The Mediating Effect of Grapevine Communication on Personality
and Employee Commitment After a Merger or Acquisition
Integration: A Quantitative Study
Submitted to South University
College of Business
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
Gregory P. Priebe
September 2023
ii
iii
Abstract
Mergers and acquisitions have long been studied from a variety of perspectives. Informal and
grapevine communication is a continual examination starting from the works of Bastien (1987).
This journey began with attempting to understand the effect of informal and grapevine
communication on employee commitment after mergers and acquisitions integration. As this
research design was refined several times, the literature review pointed to a gap in understanding
the mediating effects of grapevine communication between employee personality and employee
commitment. Relying on three commitment constructs from Allen and Meyer (1990) with further
review from Sencherey et al. (2022), the authors revealed three surfacing commitment
constructs: affective (the consideration of being an integral part of the organization), continuance
(the recognition of financial and emotional costs in staying with or leaving the organization), and
normative (the possible obligation of needing to stay to satisfy normative pressures such as a
standard work culture, social familiarity, or organizational identity). This quantitative study
examined six hypotheses exploring the relationships between personality, grapevine, and the
abovementioned commitment constructs. Data were collected from 731 participants, with 456
completing the 15-minute questionnaire designed on SurveyMonkey and utilized previous survey
questions from Sato (2005), Okafor et al. (2021), Hermans (1970), Wu et al. (2022), Level
(1959), Dores Cruz et al. (2019), Meyer and Allen (1991), and Sencherey et al. (2022). A
conceptual five-construct mediating model was developed based on the theory of planned
behavior model from Ajzen (2014), which explored the relationships among behavioral beliefs,
attitude toward behaviors, personal control, and intention. Participants were recruited from
LinkedIn.com to complete the 15-minute survey and a chance to win either a $100 or $50
Starbucks gift card. Data were directly transmitted from SurveyMonkey to IBM SPSS v.29 and
then analyzed via SPSS and IBM AMOS to validate conceptual model theories. Structural
equation modeling was used to determine a validated model fit, which revealed a partial
iv
mediating effect between personality and the three commitment constructs. The results warrant a
need for researchers and practitioners to further understand the importance of staying abreast of
employee communication and commitment during organizational change.
Keywords: Employee commitment, employee personality, formal communication, informal
communication, organizational change, mergers and acquisitions, integration, organizational
development, grapevine communication, rumor mills, employee behavior, behavior tendencies,
organizational behavior, organizational change management, organizational commitment,
structural equation modeling, factor analysis.
v
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He has paved the way
for a very lost sinner to be redeemed and provided me with mental clarity, patience,
understanding, and humility to complete this project. Through Him, all things are possible.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Courtney, and our children—Amelia,
Michael, Harrison, Jude, and Miles. Courtney, you have been my unfailing rock and voice of
reason in my life. You have kept our house, kids, and me organized and controlled for three
years while I set out on this journey. You encourage me when I want to quit. You calm my anger
and irritation when my emotions blind my reasoning. You celebrate my highs and lift me up
when I am in my valleys. I would not be half the man I am today without you. My love for you is
truly limitless. I cannot wait to continue our life journey together, Beeb. Amelia, Michael,
Harrison, Jude, and Miles, I could not be a prouder father, nor ask for better children. You are all
far more intelligent than I am, and it has been an absolute blessing watching all of you grow, and
I cannot wait to see what all of you accomplish with your lives. I may have less hair, and that
hair may be slightly grayer every year, but I would not trade being your dad for anything in the
world.
vi
Acknowledgements
To my parents, Stan and Jeanie Priebe, and my in-laws, Larry and Myra Allen: Thank
you for listening to my endless rants via phone call or FaceTime. Your never-ending patience,
love, encouragement, positivity, and interest in my academic journey were paramount to my
success and throughout my life in general. I truly did not deserve the caliber of parents and inlaws I have been blessed with.
To my sister, Jessica: Thank you for your raw words to me when I need them. I am
grateful for your direct, non-sugarcoated approach to telling me what I need to hear when I need
to hear it. Some may consider us brash or coarse, but we get each other, and I am grateful to be
your brother.
To my chair, Dr. Jill List: Wow! How did we get from bouncing ideas off each other to
this rewarding end? I can never repay you for your child-like giddiness with new data sets,
refinements, endless hours of helping me research or solve modeling problems, patience,
teaching, showing, conversation, and flexibility with Zoom calls or texts. I learned more through
your guidance in the past year than I ever imagined. You are truly a master of your craft, and
thank the Lord you have a mild obsession with statistics and data, or this project would not have
been what it is today. My gratitude for being your student cannot be overstated.
To committee member Dr. Robert Levasseur: Thank you for your input throughout this
project and your positive feedback and suggestions during my initial defense. I truly enjoyed our
conversation about this project as it progressed.
To Justin Patrissi: Brother, our friendship over the years has been and will continue to be
absolutely priceless. We encouraged each other when we wanted to quit, calmed each other when
we wanted to throw office furniture, guided each other through business and family decisions,
laughed, cried, hugged, and made a living for our families together. I hear it’s lonely at the top,
but we are still climbing this mountain together. I would not be where I am today without you.
vii
To Austin Doyle, Justin Dyal, Darrel Jones, and Lamar Lanier: Gentlemen, I cannot
express my gratitude to you for allowing me to be a member of such a great team. I don’t know
many people who could honestly say they work with a team as tightly knit as we are, and I am so
grateful to be in a place to provide for our families with such a great group of guys. Even when
we want to knock each other out, we have each other’s backs, which is difficult to find in today’s
world. You all are like family to me. Courtney and I cannot truly express our gratitude for each
of you in our lives.
To Mr. Robbie Franklin, Mr. Dan Cook, Mr. Stephen Franklin, and Mr. Lehman
Franklin: Thank you for the opportunity to provide a wonderful life for my family and for your
encouragement to continue my academic journey. You never asked if this would lead to me
leaving the organization or discouraged me from bettering myself, and that makes me want to
stay with your organization even more as we continue to grow. Thank you each for your
mentorship, guidance, patience, flexibility, and friendship over the years. Courtney and I could
not be happier to be part of your team.
To Val and Vern Cole: Even though we did not speak much on the phone or via text as
life got busier for both our houses, your love and encouragement were truly felt during this
journey. Thank you both for loving our family like you do.
To LTC(R) Tim Lewis: Who would have thought that the hot-headed junior enlisted guy
that couldn’t stay out of the command’s office would wind up here? Your friendship and
guidance over the last 17 years have been invaluable to me. You told me what I needed to hear
when I needed to hear it, whether I liked it or not. You went to bat for me, you encouraged me,
you helped me get into this program. My only regret is that we did not serve longer together, but
I am grateful our friendship continues today.
To my academic advisor, Alexis Burkes: I could always count on a positive email or
phone call from you to check in and encourage me to keep pressing on. May the caffeine never
viii
stop flowing as you traverse your own doctoral journey. I look forward to reading your study and
our continued friendship.
To the LinkedIn community: This study would not have been possible without your
permission from corporate and group owners. To all the professionals who responded, thank you.
These data have turned into something we never thought imaginable and could provide several
follow-up studies after this project. I hope our paths cross again one day.
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Respondent Profiles .........................................................................................................62
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct One: Personality ..........................64
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Two: Affective Commitment .......65
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Three: Continuance
Commitment ......................................................................................................................66
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Four: Normative Commitment ....66
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Five: Grapevine ...........................67
Table 7. Raw Personality AMOS Analysis ....................................................................................69
Table 8. Personality Refining Iteration Sequence ..........................................................................69
Table 9. Refined Personality Construct Amos Analysis—Eighth Iteration ...................................69
Table 10. Two-Factor Rotated Component Matrix ........................................................................71
Table 11. Split Personality Construct AMOS Analyses .................................................................71
Table 12. Split Personality Discriminant Validity ..........................................................................72
Table 13. Properties of the Split Personality Measurement Model ...............................................76
Table 14. Correlations and Squared Correlations ..........................................................................78
Table 15. M.I. AMOS Output with Applied Personality Parceling ...............................................79
Table 16. Mediating Validation with Bootstrap Analysis with 95% Confidence Interval .............89
Table 17. Grapevine Influence When Acquiring and Acquired Respondents are Isolated ............93
x
List of Figures
Figure 1. Meyer and Allen’s (2004) Three-Component Conceptual Model of Organizational
Commitment ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2. Coombs’ (2007) SCCT Model ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 3. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior Model ................................................................. 20
Figure 4. Conceptual Model of the Effect of Grapevine Communication on Employee
Commitment ..................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 5. Framed Mediating Model After LC Refinement ........................................................... 82
Figure 6. Standardized AMOS Output Mediating Model ............................................................. 83
xi
Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1—Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Problem .................................................................................................................. 2
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 2
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 5
A Questionnaire Measure of Achievement Motivation ........................................................... 5
The Measurement of Organizational Commitment ................................................................. 6
Common Patterns of Behavior and Communication in Corporate Mergers and
Acquisition............................................................................................................................... 7
Managing the Grapevine ......................................................................................................... 8
The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative
Commitment ............................................................................................................................ 9
Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking ......................................................................... 10
Anatomy of a Merger (and Acquisition) Part One ................................................................ 12
Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment................................. 14
Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)............................................................... 16
Surveyed Communication Feedback ..................................................................................... 17
Content Validity of a Survey based on the Theory of Planned Behavior .............................. 18
Research Questions and Hypotheses ......................................................................................... 20
Research Questions................................................................................................................ 20
Hypotheses............................................................................................................................. 20
Scope of Study .......................................................................................................................... 21
Significance of Study ................................................................................................................ 21
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 2—Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 23
Section One: Understanding the Theory and Reasonings of Employee Behavioral Traits
Toward Change and Communication ........................................................................................ 23
Person-to-Situation Interactions: Choice of Situations and Congruence Response Models . 23
Participation and Employee Attitude Toward Organizational Change ................................. 24
Cynicism About Organizational Change ............................................................................... 25
xii
The Anatomy of a Merger Part One ...................................................................................... 26
Anatomy of a Merger Part Two ............................................................................................. 27
Employee Reactions to M&A: Role of Leader-Member Exchange and Leader
Communication ..................................................................................................................... 28
Influence of Superior-Subordinate Communication.............................................................. 29
Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change: A 60-Year Review..................... 30
Communication and Loyalty—Theory of Planned Behavior ................................................ 30
A Scoping Review of the Impact of Downsizing on Survivors ............................................ 31
Section Two: Previous Communication and Management Theory and Strategy ..................... 32
Common Patterns of Behavior and Communication in Corporate Mergers and
Acquisitions ........................................................................................................................... 32
Managing the Grapevine ....................................................................................................... 33
The Reaction of Managers to the Pre-Acquisition Stage ...................................................... 34
Under-Communicating a Vision ............................................................................................ 35
Care and Feeding the Office Grapevine ................................................................................ 36
The Informal Communication Network: Factors Influencing Grapevine Activity ............... 37
Dated Communication Timing Strategy Model .................................................................... 38
Understanding Concepts of Change Management and Internal Communication ................. 39
The Effective Management of Mergers ................................................................................. 40
Unpacking Unintended Consequences in Planned Change ................................................... 41
The First 100 Days ................................................................................................................ 43
Communication as Deeds, Not Just Words ........................................................................... 44
Communication Impact on Merger and Acquisition Outcomes ............................................ 45
Communicating Change Following and Acquisition ............................................................ 45
Section Three: Previous Surveys and Modeling ....................................................................... 46
The Measurement of Organizational Commitment ............................................................... 46
The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative
Commitment .......................................................................................................................... 47
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Brief Version: Factor Structure and Reliability .... 48
Change Happens: Assessing the Impact of a University Consolidation on Faculty ............. 48
Longitudinal Study of Organizational Identification and Projected Continuity.................... 49
Challenges Associated with Business Communications ....................................................... 50
Investigating Employee and Organizational Performance in an Acquisition........................ 51
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 3—Methodology ............................................................................................................. 53
Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 54
Population and Sample .............................................................................................................. 54
xiii
Instrumentation.......................................................................................................................... 55
Data Analysis with Methods ..................................................................................................... 56
Protection of Human Rights ...................................................................................................... 57
LinkedIn Group Permissions to Survey .................................................................................... 58
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 58
Assumptions, Risks, and Biases ................................................................................................ 59
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 59
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 4—Results ....................................................................................................................... 60
Stage One: Pre-Analysis Data Examination and Data Preparation ........................................... 60
Data Screening and Testing of Normality ............................................................................. 60
The Sample ............................................................................................................................ 61
Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Items ...................................................................... 63
Missing Data .......................................................................................................................... 66
Stage Two: Validation of the Measures .................................................................................... 67
Refining the Latent Constructs—Personality ........................................................................ 67
Stage Three: Assessment of the Structural Model and Path Estimates ..................................... 69
The Possibility of a Second Factor Model—Introverts and Extroverts................................. 69
Indicator Reliability ............................................................................................................... 73
Alternative Personality Validity: Application of Parceling to Personality Construct ........... 78
Stage Four: An Assessment of Grapevine Communication Mediator Effects .......................... 80
Mediation ............................................................................................................................... 83
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 90
Chapter 5—Discussion ................................................................................................................. 92
Initial Thoughts and Comments on Outcomes .......................................................................... 92
Recommendations and Future Research ................................................................................... 92
Practical Application Possibilities ......................................................................................... 95
Summary of the Study ............................................................................................................... 96
Personal Learning Outcomes and Conclusion ....................................................................... 97
References ..................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 116
Appendix A—Research Recruitment Flyer ............................................................................ 116
Appendix B—LinkedIn and Group Permission Conversations .............................................. 117
Appendix C—Raw Survey Design ......................................................................................... 122
Appendix D—Survey Instrument............................................................................................ 129
Appendix E—Individual Consent Form ................................................................................. 146
xiv
Appendix F—Demographics................................................................................................... 148
Appendix G—Histograms ....................................................................................................... 153
1
Chapter 1—Introduction
This study was designed to examine the effects of grapevine communication on employee
commitment after a merger or acquisition (M&A) integration. Previous studies mentioned
grapevine communication having a potential impact on M&A outcomes (Bagchi & Rao, 1992;
Bastien, 1987; Cording et al., 2008; Dao & Bauer, 2021; Vaara et al., 2014), yet no scholarly
studies exist on the topic. The primary research question for this study was: Does grapevine
communication have a mediating effect between personality and employee commitment?
Researching grapevine communication was necessary as it may prove to be an addition to Meyer
and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment (Figure 1). The two
key components of the theoretical framework for this study were Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
conceptual measurements of commitment and Ajzen’s (2014) theory of planned behavior (TPB).
A 15-minute survey was deployed to over 4 million LinkedIn members with permissions from
various group owners as well as LinkedIn security staff. The survey platform was
SurveyMonkey, which directly integrated into IBM SPSS V.29. The survey collected 731 total
responses with 456 valid responses after programming SPSS to remove incomplete surveys and a
Mahalanobis distance to each input variable. The analyses measured the relational weights and
statistical significance between personality, grapevine communication, and three employee
commitment constructs (i.e., affective, continuance, and normative). The study provides future
researchers and practitioners a better understanding of the capital related to employee attitude
toward communication and the organization during change, in which future organizations invest
in communicating during organizational changes.
Purpose of Study
By surveying LinkedIn members from various industries, this study determined if
grapevine communication has a mediating effect on employee commitment. Based on a Likert
scale to code responses, the results of this quantitative analysis could allow industry leaders and
2
practitioners to identify behavioral tendencies or signals that can prevent rumors,
misinformation, or general concern about the merger or acquisition, which could cost key
employees such as tenured executives or hard-to-replace specialists, reduce productivity, or
negatively impact cultural climate.
Statement of Problem
Acquisition failure rates range between 40-80% (Bagchi & Rao, 1992; Dao & Bauer,
2021; Homburg & Bucerius, 2006; Homburg & Pflesser, 2000). While several articles mentioned
the effects of employee attitudes or shifts in behavioral tendencies toward the organization
(Burlew et al., 1994; Cording et al., 2008; Dao & Bauer, 2021; Karim, 2006; Vaara et al., 2014),
there are no known empirical studies determining when behavioral shifts begin or how negative
employee attitudes are formed. This study explored the mediating effect of grapevine
communication on personality and employee commitment after a merger or acquisition
integration. The literature review of this research project revealed a need for leadership to
understand how grapevine communication affects employee commitment after merger or
acquisition integration (Reissner & Pagan, 2013)
Definition of Terms
Acquisition—Simply put, an acquisition is when a company purchases a majority of or a
whole company to gain control of it. The acquiring company can then make decisions for the
acquired company without consulting its shareholders (Hayes, 2023).
Achievement motivation—The competition with a standard of excellence within an
organization where the key driver is the determination and commitment to excellence generated
within individuals (Wu et al., 2022).
Affective commitment—Commitment categorization in which employees consider
themselves an integral part of the organization along with personal success within the
organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Sencherey et al., 2022).
3
Attitudinal commitment—Focuses on the process by which people come to think about
their relationship with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Change antecedent—How change recipients feel about participation in the change event,
how they believe communication will be disbursed, and how trustworthy that communication
channel is. The change antecedents also examine prenotions of perceived harm or benefit to the
change recipient and what change outcome may take place such as change in pay, office layout,
or job security (Oreg et al., 2011).
Change consequences—Potential outcomes determined by antecedental perceptions or
behaviors regarding the change event. For example, if the recipient had a positive outlook on the
change event, they may retain positive change consequences regarding job satisfaction.
Codification—The action or process of arranging laws or rules according to a system or
plan.
Cognitive explicit reaction—The change recipient’s internal belief toward changes or
how the recipient evaluates the change (Oreg et al., 2011).
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)—Bentler’s (1990) index to summarize the relative
reduction in the noncentrality parameter of two nested models, which is noted as CFI(𝑚,𝑏) =1 −
𝜆𝑚/𝜆𝑏 = 1− (𝜒²𝑚−df𝑚)/ (𝜒²𝑏 − df𝑏). This model fit indicator is one of the most used in structural
equation modeling (Van Laar & Braeken, 2021).
Continuance commitment—The reflection of recognizing the costs associated with
leaving the organization. Anything increasing perceived costs of staying or leaving can be coded
as an antecedent (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Sencherey et al., 2022).
Factor—An unobserved variable that influences more than one observed measure and
accounts for the relationships among the observed measures (Harrington, 2009).
Employee commitment—a volitional psychological bond reflecting one’s dedication and
responsibility for a target or goal (Gifford et al., 2022; Klein et al., 2014).
4
Experiential learning theory—The process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experiences (Schweizer et al., 2022).
Grapevine communication—The major informal communication medium in
organizations. As the name suggests, the communication channel has many branches (vines)
going in all directions though all levels are thought of as rooted in organizational rumors
(Crampton et al., 1998).
Integration—Referring to the art of combining two or more companies after they have
come under common ownership, which has also been coined as the management of the marriage
of two companies (Waight, 2015).
Latent variables—Unmeasured variables, factors, unobserved variables, constructs, or
true scores that are not present in a data set. For example, employee happiness is a latent
variable. There is no actual measurement (a scale of 1-10, a percentile or a measurable bar that is
set) where a tool or device can measure someone’s happiness at work or life in general (Bollen,
2002).
Mahalanobis distance—The multivariate generalization of finding how many standard
deviations away a point is from the mean of the multivariate distribution—also known as the
centroid (Brown et al., 2020).
Normative commitment—A theoretical perspective that individuals may have an internal
obligation to stay with an organization because of normative pressures such as cultural and social
familiarity or organizational identity (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Sencherey et al., 2022).
Parceling—A pre-analytic step done prior to estimating the latent constructs. Creating a
parcel is aggregating (averaging or summing) two or more items of a construct before using said
items as modeled indicators (Litte et al.).
Pre-change antecedent—Change recipient characteristics prior to a change event such as
personality traits, observed or surveyed coping styles, personal needs from the organization,
5
demographics. From an internal perspective, we can examine the level of need for a supportive
environment, trust, perceived organizational commitment to the employee, perceived
organizational culture, and job characteristics (Oreg et al., 2011).
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)—A model fit assessment often used
in conjunction with other model fit methods in structural equation modeling that conducts a
hypothesis test by jointly considering the point estimate and its associated confidence interval
(Chen et al., 2008).
Routine—The reflection of experiential wisdom regarding the outcome of trials and
errors and the retention of past behaviors that “work for a situation” (Schweizer et al., 2022).
Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR)—An approximate index used to
establish fit for a structural equation model when that model would be rejected using the formal
chi-square test of model fit (DiStefano et al., 2018).
Structural equation modeling (SEM)—A generalized statistical modeling technique that
allows for exploration of theoretical constructs relating to latent variables (Hox & Bechger,
1998).
Three-component model—Meyer and Allen’s (2004) model relating antecedents of
commitment such as organizational investment or the opportunity for alternative solutions in
relation to organizational continuance or commitment or organizational cultural familiarity with
commitment to organizational norms.
Theoretical Framework
A Questionnaire Measure of Achievement Motivation
Studies relating personality traits to motivational and achievement reasoning have been
explored for the better part of a century. Hermans (1970) noted studies varied from psychometric
investigations to theoretical discussions. Hermans (1970) also mentioned the importance of
framing his study around aspiration level, risk-taking behavior, upward mobility perception,
6
participant persistence level, task tension related to whether ego recognition is involved, time
perspective, and recognition behavior. Hermans (1970) hypothesized that an achievementmotivated individual has high aspiration levels. The author also suggested that achievementmotivated people preferred high probabilities when the likelihood of success is related to chance.
The high achiever is also the most persistent in completing a task when there is intermediate
difficulty (Hermans, 1970).
High-achieving individuals are also future-thinkers (Hermans, 1970). The high-achieving
person also seeks recognition and self-reflects on a high-performance or excelled measurement
of a completed task. When Hermans reviewed prior studies, he found the construction of
previous questionnaires was too broad in attempting to relate personality traits to achievement
measures. Hermans (1970) utilized three studies from the 20th century to create a more focused
study to help future researchers understand how personality is related directly to the achievement
probability of an individual.
The Measurement of Organizational Commitment
Mowday et al. (1979) revealed a significant gap in studying employee commitment
because the term varied among scholars at the time. Mowday et al. (1979) discussed the
emergence of linking commitment with attitude. The authors defined attitudinal commitment as
an event where the person’s identity is linked to the organization or when the goals of the
organization and the individual’s goals are intertwined (Mowday et al., 1979). Attitudinal
commitment represents a state where there is a member exchange between the employee and the
organization and where the individual links to the organization in return for rewards or
compensation (Mowday et al., 1979).
Mowday et al. (1979) also defined organizational commitment as the relative strength of
an individual’s identification with, and involvement in, a particular organization. This theory of
commitment stretches beyond passive loyalty to an organization to suggest an active relationship
7
between the organization and the individual where the individual is willing to give something of
themselves to contribute to the organization’s success or well-being (Mowday et al., 1979). The
authors also stated organizational commitment does not rely solely on the relationship between
the organization and the individual. The relationship may have external variables and influences
such as the influence to provide for one’s family or the social cost of having to start over at a
new job if the employee leaves.
