Applying Event System Theory to Organizational Change: The Importance of Everyday Positive and Negative Events

Abstract

Decades of research have examined how employees experience organizational-level change events (e.g., “the merger”). However, employees can also experience “everyday change events” that occur at the individual-level as the change becomes routinized for their jobs. That is, individuals can react to organizational change events that are occurring at different hierarchical levels. Drawing on event system theory, we argue that employees’ commitment to the organizational-level change event can shape how employees anticipate and experience subsequent everyday change events. These negative and positive everyday change events can impact (a) how employees engage with their work, impacting their performance and (b) whether employees perceive that they are fairly treated, impacting their subsequent evaluations of organizational-level change. Our hypotheses were generally supported in a field sample in which employees were surveyed immediately after a merger was announced, participated in a daily diary study as the merger was implemented, and completed a second survey 2 weeks after the diary study. By applying event system theory to organizational change, we provide important theoretical and practical insights, including how an organizational-level event can exert top-down direct effects by impacting how employees anticipate and experience change on an everyday basis as well as how everyday negative and positive change events can subsequently impact employees’ commitment to the organizational-level change, creating bottom-up direct effects. We also illuminate the importance of considering the frequency and strength of both negative and positive events to understand what it is about everyday negative and positive events that has implications for employees and organizations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.