International Journal of Commerce and Finance, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2017, 41-50 THE EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ON TRUST AND AN APPLICATION Taylan Şahin, (PhD Candidate) Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul Ahu Tuğba Karabulut, (Assoc. Prof. Dr.) Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul Mustafa Emre Civelek, (PhD) Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of organizational change on organizational trust. The questionnaire of this study was given to 500 people who worked for a private company in the mining sector in Kütahya. 404 valid questionnaires were collected back and analyzed. First of all, explaratory factor analysis was conducted to the data to find out factor distribution. Then, confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analysis were conducted to determine the reliability and the scale validity of the questionnaires, respectively. Subse- quently, the hypotheses of the model were tested with the structural equation modeling. According to the findings, planned change positively and significantly affects organizational trust. Keywords: Organizational change, Organizational trust, Mining sector JEL Codes: 1. Introduction Nowadays, companies face change in local and global markets. Thus, they need to conduct change in their organiza- tions. Change can be made in mission, vision, goals, strategies, processess, organizational culture, management and business functions in organizations. Change is required for surviving, transforming, gaining competitive advantages, and building core competencies. The only unchangeable thing is change in organizations. Organizational trust shows the trust of employees to the management and practices of the company. It has two dimensions namely cognitive trust and affective trust. Frequency of change, planning the change and uncertainity of change affect the acceptance and success of change in organizations. If companies conduct change with appropriate frequency, by planning and without uncertainity, the change process can increase organizational trust level of employees. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of organizational change on organizational trust. To this end, the second section of this article addresses organizational change; the third section addresses organizational trust, the fourth section presents the research findings, and the fifth section reveals the conclusion and the discussion. 2. Organizational Change Employees try to achieve organizational goals to succeed. They need to face organizational change due to SWOT analysis. Companies need to decide the frequency of the change, plan the change and get rid of uncertainities related to the change to succeed. According to Carnall (1986), an organizational change is perceived as the process which changes the structure or the mission of an organization (Iqbal, 2011). An organizational change may be defined as the transition of an organiza- tion from one stage to another in a planned or unplanned manner and conducting transition in organizational cul- ture, technology and structure (Saylı & Tüfekçi, 2008). Organizations conduct change as planned, unconventional or deliberate effort to achieve their goals more quickly and effectively. In te rn a ti o n a l Jo u rn a l o f C o m m e rc e a n d F in a n c e 42 Taylan Şahin & Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr Organizational change has been discussed from different perspectives in the literature. It may be defined as positive or negative, planned or unplanned, quantitative or qualitative changes which may occur in all subsystems, elemens and their relationship systems in an organization (Peker, 1995). According to Sabuncuoğlu and Tüz (1998), an organizational change is adaptation of organizational structures to their environments. Balcı (1995) defines an organizational change as changing structure, processes and behaviors of organizations. Dinçer (1992) points out that an organizational change which includes creativity, innovation, and growth is comprehensive (Töremen, 2002). Jones (1998) defines organizational change as an organizational transition process from the current status to the desired status to increase productivity (Çapraz, 2009). According to Huber et al. (1993), organizational change is differences in functions, members, leaders, forms or allo- cation of resources in organizations (Weick & Quinn, 1999). 