Common Patterns of Behavior and Communication in Corporate Mergers and Acquisition
Bastien (1987) was already noting the massive failure rate of M&A. Before
communication or corporate culture became buzzwords, scholars and OD practitioners were
already aware that employee motivation, retention, and most importantly—communication—are
primary causes of post-M&A accommodation processes. At the time of Bastien’s writing, the
accommodation process was where critical organizational problems arose. Bastien’s study first
sought to link acquiring company communication with the behavior tendencies of an acquired
company employee. Bastien’s (1987) study also sought to define an observed syndrome of
organizational behavior in acquired company employees to include (a) the generation of worstcase scenario rumors, (b) high levels of personal uncertainty, (c) resistance to change, (d) culture
shock, and (e) poor levels of retention of key employees—namely managers. Tying in with
Bastien’s observations, Bastien (1987) referenced Kanter’s (1977) study, which revealed denial
of access to power and promotion could be an obvious and immediate obstacle during a major
change event such as a merger or acquisition. Kanter’s syndrome also focused on observations of
key employees being “dead-ended,” which when coupled with denial of access to power and
promotion, caused immediate disconnection to organizational goals, a desire to leave the
organization, and on occasion, the desire to sabotage or have hostility toward the organization
that an employee was once loyal to.
The significance of Bastien’s theory (and his included sources) is the early study of the
8
emotional quality of individual reactions to M&As (p. 20). Bastien provided grounded
behavioral study information during M&A by asking respondents questions relating to change
information methods, how the individuals were receiving information (formal or informal
communication), feelings toward how information was received, and perceptions of coworker
reactions to the merger or acquisition announcement. Additionally, we see Bastien gathered basic
data such as age, position prior to the merger or acquisition and position after the change
happened. Bastien only interviewed middle-management-level employees and not, as he defined
them, bottom-level employees. Because Bastien studied three change events (one merger and
two acquisitions), his work allows future researchers to examine differences in middle manager
behavioral tendencies (if any) between two events. Bastien’s study also included outcomes postintegration revealing turnover rates, general middle-management attitude toward the new
organizational structure, and perceived tendencies to stay with the organization or look for a new
job elsewhere.
Managing the Grapevine
Mishra’s (1990) article was foundational in this research as he formally defined
grapevine communication and how it functions within an organization. The grapevine is the
informal transmission of information, gossip, or rumor from person to person (Mishra, 1990). In
an informal definition, it is the all-seeing, all-knowing network of “truth,” and readers should
note that the truth in quotations is the perceived truth by whatever organizational members are
engaged in that branch of the grapevine. Mishra (1990) noted the never-ending branching of the
grapevine as the communication branches are not limited to just the workplace but begin before
the workday and continue to spread throughout the evening after business hours are over.
Grapevine flows into worker social activities (e.g., bars, bowling leagues, church, home life).
Davis (1953, as cited in Mishra, 1990) stated grapevine communication is just as active in
management as it is among workers. Workers at many levels look to the grapevine to supplement
9
formal communication and bide time while waiting for the organizational truth to come through
formal channels. Grapevine commonly branches into gossip, which allows people to think in
advance about what they will do in the event rumors (good or bad) become truth (Mishra, 1990).
Additionally, Mishra mentioned leadership credibility increases when leaders engage in (but not
necessarily encourage) the grapevine to let subordinates know that they too, are in the “know”
about goings on and social perceptions are the watering holes at work.
From a theoretical perspective, Mishra cited Allport and Postman’s (1945) reasoning for
grapevine formation. Allport and Postman (1945) noted the activeness of a grapevine in a twocondition formula: R = i(a) where “R” is the intensity of the rumor, “i” is the importance of the
rumor to the persons paying attention to the grapevine, and “a” is the ambiguity of the facts
associated with the rumor. Allport and Postman (1945) suggested that his formula showed the
number of rumors in circulation varies with the importance of the subject to the grapevine’s
audience members concerned with the ambiguity of rumor (Allport & Postman, 1945.). Davis
(1953, as cited in Mishra, 1990) reported that 75-95% of grapevine information was correct.
The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative
Commitment
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component conceptualization provided relatedness
between the affective, continuance, and normative behavioral components and individual attitude
toward one’s organization. The authors intended to delineate the major differences between the
three behavioral components while linking potential relatedness to independent variables
identified as antecedents of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Conceptualizations of
attitudinal commitment were studied prior to Allen and Meyer’s work but those works lacked the
three defining generalized themes (i.e., affective attachment [affective component], perceived
costs [continuance component], and obligation [normative component]) to create a foundational
model.
10
The authors generated part of their questionnaire utilizing Mowday et al.’s (1979) 15item Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). That was the only section of Allen and
Meyer’s survey not randomized but all questions were placed on seven-point scales (strongly
disagree to strongly agree). This study was also the first theoretical background showing “r”
coded questions where strongly agree would be the lowest-scoring answer while strongly
disagree would be the highest-scoring answer. This was important for this research as it helped
avoid pattern-based answering—where the participant only answers one way to complete the
survey faster.
Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking
Sensemaking was relevant to this research as it theorizes that organizational member
reasoning occurs when change is imminent or ongoing and there is a perceived difference from
the expected state of environment (normal day-to-day ongoings at the office) and a current
organizational state (Weick et al., 2005). During change, people look for reasons that allow them
to resume their perceived normal routine. If personal reasoning or perception is counterintuitive
to the organizational reality, a new reality bias (rejecting change) sets in, or further justification
of new social placement begins. Sensemaking is also asked as personal internal questions to
organizational members: How did this event (e.g., a merger, change in CEO, job restructuring)
come to be? What does the event mean? What am I supposed to do about it?
Sensemaking starts with chaos (Weick et al., 2005). However, chaos is not always
immediately known within an organization. Some combination of events throughout a moment
in time creates the notion of chaos, which calls for sensemaking to take place. Sensemaking is
also about presumptions. In a presuming mindset, organizational members act as if something is
matter of fact such as a job loss or new members from a merger are being added to a team or
department. The caution of the group presuming mindset is that it unfolds a variety of error-
11
ridden activities, which require immediate and continual communication to repair whatever
damages were done (Weick et al., 2005).
While sensemaking was foundational to understand why organizational members may
begin to think about change, understanding organizational parameters is equally important, if not
more so. Organizational parameters included leadership, membership diversity, organizational
processes, and the richness of social actor connectivity (Stacey, 1996). Changes in values of
these parameters are necessary to reach a state where organizational change is possible (Salem,
2008).
Researchers considered sensemaking, along with changes in organizational patterns, as
phases within a perceived phase space where researchers attempt to place all outcomes (Salem,
2008). While examining complexities of chaos, sensemaking, organizational parameters, and
other inputs, researchers tend to stay aware of patterns of phases, which may serve as an initial
attractor for a reactionary change event to take place (Salem, 2008). As organizational
observation continues during change sequences, an organization tends to reach a point where it
wants to lean toward original normalcies of operation, or old normalcies give way to
organizational movement toward change events (Salem, 2008). This proverbial fork-in-the-road
is commonly known as an organizational bifurcation point. Once an organization is at this point,
the organizational system may move to one of five states.
The first possible state is that old norms dominate over organizational change. The
change fails, and the system returns to its previous state (Salem, 2008). The second possible state
is the new norms may dominate, and the organization shifts to a new stable state. Third, the
organization may oscillate between old norms and new ones. This pattern, while unstable, may
encourage a prior and post-change cultural blend. Fourth, the organization could take aspects
from old and new norms and create multiple split points, causing alternating patterns of stability
and instability (Salem, 2008). Finally, there is a possibility that the organization passes through
12
so many stable and unstable patterns that the system itself settles into a permanently unstable
state (Salem, 2008).
Salem suggested communication patterns may signal organizational change patterns
during these states. Because communication, regardless of thought of change or perceived
change, is initiated by local activities within an organization, basins of perceived attraction may
begin to form (Salem, 2008). These communication patterns can also lead to a desired or
undesired organizational state of culture—the latter challenging established structure, process,
and legitimized reason to change.
Research also suggested that deconstructive organizational communication along with
insufficient supportive communication is a primary cause of organizations failing to change. This
occurs when the organizational body perceives a lack of sufficient communication during a
change event. Traditionally, research noted that communication is a social process where
organizational members can make sense of the changing world around them. Complaints about
communication come from a lack of members being able to relate communication to opportunity
artifacts (ability to accept or reject coming change). Employees assume management control
change processes but already anticipate rejection as they fear management decisions will disrupt
routine norms. This inherent fear starts with a lack of communication about change and causes a
loss of employee commitment to change and reduced loyalty to the organization. Because of this
change in communicational theory, we can further investigate communication predictors from an
organizational culture perspective. Changing communication timing variables in an equation is
pointless if the organization is already predestined to accept or reject change because of
communication efforts.
Anatomy of a Merger (and Acquisition) Part One
Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis, et al. (2000) provided a more refined definition of
communication and its place within the M&A arena. According to the authors, communication
13
involves using verbal and nonverbal signs and symbols to create understanding (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Yortis et al., 2000; Vecchio & Appelbaum, 1995). The authors also noted that a true
and final definition of communication and its effects is difficult to achieve because many people
can perceive communication in many ways. In context with the M&A world, we focus on the
authors’ mention of “merger syndrome,” first documented by Marks and Mirvis (1997, as cited
in Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000). Merger syndrome is defined as the increased
centralization and decreased communication by management with employees (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000). The merger syndrome is the root cause of rumor mill generation
and is the toxic root of the grapevine communication branch.
The theory tied into Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis et al.’s (2000) part one and Appelbaum,
Gandell, Shapiro et al.’s part two merger anatomy is that rumor mills and toxic grapevine
communication can be prevented or severely reduced if top management addresses change
uncertainty with employees and resolves these uncertainties as quickly as possible (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000). The authors stated top-tier authority should be truthful, open, and
forthright with communication to maintain credibility (Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000;
Daniel, 1999; DeVoge & Spreier, 1999). The authors discussed the dangers of reneging on
promises made during change. The moment credibility and trust are lost, the hope of repairing
and regaining faith in the workforce becomes incredibly slim.
Culture clash was of additional interest in Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al.’s study. A
cultural clash is simply the outcome of two separate organizational cultures inevitably colliding
during an acquisition. The authors made a point to inform their readers that organizations should
never assume employees understand why a cultural clash takes place but that the same strategies
for general organizational change should be practiced helping steer a cultural clash in a positive
direction (Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000).
Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al. (2000) noted the importance of communication and
14
when to deploy it to prevent negative situations during an M&A event, but the accoutrements of
change communication involve the richness in which the communication originates. All forms of
communication have different effects on the receiver, and executives do not understand the
relationship between communication richness and effectiveness on the receiver (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000; Lengel & Daft, 1988; Richardson & Denton, 1996). When we
think of richness, we think about the level of behavioral saturation to the receiver, but it also has
a great deal to do with the ability to respond rapidly to receiver feedback. For example, face-toface communication is the richest form because the sender communicates directly in front of the
receiver to carry on correspondence immediately, instead of delayed response times through
other platforms such as email (Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000). For this study,
Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al. suggested that timeliness and media richness can be parts of
survey questions to gauge effectiveness on the receiver.
Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment
Meyer and Allen’s (2004) conceptual model argued that the psychological state of
commitment has at least three components: the desire to commit (affective commitment), the
need to commit (continuance relating to financial implication of quitting), and the internal
obligation (normative) commitment to maintain employment or organizational identification
within the business (Meyer & Allen, 2004). The authors proposed that each component is
developed from different antecedents and has different impacts on the organizational behavior of
an individual (Meyer & Allen, 2004). The antecedent model is shown in Figure 1 from Meyer
and Allen (2004).
15
Figure 1
Meyer and Allen’s (2004) Three-Component Conceptual Model of Organizational Commitment
Note: This model illustrates the relationships among affective attachment, perceived costs, and
perceived obligation aspects of organizational commitment (Fu et al., 2009).
Meyer and Allen (2004) also suggested the nature of psychological states differ from
person to person and the intensity of attitudes or commitment levels cannot be grouped into a
singular measurement. This research project took data from the survey results and created a
generalized categorization measurement for each component. It is important to note that the
measurement results could not be entirely conclusive as one level of attitude or commitment
could easily vary between two participants. This survey development began with assessing
personality characteristics regarding extroversion/introversion, the need for achievement,
affiliation, autonomy, higher order, individual position of control (perceived), and centralized
interest in work. These characteristics are listed in no order and are derived from Meyer and
Allen’s (1991) study, which precedes the creation of the TCM.
16
Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)
Coombs (2007) SCCT allowed for the examination of stakeholder reaction to reputational
threat in an organization. SCCT also projects how people react to crisis response strategies from
crisis managers (Coombs, 2007). Stemming from attribution theory, SCCT intended to
understand the rationale behind crisis types and crisis frames. Most notably in this
communication research, is how crisis communication is framed. For example, suppose there is a
mass power outage across a state. The media delivers enough communication to cause crisis
thought and hold the attention of viewers. The media fails to tell the audience that the power
outage will be resolved in less than 24 hours. Thought framing is also important in understanding
how an audience interprets communicated information when received (Coombs, 2007). Because
interpretations are framed differently between people as well as organizational cultures, the
communication framing effect is accepted as the first step in effective mass communication in an
organization (Coombs, 2007). Framing effect occurs when a communicator selects certain
factors to emphasize (Coombs, 2007).
Take a moment and separate Coombs’ definition of crisis and how SCCT would relate to
grapevine communication theory in this research project. The objective of SCCT inclusion was
to utilize a previous cause and effect model in attempting to understand how communication can
prevent crisis, not deal with it as it unfolds in an organization. Because Coombs’ model provided
communication connections with proactive and reactive scenarios, the SCCT model can be
transferable as a foundational theory to establish effective communication during change.
Because SCCT is built around a perceived acceptance of responsibility, response and
communication strategies are thought to be more effective as they are perceived as more
accommodating to individuals at risk of job loss during a merger or acquisition event. SCCT
provided a framework of strategic communication framing to maximize the effects of employee
loyalty during organizational change, which replaced the SCCT crisis model with the conceptual
17
framing model relating perceived communication flow and personality with the affective,
continuance, and normative commitment categories. The key takeaway in the SCCT model was
the illustration of how crisis or change communication can shape evaluations of the
organizational reputation from an internal point of view. SCCT can also be viewed as a response
strategy to a coming or ongoing organizational change. Such strategies include (a) the ability to
shape attributions or organizational change, (b) change perceptions of organizations during
change, and (c) reduce potential effects generated by change (namely seeking reduced negative
effects on long-term behavior from employee to organization). The SCCT model is illustrated in
Figure 2.
Figure 2
Coombs’ (2007) SCCT Model
Note. This figure illustrates the impacts on behavioral intentions through organizational crisis
management plans.
Surveyed Communication Feedback
Nel and Govender (2020) provided theoretical frameworks examining the perceived
quality of communication channels and their effect on perceived communication challenges
among employees in a South African manufacturing company. This research is robust and
applicable as it is a mixed methods approach and was needed in this research project as some of
the research questions were qualitative in nature yet required quantitative measurement. Nel and
18
Govender’s (2020) study served two purposes: (a) it is a modern example of communication
channel feedback in a large sample size from a tech organization and (b) the study stems from
previous theories such as Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, which examined the idea that any performed
behavior can be highly predicted because of acquired attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral
characteristics. The second is Johari’s window from Luft and Ingham (1955), which examined
perceived empathetic listening from traditional organizational communication channels.
Nel and Govender issued a 10-question Likert-type survey. Five of the questions were
qualitative to help the researchers understand how employees felt about the workplace
environment. Responses from the qualitative questions revealed that communication was a major
barrier at the organization (English vs native tongue) and workers felt embarrassed or ashamed
from senior managers during communication breakdown. Because of the perceived
condescending tone of management by employees, the remainder of the qualitative responses
revolved around the thought that management is going to do whatever they want and that they do
not care about employee well-being or organizational change outcomes. The quantitative
questions revealed 50% of respondents’ emails were the most ineffective form of communication
and that the most effective was face-to-face (Nel & Govender, 2020). Of the respondents, 55%
indicated that coherent and concise business communication via email did not exist.
It is important to note that Nel and Govender (2020) also had a mixture of management
and non-management employees in the participant group. The management respondents
indicated (70%) they believed emails were understood by non-management employees, yet the
data showed otherwise. This was important to consider when crafting the survey questions for
this research.
Content Validity of a Survey Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior
Oliveira et al. (2022) utilized TPB to understand insulin adherence in diabetic patients.
The authors noted that TPB is one of the most effective theories for predicting behavior (Oliveira
19
et al., 2022). TPB states the intention to act (motivation) is the proximal determinant of behavior
and that those intentions are determined by attitude, perceived norm, and perceived control
(Ajzen, 1991, 2014). The focus of utilizing TPB in this study was to further understand the
concept of the perception of consequences related to the adoption of behavior. For example, what
is the outcome toward the participant if the individual has a positive or negative opinion about
the adoption of a behavior? Additionally, TPB helped this researcher examine the measurement
of perceived norms, which referred to the priority a person gives to the opinions of those who are
significant to them in the individual’s social environment. Last, TPB opened the door to
measuring perceived control by participants. Perceived control refers to a person’s ability to
adopt general behaviors or when there is limited voluntary control over the situation (Oliveira et
al., 2022).
Ajzen (2014) and Oliveira et al. (2022) expressed TPB is led by the likely consequences
and experiences associated with behavioral beliefs, normative expectations, expectations of the
behaviors of significant others, and the beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or
impede performance of general behavior, which is also viewed as beliefs related to control.
Oliveira et al. (2022) continued to explain Ajzen’s (2014) respective beliefs produce the ultimate
positive or negative attitude toward a given behavior. The following illustration represents how
TPB functions in Ajzen’s (2014) relational model (Oliveira et al., 2022).
20
Figure 3
Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior Model
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Questions
The research questions for the study were:
1. What is the mediating effect of grapevine communication on personality and employee
commitment?
2. What is the effect of personality on affective, normative, and continuance commitment?
Hypotheses
H01: Personality has no effect on affective commitment.
Hα1: Personality has an effect on affective commitment.
H02: Personality has no effect on normative commitment.
Hα2: Personality has an effect on normative commitment.
H03: Personality has no effect on continuance commitment.
Hα3: Personality has an effect on continuance commitment.
H04: Grapevine communication has no mediating effect on personality and affective
commitment.
21
Hα4: Grapevine communication has a mediating effect on personality and affective
commitment.
H05: Grapevine communication has no mediating effect on personality and normative
commitment.
Hα5: Grapevine communication has a mediating effect on personality and normative
commitment.
H06: Grapevine communication has no mediating effect on personality and continuance
commitment.
Hα6: Grapevine communication has a mediating effect on personality and continuance
commitment.
Scope of Study
While M&A events and their outcomes have been studied for many years, little to no
evidence exists of the effect of grapevine communication on employee commitment after M&A
integration. By creating a multiple-topic survey surrounding personality trait, perceived
organizational attitude, feelings regarding communication reception, and feelings or
organizational commitment, this project intended to understand whether grapevine
communication influences the relationship of personality and employee commitment after M&A
integration.
The survey was deployed to LinkedIn members from multiple groups as well as the
researcher’s personal feed and was an ongoing deployment and measurement for two weeks
(May 15, 2023, through June 3, 2023). Each participant was asked to complete a 15-minute
survey measured in the modeling located in Chapter 4.
Significance of Study
Because of the noted gap in literature and the ongoing failure rate of M&A transactions,
this research was designed to help future researchers and practitioners better understand the
22
relationship of employee commitment with grapevine communication, and the organization
during change. It is hoped this study will encourage organizations to communicate with their
employees with the same intensity as reviewing the financial implications of the merger or
acquisition. Additionally, the structural equation model provided validated relationships between
personality, grapevine communication, and organizational commitment.
Summary
This chapter provided the purpose of the study—namely, the scope and the reasons why
this research was needed. Additionally, a theoretical framework was reviewed, providing the
reader with the foundation of the research design and the derivation of the conceptual model
idea. Research and hypotheses were listed to shape the project’s conceptual model, and the
significance of the study was discussed. Chapter 2 includes a three-section literature review,
which elaborates on the project’s research ideas that built the framing ideas behind the research
design. Chapter 3 discusses the method for data collection, survey design, and research design.
Chapter 4 discusses data screening, data validation methods, respondent profiles, descriptive,
model fit, and mediation statistics. Chapter 5 is a final discussion of the findings and the author’s
thoughts on the limitations and hopes of future research.
23
Chapter 2—Literature Review
Section One: Understanding the Theory and Reasonings of Employee Behavioral Traits
Toward Change and Communication
Person-to-Situation Interactions: Choice of Situations and Congruence Response Models
Diener et al. (1984) predicted that a person will naturally choose to be in situations that
match their personality. The second model attempted to understand the congruence between
situation and personality. The hypothesis in the latter is that a person experiences more positivity
if there is a good situation-person fit (Diener et al., 1984). While Diener et al.’s study is not
directly related to job satisfaction or employee commitment, the early modeling provided
guidance to predict whether a person will be satisfied in a general situation if there is a perceived
“good fit” to their own characteristics.
In Diener et al.’s (1984) study, the model predicted that people with a high need for
achievement are happier in work situations. Additionally, extroverted individuals with a high
need for affiliation are happier in large social settings. However, extroverts are prone to negative
affect when they experience loneliness, lack of ability to advance in the workplace, etc. (Diener
et al., 1984). During observation, Diener et al. suggested understanding personality fit tests if a
person stays within a situation that more closely matches a personality fit and that the same
person would attempt to exit the situation faster if they did not feel that same fit. A great
introductory question would be about the mood (e.g., happy, depressed, unhappy, worried,
lonely) when an individual’s alarm goes off in the morning. To get accurate results, the authors
asked individuals to fill out a mood rating every morning for six weeks and then compared
results. The authors sought to determine if there was a preconceived mood before the individual
began the workday. The subjects’ moods were then measured against the situation they had to
interact with their noted mood at wake up along with whether the situation was perceived to be a
good person fit (Diener et al., 1984).
24
Snyder and Kendzierski (1982) found that attitude toward specific work situations can be
self-monitored and self-moderated. Diener et al. wrote about the need for additional study of the
direct correlation between initial mood at wakeup and whether participants had to talk
themselves into having a more positive outlook about whatever situation they were aware of.
Diener et al.’s research foundation focuses on everyday choices in natural settings. The authors
also noted that they did not account for external factors (e.g., day of the week, whether an
individual was satisfied with home life, had eaten breakfast, had coffee). While this study is
older and is a loose perspective on preconceived personality characteristics and behavioral traits,
it provided a great example of variables to include or exclude during behavioral study.
Participation and Employee Attitude Toward Organizational Change
Clay (1993) provided an example of surveyed responses on the perception of
organizational change. Clay’s research examined a British Columbia rehabilitation center’s
employee opportunity to participate in a strategic plan or change. Clay’s findings revealed that
levels of employee (professional vs. nonprofessional) reported varying opportunities to
participate in organizational change. Clay noted that the professional employees constituted the
minority sample in the surveyed group at 38%, while 62% of the group were nonprofessional,
and over 50% of the nonprofessional group reported English as their second language (Clay,
1993).
Clay’s study also had an affective variable in that the rehabilitation center staff went on
strike five days after surveys were distributed. After the staff returned, an additional 21 responses
came in from the staff. To counter potential outlier behavioral perceptions, a second survey
(identical to the first) was sent to respondents and non-respondents from the first surveyed group.
Clay did not mention how the recent strike event may have altered initial respondents’ answers.
Clay noted the issues that caused the strike were not resolved before the employees returned to
work and the secondary survey was sent.
