0,073	,230**	1
Leadership	−,248**	0,023	−,213**	−0,071	-0,14	1
Success	−,201**	−0,128	−0,132	−0,029	-0,113	,339**	1
Communication	−,189**	−0,017	−0,078	−0,026	-,144*	,612**	,618**	1
Participation	−,160*	−0,073	−,253**	−0,1	-0,074	,563**	,504**	,622**	1
Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and communication	0,061	−0,024	−,231**	0,072	-0,041	0,032	0,013	0,057	0,013	1
Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and participation	−0,059	−0,059	−,294**	−0,025	-0,01	0,069	0,063	0,012	0,12	,509**	1
Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and leadership	−0,015	−0,052	−,257**	−0,034	-0,033	0,112	0,04	0,031	0,068	,636**	,597**	1
Interaction between number of previous reorganizations and success	−0,036	0,026	−,320**	−0,01	0,03	0,043	0,026	0,014	0,068	,613**	,550**	,462**	1

Table 2. Modeling the causal effects on change fatigue.

	Model 1: Without mediating and moderating factors	Model 2: Including mediating factors	Model 3: Including mediating and moderating factors
Total explained variance in change fatigue	0.19	0.40	0.43
Standardized direct effects on change fatigue	Effect (p value)	Effect (p value)	Effect (p value)*
No. of previous reorganizations	0.35 (.000)	0.33 (.000)	0.36 (.000)
Intensity of previous reorganizations	0.23 (.000)	0.09 (.206)	0.07 (.301)
Workload		0.07 (.353)	0.05 (.463)
Uncertainty		0.45 (.000)	0.45 (.000)
Communication during prior reorganization			−.012 (.066)
Interaction communication—No.of reorganizations			0.17 (.010)
Standardized direct effects on workload
No. of previous reorganizations		0.11 (.153)	0.12 (.153)
Intensity of previous reorganizations		0.17 (.035)	0.17 (.036)
Communication during prior reorganization
Interaction communication-no-of-reorg
Standardized direct effects on uncertainty
No. of previous reorganizations		0.13 (.719)	0.12 (.858)
Intensity of previous reorganizations		0.31 (.000)	0.30 (.000)
Communication during prior reorganization			−0.07 (.315)
Interaction communication-no-of-reorg			0.03 (.711)
Model fit
χ−2	8.558	98.999	177.136
Df	8	68	136
P	0.381	0.08	0.10
CFI	0.999	0.975	0.975
RMSEA	0.019	0.050	0.041
PClose	0.680	0.495	0.816
N	187	187	187

*p values are in parentheses.