2.1. Dimensions of Organizational Change Dimensions of change are considered as frequency of change, planned change, and uncertainity of change in this study. Frequency of change and uncertainity of change are expected to have negative effects whereas planned change is expected to have a positive effect on organizational trust. Frequency of Change: Frequency of change reveals how often change has occurred in an organization and is an important change characteristic which is salient to employees. According to Glick et al., if the change occurs more infrequently, it will be more likely perceived as a discrete event. On the other hand, if change occurs frequently, employees will likely feel that change is highly unpredictable and less likely perceive the change as discrete event. If change occurs very frequently, employees will likely feel fatigued and have more anxiety because of unpredictability of change (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). According to Boyne and Maier (2009), environmental changes may force organizations to conduct frequent changes. Employees who deal with a set of changes or multiple changes concurrently can strive to deal with time, complexity and energy. Wolfram Cox (1997) reported that changes in jobs, team structures, pay and staffing levels caused nega- tive emotions in an organization. Woodward and Hendry (2004) showed that changes in structure, technology, staff- ing levels, and targets required problem and emotion focused handling skills. Kiefer (2005) revealed that change caused negative emotions which were mediated by perceptions of organizational trust, status, security, and working conditions (Smollan, Sayers, & Matheny, 2010). Planned Change: Several authors have revealed that employees are concerned whether planning is made before change or not (Levy, 1986; Porras & Robertson, 1992; Weingart, 1992; Orlikowski & Hofman, l997; Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999; French & Bell, 1999; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000; Korsgaard, Sapienza, & Schweiger, 2002). Planned change is the perception of employees that preperation and deliberation have taken place before change implementation. When there is an effort to plan change beforehand, change seems more predictible because employees gather information about imminence and possible duration of change. Also, when planning is made be- fore implementation of change, the novelty of change decreases. Korsgaard et al. (2002) reveal that when planning is done before organizational change, the well being of employees can be improved (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Planned change requires sharing information about the process and impacts of change. According to Miller and Monge (1985) and Schweiger and DeNisi (1991), information provided regarding organiza- tional change reduces anxiety and uncertainty of employees. Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) examined two groups of emploeyes. One group of employees was given planned program of information about the merger of their company with another company whereas another group of employees was given limited information about that merger. Em- ploeyes in the first group had less uncertainity and perceived the organization as more caring, honest, and trustwor- thy than did employees in the other group (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). The Effect of Organizational Change on Trust and an Application 43 http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr The Uncertainty of Change: Organizational change causes uncertainity for employess. Decreasing uncertainity can increase desired outcome. DiFonzo et al. (1994) describe uncertainty as a psychological doubt state about what an occurance signifies or por- tends (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998). The uncertainty of change was addressed as a situation arising from change itself in this study. Schweiger and Walsh (1990) found that uncertainity about the future was the organizational change’s characteristic. Wanberg and Banas (2000) revealed that giving information about change increased acceptance of change (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). Planning before the change and information dissemination during the change process are accepted to reduce uncertainty. 3. Organizational Trust Organizational trust shows the trust of employees to their organizations. The organization should provide appropri- ate infrastructure, systems, processes, mechanisms to initiate and increase the trust levels of employees. There are several trust definitions in the literature. Some of them are as follows: Table 1. Trust Definitions Author Year Definition Rotter 1967 Interpersonal trust is the expectation of a person that the another person will re- spect their oral and written assurance. Zand 1972 The decision of a person based on pragmatic expectation as a result of uncertain occurances which cause weakness and lack of control of another party. Golembiewski and Mc Konkie 1975 Subjective and pragmatic belief regarding the desired results of occurances based on individual perception and experience. Meeker 1983 The expectation of cooperative behavior from another person. Butler and Cantrell 1984 The expectation of right, sufficient, consistent, reliable and open behaviors from another person. Coleman 1984 The relationship between two parties. The trust of one party to another changes according to the state