25
Clay (1993) also mentioned the general attitude toward British Columbia’s healthcare
system. During the study, the government of British Columbia announced the closing of a major
hospital within the same network as the surveyed rehabilitation center. Though respondents did
not note concerns in the open remark areas of the survey, the research team observed spoken
concerns of rehabilitation employees getting “bumped” by displaced hospital workers. While
Clay’s study seemed turbulent from external influences, her work was useful in understanding
the groundwork for behavioral coding regarding organizational attitude and perception.
Cynicism About Organizational Change
Wanous et al. (2000) referenced Polley’s (1997) study classifying cynicism in three
ways: (a) toward one’s specific organization, (b) toward business executives, and (c) toward
human nature in general. Because cynical people are averse to change and are toxic for work
environments, knowing the cynical group in the change environment would be important to a
practitioner or change management team. Wanous et al. (2000) also chastised change themes
(e.g., team spirit, empowerment, commitment to quality) having little likelihood of success
because change managers fail to understand employee attitude toward the perceived outcome
(success or failure of M&A integration).
From a positive perspective, Wanous et al. (2000) also referenced works from Triandis
and Likert (1967) and the approach of gaining employee support for change efforts by gathering
data in a participative format such as a survey. Likert and others’ (e.g., Mann, 1957) efforts are
known as the action research approach to change. The assumption of this approach is that
individual employees are viewed as active elements in organizational change and play a critical
part in the success or failure of the change event (Wanous et al., 2000). Wanous et al.’s (2000)
article is important to include in survey design and pre-deployment research method as cynical
respondents may create outlier results by showing strictly negative perceptions of not just change
but of an organization.
26
The Anatomy of a Merger Part One
Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis, et al. (2000) provided a more refined definition of
communication and its place within the M&A arena. According to the authors, communication
involves using verbal and nonverbal signs and symbols to create understanding (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Yortis, et al., 2000; Vecchio & Appelbaum, 1995). The authors also noted that a true
and final definition of communication and its effects are difficult to achieve because people can
perceive communication in many ways. In context with the M&A world, we focus on the
authors’ mention of “merger syndrome,” first documented by Marks and Mirvis (1997, as cited
in Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis et al., 2000). Merger syndrome is defined as the increased
centralization and decreased communication by management with employees (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Yortis, et al., 2000). The merger syndrome is the root cause of rumor mill generation
and the toxic root of the grapevine communication branch.
The theory tied into Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis, et al.’s (2000) part one and Appelbaum,
Gandell, Shapiro, et al.’s (2000) part two merger anatomy is that rumor mills and toxic grapevine
communication can be prevented or severely reduced if top management addresses change
uncertainty with employees and resolving these uncertainties as quickly as possible (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000). The authors noted that top-tier authority should be truthful, open,
and forthright with communication to maintain credibility (Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al.,
2000; Daniel, 1999; DeVoge & Spreier, 1999). The authors discussed the dangers of reneging on
promises made during change. The moment credibility and trust are lost, the hope of repairing
and regaining faith in the workforce becomes incredibly slim.
Another area of interest was the internal effect of cultural clashing. Cultural clashing is
simply the outcome of two separate organizational cultures inevitably colliding during an
acquisition. The authors made a point to inform their readers that organizations should never
assume employees understand why a cultural clash takes place but that the same strategies for
27
general organizational change (namely communication) should be practiced to help steer a
cultural clash in a positive direction (Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis, et al., 2000).
Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis, et al. (2000) noted the importance of communication and
when to deploy it to prevent negative situations during an M&A event, but the accoutrements of
change communication are the richness from which the communication comes. Each form of
communication has different effects on the receiver, and executives do not understand the
relationship between communication richness and effectiveness on the receiver (Appelbaum,
Gandell, Yortis, et al., 2000; Lengel & Daft, 1988; Richardson & Denton, 1996). When we think
of richness, we think about the level of behavioral saturation to the receiver, but it also has a
great deal to do with the ability to respond rapidly to receiver feedback. For example, face-toface communication is the richest form because the sender is directly in front of the receiver to
carry on correspondence immediately, instead of delayed response times through other platforms
such as email (Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis et al., 2000). For this study, Appelbaum suggested
that timeliness and media richness can be parts of survey questions to gauge the effectiveness on
the receiver.
Anatomy of a Merger Part Two
In the second part of their article, Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al. (2000) addressed
the critical issue of stress caused by uncertain environments post-change. The authors noted that
it is not just the M&A event that makes employees anxious but the perceived decline in the
organization before the event unfolds (Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000). When change
is announced, employees feel a loss of control over an important aspect of their lives and are
prone to withdraw when they realize any attempt to regain control of said aspect is lost during
the change process. Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro, et al. (2000) suggested that employees
immediately create a foundational reality when the announcement of change disrupts their
current reality. The stress of an event is a subjective perception of employees and needs
28
intervention by management with rich communication within the context of the M&A event
(Marks & Mirvis, 1997, as cited in Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000).
The authors referred to a case study of hospital patients in which the patients were
forewarned of treatment pain and given a realistic probability or timeline of recovery. Because
communication was delivered upfront, patients who received the “communication treatment”
recovered quicker and had fewer complications overall (Marks & Mirvis, 1997, as cited in
Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro et al., 2000). By applying this hospital case study to an
organizational setting during a merger or acquisition event, there was an assumption of benefit
that employees are informed of the event and its implications as early as possible for them to
heal faster with fewer complications. As part of the initial survey of this study, two prominent
topics in question were thoughts and feelings of uncertainty and insecurity, primarily how middle
managers perceived those feelings once they were informed of the merger or acquisition event.
The purpose of understanding how intense these feelings are is to allow for any predisposition to
be addressed when coding behavioral traits for data sorting.
Employee Reactions to M&A: Role of Leader-Member Exchange and Leader
Communication
Bhal et al. (2009) provided understanding on the importance of segregating cognitive and
affective reactions of employees toward dramatic change events such as acquisition. For the sake
of article relatedness, acquisition was grouped into a common segment of merger and acquisition
(M&A). Here, the authors explored leader-member exchange (LMX) and the quality of
exchanges (high vs. low) in employees’ reactions toward M&A (Bhal et al., 2009). Bhal et al.
also explored two dimensions of LMX—job-related contributions (or perceived contributions to
the organization) and off-the-job interactions in which both were predictors of employee
reactions to organizational change (Bhal et al., 2009).
Bhal et al. (2009) also noted the lack of literature surrounding the cognitive evaluation of
29
a merger or acquisition. In their works, the authors hypothesized that positive cognitive
evaluation leads to positive behaviors toward the change event. Additionally, Bhal et al. (2009)
suggested positive affect perception also leads to positive behaviors and that positive affect and
cognition are related. It is worth noting that Bhal et al. (2009) stated there are mixed theories
about whether cognition effects affect or vice versa. Consider the “chicken or the egg” situation
concerning which came first. Lazarus (1994) suggested that there is no effect without cognition
(Bhal et al., 2009). The importance of this article was to understand how employees, especially
managers, may have a preconceived notion toward the acquisition depending on how much they
already know and where they got their information.
Influence of Superior-Subordinate Communication
Communication serves four major organizational functions: control, motivation,
emotional expression, and information (Robbins, 2005). Wińska (2010) suggested viewing
employee (job) satisfaction as a bidimensional concept. This theory suggests that intrinsic
sources of satisfaction depend on relations with management, the actual work the employee
performs, and initiative, whereas extrinsic factors are situations such as income level, promotion
opportunities, or job security. Wińska suggested that supervisor internal communication with
subordinates may offset partial job dissatisfaction, but job satisfaction should not be completely
ignored even if the supervisor-subordinate relationship is positive.
Wińska (2010) also stated prior studies had indicated interpersonal interactions, starting
with communication and affect between coworker communication, significantly impact
psychological attachment to a job or overall job satisfaction. Wińska also provided insight into
the job characteristics model (JCM), which proposed the relationship between job characteristics
and work outcomes is heavily moderated by an employee’s growth needs (GNS)—a measure of
an employee’s desire to grow within the company. The JCM model provided statistical evidence
showing communication can be both a moderator and predictor of job satisfaction. The idea
30
behind the predictor is that if the employee had little to no job satisfaction or desire to grow
within the company, leadership communication could ideally keep the employee satisfied by
itself (Wińska, 2010). While this study is insightful, it still left a timing gap that was revisited as
the research developed.
Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change: A 60-Year Review
Oreg et al. (2011) reviewed 60 quantitative studies surrounding the research on
employees’ reactions to organizational change. The importance of Oreg et al.’s study is the
examination of understanding how employees’ reactions to change affect the probability for the
change event to succeed (Oreg et al., 2011). Additionally, the authors noted the issues of
previous research, giving different labels to similar theories or definitions. They referred to this
as a jingle-jangle effect and provided clarification on previously researched terms to give future
practitioners a clearer understanding of defined terms and theories surrounding this genre of
study.
For this research project, Oreg et al. (2011) provided their coding scheme for their
findings, which was useful when building my measurement methods. In their article, Oreg et al.
coded explicit reactions to organizational change, such as cognitive, affective, and behavioral
tendencies toward the change event. Additionally, the authors also coded pre-change antecedents
(e.g., change recipient behavioral characteristics, internal context). Last, Oreg et al. coded
change antecedents, such as perceived benefit or harm and change consequences, such as
personal outcome perceptions from the change recipient’s point of view. By coding hundreds of
variables and having the ability to point active inputs to reactive outputs, Oreg et al. provided a
great model to review how change recipients may have a predetermined outlook on change
events.
Communication and Loyalty—Theory of Planned Behavior
Williams et al. (2020) utilized the TPB to test the loyalty of employees and customers to
31
remain with an organization during a merger. The model suggested that communication,
perceived control, and subjective norms are associated with intended behavior (Williams et al.,
2020). The authors’ research revealed that communication and subjective norms were positively
related to attitude, which is related to behavioral intention—also linked with intention to stay or
leave. Williams et al. integrated communication into the previous TPB with hopes of
understanding better factors influencing employees and customers to remain loyal during major
change events such as mergers or acquisitions. To keep with the theme of this literature review,
Williams et al. (2020) noted that communication in organizations is situated in time and space in
the context of communicative events. The authors defined those events as actual communication
acts.
Williams et al. (2020) differed from previous articles when they asked if information
about change (merger in this case) was clearly communicated. An outside perspective may raise
the question of whether the respondent’s job was saved or if the person was terminated during
the M&A event. An additional question on this topic could be if the presurvey outcome (job loss
or retention) influenced how the respondent answered the general questions.
A Scoping Review of the Impact of Downsizing on Survivors
Langster and Cutrer (2021) provided some insight into the reduction in the workforce
(further as RIF). While their article is not specific to M&A, the psychological effect on
employees, specifically survivors of change, is important to understand in gauging employee
commitment if the employee survived the change event. Langster and Cutrer (2021) explored
two primary questions: (a) What is the emotional impact of an RIF on employees, and (b) how is
the emotional impact of an RIF reflected in the work of employees?
The authors found that RIF causes a psychological breach of contract between employees
and employers. When an organization hires an employee, the organization and the employee
create a written contract regarding salary, hours worked, benefits, and other parameters. The two
32
parties also enter an unwritten contract in which the employee assumes the employer has the new
employee’s best interests in mind, and RIF is perceived as a personal attack on the employee
(Langster & Cutrer, 2021). The danger here is that Langster and Cutrer noted a severe lack of
evidence suggesting that broken psychological contracts can be salvaged by investing in
surviving employees. The lack of evidence supports that while a person may have survived the
M&A event, the loss of commitment or productivity may be even more severe than for
individuals who did not survive the event (Langster & Cutrer, 2021).
Section Two: Previous Communication and Management Theory and Strategy
Common Patterns of Behavior and Communication in Corporate Mergers and
Acquisitions
Bastien (1987) was a frontrunner in noting the lack of success in M&A. Before
communication or corporate culture became buzzwords, scholars and OD practitioners were
already aware that employee motivation, retention, and most importantly—communication—are
primary causes of post-M&A accommodation processes. At the time of Bastien’s writing, the
accommodation process was where critical organizational problems arose. Bastien first sought to
link acquiring company communication with the behavior tendencies of an acquired company
employee. Bastien (1987) also sought to define an observed syndrome of organizational behavior
in acquired company employees to include (a) the generation of worst-case scenario rumors, (b)
high levels of personal uncertainty, (c) resistance to change, (d) culture shock, and (e) poor levels
of retention of key employees—namely managers. Tying in with Bastien’s observations, Bastien
referenced Kanter’s (1977, as cited in Bastien, 1987) study revealing denial of access to power
and promotion, which can be an obvious and immediate obstacle during a major change event
such as an acquisition. Kanter’s syndrome also focused on observations of key employees being
“dead-ended,” which when coupled with denial of access to power and promotion, caused
immediate disconnection to organizational goals, a desire to leave the organization, and on
33
occasion, the desire to sabotage or have hostility toward the organization that an employee was
once loyal to.
The significance of Bastien’s theory (and his included sources) is the early study of the
emotional quality of individual reactions to M&As (p. 20). Bastien provided grounded
behavioral study information during M&A by asking respondents questions relating to change
information methods, how the individuals were receiving information (formal or informal
communication), feelings toward how information was received, and perceptions of coworker
reactions to the merger or acquisition announcement. Additionally, Bastien gathered basic data
such as age, position prior to the merger or acquisition, and position after the change happened.
For this study, the researcher noted Bastien only interviewed middle-management-level
employees and not, as he defined them—bottom-level employees. Because Bastien studied three
change events (one merger and two acquisitions), it allows future researchers to examine
differences in middle manager behavioral tendencies (if any) between the two events.
Managing the Grapevine
Mishra’s 1990 article is foundational in this research as he formally defined grapevine
communication and how it functions within an organization. The grapevine is the informal
transmission of information, gossip, or rumor from person to person (Mishra, 1990). In an
informal definition, it is the all-seeing, all-knowing network of “truth.” Readers should note that
the truth in quotations is the perceived truth by whatever organizational members are engaged in
that branch of the grapevine. Mishra noted the never-ending branching of the grapevine as the
communication branches is not limited to just the workplace but begins before the workday and
continues to spread throughout the evening after business hours are over. The grapevine flows
into worker social activities (e.g., bars, bowling leagues, church, home life).
Davis (1953, as cited in Mishra, 1990) noted that grapevine communication is just as
active in management as it is among workers. Workers at many levels look to the grapevine to
34
supplement formal communication and bide their time while waiting for the organizational truth
to come through formal channels. Grapevine commonly branches into gossip, allowing people to
think in advance of what they will do in the event rumors (good or bad) become truth (Mishra,
1990). Additionally, Mishra mentioned leadership credibility increases when leaders engage in
(but not necessarily encourage) the grapevine to let subordinates know that they, too, are in the
know about goings on and social perceptions are the watering holes at work.
From a theoretical perspective, Mishra cited Allport and Postman’s (1945) reasoning for
grapevine formation. Allport and Postman (1945, as cited in Mishra, 1990) noted the activeness
of grapevine in a two-condition formula: R = i(a) where “R” is the intensity of the rumor, “i” is
the importance of the rumor to the persons paying attention to the grapevine, and “a” is the
ambiguity of the facts associated with the rumor. Allport and Postman (1945) suggested that
their formula showed the amount of rumor in circulation varies with the importance of the
subject to the grapevine’s audience that is concerned with the ambiguity of rumor. Davis
reported that 75-95% of grapevine information was correct. This study was performed almost 70
years ago, and communication methods and information perceptions have changed with the
inclusion of technology in the workplace. Nonetheless, Mishra’s study provides an excellent
introduction to the study of grapevine communication working through an organization.
The Reaction of Managers to the Pre-Acquisition Stage
Burlew et al. (1994) labeled their work as exploratory but provided great foundational
guidance relating the perception of evident rumors regarding a merger or acquisition and how
those rumors negatively impacted the current organizational climate. Additionally, Burlew et
al.’s work gave this research project a first look at informal communication channels and how
informally received communication can change the attitude toward an organization and its
leadership. Because the initial “main headline” communication was received informally,
surveyed managers unanimously agreed that any internal or external event would generate
35
additional branches of the rumor tree. For example, one senior and one junior manager
mentioned outside personnel visiting their stores. The two managers assumed the visitors were
potential buyers from the acquiring organization but never confirmed whether their thoughts
were true.
Because the foundational rumor belief had already been generated by the initial informal
communication, the grapevine, particularly a rumor mill, had been established as the baseline
communication channel. All surveyed managers agreed that continuing the acquisition process
without formal communication or engagement of executive management would surely spark a
quasi-crisis situation where uncertainty and fear would cause mass exodus and disengagement
from the organization during the acquisition (Burlew et al., 1994). Additionally, respondents
reported a myriad of emotions regarding the acquisition announcement, with only one stated
emotion being positive—the hope that benefits would not change. One respondent even told
interviewers:
This announcement makes it very hard for the employees to be dedicated because they
feel like the company has already told them how unimportant they are by not
communicating with them or asking their opinion, or providing reassurance or guidance
during the change event. (Burlew et al., 1994)
Results of Burlew et al.’s work revealed that managers thought it impossible to conduct
business as usual because of the immense levels of uncertainty. Related to business as usual,
management also noted the impossibility of pre-announcement performance levels. Respondents
were cited stating without formal communication or some kind of plan of action from senior
leaders, disengagement from the organization was eminent from loss of trust and dissolving of
long-standing organizational expectations to employees (Burlew et al., 1994).
Under-Communicating a Vision
Kotter provided an eighth-step model in his 1995 Harvard Business Review article, with
36
step four discussing under-communicating a vision, which can also be translated into
organizational change. Kotter discussed organizational change development teams having an
initial execution meeting or sending out a single communication to managers to then be
dispersed to employees. Kotter (1995) noted that these initial communication efforts accounted
for only .0001% of intracompany communication but failed to say how that percentage was
measured. He mentioned the change in antecedent speeches from executives accounted for only
.0005% of intracompany communication (Kotter, 1995). Kotter’s fourth step continually
mentioned communication’s impact on overcoming obstacles, employee concerns, and helping
employees gain a better understanding of decision-making from leadership during change but
failed to mention when to start, what phases of change to deploy communication, and
communication effect on employee retention.
However, Kotter noted that successful transformation had a history of all executives
using all existing communication channels to broadcast and encourage vision to employees
(Kotter, 1995). Successful change cases also showed evidence of planned communication,
communication attitude (excitement about the vision), and the removal of old ways of thought.
New meeting attitudes focused on current business problems and the continual encouragement of
new vision acceptance. Kotter’s (1995) guiding principle to successful change was using every
communication channel, especially those traditionally carrying nonessential information.
Kotter’s final words in step four were a reminder that communication comes from both words
and deeds, and a lack of one can quickly undermine a vision.
Care and Feeding the Office Grapevine
B. Smith’s (1996) editorial interviewing Elaine Rè, who owned a communication
consultation firm at the time of writing, suggested that the grapevine can be a very useful
communication tool if personal rumor mills are removed from the channel. Rè stated: “You can
forget about removing the grapevine; it’s a natural part of any organization and life in general.”
37
Bob Smith’s conversation with Rè also revealed that 66 to 70% of employees spend their time on
the grapevine during an organizational crisis versus only 10 to 15% during a normal day (B.
Smith, 1996).
When B. Smith asked, Rè stated the grapevine is so persistent and quick to spread
because organizations cannot provide relevant and trustworthy information to employees in a
timely manner. The author also noted that executive leadership should understand that while they
may be reluctant about employee reactions to positive or negative changes, chances are the
masses are already barricading themselves in a rumor-generated cage, and the hesitation in
communication is only costing productivity and wasting time (B. Smith, 1996).
The Informal Communication Network: Factors Influencing Grapevine Activity
Crampton et al.’s (1998) study of the perception of functionality of the grapevine and
how managers can control it to stop unwanted rumor mills. Like other studies, Crampton et al.
(1998) agreed that the grapevine and rumor mills are unavoidable and unpreventable in
organizational life. De Mare (1989, as cited in Crampton et al., 1998) stated approximately 70%
of all organizational communication happens at the grapevine level and that official
communication from top leadership often comes far after rumors have become rooted.
Allport and Postman (1945) stated the contagiousness of the grapevine is highly
dependent on the importance of the communicated subject to the speaker and listener as well as
the perceived ambiguity of the actual situation pertaining to the communication. A tenured
employee accustomed to constant changes in the organization may not give a second thought to a
M&A announcement, whereas a newer, lower-level employee may pay closer attention to
organizational changes and seek formal communication more often than a seasoned employee
who has experienced major changes during their employment at the current company.
Crampton et al. (1998) also noted that a grapevine can be beneficial to an organization.
Grapevine communication is the most efficient communication method and is often used by
38
employees to reduce anxiety or process limited information. Additionally, when monitored, the
grapevine can provide early warning signals of employee unrest or identify pending problems or
concerns generated by rumors (Crampton et al., 1998). Last, the grapevine provides an ingredient
of cohesion in which employees turn to each other for trustworthy information regarding changes
and to discuss solutions to problems. The grapevine can also be a place where employees
brainstorm about questions to ask leadership about changes and comfort each other in
uncertainty.
Dated Communication Timing Strategy Model
Barrett’s (2002) strategic employee communication model was designed to increase
managerial understanding in the role communication plays during organizational change.
According to Barrett (2002), her model grew from researching high-performing organizational
success studies to finding out what really worked with employee communication. Barrett’s
model is comprised of key communication strategy steps for internal communication and, like
the previous authors, stresses the importance of communication when facilitating change.
Barrett also introduced a three-phase communication strategy plan that illustrated the
importance of analysis and strategy of communication timing to help managers understand the
current communication environment within the changing organization. The timing in her model
revolves around team formations and message testing.
Barrett also suggested monitoring communication acceptance through stratified sample
surveys within the company but failed to mention what level (e.g., middle management,
executive) to form the sample. Based on the tone of her article, the sample would be from the
entire organization, but she did not reference an appropriate sampling size. In her survey, Barrett
suggested asking, “What is your level of understanding of the changes occurring in the
company?” and “What is your most frequent source of information about the changes?” Barret
also suggested that management only judges the survey program if they believe it makes a
39
meaningful difference. A perception could be the risk of executives discarding a survey if they
dislike the results. What does the change team do at that point? Are the surveyed employees fired
if they disagree with the organizational climate during the change or if they are critical of the
communication strategy?
Understanding Concepts of Change Management and Internal Communication
Like Kotter, Kitchen and Daly (2002) noted that global management change program
failure rates can run as high as 70%. Gilsdorf (1998, as cited in Kitchen & Daly, 2002) also
concluded that mistakes in change programs directly correlated to breakdowns in
communication. Matheson and Matheson (1998, as cited in Kitchen & Daly, 2002) summarized
impedance factors of organizational change to include:
•
Internal focus,
•
Lack of credibility,
•
Secrecy,
•
Lack of skills, resources, discipline, and strategy,
•
Tendency to oversimplify, and
•
Oversimplification by ignoring people’s natural reluctance to change.
While Kitchen and Daly mentioned communication and other internal political references, the
authors confirmed the lack of academic or practicing internal communication literature at the
time. Most literature surrounding communication falls under umbrella headings such as
organizational, corporate, and business communication (Kitchen & Daly, 2002). Another
important note from Kitchen and Daly is that managers interested in effective communication
must understand that employee communication cognizance includes what an employee must
know (key job-specific information), should know (essential but desirable organizational
information such as changes in senior management), and could know (unimportant information
or office gossip).
