In 2004; Amundson et al., 2004). Following the process

In a more general sense, in
literature regarding organisational change, it is a frequent occurrence that emotions
are considered only in one of two ways; either as stress, which requires to be
managed or alternatively as opposition, which requires to be moderated or reviewedMOU1  (Kiefer, 2002). Many researchers have considered apprehension and
anxiety to be principally negative responses to organisational change (Spector
and Fox, 2002; Bordia et al., 2004; Vokola and Nikolaou, 2005;
Cartwright, Tytherleigh and Robertson, 2007). These researchers directed their
concentration upon the response to change which is that it is unacceptable
unwelcome and negative, consequently diminishing the employees’ well-being. It
is perceived that organisational mergers are particularly problematic emotional
experiences, because they generate, uneasiness, apprehension, tension, perceptions
of loss, as well as doubt regarding the future  (Bordia et al., 2004 a, b; Vokola and
Nikolaou, 2005; Raffertyand Griffin, 2006; Oreg, and Armenakis,  2011). Consequently, it is implied that the principal
concentration is upon the response to change by the individual person and also unbalanced MOU2 behaviour from the organisation’s viewpoint,  which may be caused by such negative emotions
(Nippa, 1996 cited in Kiefer, 2002). Interest was expressed by other research
regarding the emotional impacts of redundancies upon survivorsMOU3  (Kernan and Hunges, 2002; Brockner et al., 2004; Amundson et
al., 2004). Following the process
of contraction, organisations may be required to manage deprivationMOU4  of trust, vexation as well as lasting anxiety over job loss (Buzzzanell
and Turner, 2003; Amundson et al.,
2004; Driver, 2009). The fundamental negative environment which is caused by a
particular kind of change, as well as the aforementioned negative emotions,
threaten the organisation because there is the potential of employees leaving
their service (Kiefer, 2002).This is
because the trust of employees in their managers and a growing rate of
withdrawal is undermined by these negative emotions (Kiefer, 2005).

Furthermore, consideration was
given in the research studies to the resistance to change by employees, which
is frequently regarded by managers as being illogical (Piderit, 2000). Four
emotional reasons for resistance to change were presented by Kotter and
Schlesinger (1992 cited in Kiefer, 2002). These are: (1) MOU5 deprivationMOU6  of value due to change, (2) failure to comprehend the ramificationsMOU7  of change and absence of trust in the organisation, (3) a different
evaluation of the circumstances from that held by the initiators of the change,
and (4) anxiety regarding the ability to acquire the new skills which this
change demands. It has been discovered by Avery and his associates (2008) that employees’
resistance to change is the greatest barrier which threatens organisational
change. Furthermore, they implied that the positive emotions and the positive
psychological capital of employees may be significant in resisting possible unstable
behaviour and opinions appropriate for organisational change They imply that attentive
employees possess a greater opportunity of acquiring thought systems which tax
their capability of being confident, productive, positive, and strong, during
their work, particularly when organisational change takes effect.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


It was discovered by Fox and
Amichai-Hamburger (2001) and Friedrich and Wüstenhagen, (2017) that employees
who encounter change from a positive aspect will accept it because it conforms
to their standards and personal opinions. However, if employees resist the change because
it does not conform to their opinions, MOU8 organisations would avert any debate or management of the emotional
experiences which unavoidably occur after the implementation of organisational
change (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2017). It was discovered
by Saunders and Thornhill (2002) that some employees considered that the
results of change were equitable for themselves, as well as for the
organisations which they trusted; while the people whose debate was concentrated
exclusively on the equitability of their individual results and who had a
tendency to feel mistrustful would be able to resist the change, because this
would have an impact upon the change procedure.MOU9  Employees
may be led by such consciousnessMOU10  to make a
deliberate selection of more confident, positive and strong methods of managing
change resistance (Ibid.). It
was advocated by Liu and Perrewe (2005), that in order to encourage employees
to accept change, the agents of change ought to amend both the content and the
timing of the data which is conveyed to their employees. One of the major
challenges for researchers as well as for agents of change is to understand employees’
emotions in the course of the change procedure (Liu and Perrewe, 2005).The
research body is motivated by these challenges to commit to comprehending the emotions
which emerge during the change process as well as their impact upon
organisational change (George and Jones, 2001; Huy, 1999, 2002; 2005;
Mossholder, et, al., 2000;
Eriksson, 2004; Mossholder, et al., 2000; Rafferty and Jimmieson
2017). The following topics have
attracted the interest of the majority of the research studies: emotions as barriers
to the implementation of change (Kiefer, 2005), categorisation of emotions in
the course of change  (George and Jones,
2001: Mossholder, et al., 2000; Erikson, 2004), the impact of emotions upon
employees’ thought processes and productiveness of the strategic activity of
change (Huy, 2005), the effect of emotions upon the behaviour of employees (Saunders
and Thornhill, 2002; Kiefer, 2005; Avery, Wernsing and Luthans, 2008) and the resistance  to change by employees (Liu and Perrewe,
2005; Avery, Wernsing and Luthans, 2008; Rafferty and Jimmieson 2017A). Nevertheless, the comprehension of employees’
experiences in the course of change, particularly with regard to negative
emotions is of major concern. MOU11  Questions
can be posed as to how these pervade into their experience, and how they were
activated and managed.MOU12  In her
research study into human resources, Kiefer (2005) discovered that employees
experienced negative emotions because of their inability to work professionally
and competently; and that they experienced a threat to their personal position
and their future within the workplace. They also perceived a deficiency of
equitability, backing and recognition on a daily basis from their company. Rafferty and Jimmieson (2017)
suggested that employees’ emotions ought to be identified in the course of the
change, since if there is no forum where they could debate their negative
emotional reactions to change, such emotions may become internalised and consequently
result in persons deliberating over them, resulting in impaired psychological health

check if I have retained the meaning. You may prefer to keep the original.

check if I have retained the meaning. You may wish to keep the original word.

original is unclear. Please check if I have retained the meaning.

check if I have retained the meaning. You may prefer to keep the original word.

have numbered these four reasons as I think this makes it clearer. Of course I
realise you may not wish to use these numbers.

check if I have retained the meaning. You may prefer to keep the original word.

check if I have retained the meaning. You may prefer to keep the original word.

original is unclear. Please check if I have retained the meaning.

original is unclear. Please check if I have retained the meaning.

check if I have retained the meaning. You may prefer to keep the original word.

original is unclear. Please check if I have retained the meaning.

original is unclear. I have added to some text to try to clarify it but please
check if I have retained the meaning.