of being included. Lewis and Weigert 1985 Trust is a concept motivated by strong emotions (emotional trust), logical reasons (cognitive trust) or both toward an object. Rempel and Holmes 1986 Predictability, reliability, and acceptability are equally important. Butler 1991 The explicit promise of one person not to try to harm another person. Bromiley and Cummings 1992 The belief of a person that another person will act in accordance with his promise, be honest in negotiations and not behave pragmatically even when the opportunity arises. Mayer, Davis and Schoorman 1995 A person’s desire to be vulnerable to actions of another person. McAllister 1996 The person’s belief that actions and decisions of another person are accurate. Rousseau, Siktin, Burt and Camerer 1998 Positive expectations of a person regarding intentions or behaviors of another per- son. Zaheer, McEvily and Perrone 1998 The expectation that a person will fulfill his obligations, act as he promised and negotiate fairly without being pragmatic. Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis and Winograd 2000 Another person’s being sufficient, open, considerate, reliable and identified with his goals, values, norms and beliefs. Source: İ.K. Tüzün (2006). Örgütsel Güven, Örgütsel Kimlik ve Örgütsel Özdeşleşme İlişkisi; Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı. Ankara. Luman (1989) believes that organizational trust is based on trust of employees to the company. Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) points out that organizational trust differs depending upon organizations and leaders. According to Mishra and Morrisey (1990), organizational trust is defined as the perception of an employee related to the organizational support, beliefs of an employee that the leader will tell the truth and keep his promises and principal of all organiza- tional relations. According to Matthai (1989), the organizational trust shows employees believe that organizational commitments and behaviors are consistent when they face uncertain and risky situations (Demircan & Ceylan, 2003). 44 Taylan Şahin & Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr Bromiley ve Cummings (1996) evaluate trust as common belief of a person or a group on another person or a group. Trust shows the effort for having a good belief for another person, being honest and not getting the advantage of another person. Trust has social, personal and optimistic characteristics in interorganizational and intraorganizational relations (Tüzün, 2006). 3.1. Dimensions of Organizational Trust The dimensions of organizational trust are considered as cognitive trust and affective trust in this study. Cognitive Trust: Cognitive trust means trustable behaviors should be consistent with personal desires (Tüzün, 2006). According to Lewis and Wiegert (1985), trust has cognitive and affective dimensions. Lewis and Wiegert (1985) add that the person chooses whom to trust, in which respect and under what conditions he is going to trust in cognitive trust. The person decides on them based on good reasons which show the evidence of trust-worthiness. When Ac- cording to Simmel (1964), the amount of information required for trust lies between total ignorance and knowledge. Luhman (1979) and Simmel (1964) acknowledge that when there is total ignorance there is no basis for rationally trust and when there is total knowledge there is no need to trust. On the other hand, good reasons and available knowledge are foundations for trust decisions which are based on faith (McAllister, 1995). Affective Trust: Affective trust means behaving trustable or in an appropriate way to initiate commitment. (Tüzün, 2006). According to Butler (1991) and Cook and Wall (1980), competence and responsibility are basic elements of organiza- tional trust. Johnson-George and Swap (1982) and Rempel et al. (1985) believe that reliability and dependability are included as new elements for interpersonal trust. Lewis and Wiegert (1985) state that affective trust is composed of emotional bonds between people. Pennings and Woiceshyn (1987) and Rempel et al. (1985) acknowledge that people can make emotional investments in trust relations, express concern and care for other people, believe in the intrinsic virtue of these relations, and consider that these sentiments are reciprocated. Emotional ties which link people may provide the basis for trust (McAllister, 1995). 4. Measures and Sampling The questionnaire of this study was given to 500 people who work for a private company in the mining sector in Kütahya. 