40
The first key literature gap mentioned by Kitchen and Daly was the authors’ statement
that certain studies revealed poor managerial oversight and inappropriateness of cues from
corporate culture created internal problems during change. Suppose as research develops, the
inappropriateness of cues could be translated to “bad timing” when communicating change to
employees. Kitchen and Daly did not discuss outcomes from that statement but simply brought it
to the readers’ attention. Like Kotter, Kitchen and Daly provided their readers with multiple
positive bullet points on communication being fundamental to the organizational change process,
its use in effective leadership skills, the importance of communication training, etc., yet failed to
suggest communication timing during organizational change.
The Effective Management of Mergers
Nguyen and Kleiner (2003) suggested the greatest opportunity for an M&A event to fail
is during the integration process. These failures are usually the result of improper management,
understanding, and strategy related to cultural integrations between the two organizations
involved in the transaction (Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003). Integration is usually after the honeymoon
phase of M&A, where top-level managers’ intimacy of the transaction passes through to middle
management, who either lack leadership perception from subordinates or are underinformed to
carry the vision from the executive staff. Additionally, employees who originally looked to
executive staff for rich communication almost immediately feel a cultural disconnect when the
messages are now passed through “the middleman” instead of the actual leader who is being
looked up to. This raises the question: Can management and/or leadership exercise sufficient
authority and keep employee commitment if they are given the task to carry through integration?
The answer is yes if that individual shies away from negative characteristics such as self-worry,
shows lack of purpose or courage, or has portrayed weak commitment. They may also lose
subordinate faith if the manager or designated leader is known not to trust their team and is
indecisive (Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003).
41
During integration, ground-level employees and middle managers undergo a form of
crisis where the group becomes desperate for engaged leadership (Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003).
More importantly, being a leader is perceived as being correlated with high levels of employee
satisfaction. This is also a dangerous platform because leaders who are actually aware but
exhibited those negative characteristics (e.g., worry, distrust, weak commitment) are forced to
give way to incorrectly trusted individuals who can generate incorrect information that can
rapidly spread through the grapevine and spark rumor mills. As these misinformation situations
begin to form, executive teams are now victimized by middle management and ground-level
employee groupthink and are subjected to whatever consequences come with that situation—all
because of the lack of rich communication during a time of need.
From a pre-M&A perspective, due diligence can take a fatal blow if the ordering team
fails to recognize cultural incompatibilities (Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003). According to BijlsmaFrankema (2001), cultural incompatibility is the largest cause of missing projected performance
numbers, key executive exodus, and time-consuming conflicts during business consolidation.
Culture clash is often considered the most dangerous factor when two companies decide to join
(Bijlsma-Frankema, 2001, as cited in Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003). In the unlikely event two
incompatible cultures get along, research suggests that it takes five to seven years for both sides
to feel truly assimilated into each other (Covin et al., 1997). The importance of these studies was
to understand that even if coding can be completed in this project, there are simply too many
unforeseen variables, cultural differences, and generalized human thoughts to guarantee that
these results can be repeated every time for every situation. M&As are never the same thing
twice. This research project was designed to provide an idealistic baseline to understand further
how grapevine and rumor mill communication affect employee commitment to an organization.
Unpacking Unintended Consequences in Planned Change
Jian (2007) provided a process model of unintended consequences in planned
42
organizational change. The model shows the relatedness of communicative actions between
senior managers and employees. The model reveals the dynamic in which consequences unfold
by adding to the theoretical understanding of organizational change. Jian referenced several
articles from Armenakis and Bedeian (1999), Bastien et al. (1995), Cameron (1994),
Czarniawska and Joerges (1996), and Cameron (1994) stating the ongoing recognition that
planned organizational change produces unintended consequences. Jian focused the article on the
process of how unintended consequences are produced and cited the process’ lack of study.
Jian also explored the “what if” factor. This referred to alternative outcomes had a social
character acted differently but not on what the intended outcome was planned or perceived in the
beginning. Jian (2007) noted that in planned organizational change, consequences that escape the
intention of change planners are considered unintended and can reshape the larger desired
outcome of a change event. Jian (2007) also suggested that managers command the change
language and fail to realize that employees are also change agents during the event. Because of
the lack of understanding and miscommunication, unintended consequences are guaranteed (Jian,
2007).
Jian also pulled structure theory implements from Giddens (1984, as cited in Jian, 2007),
which offered three directions in analyzing unintended consequences. The first direction is that
researchers should identify the role of human agents in the sequences of change events. The
second direction suggests patterns or regular behaviors form complex individual activities that
need to be studied and how the affected individuals interact with each other to create various
constructs in the organizational environment. Finally, Giddens (1984, as cited in Jian, 2007)
suggested that research should analyze how unintended consequences contribute to
organizational system reproduction or repair. This article was important in that it helped
researchers have a better understanding that there are unintended consequences that will unfold
during a change event and that it is not only the top management’s actions that contribute to
43
change outcomes. Employees shape outcomes as well because survivors reshape the
organizational culture and it is the senior management team’s responsibility to engage in positive
communication to direct the cultural rebuild as early as possible.
The First 100 Days
Davenport (2017) expressed the importance of taking advantage of a change strategy in
the first 100 days after a change announcement. Their example of change happened to be a
merger, which allowed the authors to concentrate on a “them vs. us” theme, allowing readers to
understand how change efforts and communication can help curb uncertainties from both parties.
As discussed in previous paragraphs, deeds are equally important in communication as verbal or
written efforts. Davenport (2017) suggested counting some initial quick wins like a fresh coat of
paint or replacing a dated copier or computer monitor to ignite the positive movement for the
newly formed business unit. Highly visible improvements have an immediate impact, shaping
how employees perceive future changes (Davenport, 2017). The authors cautioned readers
against the traditional “top manager” thought process that suggests “everyone will calm down,”
where research suggests employees do not calm down; they simply leave or seriously decrease
productivity. Davenport (2017) also noted that once poor relationship perception starts, it
continues to be harder to mend as time goes on. The authors noted challenges for communicators
such as:
•
Managing the dilemma between speed and consulting
•
Dealing with communication vacuums. (No news is bad news mentality)
•
Managing low trust or credibility
•
Dealing with resistance to change
•
Avoiding communication overload
•
Falsely communicating “business as usual” when leaders are consumed with integration
issues.
44
Communicating the awareness of employee frustration or concern is an absolute
importance in the first 100 days after a change announcement, as are, informing employees that
managers are also waiting for the next decision to be made, and most importantly, openly
addressing concerns and avoiding vague answers (Davenport, 2017). The last thing an
organization needs is the perception of secrecy or shrouded operations during organizational
change.
Communication as Deeds, Not Just Words
Gao et al. (2009) synthesized a housing company, Triple C, where some of its consumers
were employees. Triple C leadership sent initial communication in letter format with weekly
paychecks to employees, encouraging them to volunteer for an employee steering committee.
The purpose of the employee steering committee formation was to include employees in coming
organizational changes, including new tasks the company would provide for the surrounding
community and current patients/residents. Because the training was focused on creating a sense
of ownership in employees and not simply telling employees what was going to happen and how
they would be affected, employees were found to encourage each other in their groups and form
supportive ideas for the new organizational movement. By creating an “employee goal-owned”
culture, event committees included employee honors, promotions, and other related
achievements during company events.
Company events also included publicly announced job openings and encouraged current
employees to apply and grow with the company. Triple C also developed an in-house staff
reallocation program, which surveyed current staff members and offered them alternative
positions based on their responses. According to Gao et al. (2009), providing staff reallocation
could assist in easing organizational change and reduce the need for additional funding to hire
consultants or additional managers.
45
Communication Impact on Merger and Acquisition Outcomes
Angwin et al. (2016) argued that past merger success measurements were strictly
financial. The authors contended that little scholarly literature exists measuring the effects of
communication toward the outcome of a merger or acquisition. Angwin et al. (2016) also stated
the importance of scholars and practitioners needing to understand the exact role of
communication and the processes and phases in which it has the most influence. Angwin et al.
(2016) specifically studied communication processes, timing, and content during the pre-deal
stage. Like the other authors in this review, Angwin et al. (2016) discussed the lack of empirical
evidence and concluded communication is the key to managing uncertainty and crucial for
managing acquisition.
Angwin et al. (2016) also noted the effect of timing of communication was unclear,
which led to the initial interest in exploring the impact of communication timing during
organizational change whether it be in the M&A arena or generalized organizational change. The
authors’ consensus was that there is a line between over- and under-communicating during
change events and even more so in the post-change environment such as post-integration from a
merger or acquisition. The timing mentioned in Angwin et al.’s (2016) work was more related to
communication saturation (too little or too much and how often) and not specific events
intending to prevent or encourage various behaviors during change.
Communicating Change Following and Acquisition
Bansal and King (2020) discussed previous literature from DiFonzo and Bordia (1998),
Jemison and Haspeslagh (1991), Schweiger and Denisi (1991), Thakur et al. (2017), and Vaara
(2003), which confirmed these norms lead to employee uncertainty and ambiguity causing the
continuation of negative perception of change following an acquisition. Research has shifted
toward examining the influence of managerial communication in determining employee
acceptance of change following acquisition (e.g., Angwin et al., 2016; Larsson & Finkelstein,
46
1999; Rafferty & Restubog, 2009; Weber et al., 2011; Zagelmeyer et al., 2016, as cited in Bansal
& King, 2020); Zhang et al., 2014).
Previous research focused on the obligation of the employer to fulfill the employee
information requirement. Granted that change communication provides information related to the
extent and implications of change, there has been significant evidence revealing that forthcoming
communication from the beginning of the change event is a requirement to maintain employee
commitment (Zagelmeyer et al., 2016, as cited in Bansal & King, 2020). An addressed gap in
this article was the recognition of employee perceptions of communication and how affected
employees gauge employer intentions. Bansal and King noted that those perceived intentions are
excellent indicators of probable employee intentions (e.g., organizational citizenship,
commitment, productivity). This article was useful in that it addresses the importance of
understanding how an employee feels about employer intentions during a change event and how
those perceptions affect employee behavioral tendencies.
Section Three: Previous Surveys and Modeling
The Measurement of Organizational Commitment
Mowday et al. (1979) was the first to reveal a significant gap of study regarding
employee commitment—namely because the term varied among scholars at the time of writing.
Looking at page two of Mowday et al.’s research, the authors discussed the emergence of linking
commitment with attitude. The authors continued to inform readers that attitudinal commitment
means the identity of the person is linked to the organization or when the goals of the
organization and the goals of the individual are intertwined (Mowday et al., 1979). Attitudinal
commitment represents a state where there is a member exchange between the employee and the
organization where the individual links themself to the organization in return for rewards or
compensation.
Mowday et al. (1979) also directly defined organizational commitment as the relative
47
strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization. This
theory of commitment stretches beyond passive loyalty to an organization but suggests an active
relationship between the organization and the individual where the individual is willing to give
something of themselves to contribute to the organization’s success or well-being (Mowday et
al., 1979). The authors also stated organizational commitment does not solely rely on the
relationship between the organization and the individual. The relationship may have external
variables and influences such as the influence to provide for one’s family can be positively
linked if the employee is receiving adequate compensation but negatively if the employee is
struggling to make ends meet or feels underpaid for their position.
The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative
Commitment
The weight of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) contribution to this research lies within the
three-component model listed later in this document. The conceptualization provided relatedness
between the affective, continuance, and normative behavioral components and individual
attitudes toward one’s organization. The authors intended to delineate the major differences
between the three behavioral components while linking potential relatedness to independent
variables identified as antecedents of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Conceptualizations of
attitudinal commitment were studied prior to Allen and Meyer’s work, but those works lacked
defining generalized themes to create a foundational model. Those three themes are affective
attachment (affective component), perceived costs (continuance component), and obligation
(normative component).
The authors generated part of their questionnaire utilizing Mowday et al.’s (1979) 15item OCQ. That was the only section of Allen and Meyer’s survey that was not randomized, but
all questions were placed on seven-point scales (strongly disagree to strongly agree). This study
was also the first theoretical background showing “r” coded questions where strongly agree
48
would be the lowest-scoring answer while strongly disagree would be the highest-scoring
answer. This was important for this research as it helped avoid pattern-based answering—where
the participant only answers one way to complete the survey faster.
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Brief Version: Factor Structure and Reliability
Sato (2005) provided researchers with a brief version and insight into the three central
“super traits” as described by Eysenck (1990). These personality traits are extroversionintroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Sato (2005) noted that extroverted people are less
excitable or have a lower arousal level than introverted individuals. As such, extroverts seek
stimulation from a variety of sources to raise their excitement or arousal levels. Introverted
individuals avoid stimulation as much as possible as the personality type is naturally aroused
(Eysenck, 1990). In addition to extro/introverted traits, neurotic individuals tend to have a highly
reactive autonomic nervous system, which leads to emotional instability (Sato, 2005). This trait,
paired with psychoticism, tends to result in disregard for common sense and impulsive behavior
(Eysenck, 1990).
Sato’s (2005) work contributed to helping the researcher understand how a participant
may react to change naturally, with or without any relatedness to their work environment. By
understanding the participant’s natural personality tendency, the researcher hoped to isolate an
extroverted or introverted person’s natural desire to seek communication outside formal
channels. For example, do the data reveal that extroverted people tend to seek or create
grapevine or rumor mill communication channels? Additionally, Sato’s work helped this
research measure the demographics of participants’ personalities and measures according to
Eysenck’s (1990, as cited in Sato, 2005) findings.
Change Happens: Assessing the Impact of a University Consolidation on Faculty
Ribando and Evans (2014) revealed their participants were more committed to the
organization after the merger event in an organization perceived to merge into a collegial culture
49
versus an organization perceived to merge into a corporate culture. The reason for the increase in
organizational commitment from the collegial culture is the increase in employee feeling toward
person-organization fit. Additionally, the surveyed expectations of organizational culture were
directly related to person-organization fit levels, which ultimately reflected in measured
employee commitment.
The importance of this article was the reference use of the Person-Organization Fit Scale
from Cable and Judge (1996) and Xie (1996), Kahn’s (1964) job-related stress scale, the
Affective Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990), the Continuance Commitment Scale
(Allen & Meyer, 1990), and the Organizational Culture Assessment Index (Cameron & Quinn,
2011). Because of the rich use of multiple scales measuring organizational commitment and
cultural perception, Ribando and Evans provided an outstanding foundational framework for
shaping this research design.
Longitudinal Study of Organizational Identification and Projected Continuity
Lupina-Wegener et al. (2013) provided insight with their study examining perceived
dominant and subordinate groups after an M&A event. The authors’ research discovered that
organizational identity is usually transferred within the dominant organization but seldom within
the subordinate one. Lupina-Wegener et al.’s (2013) research gap describes a lack of study of
why a perceived subordinate group cannot transfer their pre-event identity to the newly merged
culture. The authors continued by explaining the objective of studying projected employee
continuity with identification transfer. Drawing from social identity theory (Tajfel et al., 1979)
and self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), the authors sought to understand employee
self-definition regarding group and individual membership and identity. Lupina-Wegener et al.
(2013) also noted that Terry et al. (2000) proved that group membership reduced uncertainty
within the workplace.
Lupina-Wegener et al. (2013) argued that organizational dominance gives way to
50
uncertainty of new group continuity within post-merger identification. Simply put, individual
uncertainty is increased in a collective as the whole group is uncertain of what the group will
look like or what the group will do once the M&A event is over. The authors discovered that premerger dominant identification positively related to individual and group continuity but had
opposite indicators for the subordinate group. The result is the stronger the pre-merger
identification is within a group, the more likely that group is to carry the dominant position
compared to other groups within the merging organizations.
Challenges Associated with Business Communications
Nel and Govender (2020) provided theoretical frameworks examining the perceived
quality of communication channels and their effect on perceived communication challenges
among employees in a South African manufacturing company. This research was robust and
applicable as it was a mixed methods approach, which was needed in this research project as
some of the research questions were qualitative. Nel and Govender’s (2020) study served two
purposes. It was a modern example of communication channel feedback in a large sample size
from a technology organization, and the study stemmed from previous theories, such as Ajzen’s
(1991) TPB, which examined the idea that any performed behavior can be highly predicted
because of acquired attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral characteristics. The second was Johari’s
window from Luft and Ingham (1955), which examined perceived empathetic listening from
traditional organizational communication channels.
Nel and Govender issued a 10-question Likert-type survey. Five questions were
qualitative to help the researchers understand how employees felt about the workplace
environment. Responses to the qualitative questions revealed that communication was a major
barrier at the organization (English vs. native tongue), and workers felt embarrassed or ashamed
of senior managers during communication breakdown. Because of the perceived condescending
tone of management by employees, the remainder of the qualitative responses revolved around
51
the thought that management was going to do whatever they wanted and that they did not care
about employee well-being or organizational change outcomes. The quantitative questions
revealed 50% of respondents believed emails were the most ineffective form of communication
and that the most effective was face-to-face (Nel & Govender, 2020). Fifty-five percent of
respondents indicated that coherent and concise business communication via email did not exist.
It is important to note that Nel and Govender’s (2020) study also had a mixture of
management and non-management employees in the participant group. The management
respondents indicated (70%) they thought emails were understood by non-management
employees, yet the data show otherwise. This was important to consider when crafting the survey
questions for this research. It would be useful to compare managerial responses to nonmanagerial responses for perceived communication richness in a later study.
Investigating Employee and Organizational Performance in an Acquisition
Tian et al. (2021) created a 3-phase 10-page survey taking samples from various sources
to measure employee withdrawal behaviors and the willingness to share tacit knowledge during
post-acquisition stages. The three phases focused on three dimensions: pre-acquisition, postacquisition, and acquisition performance. The researchers intended to uncover if there was a
point where the employee became disconnected from the organization. Tian et al. (2021) first
examined the concept of trust (Schoorman et al., 2007) and then adopted eight questions from
Stahl et al. (2011). The first measurement the authors sought was to gauge the level of trust
employees had with senior management between the legal combination of organizations (T1),
the period between legal joining and the end of the integration period (T2), and the period once
integration was complete or had failed, divestment included (T3). Trust was delivered
conceptually to respondents in which five attributes were measured: ability, integrity,
benevolence, openness, and value congruence.
Tian et al. (2021) then took status variables (i.e., mode of takeover, power asymmetry,
52
and perceived performance differences) and compared that feedback to the original trust data to
measure relatability. Last, the authors measured perceptions of cultural similarity, shared
meaning (mission statement or organizational process), and management style similarity (Tian et
al., 2021). Additionally, Tian et al. (2021) compared integration process variables (integration
speed, multiculturalism, and communication quality) against the periods of time to gauge the
perception of those variables on employee trust. The study went on to mention several other
variables that are not necessarily important to this research topic but should be cross-referenced
for later study or in conjunction with this project’s method to define variable relatedness further
across multiple studies.
Summary
Chapter 2 provided several pieces of literature used to explore previous methods and
findings surrounding employee commitment, theory, behavioral modeling, previous studies on
the success or failures of M&A, and other pertinent content for this study. Chapter 3 moves on to
methodology, including research and survey design, deployment, a brief description of
permissions and sample population, and the conceptual model in which the hypotheses were
tested.
53
Chapter 3—Methodology
This chapter explains and justifies the use of quantitative research examining the
correlation between survey response data and the hypotheses. The methodology was determined
to answer the research questions listed in Chapter 1. The design incorporated a 15-minute survey
of approximately 4 million LinkedIn Group members from a wide range of industries and
professional backgrounds. Each group is listed in the permissions section. The survey begins
with two qualifying questions of whether the participant had experienced an M&A event during
their career and if the participant was working for a U.S.-based company. If the participant
answered “no” to either question, the survey redirected the individual to a thank you page with a
note stating the individual did not meet the qualifications to continue with the main survey. The
next five questions were strictly for demographic purposes:
•
Age (18-25; 26-33; 34-41; 42-49; 50-57; 58-64)
•
Gender (male, female, other)
•
Length of employment (0-5 years; 6-10 years; 10-15 years; 16+ years)
•
Level of position (associate, entry-level manager, middle manager, senior manager,
executive)
•
Total compensation: ($0-30k; $30,001-60k; $60,001k-90k; $90,001k-120k; $120,001k 150k; $150,001k+)
The main survey topics gathered information about the participants’ personalities and
their thoughts surrounding grapevine communication and commitment. The full survey can be
found in Appendix C of this research document. The survey was administered through
SurveyMonkey. Prior to data analysis, SPSS was programmed to remove incomplete surveys and
reduce the outlier inputs using Mahalnobis distance for each input variable. The survey data were
then analyzed for variable effects via confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses in IBM
AMOS and SPSS. The remainder of this chapter includes descriptions of the research design,
54
population sample, instrumentation, research procedures, and data analysis, and concludes with a
discussion of this study’s risks, biases, and limitations.
Research Design
This quantitative study was designed to primarily measure the mediating effects of
grapevine communication on personality and employee commitment after M&A integration. The
researcher created a 15-minute survey on SurveyMonkey.com. The survey included a welcome
page introducing the researcher and explaining the purpose of the project to participants.
Participants were also informed that they could enter a Starbucks gift card giveaway at the end of
the survey. The survey was designed to have all questions required to complete the survey and
enter the drawing. For example, the participant must have answered question one before
proceeding to question two and question two before question three, etc. This requirement
eliminated incomplete surveys, causing unnecessary data sorting and exclusion. The researcher
paid to have SurveyMonkey directly integrated with IBM SPSS to help categorize the results
since the number of responses was so large (n = 456)
Participants were guaranteed anonymity during the survey, and no personal identifying
information was requested. The participants who wished to enter the gift card drawing were
required to provide an email address, and the winners had their cards sent to the entered email
address so no names of any employees could be collected. The researcher deleted the email
address list once the study was complete and the drawing was finished.
Population and Sample
Because of the number of positive responses from the LinkedIn Group community, the
survey was sent to over 4 million LinkedIn users. To participate, members needed to work for a
company based in the United States and needed to have experienced a merger or acquisition
during their employment. The survey was conducted and redeployed several times over a twoweek period.
55
Instrumentation
A 15-minute survey was deployed via a SurveyMonkey link on LinkedIn professional
group pages. The initial two questions were qualifying questions determining whether the
participant could continue to the main survey. Questions three through eight were demographic
questions asking information about current salary, gender, age, length of employment with the
current organization, and employee level identification (entry-level, management, or C-suite).
The survey was constructed on a weighted scale to the intensity of employee perception toward
topics such as communication, commitment, personality, and job satisfaction. Once the data were
collected, the researcher used IBM SPSS to weigh all results and measure relatedness between
variables. Because of the number of latent variables in the survey, the researcher and his chair
determined that using a structural equation model in IBM AMOS was best suited to show
relatability in all variables listed.
The 15-minute survey was the only instrument used in this research (Appendix A). The
survey was a collection of previous survey questions derived from the works of Sato, 2005;
Hermans, 1970; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer & Allen, 2004; and Level, 1959. The styling from
previous surveys, question randomization, and reverse coding for certain questions made this
instrument the best possible tool for gathering the required information to complete this research
study. A seven-point weighting system also increased the sensitivity accuracy of this study to
provide the researcher with more refined results. The conceptual affect model is in Figure 4.
56
Figure 4
Conceptual Model of the Effect of Grapevine Communication on Employee Commitment
The conceptual model assumed that personality has a direct effect on affective, normative, and
continuance commitment and that grapevine communication has a mediating effect on
personality and affective, normative, and continuance commitment.
Data Analysis with Methods
Once data were collected, the researcher and his chair used IBM SPSS to perform an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the survey results.
