Examining the Role of Personal, Social Exchange, and Contextual Fit Variables in Employee Work Outcomes under Continuous Change: A Field Investigation

Abstract

Despite the consensus, that the ability of organizations to manage change is critical to their survival, organizations have seldom been able to change successfully. The knowledge that change can be difficult and disruptive necessitates an understanding of the critical factors influencing employee outcomes during change. This study examined the role of personal, social exchange, and contextual fit variables in employee work outcomes under conditions of continuous change. The survey method was used to collect data from 449 employees (350 team members and 99 team leaders) working in Indian outsourcing companies. Data were obtained from the employees using either an online or a paper-based survey. Principal components and confirmatory factor analysis were run to assess preliminary reliabilities of scale items and to test construct validities. Multivariate and hierarchical regression analyses were utilized to test the hypotheses. Results indicated a significant role of personal, social exchange, and contextual fit variables in predicting different employee work outcomes under continuous change. Personal variables (change self-efficacy and perceived change) were found to be significant in predicting both the primary (stress, change-specific cynicism, and affective commitment) and the secondary (turnover intentions) outcomes. However, the social exchange variables, i.e., leader-member exchange (LMX) and team-member exchange (TMX) were significant predictors of primary outcomes only (stress, change-specific cynicism, and affective commitment). With regard to the contextual fit variables, person-organization fit (P-O fit) was significantly related to affective commitment only. However, person-job fit (P-J fit) was significant in predicting affective commitment and turnover intentions. Also, the primary outcomes (stress and affective commitment) mediated the relationship between the antecedents (change self-efficacy, perceived change, and P-J fit) and the secondary outcome (turnover intentions). Additionally, it was observed that the team leaders’ change-specific cynicism and LMX, but not change self-efficacy, significantly predicted team performance.