404 valid questionnaires were collected back and analyzed. First of all, demographic questions were asked to the participants to collect information about their ages, genders, marital statuses, educational levels, positions in the company, work experiences in the company and in their careers. The Change Scale used in this study was devel- oped by Rafferty and Griffin and consisted of 13 items and three dimensions to measure organizational change per- ceptions of employees. Three dimensions of the scale are as follows: The frequency of change dimension (3 items), the planned change dimension (3 items), the uncertainity of change dimension (4 items) (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). This scale was used in Karakuş and Yardım’s (2014) study. The Trust Scale which consists of 12 items and two di- mensions is the short form of the organizational trust inventory developed by Cummings and Bromiley to measure organizational trust levels of employees (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996). Two dimensions of the scale are as follows: The cognitive trust dimension (7 items) and the affective trust dimension (5 items). The scale was translated into Turkish, tested for validity and reliability by Tüzün (2006). Both scales are designed as 5-point Likert scales and items are scored as follows: 1: Strongly Disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Undecided, 4: Agree, 5: Strongly Agree. Most of the em- ployees were between the ages of 30-39, males, had associate or bachelor degrees, total work experiences of 0-5 years in their careers and 0-5 years in the company. 5. Analysis Method This is a cross-sectional study. The collected data were analyzed and the hypotheses were tested by “Structural Equa- tion Modeling” which is a multi-variable statistical technique. This method has been widely used in social sciences. The Effect of Organizational Change on Trust and an Application 45 http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr Tabacnick and Fidell (2001) state that measuring direct and indirect relationships between variables within a single model is the advantage of this model (Meydan & Şen, 2011). First of all, explaratory factor analysis was conducted to the data to find out factor purification. Then, confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis were conducted to determine the reliability and the scale validity of the ques- tionnaires respectively. Finally, the hypotheses of the model were tested with the Structural Equation Modeling. SPSS and AMOS statistical softwares were used for analysis. 6. Hypotheses and Conceptual Model The conceptual model of the study is shown in Figure 1. Table 2 shows the hypotheses of the study. Table 2. Hypotheses H1 The Frequency of Change affects Organizational Trust negatively. H2 The Planned Change affects Organizational Trust positively. H3 The Uncertainty of Change affects Organizational Trust negatively. Figure 1. Conceptual Model 7. Validity and Reliabilty of the Scale This section presents the results of validity and reliability tests. Scale validity was addressed separately as convergent validity and discriminant validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine convergent valid- ity. AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values were calculated for determining discriminant validity. The goodness of fit scales is used to determine the fitness of the CFA model. CMIN/DF, CFI, AGFI, GFI, and RMSEA are widely accepted scales in the literature (Çemberci, 2012). This goodness of fit scales are explained as follows: CMIN is the likelihood ratio chi-square test. This test shows the fitness between suggested model and the actual model (Meydan & Şen, 2011). CFI is a fitness index which compares the independent model to be tested where dimensions of the model are not related with the saturated model. It can take values between 0 and 1. CFI values which are above 0.90 and close to 1 indicate good fitness (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003). GFI is a goodness of fit scale which shows the degree of variance and covariance explained by the model. The GFI value increases as the sample size increases. The GFI value varies between 0 and 1. A GFI value which is 0.90 or above indicates an acceptable model. It shows that the covariance between observed variables is calculated (Mac- Callum & Schee, 1997; Bryne, 2001; Mels, 2004; Blunch, 2008). AGFI goodness of fit scale is calculated using the degree of freedom and influenced by sample size. Higher sample sizes result higher AGFI values. The AGFI value varies between 0 and 1. An AGFI value which is close to 1 indicates good fitness (MacCallum & Sehee, 1997; Hayashi et al., 2008). RMSEA is a goodness of fit scale which compares the average difference of each degree of freedom which may possibly emerge in the population. This scale is influenced negatively by sample size as well. A RMSEA value which is 0.05 and below indicates good fitness whereas a RMSEA value between 0.05 and 0.08 indi- 46 Taylan Şahin & Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr cates acceptable fitness (Kline, 2005; Hayashi et al., 2008; Hooper et al., 2008; Blunch, 2008; Kenny, 2010) (Bayram, 2013). Table 3. Goodness of Fit Statistics of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of Fit Indices Model Statistics CMIN/DF 3.269 CFI 