CFA deals specifically with measurement models, which illustrate relationships between
observed indicators (measurements), such as behavioral observations and latent variables
(factors). The objective of latent-variable measurement was to understand the nature of factors’
effects on variation and covariation on indicators (Harrington, 2009). In simpler terms,
57
Harrington (2009) suggested the observed measures are intercorrelated because they are all
influenced by the same latent variables. EFA is a data-driven approach where no initial
specifications are made regarding the number of common factors and pattern of relationships
between indicators and latent variables. This research used EFA first to determine the
appropriate number of observed variables and examine a data-defined relationship between the
latent and observed variables. For example, the data revealed the weight of personality
(extroversion or introversion) to affective, continuance, or normative commitment. EFA is often
used before CFA as it does not require a strong conceptual background and input. A primary
difference is CFA requires the researcher to specify factor loadings and patterns in advance.
Both CFA and EFA are parts of SEM, a general statistical approach to modeling
observed variability patterns in data. SEM mechanisms are usually theoretical and may include
artifactual components to help measure latent or unobserved variables (Harrington, 2009).
Throughout this course, ANOVA, regression analysis, and principal factors analysis were
discussed in the core work and SEM is related to those modeling methods. In fact, SEM is often
used to compare or verify measurements from methods such as ANOVA (Harrington, 2009).
This research utilized SPSS data reduction tools, Mahalanobis distance, CFA, and EFA to refine
data measurements as much as possible to provide the most accurate relational weights between
all variables.
Protection of Human Rights
No human rights were in jeopardy during this research study. The survey only asked
about experiences during a merger or acquisition and was provided via email with an option to
either decline to participate or to refuse participation even after the survey was completed. The
informed consent review was on page two of the survey after the welcome page. Participants
needed to accept the consent statement before proceeding to the full survey.
58
LinkedIn Group Permissions to Survey
Permissive conversations occurred between March 29, 2023, and March 30, 2023. The
first group permission obtained was from Mr. Rogério de Mello Pires, who owned the LinkedIn
Group, PMO—Project Management Office. This professional group contained approximately
200,000 professional members from a variety of industries across the world. The second group
permission was obtained from Mr. Kaushik Kumar, who owned the LinkedIn Group,
Entrepreneurs, Startups, E-Commerce & Venture Capital Groups. This group has approximately
25,000 members globally. The third permission was obtained from Mr. Michael Tingle, the
primary manager of Linked: HR #1 LinkedIn HR Group. This group had over 1 million members
focused on human resources (HR) and HR industry trends worldwide. The fourth group
permission came from Mr. Ravi Kikan, who owned Startup Specialists Network Group. This
group focused on digital media and IT startup professionals and had over 1 million members.
The fifth and final permission came from Mr. Peter Lee, Esq., who owned Software/Technology:
AI, Marketing, Social Media, HR & Metaverse, a broad group of professionals with over 2.8
million members. Mr. Lee also managed Metaverse & AI Blockchain, Finance, HR, and
Marketing, which had over 500,000 group members from a wide range of IT and HR
backgrounds. A full review of permissive conversations can be found in Appendix B.
Limitations
The researcher acknowledges limitations within this study. First, the researcher had no
control over the participants taking the survey more than once. However, participants could not
complete the survey twice from the same Internet protocol address thanks to SurveyMonkey’s
duplication prevention. Third, the researcher had no way of knowing whether a participant was
truthful in their response to the qualifying question asking if the participant had been involved in
an M&A event. An example would be if a participant lied on the qualifying question just to have
an opportunity to enter the giveaway. If a participant had not experienced an M&A event, those
59
responses would dilute the responses of those who had experienced such events.
Assumptions, Risks, and Biases
The researcher chose to deploy a virtual survey to remove any risk or bias that could
occur during the study. Every member of these three LinkedIn groups has an equal opportunity
to participate in the survey. A risk was that members who were neither part of an M&A event
nor worked for a U.S.-based company would still be able to participate. The researcher had no
way of preventing false information from being entered in the qualifying questions. The
researcher assumed all participants were truthful in their responses but had no way of validating
country of employment or M&A exposure from participants.
Significance of the Study
Because of the noted gap in the literature and the ongoing failure rate of M&A
transactions, this research was designed to provide future researchers and practitioners a better
understanding of the capital related to employee attitude toward communication and
organization. The researcher also hopes organizations will use this study to better invest in
communicating to their employees with equal intensity as reviewing the financial implications of
the merger or acquisition at hand. Additionally, the researcher hopes to help organizations better
understand how leadership can offset or reduce the likelihood of acquisition integration failure
and increase employee retention job performance, and reduce the generation of rumor mills and
general uncertainty after integration. Last, the research results provided by the IBM AMOS
outputs allow future foundational measuring relationships among communication, organizational
attitude, and organizational commitment.
Summary
Chapter 3 provided insight on the methodology in this study. The chapter also reviewed
assumptions, risks, biases, and limitations, and restated the significance of the study. A preview
of LinkedIn permissions to access members and professional groups was also provided.
60
Chapter 4—Results
The research approach was discussed in Chapter 3. In this chapter, a four-stage data
analysis was introduced and conducted. The four stages of data analysis included a pre-analysis,
data examination, and data preparation stage (stage one); a validation of the measures stage
(stage two), an assessment of the structural model and the path estimates stage (stage three), and
an assessment of the mediator effects stage (stage four). Chapter 4 presents the results and
findings in each stage. The various analyses in the present study were processed using IBM
SPSS 29.0 AMOS software. The measurement characteristics of the constructs included in the
research model were initially examined, with the following sections describing the results of
these initial analyses.
Stage One: Pre-Analysis Data Examination and Data Preparation
Data Screening and Testing of Normality
Careful analysis of data applicability after collection and before analysis was probably
the most time-consuming part of data analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2018). However, this step
was of utmost importance, as it provided the foundation for any subsequent analysis and
decision-making that rests on the accuracy of the data. Incorrect analysis of the data during
purification, including EFA and before conducting confirmatory SEM analysis, may result in
poor fitting models or, worse, inadmissible models.
Data screening was important when employing covariance-based techniques such as
SEM, where assumptions are stricter than for the standard t-test. Many of the parametric
statistical tests (based on probability distribution theory) involved in this study assumed: (a)
normally distributed data—the data were from a normally distributed population, (b)
homogeneity of variance—the variances in correlational designs should be the same for each
level of each variable, (c) interval data—data where the distance between any two points was the
same and were assumed in this study for Likert data, and (d) independence—the data from each
61
respondent had no effect on any other respondent’s scores.
Many of the common estimation methods in SEM such as maximum-likelihood
estimation, assume: (a) “all univariate distributions are normal, (b) joint distribution of any pair
of the variables is bivariate normal, and (c) all bivariate scatterplots are linear and
homoscedastic” (Kline, 2023, p. 49) recommended first assessing univariate normality, a
necessary condition for multivariate normality. Data normality is based on the premise that data
are from one or more normally distributed populations. When a distribution is normal, the values
of skewness and kurtosis are zero. Some authors suggested that univariate values approaching at
least 2.0 for skewness and 7.0 for kurtosis should be addressed (West et al., 1995, as cited in
Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003; Yuan & Bentler, 1999). None of the variable measures exceeded
these values. It was also important to examine the distributions visually. Referring to the
histograms in Appendix F, we concluded all the data seemed to satisfy the assumption of
normality.
The Sample
A multiple-question survey was deployed via a SurveyMonkey link on LinkedIn
professional group pages. A random sample of 456 respondents answered questions about
employee perception toward topics such as communication, commitment, personality, and job
satisfaction. As the data were collected, they were directly transmitted to IBM SPSS v.29. The
requirements for members to participate were that they must be working for a company based in
the United States and they must have experienced a merger or acquisition during their
employment. Table 1 shows the background characteristics of the respondents.
Table 1 shows nearly half (49.8%) of the respondents were between 26 and 33 years old.
Most respondents identified as male (51.3%) or female (46.3%). More than half (51.3%) of
respondents reported yearly salaries between $90,000 and $150,000.
62
Table 1
Respondent Profiles
Background Variables
Age
Gender
Annual salary
Level of education
Employee level
Certificate
18-25 years
26-33 years
34-41 years
42-49 years
50-57 years
58-64 years
Total
Male
Female
Other
Prefer not to disclose
Total
$0-30,000
$30,001-60,000
$60,001-90,000
$90,000-120,000
$120,001-150,000
$150,001+
Total
Did not graduate high school
High school graduate
High school graduate with some college
Earned associates
Earned undergraduate degree
Earned master’s degree
Earned terminal degree or designation (e.g., MD,
JD, CPA, PhD)
Total
Associate or entry level
Technician or specialist (e.g., x-ray tech,
sonographer, specialized IT designation)
Entry-level management
Middle management
Senior management
Executive or C-suite level
Total
Yes
No
Total
N
66
227
107
45
9
2
456
234
211
9
2
456
26
101
64
115
119
31
456
28
38
46
8
151
148
37
%
14.5
49.8
23.5
9.9
2.0
0.4
100.0
51.3
46.3
2.0
0.4
100.0
5.7
22.1
14.0
25.2
26.1
6.8
100.0
6.1
8.3
10.1
1.8
33.1
32.5
8.1
456
53
99
100.0
11.6
21.7
16
118
116
54
456
424
32
456
3.5
25.9
25.4
11.8
100.0
93.0
7.0
100.0
63
Background Variables
Position during merger
or acquisition
Event experienced
Work environment
during merger or
acquisition
I was an employee of the acquiring company
I was an employee of the acquired company
Total
I experienced a merger
I experienced an acquisition
Total
I worked at an office location during the merger or
acquisition.
I worked remotely during the merger or
acquisition.
I worked in a hybrid (some office location, some
remote) during the merger or acquisition
Total
N
365
%
80.0
91
456
318
138
456
263
20.0
100.0
69.7
30.3
100.0
57.7
131
28.7
62
13.6
456
100.0
Among respondents who reported earning a degree, 33% earned an undergraduate
degree, 32.5% earned a master’s degree, and 8.1% earned a terminal degree (e.g., PhD, MD).
Most respondents reported their level in the organization as 25.9% in middle management,
25.4% senior management, and 11.8% in the executive or C-suite ranks. In addition, 93% of all
respondents also reported completion of some type of certification program.
A majority of the sample (80%) stated that they were employed by the acquiring
company, whereas 20% stated that the acquired company employed them. Similarly, almost
three-quarters (69.7%) stated they experienced a merger, while 30.3% stated they experienced an
acquisition. Of the survey participants, (57.7%) reported working at an office location during the
merger or acquisition, 28.7% worked remotely, and 13.6% worked in more than one location or a
hybrid (some office, some remote).
Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Items
A total of 37 questions were used to estimate the 5 constructs included in the conceptual
model. The constructs included personality, grapevine communication, and three measures of
employee commitment: affective, continuance, and normative. All the items used to measure the
various constructs were on a Likert-type seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
64
strongly agree (7). The descriptive statistics obtained are shown in Table 2. Examination of the
table showed that the means ranged from 2.94 (e.g., I prefer to observe quietly in the
background—reverse coded) to 5.35 (e.g., I take initiative to make new friends).
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct One: Personality
Construct one: Personality
I am the life of the party
I enjoy meeting new people
I take initiative to make new friends
I like plenty of excitement in my day
I prefer to observe quietly in the background *R*
I often feel depressed *R*
I am irritable while I am at work *R*
I worry about lots of things *R*
I would consider myself to be a nervous person *R*
I often feel “fed-up” at work *R*
I prefer to be alone *R*
Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be
right to leave my organization now.
I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.
This organization deserves my loyalty.
I would not leave my organization right now because I
have a sense of obligation to the people in it.
I owe a great deal to my organization.
Note. N = 456.
Min
M
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Std.
Statistic Error Statistic Error
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5.16
5.46
5.49
5.34
2.73
3.07
3.11
2.79
3.10
3.07
2.91
5.29
1.354
1.236
1.160
1.223
1.350
1.573
1.602
1.394
1.585
1.581
1.478
1.338
−.721
−.985
−.878
−.737
.718
.551
.521
.648
.575
.678
.631
−.738
1
1
2
5.23
5.41
5.33
1.375
1.237
1.264
−.749 .114
−.743 .114
−.717 .114
.033 .228
.108 .228
−.099 .228
1
5.09
1.545
−.768 .114
−.268 .228
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.114
.076
.665
.641
.177
.256
−.575
−.695
−.319
−.625
−.444
−.338
.127
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
.228
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Two: Affective Commitment
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with
this organization.
I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my
own.
I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my
organization. (R)
I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization.
(R)
I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.
(R)
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for
me.
Note. N = 456.
Min
M
SD
1
5.35
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Std.
Statistic Error Statistic Error
1.252
−.743 .114
.261 .228
1
5.12
1.420
−.637 .114
−.402 .228
1
3.03
1.498
.664 .114
−.314 .228
1
3.09
1.575
.576 .114
−.479 .228
1
3.09
1.607
.600 .114
−.603 .228
2
5.40
1.153
−.650 .114
.172 .228
65
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Three: Continuance Commitment
Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of
necessity as much as desire.
It would be very hard for me to leave my organization
right now, even if I wanted to.
Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I
wanted to leave my organization now.
I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this
organization.
If I had not already put so much of myself into this
organization, I might consider working elsewhere.
One of the few negative consequences of leaving this
organization would be the scarcity of available
alternatives.
Note. N = 456.
Min
M
SD
1
5.41
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Std.
Statistic Error Statistic Error
1.267
−.805 .114
.288 .228
1
5.13
1.360
−.699 .114
.060 .228
1
5.28
1.289
−.761 .114
.144 .228
1
5.13
1.397
−.665 .114
−.128 .228
1
5.21
1.389
−.801 .114
.172 .228
1
5.19
1.347
−.629 .114
−.203 .228
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Four: Normative Commitment
I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current
employer. (R)
Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be
right to leave my organization now.
I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.
This organization deserves my loyalty.
I would not leave my organization right now because I
have a sense of obligation to the people in it.
I owe a great deal to my organization.
Note. N = 456.
Min
M
SD
1
3.06
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Std.
Statistic Error Statistic Error
1.536
.536 .114
−.598 .228
1
5.29
1.338
−.738 .114
.127 .228
1
1
2
5.23
5.41
5.33
1.375
1.237
1.264
−.749 .114
−.743 .114
−.717 .114
.033 .228
.108 .228
−.099 .228
1
5.09
1.545
−.768 .114
−.268 .228
66
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for Individual Items Construct Four: Grapevine
I always feel like my supervisor is approachable with
questions about changes at work
I always look for official communication about change
when I hear whispers of change from coworkers.
Official company communication can’t be trusted, it’s
just to sugar coat bad news to employees *R*
I trust communication from my coworkers more than I
trust that of my supervisors and/or leadership
I hear about changes at work through the news before I
receive official communication.
I hear about changes at work through social media before
I receive official communication.
I hear about changes at work through word of mouth
(non-supervisor persons) before I receive official
communication.
I trust official communication more than rumor mills.
Note. N = 456.
Min
M
SD
1
5.37
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Std.
Statistic Error Statistic Error
1.251
−.757 .114
.264 .228
1
5.30
1.309
−.728 .114
.183 .228
1
3.09
1.526
.574 .114
−.461 .228
1
2.75
1.326
.754 .114
.053 .228
1
2.78
1.360
.837 .114
.444 .228
1
2.80
1.352
.916 .114
.611 .228
1
2.79
1.332
.763 .114
.173 .228
1
5.41
1.262
−.837 .114
.524 .228
The first four questions for the personality construct revealed that most respondents were
extroverted (mean response of 5.5 on a 7-point scale) as indicated by similar responses from
Sato’s (2005) Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Analyses later revealed severe collinearity
issues between extrovert-related questions and several of those questions were eliminated.
Because of this refinement, the dataset then revealed most survey respondents were introverted.
Tuovinen et al. (2020) emphasized that introverted individuals focus on a personally inner world
of thought, prefer solitude, and prefer to keep their opinions to themselves, but also focus on
introspective and deeper feelings of encounters or transactions. Tuovinen et al.’s study also
revealed introverts are also empathetic, caring, and have good listening skills. These traits would
cause one to believe that introverts are more willing to help someone, which was why they were
more likely to respond to the survey.
Missing Data
There were 731 original responses provided by LinkedIn members. The first several
surveys had missing data due to a failed input constraint requiring the participants to answer each
67
question before proceeding to the following (e.g., question one must be answered before question
two, two before three). SPSS has programming features to eliminate incomplete responses before
the requirement constraint was programmed on SurveyMonkey. Once SPSS eliminated missing
data, the researcher and his chair began measuring magnitudes of regression weights for each
latent construct.
Stage Two: Validation of the Measures
The constructs used in this research study were examined for unidimensionality (i.e.,
determining whether the construct had one underlying aspect), reliability (i.e., determining
whether the construct was comparatively free of measurement error), convergent validity (i.e.,
determining whether the construct had a large amount of variance captured in relation to the
variance due to measurement error), and discriminant validity (i.e., determining whether the
construct measured differed from the other constructs included in the model) (Hattie, 1985). All
validations were performed using IBM SPSS V.29 and IBM AMOS software programs for ease
of calculations. Last, CFA was used to assess the measurement properties of each of the
constructs in the model (further defined in stage three). CFA is used in the scale purification
process as it allows the unidimensionality of construct scales to be assessed objectively (Hattie,
1985).
Refining the Latent Constructs—Personality
The first refined latent construct was personality. The initial construct model included 12
indicator variables (PQ1-PQ12). Several indicator variables had path coefficients larger than one.
Because the squared path coefficient measures the proportion of the variance of the dependent
variable, which the input variable is directly responsible for, having values greater than one in an
unstandardized output simply makes no sense (Deegan Jr., 1978). In the raw model, SPSS was
programmed to display the multiple squared correlations to examine the regression weights of
68
each indicator variable. Indicator variables need to account for at least 0.5 on the SMC output for
the latent variable (Schreiber, 2008, 2017)
Traditionally, a chi-square statistic was seen as an important tool in comparing observed
results with expected results (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). The authors warned that relying
on the X² statistic leads to an inflated type I error rate for model rejection (West et al., 1995, as
cited in Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003) also stated several
shortcomings associated with the X² statistic. The X² is based on assumption that the observed
variables are multivariate normal and that the sample size is sufficiently large. Additionally, the
X² value decreases when parameters are added to a model because of the reduction of degrees of
freedom (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Examining the model fit summary in the IBM AMOS
output, the raw personality construct model revealed the following fit indication in Table 7.
Table 7
Raw Personality AMOS Analysis
Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model
CFI
0.83
1
0
RMSEA
0.15
SRMR
0.86
Tucker-Lewis Index
0.8
0.33
0
According to Hu and Bentler (1999), ML cutoff scores for good fit need to be close to .95
for the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and CFI. The SRMR needs to be less than .08 with .00 being a
perfect fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Last, the RMSEA needs to be no more than .06 to be considered
a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sharma et al., 2005). As the reader can see from the above
measurements, the raw personality model was not a good fit. Modification indices on the AMOS
output allowed the researcher and his chair to view covariance issues and reduce the personality
model. The iteration sequence refining the personality latent construct is listed in Table 8. Please
note the second row listing the PQ questions are the analyses as each listed indicator variable
was removed from the theoretical (raw) personality model.
69
Table 8
Personality Refining Iteration Sequence
Indicators
/item
removed
Chi-square
Deg. of
Freedom
(df)
Probability
Level
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
SRMR
Model
1
Model Model Model Model
2
3
4
5
Model Model Model Model
6
7
8
9
All PQ
PQ2
PQ4
PQ1
PQ5
PQ11
PQ8
585.32
482.03 380.87 221.69 136.94
84.44
17.94
6.65
0.06
54.00
44.00
35.00
27.00
20.00
14.00
9.00
5.00
2.00
0.00
0.83
0.80
0.15
0.09
0.00
0.85
0.15
0.81
0.08
0.00
0.87
0.83
0.15
0.08
0.00
0.92
0.89
0.13
0.06
0.00
0.95
0.92
0.11
0.05
0.00
0.96
0.94
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.99
0.99
0.05
0.02
0.25
1.00
1.00
0.03
0.01
0.97
1.00
1.01
0.00
0.00
PQ3
PQ12
Table 8 shows the removal of indicator variable PQ8 forces the model to over fit, which
was confirmed by the TLI measurement of 1.01. Recall that a TLI needs to be between .95 and
1.0 to be a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The final iteration of the fully refined personality
construct is in Table 9.
Table 9
Refined Personality Construct AMOS Analysis—Eighth Iteration
Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model
CFI
1
1
0
RMSEA SRMR
0.03
0.12
0.54
TLI
1.00
0
Stage Three: Assessment of the Structural Model and Path Estimates
The Possibility of a Second Factor Model—Introverts and Extroverts
After discussing why several indicators needed to be removed from the personality
construct, the data revealed that there was a potential measurable representation of both
extroverted and introverted persons in the sample population. Many theories incorporate an
70
individual’s level of extroversion/introversion as a key factor underpinning personality (Bech,
2017; Bech et al., 2012; Jung, 1921). Jung (1921) suggested the principal distinction between
personalities is the source and direction of an individual’s expression of energy. Per Jung (1921),
those who find energy interacting with others would be extroverted while those who find energy
being by themselves would be introverted. While Jung recognized that not everyone fit neatly
into one of these two categories, it was not until 1990 that psychologist Hans Eysenck coined the
term, “ambivert” as someone who is neither clearly extroverted nor introverted but has
characteristics of each (Eysenck, 1990).
Specific to the workplace, introversion-extroversion does not always align with how
much we communicate but does impact communication patterns. For example, a defining
characteristic of extroverts is that they tend to be more outgoing and sociable than introverts.
However, such behaviors do not always translate to the workplace. In most workplaces, workers
do not have discretion on how much they interact with others; this is predetermined by job
responsibilities.
M&A are about change. Zimbardo and Gerrig (2004) examined a five-factor model of
personality (i.e., openness, extraversion, tolerance, conscientiousness, and neuroticism
[emotional stability]) and found that the factor of openness to experience was particularly
relevant to the field of change management. Employees who are conservative about this factor
are more likely to be resistant to change processes while those who are more energized by social
interaction are generally less resistant. Extroverts are more likely to offer active, verbal resistance,
while introverts are more likely to react passively and nonverbally. SPSS processed the following
rotated component matrix suggesting a relatively equal loading of indicator variables between
two factors. Table 10 confirmed the potential of needing to break the personality construct into
introvert and extrovert personality types via a two-factor rotated component matrix output from
SPSS.
71
Table 10
Two-Factor Rotated Component Matrix
PQ1
PQ2
PQ3
PQ4
PQ5R
PQ6R
PQ7R
PQ8R
PQ9R
PQ10R
PQ11R
PQ12
Component
1
2
−0.46
0.63
0.77
0.75
0.77
0.46
−0.64
0.85
0.86
0.59
−0.51
0.82
0.81
0.6
−0.46
0.81
The split personality construct model was analyzed using the same procedure as the
whole raw model. After three iterations, the removal of indicator variables PQ1, PQ3, PQ4,
PQ11, and PQ12 provided the best fitting model. Table 11 shows the fit outputs from AMOS.
Table 11
Split Personality Construct AMOS Analyses
Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model
CFI
1
1
0
RMSEA SRMR
0.04
0.0264
0.44
TLI
1
0
While the rotated component matrix (Table 12) indicated a need for two factors (introvert
and extrovert), a secondary discriminant validity split model revealed extroversion having low,
but passable average variance extracted (AVE) across all constructs. Uslu and Ergün (2021)
stated the AVE value needs to be 0.5 or higher to explicate adequate variable levels.
Additionally, Uslu and Ergün (2021) also noted convergent reliability (CR) requires a 0.7 or
higher measurement to verify internal reliability. Extroversion revealed a CR measure of 0.29.
72
The maximum shared square variance (MSV) was explored in this validity measure as well.
MSV values were all considerably higher than the AVE, which shows there was a validation
error. MSV values should be less than AVE values to confirm validation (Alumran et al., 2014).
Last, maximum H reliability (MAXR[H]) is an estimation of reliability that uses optimal
composite weights of standardized factor loadings in SEM models (Sideridis et al., 2018). Uslu
and Ergün (2021) stated the MAXR(H) needs to be higher than the CR. The split model
discriminate validity shows the MAXR(H) having the same values as the CR. Table 12 provides
a view of the discriminate validation.
Table 12
Split Personality Discriminant Validity
CR
Introvert
Extrovert
Grapevine
Affective
commitment
Continuance
commitment
Normative
commitment
AVE MSV MaxR(H) Introvert Extrovert Grapevine Affective Continuance Normative
0.86 0.61
0.98
0.87
0.78
0.29 0.56
0.77
0.79
0.82 0.61
0.69
0.82
0.79
0.82
0.61
0.98
0.82
0.99
−0.77
0.78
0.75
0.60
0.78
0.75
−0.88
0.85
−0.83
−0.89
0.70
0.54
0.77
0.70
−0.65
0.88
−0.73
−0.58
0.79
One of the most important advantages of latent-variable analyses was the opportunity to
assess the reliability and validity of the study’s variables. In general, reliability refers to
consistency of measurement; validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what
it was intended to measure. For example, a survey is reliable if it provides essentially the same
set of responses for a group of respondents upon repeated administration. Similarly, if a scale is
developed to measure job satisfaction and scores on the scale reflect respondents’ underlying
levels of job satisfaction, then the scale is valid. There are a number of ways that reliability and
validity may be measured.
73
Indicator Reliability
The reliability of an indicator (observed variable) is defined as the square of the
correlation (squared multiple correlation or SMC) between a latent factor and that indicator. For
instance, looking at Table 13, the standardized loading for the path between GV4 and grapevine
was 0.732, and the reliability was 0.536. Examining the range of indicator reliabilities, many
have relatively high reliabilities (≥ 0.6). However, several have low reliabilities, such as AC2,
with an indicator reliability of 0.494.
Composite reliability has been computed for each latent factor included in the model.
This index was similar to coefficient and reflects the internal consistency of the indicators
measuring a particular factor (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The composite reliability and the
variance extracted estimates are shown in Table 13. Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended a
minimum composite reliability of 0.60. An examination of the composite reliabilities revealed
that all but extrovert met that minimum acceptable level.
The variance extracted estimates assess the amount of variance explained by an
underlying factor in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error. For instance,
the variance estimate for the grapevine was .602, meaning that the grapevine construct explained
60.2% of the variance, and 39.8% was due to measurement error. Fornell and Larcker (1981)
suggested that constructs should exhibit estimates of .50 or larger. Estimates less than .50
indicate that the variance due to measurement error was larger than the variance captured by the
factor. The variance extracted estimates for the constructs in this model met this minimum
threshold, so the validity of the latent construct and the associated constructs was accepted. It
should also be noted that Pett et al. (2003) cautioned that the variances extracted estimate test is
conservative; reliabilities can be acceptable even if variances extracted estimates are less than
.50.
Another form of reliability consists of Cronbach’s alpha (or coefficient alpha) and
74
measures internal consistency, which can be conducted with a single administration. Other forms
of reliability include test-retest, alternate form, and split-half (Sharma et al., 2005). The
administration of Cronbach’s alpha in this study was also called a coefficient of equivalence
(Peter, 1979) and is one of the most often used reliability measures by researchers. Other forms
of Cronbach’s alpha are the coefficient of stability and the coefficient of stability and
equivalence. Cronbach’s alpha has serious drawbacks for this research endeavor. Cronbach’s
alpha assumes that (a) the items already form a unidimensional set and (b) the items have equal
reliabilities (Nunnally, 1978). In effect, Cronbach’s alpha assumes tau equivalency among
measures, which means the measures are also congeneric (measure the same construct but
possibly not equally) and have equal true score variabilities. In addition, in tau equivalent tests,
the error variance of measures need not be equal (DeVellis, 2003). In 1974, K. W. Smith
explained that Cronbach’s alpha computed with unequal item reliabilities would underestimate
the reliability of the composite score. In addition, regardless of unidimensionality, simply adding
additional measures increases alpha (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Therefore, assessing internal
reliability using Cronbach’s alpha should only be used after unidimensionality was assured. A
Cronbach’s alpha > .8 is advocated (Robinson et al., 1991) and some advocate an alpha of > .9 as
excellent (Kline, 2023). Nunnally (1978) recommended a minimum of .90 in decision-making
contexts, and “.95 should be considered the desirable standard” (pp. 245-246).
Convergent validity is present when different instruments are used to measure the same
construct, and scores from these different instruments are strongly correlated. In contrast,
discriminant validity is present when different instruments are used to measure different
constructs, and the measures of these different constructs are weakly correlated.
The present study assessed convergent validity by reviewing the t-tests for the factor
loadings. If all the factor loadings for the indicators were greater than twice their standard errors,
the parameter estimates demonstrated convergent validity. That all t-tests are significant showed
75
that all indicators were effectively measuring the same construct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Consider the convergent validity of the four indicators that measure grapevine, GV4 through
GV7. The results show that the t-values for these four indicators range from 17.57 to 19.88.
These results support the convergent validity of GV4 through GV as measures of grapevine.
Discriminant validity was assessed through the use of the variance extracted test.
Constructs were evaluated by comparing the variance extracted estimates for two factors then
comparing them with the square of the correlation between the two factors. Discriminant validity
is demonstrated if both variance extracted estimates are greater than the squared correlation
coefficient. The correlation coefficients and squared correlation coefficients are shown in Table
14. In the present study, the correlation between the factors introvert and grapevine was .837; the
squared correlation was .701. The variance extracted estimate was .536 for introvert and .568 for
grapevine. Discriminant validity was not shown here because the variance extracted estimates
are less than the square of the interfactor correlation. In other words, the test did not support the
discriminant validity of these two factors. Examination of the other variance extracted estimates
and squared correlation coefficients did not support discriminant validity within the model for
nearly every construct except affective commitment and normative commitment. The correlation
between these factors was .695; the squared correlation was .483. The variance extracted
estimate was .593 for affective and .569 for normative. Discriminant was present as the variance
extracted estimates are greater than the square of the interfactor correlation. In other words,
discriminant validity was supported. In summary, this test did not support many of the
relationships between constructs. Tables 13 and 14 display a full validation examination among
the constructs and indicator variables, assuming the full model would have kept personality split
between extrovert and introvert.
76
Table 13
Properties of the Split Personality Measurement Model
Constructs
/Indicators
Personality
Extrovert
PQ1
PQ5
PQ8
Sum
Introvert
PQ6
PQ7
PQ9
PQ10
Sum
Grapevine
GV4
GV5
GV6
GV7
Sum
Affective
AC2
AC3
AC4
AC5
Sum
Continuance
CC2
CC4
CC5
CC6
Sum
Normative
NC2
NC3
NC4
NC5
Sum
Standardized
Loading
Indicator
Reliability
Error
Variance
0.765
−0.749
−0.746
−0.730
0.586
0.561
0.557
0.414
0.439
0.443
1.296
0.585
0.561
0.557
1.703
0.837
0.833
0.82
0.826
3.316
0.701
0.694
0.672
0.682
0.299
0.306
0.328
0.318
1.251
0.701
0.694
0.672
0.682
2.749
0.732
0.787
0.785
0.798
3.102
0.536
0.619
0.616
0.637
0.464
0.381
0.384
0.363
1.592
0.536
0.619
0.616
0.637
2.408
−0.703
0.494
0.612
0.621
0.646
0.506
0.388
0.379
0.354
1.627
0.494
0.612
0.621
0.646
2.373
0.467
0.482
0.395
0.384
1.727
0.533
0.518
0.605
0.616
2.273
0.406
0.440
0.424
0.455
1.725
0.594
0.560
0.576
0.545
2.275
0.782
0.788
0.804
1.671
0.730
0.720
0.778
0.785
3.013
0.533
0.518
0.605
0.616
0.771
0.748
0.759
0.738
3.016
0.594
0.560
0.576
0.545
L2
Average
Sum Std Composite Variance Cronbach’s
Loading2 Reliability Extracted
Alpha
0.291
0.568
-.841*
0.533
0.898
0.536
0.898
0.858
0.602
0.857
0.632
0.593
0.302
0.840
0.568
0.856
0.841
0.569
0.840
10.996
9.622
2.792
9.078
9.096
77
Table 14
Correlations and Squared Correlations
Correlations
Extrovert
Introvert
Grapevine
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Squared correlations
Extrovert
Introvert
Grapevine
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Extrovert
1.000
−0.828
−0.907
0.871
0.915
0.897
Extrovert
1.000
0.686
0.823
0.759
0.837
0.805
Introvert Grapevine Affective Continuance Normative
1.000
0.837
1.000
−1.011
−0.86
1.000
−0.906
−0.890
0.938
1.000
−0.687
−0.764
0.695
0.852
1.000
Introvert Grapevine Affective Continuance Normative
1.000
0.701
1.022
0.821
0.472
1.000
0.740
0.792
0.584
1.000
0.880
0.483
1.000
0.726
1.000
Nomological validity for the measurement model determines the extent to which
measures of the constructs in the measurement model predict measures of the other constructs in
the model, which are posited to all be embedded in a theoretical network of relationships
(Hartwick & Barki, 1994) to form employee commitment. Nomological validity is determined
for the measurement model by assessing the chi-square statistic and the RMSEA value. The chisquare statistic should have an insignificant p-value > 0.05 and an RMSEA value < 0.05. The
chi-square test statistic for this model was 501.61 with 214 degrees of freedom and p < 0.000.
The CMIN/df = 2.34, RMSEA = 0.05.
This model did not demonstrate nomological validity. While statistical significance may
provide information regarding group differences, the magnitude of these differences was
provided by effect size. Cohen (1988) recommended ranges for R2 (measures of association) of
0.008-0.10 for small effects, 0.13-0.18 for medium effects, and > 0.49 for moderately high
effects. Kline (2023) recommended effect sizes for standardized path coefficients of |0.10| for
small effects, around |0.30| for medium effects, and values > |0.50| for large effect sizes. As seen
in Table 13, all pattern coefficients exceeded the large effect size requirement. Because of the
78
lack of nomological validity, the following composite reliability was extracted with the
personality latent variable as a standalone construct instead of splitting it between extrovert and
introvert. Techniques for extraction were the same as the described techniques in previous
paragraphs.
Alternative Personality Validity: Application of Parceling to Personality Construct
A theory arose that multiple indicator variables were blurring the unstandardized
estimates from the AMOS text outputs. IBM SPSS allows for the application of parceling
indicator variables to reduce collinearity issues in structural equation models. Initially, parcels
were built by selecting closely related PQ indicator variables. For example, parcel one averaged
PQ1, PQ5, and PQ8, which aligned with the Chien (2015) and Little et al. (2022) techniques to
reduce a multi-indicator latent variable to a few parcels to estimate latent constructs. The
underlying theory in using parceling was to solve the collinearity issues within the personality
construct, whether personality was viewed as a singular latent variable or as a two-factor model
by splitting extroversion and introversion. While parceling the standalone construct reduced
collinearity for personality, applying the parceled personality construct created modification
indices issues when weighted with other latent variables. Table 15 displays the modification
indices (MI) after applying the parceled personality construct.
79
Table 15
MI AMOS Output with Applied Personality Parceling
resAC
EP4
EP4
EP4
EP3
EP2
EP2
EP2
EP2
EP2
E26
E25
E24
E23
E23
E18
E18
E16
E16
E14
E14
E14
E14
E13
E13
E12
E12
E22
E22
E22
E22
E21
E21
E21
E21
E20
E20
E20
E20
E20
E20
E19
E19
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
↔
resCC
resGV
resAC
resNC
resGV
resGV
resCC
resAC
EP4
EP3
resAC
resNC
EP4
resGV
resNC
EP2
E26
resCC
EP4
resNC
E26
E17
E11
E11
E14
E25
E14
Personality
resGV
resNC
E24
EP4
EP2
E26
E12
resGV
resCC
EP3
E23
E14
E12
E26
E11
MI
4.801
80.728
6.813
28.253
5.171
7.804
5.291
6.467
8.688
7.863
7.25
7.882
7.091
8.174
18.495
6.423
5.561
4.231
12.497
9.475
4.548
4.077
5.795
19.096
13.724
4.697
4.44
4.171
5.624
4.992
4.553
12.369
4.058
5.1
4.945
5.117
6.453
6.003
11.226
8.454
22.699
5.032
4.067
Par Change
−0.036
0.11
−0.067
−0.151
−0.024
−0.03
0.042
0.056
−0.084
0.069
−0.074
−0.086
−0.104
−0.041
0.142
0.084
−0.095
−0.05
−0.132
0.094
0.08
−0.086
0.099
0.183
0.146
−0.082
0.08
0.116
−0.031
0.066
−0.091
−0.121
0.062
−0.082
−0.082
0.032
0.064
−0.084
0.153
0.124
0.199
0.087
0.086
80
Table 15 shows several MI issues when parceled personality was applied to the full
model. In addition to MI issues, several regression weights had extremely high values, indicating
poor or false model fit. Therefore, parceling was not used to validate or refine any construct in
the full mediation model.
Stage Four: An Assessment of Grapevine Communication Mediator Effects
After applying identical validation and refining techniques to each construct, the
following model was created using a singular personality construct with fewer indicator
variables. The remaining indicator variables provided a good-fitting singular model and a full
mediating model without MI while retaining acceptable model fit indicators. CFI was 0.97,
RMSEA was 0.05, SRMR was 0.04, and TLI was 0.97. The model frame is listed first, followed
by the standardized output illustrated in Figures 5 and 6.
81
Figure 5
Framed Mediating Model After Latent Construct Refinement
82
Figure 6
Standardized AMOS Output Mediating Model
Traditional SEM thought is that standardized paths between latent constructs must be less
than one in magnitude or something is wrong (Jöreskog, 1999). Jöreskog described this thought
process from traditional EFA where factor loadings are correlations. In this model, however, the
factor loadings are regression coefficients, not correlations, and therefore can be greater than one
in magnitude (Jöreskog, 1999). Because of the high degree of relatability of commitment
83
questions and the fact that personality is such a broad construct that could arguably be
interpreted in various ways, the larger magnitudes are not concerning. The original research
question was: “Does grapevine communication have a mediating effect on personality and
commitment?” The answer to that question is yes. The partial mediating measurement is listed in
Table 16.
Mediation
Baron and Kenny’s approach to mediation is widely used to assess the existence and
strength of a mediating variable in the relationship between an independent variable and a
dependent variable (Zhao et al., 2010). The approach was introduced in 1986 by Baron and
Kenny and has since become a foundational framework in social science research for examining
mediation effects. Mediation occurs when the relationship between an independent variable (IV)
and a dependent variable (DV) is partially or fully explained by the influence of an intermediate
variable, known as the mediating variable (MV). In other words, the IV affects the MV, which,
in turn, affects the DV. Baron and Kenny’s (as cited in Zhao et al., 2010) approach involves the
following steps:
1. Establish a significant relationship between the IV and the DV: Before exploring
mediation, researchers should first demonstrate that there is a significant direct effect
between the IV and DV.
2. Demonstrate a significant relationship between the IV and the potential MV: This step is
to show that the IV significantly impacts the MV.
3. Demonstrate a significant relationship between the MV and the DV: This step is essential
to confirm that the MV has a significant effect on the DV.
4. Test the indirect effect or mediation: The final step involves examining whether the effect
of the IV on the DV is reduced or becomes non-significant when controlling for the MV.
84
If the indirect effect is significant, it suggests that the MV partially or fully mediates the
relationship between the IV and DV.
This approach depended on using unstandardized regression coefficients and then testing
significance using the Sobel test. However, Baron and Kenny’s approach has received some
criticism over the years. One of the main critiques was that it requires a series of bivariate
correlations, which might not provide a precise mediation assessment. Additionally, the Baron
and Kenny method can sometimes fail to detect mediation when it does exist, and it may not be
suitable for more complex mediation models. As a result, researchers have developed and
adopted alternative mediation analysis techniques, such as SEM, bootstrapping, and causal
mediation analysis, which offer more robust approaches for examining mediation effects in
complex models (Collier, 2020; Zhao et al., 2010). Kline (2015) and Zhao et al. (2010) critically
examined the Baron and Kenny approach and identified several myths and truths about
mediation analysis:
•
Myth of sequential steps: Baron and Kenny’s approach proposes a sequential process for
testing mediation, which involves establishing the relationships between the IV and the
MV and between the MV and the DV independently before examining mediation. Zhao
et al. argued that this sequential approach may not be the most effective and that
researchers should consider alternative methods, such as SEM, which allow for
simultaneous examination of multiple relationships.
•
Myth of full mediation: Baron and Kenny’s approach suggests that mediation occurs only
when the direct effect of the IV on the DV is reduced to zero after accounting for the
MV. Zhao et al. explained that full mediation is not a necessary condition for mediation
to exist. Partial mediation, where the direct effect remains significant but is attenuated by
the mediator, is also a valid form of mediation.
85
•
Myth of significance testing: Baron and Kenny’s approach relies heavily on significance
testing to establish mediation. Zhao et al. argued that significance testing alone is
insufficient and that effect size and practical significance should also be considered when
interpreting mediation results.
•
Myth of causality: Baron and Kenny’s approach does not explicitly address issues of
causality. Zhao et al. emphasized that mediation analysis, like any observational study,
cannot establish causality definitively. It can provide evidence for the plausibility of a
causal relationship, but additional evidence from experimental or quasi-experimental
designs is necessary for stronger causal claims.
•
Myth of control variables: Baron and Kenny’s approach recommends controlling for
potential confounding variables to establish mediation. Zhao et al. cautioned against the
indiscriminate inclusion of control variables, as it may lead to biased results. Researchers
should carefully consider the theoretical reasons for including control variables in the
mediation analysis.
•
Myth of linearity: Baron and Kenny’s approach assumes linear relationships between
variables. Zhao et al. argued that mediation analysis should not be restricted to linear
models and that nonlinear relationships should be explored when appropriate.
It was possible to test mediation in AMOS by assessing the significance of the indirect effect of
the IV on the DV through the MV. The indirect effect is the product of the two path coefficients:
IV → MV and MV → DV. Bootstrapping may be used to test the significance of the indirect
effect. Bootstrapping is a resampling technique that provides empirical estimates of the indirect
effect and its confidence intervals. If the confidence interval does not include zero, the indirect
effect is considered significant.
A bootstrap approach (Collier, 2020) was used to assess the direct and indirect effect of
personality to each of the commitment constructs (i.e., affective, continuance, and normative
86
commitment) through grapevine. The number of bootstrap samples was set to 5,000. Also
selected was the percentile method or the bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) method for
constructing bootstrap intervals for a 95% confidence interval. AMOS generated estimates of the
indirect effect and its confidence intervals. Examination of the bootstrapping results indicated
that for each analysis, the confidence interval for the indirect effect did not include zero, and
indicated that the indirect effect was statistically significant, suggesting evidence of mediation.
Had the confidence interval included zero, the indirect effect would not be considered
significant, so mediation would not have been supported. The following hypotheses tested the
direct effects of the exogenous variable, personality, on each of the dependent constructs:
H01: Personality has no effect on affective commitment.
Hα1: Personality has an effect on affective commitment.
The direct effect of personality on affective commitment was statistically significant where the
unstandardized regression coefficient was 1.099 with a t-value = 9.164, p < 0.001. The null
hypothesis of no effect between personality and affective commitment was rejected. Personality
has a significant direct effect on affective commitment.
The next set of hypotheses examined the direct relationship between personality and
normative commitment. For these data, the path coefficient was 1.552 with t-value = 10.081, p <
0.001. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no effect of personality on normative commitment was
rejected. Personality had a significant effect on normative commitment.
H02: Personality has no effect on normative commitment.
Hα2: Personality has an effect on normative commitment.
Review of the direct effect of personality on continuance revealed an unstandardized
regression coefficient of .258, t-value = 2.119, p = .034. Since 0.034 < α = 0.05, the null
hypothesis was rejected. Personality has a significant effect on continuance commitment.
H03: Personality has no effect on continuance commitment.
87
Hα3: Personality has an effect on continuance commitment.
A review of the results shown in Table 16 supported rejection of the null hypothesis for
mediating effect. The hypotheses listed below tested the mediating effect of grapevine
communication between personality and affective commitment.
H04: Grapevine communication has no mediating effect on personality and affective
commitment.
Hα4: Grapevine communication has a mediating effect on personality and affective
commitment.
The unstandardized indirect effect was −.203 (p = 0.047), which was the product of the
paths between personality and grapevine and grapevine and affective commitment. The
unstandardized regression coefficient for the relationship from personality to grapevine was 0.54.
The 95% confidence interval was (−0.41, −0.002). No zero in the interval supports statistical
significance. The unstandardized regression coefficient for the relationship from grapevine to
affective commitment was −.379. Multiplying these two values together gave the indirect effect
−.203 (.538 * −.379 = 0.203). Based on these results, personality had a significant indirect effect
on affective commitment through grapevine communication. Examination of the direct effect
between personality and affective commitment was significant where the unstandardized
regression coefficient was 1.099, t-value = 9.164, p = 0.000. The presence of a significant direct
effect indicated partial mediation. In other words, grapevine communication had a partial
mediating effect between personality and affective commitment.
The next set of hypotheses examined the mediating relationship of grapevine between
personality and normative commitment.
H05: Grapevine communication has no mediating effect on personality and normative
commitment.
Hα5: Grapevine communication has a mediating effect on personality and normative
88
commitment.
For this sample, the indirect effect of personality on normative commitment was −2.056,
p < .001. The 95% confidence interval was (−2.556, −1.616). The direct effect of personality on
normative commitment was 1.552 with a t-value = 10.081, p < 0.001. These results support
significant partial mediation of grapevine communication between personality and normative
commitment. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
The final set of hypotheses tested the mediating effect on grapevine communication on
personality and continuance commitment.
H06: Grapevine communication has no mediating effect on personality and continuance
commitment.
Hα6: Grapevine communication has a mediating effect on personality and continuance
commitment.
For these data, the direct effect of personality on continuance commitment was 0.258
with a t-value = 2.119, p = 0.034. The indirect effect was −2.056 with p < 0.001. The 95%
confidence interval was (−1.236, −0.684). The significant path coefficient between personality
and continuance commitment indicates that the influence of personality on continuance
commitment is partially mediated through the construct of grapevine communication, so the null
hypothesis was rejected. Table 16 provides illustration of the partial mediating effect on the
commitment constructs.
89
Table 16
Mediating Validation with Bootstrap Analysis with 95% Confidence Interval
Direct
Effect
Indirect
Effect
Confidence
Level
High
Low
Personality
Grapevine communication
Affective commitment
1.099
9.164
−0.203
−0.409
−0.002
0.000*
Conclusion
Partial
mediation
Personality
Grapevine communication
Normative commitment
1.552
10.081
−2.056
−2.556
−1.616
0.000*
Partial
mediation
0.000*
Partial
mediation
Relationships
Personality
Grapevine communication
Continuance commitment
Note. *p < 0.001.