0.891 AGFI 0.843 GFI 0.879 RMSEA 0.075 Table 3 shows the goodness of fit statistics of the confirmatory factor analysis. These values indicate adequate fit- ness. Table 4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results Note: For all values P<0.01 The values in Table 3 show that goodness of fit statistics of the confirmatory factor model are valid. Table 4 shows standard factor loads of the confirmatory factor model which are above 0.50. These results indicate convergent valid- ity. The value which shows discriminant validity for each dimension is the AVE (Average Variance Extracted) value. As shown in Table 5, the extracted AVE value is greater than the values in the same column. This result points out the discriminant validity. After testing dimensions for scale validity via the confirmatory factor analysis, a reliability analysis was performed for items of each dimension. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was found to be above 0.7 for each dimension. A Cronbach’s Alpha value which is above 0.7 indicates that internal reliability of the scale is acceptable. As a result of the reliability analysis, removing any item was unnecessary. Table 5 shows the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients and AVE values calculated for each dimension and correlation values between research variables. Items Factors Standardized Regression Weights Unstandardized Regression Weights Standard Er- rors t-value (Critical Ratio) OGB15.2 Cognitive Trust 0.660 1 OGB14.1 0.669 1.118 0.094 11.890 OGB20.7 0.757 1.190 0.090 13.207 OGB18.5 0.834 1.390 0.098 14.259 OGB19.6 0.783 1.194 0.088 13.578 OGB16.3 0.652 1.045 0.090 11.631 OGB17.4 0.729 1.159 0.091 12.801 OGD22.1 Affective Trust 0.560 1 OGD24.3 0.689 1.204 0.124 9.713 OGD23.2 0.740 1.369 0.136 10.083 OGD25.4 0.775 1.473 0.143 10.285 DB10.1 Uncertainty of Change 0.537 1 DB13.4 0.670 1.129 0.119 9.522 DB11.2 0.764 1.340 0.131 10.200 DB12.3 0.877 1.485 0.141 10.551 DS2.2 Frequency of Change 0.639 1 DS3.3 0.765 1.147 0.099 11.570 DS1.1 0.840 1.315 0.115 11.470 PD6.3 Planned Change 0.728 1 PD5.2 0.838 1.292 0.092 14.060 PD4.1 0.734 1.094 0.083 13.141 The Effect of Organizational Change on Trust and an Application 47 http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr Table 5. Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Coefficients and Reliability Results Avg. Std. Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 1. Cognitive Trust 3.43 0.82 (0.729) 2. Affective Trust 3.32 0.83 0.440** (0.695) 3. Uncertainty of Change 2.79 0.88 -0.123* -0.323** (0.723) 4. Frequency of Change 2.87 1.02 -0.097 -0.207** -0.302** (0.752) 5. Planned Change 3.24 0.89 0.545** 0.250** -0.095 -0.026 (0.768) Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient 0.888 0.785 0.797 0.787 0.807 Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 0.532 0.484 0.523 0.566 0.590 * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 Note: Values in parentheses indicate the square root of the AVE value. 8. Analysis Result This section involves testing of hypotheses in the conceptual model of the research. The path analysis results of the structural model are shown in Figure 2 whereas Hypothesis Testing Results are shown in Table 6. Fitness statistics of the structural model can be seen in Table 7. Figure 2. Path Analysis Results H1 hypothesis assumed that the frequency of change affected the organizational trust negatively. The hypothesis was rejected at 0.05 level of significance with the standard β coefficient of -0.097. H2 hypothesis assumed that the planned change affected the organizational trust positively. The hypothesis was accepted at 0.05 level of significance with the standard β coefficient of 0.655. Table 6. Hypothesis Testing Results Relationship Standard β P Accepted/Rejected H1: Frequency of Change → Organizational Trust -0.097 0.079 Not supported H2: Planned Change → Organizational Trust 0.655 0.000 Supported H3: Uncertainty of Change → Organizational Trust -0.081 0.138 Not supported H3 hypothesis assumed that the uncertainty of change affected the organizational trust negatively. The hypothesis was rejected at 0.05 level of significance with the standard β coefficient of -0.081 found as a result of the path analy- sis. Table 7 shows goodness of fit statistics of the structural model. 48 Taylan Şahin & Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr Table 7. Fitness Statistics of Structural Model Goodness of Fit Indices Model Statistics CMIN/DF 3.678 CFI 0.924 AGFI 0.891 GFI 0.933 RMSEA 0.082 Figure 3. The Final Model Figure 3 shows that final form of the conceptual model of the research after validity analysis and hypothesis test. Accordingly, the second hypothesis was supported, whereas the first and the third hypotheses were not supported. 