0.258
2.119
−0.93
−1.236
−0.684
pvalue
The results in Table 16 show dissimilar influence between the direct and indirect effects
of personality on commitment (i.e., affective, normative, and continuance) as mediated through
grapevine communication. This is evidence of competitive mediation. The relatively low means
for the following questions related to grapevine communication contrasted with the high means
for the commitment constructs (see Tables 2-6) suggest that committed employees are less likely
to trust grapevine communication.
•
I trust communication from my coworkers more than I trust that of my supervisors and/or
leadership (M = 2.75, SD = 1.326).
•
I hear about changes at work through the news before I receive official communication
(M = 2.78, SD = 1.360).
•
I hear about changes at work through social media before I receive official
communication (M = 2.8, SD = 1.352).
•
I hear about changes at work through word of mouth (non-supervisor persons) before I
receive official communication (M = 2.79, SD = 1.382).
90
Summary
A structural equation model was used to examine the relationships between personality,
grapevine communication, affective, normative and continuance commitment. In the initial
analysis, the direct effects of personality on affective, normative, and continuance commitment
were examined. Examination of the results indicated that the direct effect of personality on
affective commitment was statistically significant. Similarly, the direct effect of personality on
normative and continuance commitment was also statistically significant.
Mediation was used to determine if the influence of personality on each of the
commitment constructs (i.e., affective, continuance, and normative commitment) occurred
through the intervening variable, grapevine communication. Mediation can be full or partial.
With full mediation, an indirect effect would be significant, but the direct effect would not be
significant. In contrast, partial mediation occurs when the indirect and direct effects are
significant (Zhao et al., 2010). For this sample, grapevine partially mediated the relationship
between personality and affective commitment, personality and normative commitment and
personality and continuance commitment.
Complementary mediation occurs when the indirect and direct effects have similar
influence. Competitive mediation is where the indirect effect and the direct effect have a
dissimilar influence. Complementary mediation implies that each mediator independently
contributes to the overall mediation effect, and their combined effects are greater than the sum of
their individual effects (Zhao et al., 2010). Competitive mediation implies that each mediator
independently contributes to the overall mediation effect, but their combined effects may result
in a weaker or null overall mediation effect due to the opposing directions of their influences. In
competitive mediation, the coefficients of the mediators may have opposite signs, and they could
individually be statistically significant. However, when all mediators are included in the same
model, some of their effects may become non-significant due to their opposing influences, which
91
was not the case here.
92
Chapter 5—Discussion
Initial Thoughts and Comments on Outcomes
Throughout this study, the goal was to understand if grapevine communication has a
mediating effect between personality and employee commitment after a merger or acquisition.
The research revealed that for this sample, grapevine did mediate between personality and
commitment constructs (see Figure 6 and Table 16). To review how the conceptual model and
findings relate to the theoretical framework, we can recall that Ajzen’s (2014) TPB model
suggested that framing the potential relatability between personality and attitude could predict
behavioral outcomes. This research did not assume or expect to find a partial mediation result.
The research revealed that commitment values can be partially affected by grapevine
communication in the workplace. From a big picture perspective, this outcome is just the
beginning of future research projects surrounding communication and employee commitment
after an M&A event.
Recommendations and Future Research
As mentioned in previous paragraphs, the research revealed grapevine communication
has a partial mediating effect between personality and employee commitment. In addition to the
findings, further research could explore whether factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, or
position in the organization could have an effect on commitment or communication. An example
of a future study could be controlling a specific group such as being a member of the acquiring
or the acquired group and how the grapevine affected both. The researcher isolated each group,
and the results are listed in Table 17.
93
Table 17
Grapevine Influence When Acquiring and Acquired Respondents are Isolated
Personality to Grapevine
to Commitment
Relationship with
Position Group Isolation
Affective commitment
All data
Acquiring company
Direct
Effect
Indirect
Effect
p-Value
Conclusion
Affective commitment of the
1.099
−0.203 0.000***
acquiring company was more
***
1.259
−0.322 0.000
influenced by grapevine
communication than the
members of the acquired
Acquired company
0.717
0.029 0.000***
company
Grapevine communication
Normative commitment
had similar influence between
All data
1.552
−2.056 0.000***
***
both groups on normative
Acquiring company
1.596
−2.106 0.000
***
commitment
Acquired company
1.424
−1.866 0.000
Continuance
Grapevine communication did
commitment
not have a statistically
*
significant (p >.05) influence
All data
0.258
−0.93 0.034
**
on the acquiring company’s
Acquiring company
0.129
−0.835 0.375
continuance commitment but
Acquired company
0.686
−1.253 0.011*
had a significant influence on
the acquired company
members.
Note. *p = 0.034 when α is 0.05 = statistical significance, ** p = 0.375 when α is 0.05 = not
significant (no effect), ***p < .001.
Table 17 revealed noticeable differences between direct and indirect measurements in the
commitment constructs. The highlight of the results is there is no significance (p = 0.375 when α
= .05) showing grapevine influencing continuance commitment with members of the acquiring
company group. In other words, the grapevine did not influence continuance commitment with
members of the acquiring company group. Interestingly, very little research examining
continuance commitment with members of an acquiring company was found when relating
previous research to the findings in Table 17. However, Lawlor (2013) partially discussed
continuance commitment with her study on a micro-merger in a higher education setting.
Incumbent professors showed no evidence of threat to continuance commitment when
interviewed, which complements the results in Table 17. Lawlor’s respondents only expressed
normative issues as their physical office location was further from most of their homes. Lawlor
94
(2013) stated the consensus of her study was that the merger impacted normative commitment in
almost all participants, but none of the respondents mentioned any notion of continuance
commitment in their interviews. It is important to note that only members of the larger
organization were interviewed, which suggests change and communication are less impactful on
members of larger organizations during a merger or members or acquiring companies.
In an additional study, Jha (2011) stated most people desire opportunities for
participation when change directly affects them. Jha primarily discussed employee
empowerment during organizational change but showed a data analysis where respondent factors
of meaning and self-determination were not statistically significant against a continuance
commitment construct. Jha (2011) stated the reason for the lack of significance is the loss of
need for the employees to exhibit self-determination (the internal will to change a circumstance)
if the employee had no intention of leaving the organization. Future research could hypothesize
that continuance commitment is not affected during M&A from the acquiring company. One
could also assume the need to stay with their acquiring company during an M&A event, leading
to the belief that continuance commitment is not affected because an employee has to stay as
opposed to wanting to stay (Jha, 2011).
Another area of interest could be comparing the relationship between continuance
commitment and coping theory from Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) and Fugate et al.’s (2008)
examination of alternative and theoretical coping models. Lazarus and Folkman suggested that
coping is not a trait or skill but rather a process to reduce mental stress and adapt to a changing
environment (Moos, 2002, as cited in Garcia, 2010). Fugate et al. (2008) examined employee
coping with organizational change. In their study, the authors found that coping with
organizational change is a completely mediated process best represented by the stimulusresponse theoretical structure (Fugate et al., 2008). This theoretical structure hypothesized that
negative appraisal is associated with reduced control and increased escape coping. In Fugate et
95
al.’s (2008) study, respondent answers measured the average number of sick days taken per year
along with intentions to quit. Part of their study was an attempt to measure voluntary turnover.
Fugate et al. (2008) also used a structural equation model to form relationships between
negative appraisal, positive/negative emotions, control coping, escape coping, sick time used,
quit intentions, and the predictability of voluntary turnover (the employee quits the new
organization after change). The present study could be integrated into the mediation model from
Fugate et al. to assess whether grapevine communication had an additional mediating effect on
employee turnover and how coping mediates continuance commitment.
Practical Application Possibilities
Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro, et al. (2000) suggested that senior-level management
should be truthful, open, and forthright with communication to maintain credibility. Can
management use the grapevine to influence coping mechanisms during M&A events?
Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis, et al. (2000) also discussed the issue that communication, whether
informal or formal, can vary in effectiveness depending on the receiver. Appelbaum, Gandell,
Shapiro, et al. (2000) also discussed stress, which is directly related to coping during
organizational change (Fugate et al., 2008). Comparing Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro, et al.’s
(2000) discussion of stress, Fugate et al.’s (2008) coping techniques, and Appelbaum, Gandell,
Shapiro, et al.’s (2000) suggestion that employees begin to create a foundational reality, future
research could explore whether grapevine communication mediates between coping, continuance
commitment, and perceived organizational reality based on whether a respondent was a member
of an acquiring or an acquired organization?
An additional practical application could be the expansion of Lee and Kim’s (2022) study
on the mediating role of internal communication between CEO leadership behaviors, affective
commitment, and scouting behavior. Scouting behavior, similar to grapevine communication,
refers to seeking information and sharing behaviors within an organization (Lee & Kim, 2022).
96
Lee and Kim (2022) noted the lack of study on how CEO leadership is associated with an
organization’s internal communication systems and subsequent outcomes, such as active
communication behavior (i.e., scouting or grapevine). Executive-level personnel, including
CEOs, could examine how their behaviors and engagement during change may influence
continuance commitment, coping, or the grapevine. The present study answered if there is a
mediating effect between personality and commitment but could be integrated with additional
studies such as Lee and Kim’s examination of CEO behavior as an additional mediator on
employee commitment.
Last, Bhattacharya and Ghosh (2010) suggested any change implications are more likely
to affect the target firm than the acquiring group. The authors also hypothesized organizational
trust and relationship quality between employees and their managers is higher in an acquiring
group versus an acquired group. The authors also concluded there is a significantly higher
percentage of decreased perception of autonomy, cultural distance, job dissatisfaction, and
confidence in job security (Bhattacharya & Ghosh, 2010), which would complement the finding
in Table 17. Whether acquiring members are less worried about the negative outcomes
associated with organizational change, communication, whether formal or informal, would have
less of an impact on any commitment constructs.
Summary of the Study
To recap this project, the researcher initially found a gap in the literature, revealing a
need to understand further what may affect employee commitment after a merger or acquisition
event in a U.S.-based company. Previous studies mentioned grapevine communication having an
impact on M&A outcomes (Bagchi & Rao, 1992; Bastien, 1987; Cording et al., 2008; Dao &
Bauer, 2021; Vaara et al., 2014), yet no scholarly studies existed on the topic. A 15-minute
survey was designed on SurveyMonkey and used previously validated questions measuring
personality (Okafor et al., 2021; Sato, 2005), grapevine communication (Hermans, 1970; Wu et
97
al., 2022), and commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Sencherey et al., 2022). The survey results
directly integrated into IBM SPSS v.29 to avoid data entry errors. Seven hundred thirty-one
responses were collected, with 456 being complete, yielding a 62.4% response rate.
Once data were screened, refined, and measured, SEM was used in IBM AMOS to
provide a model that met the fit criteria listed in Chapter 4. Having met all fit criteria, this model
revealed a partial mediating effect of grapevine communication between personality and
employee commitment after a merger or acquisition integration. This finding causes the want to
further explore other construct influences on commitment. For example, would this study yield
similar findings if all respondents worked for an internationally based company instead of a
U.S.-based one? Could there be findings of work culture influence on commitment, and would
culture be a mediating effect, or would it be directly causal? The suggestions for future research
in the previous paragraphs are just the beginning. The possibilities for continuation in this area of
study are virtually endless. Part of the SUO template for this chapter asks why this research
matters. This research matters because grapevine relation in M&A has been in discussion since
the earliest parts of the 20th century. (Bastien, 1987), yet no scholarly literature or studies had
been performed. A continuation of this field of study could dramatically affect M&A outcomes
in the future and allow both researchers and practitioners to understand better how
communication affects commitment. Leadership can also benefit from this field of study as it
could be a foundation for a commitment playbook during major organizational change.
Personal Learning Outcomes and Conclusion
Initially, I was interested in mergers and acquisitions and how to understand the impacts
of communication in the M&A world, but was lost on how to approach a research topic, let alone
develop a project. The discovery of the gap with studying grapevine communication was an
enlightening moment, and I built a mild obsession with how the grapevine influenced
commitment. With this project, I have a complete understanding of not only the mediating
98
effects of grapevine communication between personality and employee commitment but also
how mediating variables impact constructs within SEM. The applications for this skill set are
virtually endless in the research realm. Having guidance on utilizing a Mahalanobis distance, the
understanding why unidimensionality is important, data validation through SPSS, building and
editing validation models in AMOS, and controlling groups were the big takeaways for me. The
research project was gratifying in discovering the outcomes, but the skillsets learned during this
project are invaluable. I look forward to what future researchers can add to this study area.
99
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Ajzen, I. (2014). The theory of planned behavior. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and
E. Tory Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 438-459).
SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
63(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Allport, G. W., & Postman, L. J. (1945). Section of psychology: The basic psychology of rumor.
Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 8(2 Series II), 61-81.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1945.tb00216.x
Alumran, A., Hou, X. Y., Sun, J., Yousef, A. A., & Hurst, C. (2014). Assessing the construct
validity and reliability of the parental perception on antibiotics (PAPA) scales. BMC
Public Health, 14, 1-9.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Angwin, D. N., Mellahi, K., Gomes, E., & Peter, E. (2016). How communication approaches
impact mergers and acquisitions outcomes. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 27(20), 2370-2397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.985330
Appelbaum, S. H., Gandell, J., Shapiro, B. T., Belisle, P., & Hoeven, E. (2000). Anatomy of a
merger: Behavior of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre‐ during‐
post‐stages (part 2). Management Decision, 38(10), 674-684.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010360579
100
Appelbaum, S. H., Gandell, J., Yortis, H., Proper, S., & Jobin, F. (2000). Anatomy of a merger:
Behavior of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre‐ during‐ post‐stages
(part 1). Management Decision, 38(9), 649-662.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010357267
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and
research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.
Bagchi, P., & Rao, R. P. (1992). Decision making in mergers: An application of the analytic
hierarchy process. Managerial and Decision Economics, 13(2), 91-99.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4090130202
Bansal, A., & King, D. R. (2020). Communicating change following an acquisition. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(9), 1886-1915.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1803947
Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: Using strategic employee communication to
facilitate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), 219231. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280210449804
Bastien, D. T. (1987). Common patterns of behavior and communication in corporate mergers
and acquisitions. Human Resource Management, 26(1), 17-33.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930260103
Bastien, D. T., McPhee, R. D., & Bolton, K. A. (1995). A study and extended theory of the
structuration of climate. Communications Monographs, 62(2), 87-109.
Bech, P. (2017). Neuroticism (the Eysenck neuroticism scale). In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K.
Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer.
Bech, P., Lunde, M., & Moller, S. B. (2012). Eysenck’s two big personality factors and their
relationship to depression in patients with chronic idiopathic pain disorder: A clinometric
validation analysis. ISRN Psychiatry, 2012, 140458. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/140458
101
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107(2), 238.
Bhal, K. T., Uday Bhaskar, A., & Venkata Ratnam, C. (2009). Employee reactions to M&A:
Role of LMX and leader communication. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 30(7), 604-624. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910991637
Bhattacharya, S., & Ghosh, D. (2010). Impact of acquisition and trust as perceived by the
acquiring and acquired employees of a multinational telecommunication company in
Kolkata. ASBM Journal of Management, 3(1), 101-111.
Bijlsma‐Frankema, K. (2001). On managing cultural integration and cultural change processes in
mergers and acquisitions. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(2/3/4), 192-207.
Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 605-634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239
Brown, S. D., Tauler, R., & Walczak, B. (Eds.). (2020). Comprehensive chemometrics: Chemical
and biochemical data analysis. Elsevier.
Burlew, L. D., Pederson, J., & Bradley, B. (1994). The reaction of managers to the preacquisition stage of a corporate merger: A qualitative study. Journal of Career
Development, 21(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02107100
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3),
294-311. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0081
Cameron, K. S. (1994). Strategies for successful organizational downsizing. Human Resource
Management, 33(2), 189-211.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
102
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of
the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models.
Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462-494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314720
Chien, W. (2015). Application of item parceling in structural equation modeling: A correlational
study of undergraduate students’ academic behavior, employability, and employment
performance. International Journal of Intelligent Technologies & Applied Statistics, 8(1),
29-44. https://doi-org.su.idm.oclc.org/10.6148/IJITAS.2015.0801.03
Clay, N. (1993). Participation in employee attitude toward organizational change: A case study
on strategic change at George Pearson Centre. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0098819
Cohen, J. (1988). The effect size. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 77-83.
Collier, J. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced
techniques. Routledge.
Coombs, W. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and
application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review,
10(3), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
Cording, M., Christmann, P., & King, D. R. (2008). Reducing causal ambiguity in acquisition
integration: Intermediate goals as mediators of integration decisions and acquisition
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 744-767.
Covin, J. T., Kolenko, T. A., Sightler, K. W., & Tudor, R. K. (1997). Leadership style and post‐
merger satisfaction. Journal of Management Development, 16(1), 22-33.
Crampton, S. M., Hodge, J. W., & Mishra, J. M. (1998). The informal communication network:
Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management, 27(4), 569-584.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700410
103
Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. Translating Organizational Change, 56,
13-47.
Daniel, T. A. (1999). Between trapezes: The human side of making mergers and acquisitions
work. Compensation & Benefits Management, 15(1), 19-37. ProQuest database.
(206606202)
Dao, M. A., & Bauer, F. (2021). Human integration following M&A: Synthesizing different
M&A research streams. Human Resource Management Review, 31(3), 100746.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100746
Davenport, J. (2017). Employee communication during mergers and acquisitions.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315579351
Davis, K. (1953). Management communication and the grapevine. Harvard Business Review,
31(5), 43-49.
Deegan, J., Jr. (1978). On the occurrence of standardized regression coefficients greater than
one. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(4), 873-888.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447803800404
De Mare, G. (1989). Communicating: The key to establishing good working relationships. Price
Waterhouse Review. 33. 30-37
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Factor analysis. Scale development, theory, and applications. Applied
Social Research Method Series, 26, 10-137.
DeVoge, S., & Spreier, S. (1999). The soft realities of mergers. Across the Board, 36(10), 27-32.
ProQuest database. (205284611)
Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person × Situation interactions: Choice of
situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(3), 580-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.580
104
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during
organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37(3-4), 295-303.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-050x(199823/24)37:3/4<295::aid-hrm10>3.0.co;2-3
DiStefano, C., Liu, J., Jiang, N., & Shi, D. (2018). Examination of the weighted root mean
square residual: evidence for trustworthiness? Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 453-466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1390394
Dores Cruz, T. D., Balliet, D., Sleebos, E., Beersma, B., Van Kleef, G. A., & Gallucci, M.
(2019). Getting a grip on the grapevine: Extension and factor structure of the motives to
gossip questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01190
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: The
three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 245-261.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3),
382-388.
Fu, Q., Bolander, W., & Jones, E. (2009). Managing the drivers of organizational commitment
and salesperson effort: An application of Meyer and Allen’s three-component model.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(4), 335-350.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170403
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2008). Employee coping with organizational
change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel
Psychology, 61(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00104.x
105
Gao, N., Waynor, W. R., & O’Donnell, S. (2009). Creating organizational commitment to
change: Key to consumer employment success in a supportive housing agency. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 31(1), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-2009-0471
Garcia, C. (2010). Conceptualization and measurement of coping during adolescence: A review
of the literature. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42(2), 166-185.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01327.x
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Introduction of the theory of structuration.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gifford, R. E., van de Baan, F. C., Westra, D., Ruwaard, D., Zijlstra, F. R., Poesen, L. T., &
Fleuren, B. P. (2022). There and back again. Examining the development of employee
commitment during a prolonged crisis. SSM—Qualitative Research in Health, 2, 100053.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100053
Gilsdorf, J. W. (1998). Organizational rules on communicating: How employees are−and are
not−learning the ropes. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 35(2), 173-201.
Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating research: An
example from the user participation literature. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 446449.
Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and ltenls. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 139-164.
Hayes, A. (2023, March 25). What are mergers and acquisitions (M&A)? investopedia.com.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mergersandacquisitions.asp#:~:text=In%20gener
al%2C%20%22acquisition%22%20describes,form%20a%20completely%20new%20enti
ty.
106
Hermans, H. J. (1970). A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 54(4), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029675
Homburg, C., & Bucerius, M. (2006). Is speed of integration really a success factor of mergers
and acquisitions? An analysis of the role of internal and external relatedness. Strategic
Management Journal, 27(4), 347-367.
Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational
culture: measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research,
37(4), 449-462. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.4.449.18786
Hox, J. J., & Bechger, T. M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family
Science Review, 1(11), 354-373.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jemison, D. B., & Haspeslagh, P. C. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through
corporate renewal. Free Press.
Jha, S. (2011). Influence of psychological empowerment on affective, normative and
continuance commitment. Journal of Indian Business Research, 3(4), 263-282.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17554191111180582
Jian, G. (2007). Unpacking unintended consequences in planned organizational change: A
process model. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 5-28.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). What is the interpretation of R2? Scientific Software International.
Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types. In G. Ardler & R.F.C. Hull (Eds.) The collected works
of C. G. Jung. https://www.jungiananalysts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/C.-G.Jung-Collected-Works-Volume-6_-Psychological-Types.pdf
Kahn, R. L. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Krieger.
107
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and
responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990.
Karim, S. (2006). Modularity in organizational structure: The reconfiguration of internally
developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal, 27(9), 799-823.
Kitchen, P. J., & Daly, F. (2002). Internal communication during change management.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(1), 46-53.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280210416035
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The assessment of
commitment: advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(2), 222.
Kline, R. B. (2015). The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 202-213.
doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed). Guilford
Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change. Harvard Business Review, 2(1), 1-10.
Langster, H. J., & Cutrer, S. (2021). A scoping review of the impact of downsizing on survivors.
JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 51(6), 329-333.
https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0000000000001022
Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource
perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization.
Organization Science, 10(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.1
Lawlor, J. (2013). Employee perspectives on the post-integration stage of a micro merger.
Personnel Review, 42(6), 704-723. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-06-2012-0096
Lazarus, R. S. (1994). Psychological stress in the workplace. In Crandall, R. and Perrewe, P.L.
(Eds), Occupational stress: A handbook. Taylor and Francis.
108
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing
Company.
Lee, Y., & Kim, J. (2022). The impacts of CEO leadership behaviors on employees’ affective
commitment and scouting behavior: the mediating role of symmetrical internal
communication. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(2), 261-278.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2020-0501
Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media as an executive skill.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 2(3), 225-232.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1988.4277259
Level, D., Jr. (1959). A case study of human communications in an urban bank (Order No.
5906490) [Doctoral dissertation]. Proquest database. (301878670)
Little, T., Rioux, C., Odejimi, O., & Stickley, Z. L. (2022). Parceling in structural equation
modeling: A comprehensive introduction for developmental scientists. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009211659
Luft, H., & Ingham, I. (1955). Johari’s window. https://www.toolshero.com/communicationskills/johariwindow-model/
Lupina-Wegener, A., Drzensky, F., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2013). Focusing on the bright
tomorrow? A longitudinal study of organizational identification and projected continuity
in a corporate merger. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(4), 752-772.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12056
Mann, F. C. (1957). Studying and creating change: A means to understanding social
organization. Research in Industrial Human Relations, 17, 146-167.
Matheson, D., & Matheson, J. E. (1998). The smart organization: Creating value through
strategic R&D. Harvard Business Review Press.