8. Conclusion and Discussion The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of organizational change on organizational trust. Nowadays, communication has improved, environmental and technological developments have accelerated, and organizations engage in change efforts due to ease of access to information. The frequency of change, planned change and uncer- tainty of change were considered as dimensions of change in this study. Each dimension of change may have differ- ent effects on organizational trust levels of employees. If the trust of employees is not lost during the change pro- cess, change will succeed. Organizational change and its dimensions are important to maintain an optimum level of organizational trust. The effects of frequency of change, planned change and uncertainty of change on organizational trust were examined in this study. As a conclusion, H1 was rejected. The effect of frequency of change on organiza- tional trust has been found insignificant. H2 was accepted in the study. Planned change had significant and positive effect on organizational trust. According to this finding, including employees to planning process of the change can increase their organizational trust level. On the other hand, H3 was rejected. The effect of uncertainity of change on organizational trust has been found insignificant. If the research model is implemented to larger samples in future studies, H1 and H3 may be accepted. This study is a unique study conducted to find out the effects of organizational change on organizational trust in the mining sector. Thus, it is expected to encourage scholars to conduct further studies in this field in the mining sector and other sectors. References Bayram, N. (2013). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Amos Uygulamaları. 2. Baskı. Bursa: Ezgi Kitapevi. Cummings, L.L. & Broomiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and Validation, in R.M. Kramer, T.R. Tyler (ed.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 302-330. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. The Effect of Organizational Change on Trust and an Application 49 http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr Çapraz, B. (2009). Örgütsel Değişim: Çok Boyutlu Bir Model Önerisi. Unpublished Phd Dissertation. Ege Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı. İzmir. Çemberci, M. (2012). Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimi Performansının Göstergeleri ve Firma Performansı Üzerine Etkileri: Kavramsal Model Önerisi. İstanbul: Akademi Titiz Yayınları. Demircan, N. & Ceylan, A. (2003). Örgütsel Güven Kavramı: Nedenleri ve Sonuçları. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 10(2), ss. 139-150. DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (1998). A Tale of Two Corporations: Managing Uncertainty During Organizational Change. Human Resource Management, 37(3&4), pp. 295-303. Iqbal, R. (2011). Impact of Organizational Change to Achieve Competitive Edge. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(4), pp. 87-95. Karakuş, S. & Yardım, M. (2014). Algılanan Örgütsel Değişim, Belirsizlik, İş Doyumu ve İşten Ayrılma Niyeti Arasındaki İlişkiler, İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 1(1), ss. 21-31 doi: 10.18394/iid.50336 Chawla, A. & Kelloway, E.K. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(6), pp. 485-498. McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect-and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), pp. 24-59. Meydan, C.H. & Şen, H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. Peker, Ö. (1995). Yönetimi Geliştirmenin Sürekliliği. Ankara: Türkiye ve Ortadoğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayınları, No: 258, Ankara: Türkiye ve Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Genel Müdürlüğü. Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. (2006). Perceptions of Organizational Change: A Stress and Coping Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), pp. 1154-1162. Saylı, H. & Tüfekçi, H. (2008). Başarılı Bir Örgütsel Değişimin Gerçekleştirilmesinde Dönüştürücü Liderliğin Rolü. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (30), ss. 193-210. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), pp. 23-74. Smollan, R.K., Sayers, J.G., & Matheny, J.A. (2010). Emotional Responses to the Speed, Frequency and Timing of Organizational Change. Time Society, 19(1), pp. 28-53. Töremen, F. (2002). Eğitim Örgütlerinde Değişimin Engel ve Nedenleri. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), ss. 185-202. Tüzün, İ.K. (2006). Örgütsel Güven, Örgütsel Kimlik ve Örgütsel Özdeşleşme İlişkisi; Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı. Ankara. 50 Taylan Şahin & Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek http://ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr Wanberg, C.R. & Banas, J.T. (2000). Predictors and Outcomes of Openness to Changes in a Reorganizing Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), pp. 132-142. Weick, K.E. & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational Change and Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, pp. 361-386.