109
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (2004). TCM Employee Commitment Survey Academic Users Guide
2004 [Survey Guide for TCM]. The University of Western Ontario, Department of
Psychology, 143-159.
Mishra, J. (1990). Managing the grapevine. Public Personnel Management, 19(2), 213-228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609001900209
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
Nel, K., & Govender, S. (2020). Challenges associated with business communications in English
via e-mail in a medium-sized South African organisation during the 4th Industrial
Revolution (4IR). International Review of Psychiatry, 32(7-8), 651-658.
Nguyen, H., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). The effective management of mergers. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 24(8), 447-454.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730310505876
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill
Okafor, B. E., Yakubova, M. M., & Westerman, C. (2021). Manager-employee communication:
The influence of temperament and leader-member exchange quality on employees’ use of
upward dissent strategies. Western Journal of Communication, 85(3), 400-426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2020.1850850
110
Oliveira, M. K. de M., Kaizer, U. A. de O., Jannuzzi, F. F., Gallani, M.-C., Alexandre, N. M. C.,
Cornélio, M. E., São-João, T. M., & Rodrigues, R. C. M. (2022). Content validity of a
questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior to assess the psychosocial
determinants of insulin adherence. Value in Health Regional Issues, 29, 76-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2021.08.007
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational
change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396650
Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6-17.
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis. SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984898
Polley, D. (1997). Turbulence in organizations: New metaphors for organizational research.
Organization Science, 8(5), 445-457. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.5.445
Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. D. (2009). The impact of change process and context on change
reactions and turnover during a merger. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1309-1338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309341480
Reissner, S., & Pagan, V. (2013). Generating employee engagement in a public-private
partnership: Management communication activities and employee experiences. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(14), 2741-2759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.766497
Ribando, S. J., & Evans, L. (2014). Change happens. Public Personnel Management, 44(1), 99119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014550406
Richardson, P., & Denton, D. K. (1996). Communicating change. Human Resource
Management, 35(2), 203-216.
111
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational behaviour (11th ed.). Pearson Education.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and
evaluation. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1, 1-16.
Salem, P. (2008). The seven communication reasons organizations do not change. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 333-348.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280810893698
Sato, T. (2005). The Eysenck personality questionnaire brief version: Factor structure and
reliability. The Journal of Psychology, 139(6), 545-552.
https://doi.org/10.3200/jrlp.139.6.545-552
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), 23-74.
Schoorman, F., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational
trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.
https://doi.org/10.5466/amr.2007.24348410
Schreiber, J. B. (2008). Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in
Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2), 83-97. https://doiorg/10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.04.003
Schreiber, J. B. (2017). Update to core reporting practices in structural equation modeling.
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 13(3), 634-643. https://doiorg/10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.06.006
Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger:
A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256304
112
Schweizer, L., Wang, L., Koscher, E., & Michaelis, B. (2022). Experiential learning, M&A
performance, and post-acquisition integration strategy: A meta-analysis. Long Range
Planning, 55(6), 102212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102212
Sencherey, R. B., Kamil, N. M., Zakari, M., & Ameza-Xemalordzo, E. (2022). The role of
employee commitment on organizational performance and the intention to stay. Journal
of Social Sciences and Humanities, 19(5), 163-175.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate
the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of
Business Research, 58(7), 935-943. https://doi..org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007
Sideridis, G., Saddaawi, A., & Al-Harbi, K. (2018). Internal consistency reliability in
measurement: Aggregate and multilevel approaches. Journal of Modern Applied
Statistical Methods, 17(1), 15.
Smith, B. (1996). Care and feeding of the office grapevine. Management Review, 85(2), 6.
Smith, K. W. (1974). On estimating the reliability of composite indexes through factor analysis.
Sociological Methods & Research, 2(4), 485-510.
Snyder, M., & Kendzierski, D. (1982). Choosing social situations: Investigating the origins of
correspondence between attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality, 50(3), 280-295.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb00751.x
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler.
Stahl, G. K., Larsson, R., Kremershof, I., & Sitkin, S. B. (2011). Trust dynamics in acquisitions:
A case survey. Human Resource Management, 50(5), 575-603.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20448
Tabachnick, L., & Fidell, L. (2018). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J., Austin, W., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56(66).
113
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & McKimmie, B. M. (2000). Attitude‐behaviour relations: the role of
in‐group norms and mode of behavioural decision‐making. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 39(3), 337-361.
Thakur, M., Bansal, A., & Stokes, P. (2017). The role of thriving and training in merger success:
An integrative learning perspective. In Advances in mergers and acquisitions (pp. 1-35).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-361x20160000015001
Tian, A., Ahammad, M., Tarba, S., Pereira, V., Arslan, A., & Khan, Z. (2021). Investigating
employee and organizational performance in a cross‐border acquisition—a case of
withdrawal behavior. Human Resource Management, 60(5), 753-769.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22058
Triandis, H. C., & Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(3), 503. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391318
Tuovinen, S., Tang, X., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2020). Introversion and social engagement: Scale
validation, their interaction, and positive association with self-esteem. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11. https://doi-org.su.idm.oclc.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590748
Turner, J., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: Self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
Uslu, A., & Ergün, G. S. (2021). The moderator effect of the perception of value co-creation on
the relationship between hotel brand equity and WOM. Academica Turistica, 14(2)
Vaara, E. (2003). Post-acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity,
confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 859-894.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00363
Vaara, E., Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Ehrnrooth, M., & Koveshnikov, A. (2014). Attributional
tendencies in cultural explanations of M&A performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 35(9), 1302-1317.
114
Van Laar, S., & Braeken, J. (2021). Understanding the Comparative Fit Index: It’s all about the
base! Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 26(1).
Vecchio, R. P., & Appelbaum, S. H. (1995). Managing organizational behaviour: A Canadian
perspective. Dryden.
Waight, C. L. (2015). Learning during the integration phase of mergers and acquisitions:
Perspectives from learning and development professionals. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 28(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21184
Wanous, J. P., Arnon, E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group
& Organizational Management, 25(2), 132-155.
Weber, Y., Rachman-Moore, D., & Tarba, S. (2011). HR practices during post-merger conflict
and merger performance. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 12(1),
73-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595811413111
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Williams, H. E., James, A. M., He, W., & Conners, S. (2020). Communication and loyalty in
mergers: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Organizational Development
Journal, 38(4), 55-70.
Wińska, J. (2010). Influence of superior-subordinate communication on employee satisfaction.
Journal of Positive Management, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.12775/jpm.2010.009
Wu, X., Siu, K., Bühring, J., & Villani, C. (2022). The relationship between creative selfefficacy, achievement motivation, and job burnout among designers in China’s e-market.
Social Sciences, 11(11), 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110509
115
Xie, J. (1996). Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: Effects of job demands,
control, and individual differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1594-1618.
https://doi.org/10.5466/257070
Yuan, K., & Bentler, P. (1999). On normal theory and associated test statistics in covariance
structure analysis under two classes of nonnormal distributions. Statistica Sinica, 9, 831853.
Zhang, J., Ahammad, M., Tarba, S., Cooper, C. L., Glaister, K. W., & Wang, J. (2014). The
effect of leadership style on talent retention during merger and acquisition integration:
Evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
26(7), 1021-1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.908316
Zhao, X., Lynch, J., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths
about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Gerrig, R. J. (2004). Psychologie (16th ed.). Pearson.
116
Appendices
Appendix A—Research Recruitment Flyer
WERE YOU AN EMPLOYEE DURING A MERGER OR ACQUISITION?
Research
Participants
Needed
We Want to Hear About Your M&A Experiences!
You May Win a $100 or $50 Starbucks Gift Card!
Follow the Link Below to Complete Our Survey!
Employee Commitment Survey
Any questions or comments about this research project can be addressed to:
Greg Priebe at gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu
Jill List, Ph.D. at jelist@southuniversity.edu
This project has been reviewed and approved by the South University Institutional Review
Board. If you have questions or concerns, those questions or concerns should be directed to
the IRB chairperson, Dr. Laura Rodriguez-Kitkowski at Lrodriguezkitkowski@southuniversity.edu
117
Appendix B—LinkedIn and Group Permission Conversations
The following conversations took place March 30 and 31, 2023. The conversations grant
permission to post the SurveyMonkey link to group members.
Mr. de Mello Pires, Good afternoon. I would like to request permission to send a survey to
your group to help with my doctoral research. My survey preview is listed below, and I will
gladly send over my research proposal draft if you’d like to review it. Thank you in advance for
your consideration. I will be messaging the other admins as well with this message and a link to
the survey preview. Respectfully, Greg Priebe gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=eTQf1AB66Y66WmbV8dkCc2CtuK4GZF9hK
Hw5QcsId5PnOyrFzGVVHXxcz7DvkSX0
•
Rogério de Mello Pires sent the following message at 2:45 PM
•
Rogério de Mello Pires 2:45 PM
•
Hi Greg!
•
Greg Priebe, MBA sent the following message at 2:45 PM
•
Greg Priebe, MBA 2:45 PM
•
Good afternoon Mr. de Mello Pires!
•
Rogério de Mello Pires sent the following message at 2:46 PM
•
Rogério de Mello Pires 2:46 PM
•
Good afternoon!! Please, you can publish your research on our blog
https://biolink24h.cc/ead/blog
•
Greg Priebe, MBA 2:47 PM
•
Thank you so much! May I post the survey link on your LinkedIn Group page as well?
React with
1
118
•
I need participants for the survey. I have not collected data which is why I’ve reached out
to multiple professional groups.
React with
1
•
Greg Priebe, MBA 2:49 PM
•
Thank you so much!
Mr. Kumar, Good afternoon. I would like to request permission to post my doctoral research
survey link on your group page. All participants are completely anonymous, and no personal or
private information will be collected. A preview link is posted below. Thank you in advance for
your consideration. Greg Priebe Doctoral Candidate South University—Savannah, GA
gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=eTQf1AB66Y66WmbV8dkCc2CtuK4GZF9hK
Hw5QcsId5PnOyrFzGVVHXxcz7DvkSX0
•
Kaushik Kumar sent the following message at 4:45 PM
Kaushik Kumar (He/Him) 4:45 PM
Sure
•
Greg Priebe, MBA sent the following message at 4:45 PM
Greg Priebe, MBA 4:45 PM
Thank you, sir!
•
Kaushik Kumar sent the following messages at 4:45 PM
Kaushik Kumar (He/Him) 4:45 PM
You’re welcome.
Mr. Tingle, good afternoon. I would like to request permission to post my doctoral research
survey link on your group page. All participants are completely anonymous, and no personal or
private information will be collected. I send this message to the three owners as well but usually
119
send it to managers as well. A preview link is posted below. Thank you in advance for your
consideration. Greg Priebe doctoral candidate South University—Savannah, GA
gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=eTQf1AB66Y66WmbV8dkCc2CtuK4GZF9hK
Hw5QcsId5PnOyrFzGVVHXxcz7DvkSX0
•
Michael Tingle sent the following message at 5:18 PM
Michael Tingle 5:18 PM
Sure, which group, Linked HR is the only one that’s a maybe.
•
Greg Priebe, MBA sent the following message at 5:19 PM
Greg Priebe, MBA 5:19 PM
Yes sir. I was hoping for the HR group, but I’ll gladly post to any of them. I’d love a
broad range of industries and employee level responses. Thank you!
•
Michael Tingle sent the following message at 5:20 PM
Michael Tingle 5:20 PM
Ok, post on Linked he and I will approve it.
•
Greg Priebe, MBA sent the following message at 5:21 PM
Greg Priebe, MBA 5:21 PM
Awesome. Thank you!
•
Michael Tingle sent the following messages at 5:30 PM
Michael Tingle 5:30 PM
No problem.
Mr. Kikan, Good Afternoon. I would like to request permission to post my doctoral research
survey on your group page. All participants will remain completely anonymous, and no personal
or private information will be collected. A survey link is below for your review. Respectfully,
Greg Priebe gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu
120
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=eTQf1AB66Y66WmbV8dkCc2CtuK4GZF9hK
Hw5QcsId5PnOyrFzGVVHXxcz7DvkSX0
•
Ravi Kikan sent the following message at 9:50 PM
Ravi Kikan 9:50 PM
Sure enough.
•
Greg Priebe, MBA sent the following messages at 9:50 PM
Greg Priebe, MBA 9:50 PM
Thank you, sir!
Mr. Lee,
Good afternoon. I would like to request permission to send a survey to your group to help with
my doctoral research. My survey preview is listed below, and I will gladly send over my research
proposal draft if you’d like to review it. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I will be
messaging the other admins as well with this message and a link to the survey preview.
Respectfully, Greg Priebe gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=eTQf1AB66Y66WmbV8dkCc2CtuK4GZF9hK
Hw5QcsId5PnOyrFzGVVHXxcz7DvkSX0
•
Peter Lee, Esq., CAMS, CBP sent the following message at 11:54 PM
Peter Lee, Esq., CAMS, CBP 11:54 PM
As a member, you can post anything that’s both relevant to the group and that would not
be considered spam. Thanks!
•
Greg Priebe, MBA sent the following message at 7:32 AM
Greg Priebe, MBA 7:32 AM
Thank you!
121
•
Peter Lee, Esq., CAMS, CBP sent the following messages at 7:54 AM
Peter Lee, Esq., CAMS, CBP 7:54 AM
You’re welcome.
122
Appendix C—Raw Survey Design
The following excel import is the original raw survey design. The excel sheet shows
grouping order of questions, question reversal coding, and references for each topic.
QUALIFYING QUESTIONS
YES
NO
1. I experienced a merger or
acquisition
2. I work for United States
based company
**If the participant answers
“no” to Q1 = DNQ; answers
“no” to Q2 = DNQ**
DEMOGRAPHIC
QUESTIONS—solely for
categorization purposes
1. Age
2. Gender
4. How long have you worked
for your current organization?
18-25
MALE
0-5 YR
4. What is your annual salary?
0-30,000
26-33
34-41
42-49
50-57
FEMALE
OTH
ER
6-11 YR
12-17
YR
17-22
YR
22
YR+
30,00160,000
90,00
60,001 1120,0
90,000 00
120,00
1150,00
0
5864
150
,00
1+
5. What level of employee do
you most identify with?
Technician
Associate or specialist EntryMiddle Senior
or entry(x-ray,
level
Exec
manage manage
level
sonography, manag
utive
r
r
employee specialized ement
it, etc.)
6. What is your highest level
of education
Did not
graduate
high
school
Earne
Highschool d
graduate
assoc
iates
Earne
d
under
gradu
Earne
d
master
’s
Ear
ned
ter
min
123
ate
degree
degree
7. Have you earned a
certificate or credential that
was either required or is
directly related to your current
profession but was not part of
a college level degree?
Examples are x-ray
technician, sonographer,
surgical technologist,
compTIA, Microsoft
technology associate (MTA),
AWS solutions architect,
Google Cloud, etc.
Yes
No
Which describes your position
during the merger or
acquisition?
I was an
employe
e of the
acquiring
company
I was an
employee
of the
acquired
company
I
experien
ced a
merger
I
experience
d an
acquisition
Which Event did you
experience?
al
deg
ree
I
work
ed
hybri
d
(som
e
office
,
some
remot
e)
Which describes your work
environment during the
merger or acquisition?
I worked
at an
office
location
Personality Questions
Str
Slight
on
ly
Slightl
gly
Strongly
Disag Undec y
Agr Ag
Disagree Disagree
ree
ided
Agree ee
ree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I worked
remotely
124
1. I am the life of the party
2. I enjoy meeting new people
3. I take initiative to make
new friends
4. I like plenty of excitement
in my day
5. I prefer to observe quietly
in the background
6. I often feel depressed *R*
7. I am irritable while I am at
work *R*
8. I worry about lots of things
*R*
9. I would consider myself to
be a nervous person *R*
10. I often feel “fed-up” at
work *R*
11. I prefer to be alone *R*
12. I handle change well and
can easily adapt
Sato, T. (2005). The Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire
Brief Version: Factor
Structure and Reliability.
Journal of Psychology,
139(6), 545–552
Okafor, B. E., Yakubova, M.
M., & Westerman, C. Y. K.
(2021). Manager-Employee
Communication: The
Influence of Temperament
and Leader-Member
Exchange Quality on
Employees’ Use of Upward
Dissent Strategies. Western
Journal of Communication,
85(3), 400–426. https://doiorg.su.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/1
0570314.2020.1850850
Achievement Questions
1. I would like new challenges
at work
2. My current job is boring
*R*
3. I sought new challenges in
high school and/or college
125
4. I like to be the “go-to”
person in my office
5. I am very demanding of
myself
6. I must complete tasks I start
7. I must finish my tasks
before the deadline
8. I am a perseverant person.
9. I would quit a difficult task
if it did not affect my
performance review *R*
10. I set very high standards
of myself.
Hermans, H. J. (1970). A
questionnaire measure of
achievement motivation.
Journal of Applied
Psychology, 54(4), 353–363
Wu, X., Siu, K. W. M.,
Bühring, J., & Villani, C.
(2022). The Relationship
between Creative SelfEfficacy, Achievement
Motivation, and Job Burnout
among Designers in China’s
e-Market. Social Sciences
(2076-0760), 11(11), 509.
https://doiorg.su.idm.oclc.org/10.3390/s
ocsci11110509
Grapevine
1. I always feel like my
supervisor is approachable
with questions about changes
at work
2. I always look for official
communication about change
when I hear whispers of
change from coworkers.
3. Official company
communication can’t be
trusted, it’s just to sugar coat
bad news to employees *R*
4. I trust communication from
my coworkers more than I
trust that of my supervisors
and/or leadership
126
5. I hear about changes at
work through the news before
I receive official
communication.
6. I hear about changes at
work through social media
before I receive official
communication.
7. I hear about changes at
work through word of mouth
(non-supervisor persons)
before I receive official
communication.
8. I trust official
communication more than
rumor mills.
LEVEL, D. A., JR. (1959). A
Case Study of Human
Communications in An Urban
Bank (Order No. 5906490).
Available from ProQuest One
Academic. (301878670).
https://www.proquest.com/dis
sertations-theses/case-studyhuman-communicationsurbanbank/docview/301878670/se2
Dores Cruz, T. D., Balliet, D.,
Sleebos, E., Beersma, B., Van
Kleef, G. A., & Gallucci, M.
(2019). Getting a grip on the
grapevine: Extension and
factor structure of the motives
to gossip questionnaire.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2019.01190
Affective Commitment Scale
1. I would be very happy to
spend the rest of my career
with this organization.
2. I really feel as if this
organization’s problems are
my own.
3. I do not feel a strong sense
of “belonging” to my
organization. (R)
127
4. I do not feel “emotionally
attached” to this organization.
(R)
5. I do not feel like “part of
the family” at my
organization. (R)
6. This organization has a
great deal of personal meaning
for me.
Continuance Commitment
Scale
1. Right now, staying with my
organization is a matter of
necessity as much as desire.
2. It would be very hard for
me to leave my organization
right now, even if I wanted to.
3. Too much of my life would
be disrupted if I decided I
wanted to leave my
organization now.
4. I feel that I have too few
options to consider leaving
this organization.
5. If I had not already put so
much of myself into this
organization, I might consider
working elsewhere.
6. One of the few negative
consequences of leaving this
organization would be the
scarcity of available
alternatives.
Normative Commitment
Scale
1. I do not feel any obligation
to remain with my current
employer. (R)
2. Even if it were to my
advantage, I do not feel it
would be right to leave my
organization now.
3. I would feel guilty if I left
my organization now.
4. This organization deserves
my loyalty.
5. I would not leave my
organization right now
128
because I have a sense of
obligation to the people in it.
6. I owe a great deal to my
organization.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J.
(1991) A three-component
conceptualization of
organizational commitment.
Human Resources
Management Review, 1(1),
61-89.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J.
(1997). Commitment in the
workplace: Theory, research,
and application. Sage.
Sencherey, R. B., Kamil, N.
M., Zakari, M., & Ameza Xemalordzo, E. (2022). The
Role of Employee
Commitment on
Organizational Performance
and the Intention to Stay. EBANGI Journal, 19(5), 161–
173
Note. (R) indicates a
reverse-keyed item. Scores
on these items should be
reflected (i.e., 1 =7, 2 = 6, 3 =
5, 4 = 4, 5 = 3, 6 = 2, 7 = 1)
before computing scale
scores.
129
Appendix D—Survey Instrument
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Appendix E—Individual Consent Form
For Official Use Only
Date received:
Date
reviewed:
End date:
SELF CONSENT
File #:
I have been invited to take part in a research study titled: The Mediating Effect of Grapevine
Communication on Personality and Employee Commitment After a Merger or Acquisition
Integration: A Quantitative Study
This study is being conducted by Gregory Paul Priebe, who can be contacted at:
gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I can refuse to participate or stop
taking part at any time without giving any reason and without facing any penalty. Additionally, I
have the right to request the return, removal, or destruction of any information relating to me or
my participation.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
I understand that the purpose of the study is to: provide future researchers and practitioners a
better understanding of the capital related to employee attitude toward communication and the
organization during change in which future organizations will invest in communicating to its
employees with equal intensity as reviewing financial implication of the merger or acquisition at
hand.
PROCEDURES
I understand that if I volunteer to take part in this study, I will be asked to: Complete a 15-minute
survey asking about my experiences during a merger or acquisition event I was involved in. My
position could have been with the acquired company or the acquiring company.
BENEFITS
I understand that the benefits I may gain from participation include the ability to enter a drawing
at the end of the survey to win one of two Starbucks gift cards. Total completion of the survey is
required to enter the drawing.
RISKS
I understand that there are limited risks, discomforts, or stresses I may face during participation,
The survey should be conducted in your work or personal area. No personal or private questions
are involved in this survey aside from general demographic questions such as employee level
(e.g., entry level, associate, manager, C-suite), salary, length of employment, gender, and age.
Should you feel uncomfortable answering any questions for any reason, please immediately stop
the survey and contact the researcher—Greg Priebe, his chair—Dr. Jill List, or Dr. Laura
Rodriguez-Kitkowski with the South University Institutional Review Board at:
147
gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu; jelist@southuniversity.edu; or IRB@southuniversity.edu
respectively.
CONFIDENTIALITY
I (the participant) understand that the only people who will know that I (the participant) am a
research subject are members of the research team. No individually identifiable information
about me or provided by me during the study will be shared with others except when necessary
to protect the rights and welfare of myself and others (for example, if I am injured and need
emergency care, if the provided information concerns suicide, homicide, or child abuse, or if
revealing the information is required by law).
FURTHER QUESTIONS
I understand that any further questions that I have, now or during the study, can be directed to the
researcher: Mr. Greg Priebe at gpriebe83@stu.southuniversity.edu.
Additionally, I understand that questions or problems regarding my rights as a research
participant can be addressed to Dr. Laura Rodriguez-Kitkowski, Institutional Review Board,
South University, 709 Mall Blvd Savannah, GA 31406 (248)390-6954.
By selecting the “I accept” button, I confirm my selection serve as my signature below indicating
that the researchers have satisfactorily answered all my current questions about this study and
that I understand the purpose, procedures, benefits, and risks described above. I also
acknowledge that I may obtain a copy of this consent form for my records at any time by
contacting the South University IRB through the contact information above.
148
Appendix F—Demographics
149
150
151
152
153
Appendix G—Histograms
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
ProQuest Number: 30687957
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).
Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,
United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization
of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA