Blurred limits and threat of isolation? Employees’ fears in transition to self-determined organization

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Blurred limits and threat of isolation? Employees’ fears in transition to self-determined organization © Jenni Kantola and Juha P. Kinnunen. Published version Kantola, Jenni; Kinnunen, Juha P. Kantola, J., & Kinnunen, J. P. (2024). Blurred limits and threat of isolation? Employees’ fears in transition to self-determined organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-05-2023-0188 2024 Blurred limits and threat of isolation? Employees’ fears in transition to self-determined organization Jenni Kantola Jyv€ askyl€ aUniversity School of Business and Economics, Jyv€ askyl€ a, Finland, and Juha P. Kinnunen University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland Abstract Purpose –Today’s organizations face constant structural and cultural changes at an accelerated pace, with a growing focus on self-determination to improve employee motivation and organizational performance. The shift toward a self-determined organizational culture allows employees greater autonomy in making decisions related to their work which are found to provide many positive organizationaland individual-level outcomes. However, adapting to an autonomous work culture is a complex process and demands cognitive capacity, which is especially challenging for those who have previously experienced low autonomy in their work. Consequently, individuals are found to experience mixed feelings as they make sense of ongoing changes and fear potential dangers that change entails. The purpose of the present study is to understand what employees perceive as frightening in a self-determined organizational culture, which is generally associated with a positive image and that so many organizations are increasingly leaning to in that direction. Design/methodology/approach –In this study, we collected ten in-depth-interviews from employees from a case company, Finnish financial services company that was undergoing an organizational change toward a selfdetermined organizational culture. We approached data from grounded theory perspective that revealed that fear was explicit in participants’ narration, which then led us to focus on fears. By applying the Gioia method to the analysis, we recognized how individuals made sense of change through fears. Findings –In our findings, we recognized that individuals made sense of the change in an organization’s culture through processing fears on three levels: fears of doing, being, and becoming. This revealed that individuals do not fear an organization’s cultural change only because they need to adjust to new ways of working but because they themselves must change too. While individuals are experiencing enormous changes at work, they are engaging in a process where they try to make sense of expectations and struggle to create new meanings and behaviors. Expressing worries of an organization’s actions and development can be one way of distancing oneself from the change while evaluating one�s own position. Originality/value –This study provides an understanding of an ongoing organizational culture change in the context of a transition to a self-determined organizational culture. Although the benefits of self-determined organizing and culture have been strongly emphasized, this study points out the challenges that an increase in autonomy causes among employees and how demanding the process in adapting to a new culture can be. Keywords Fear, Self-determined organization, Self-management, Change management Paper type Research paper Introduction Today, organizations face constant structural and cultural changes at an accelerated pace, with a growing focus on self-determination to improve employee motivation and organizational performance (Burton et al., 2020;Martela et al., 2021). The shift toward a self-determined organizational culture involves transferring decision-making power from central management to the entire organization, allowing employees greater autonomy in making choices related to their work. One example of this is the right to decide on the ways work is done and the power to Journal of Organizational Change Management © Jenni Kantola and Juha P. Kinnunen. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0953-4814.htm Received 30 May 2023 Revised 3 November 2023 5 April 2024 20 June 2024 11 September 2024 Accepted 3 October 2024 Journal of Organizational Change Management Emerald Publishing Limited 0953-4814 DOI 10.1108/JOCM-05-2023-0188 decide on work goals and priorities (Lee and Edmondson, 2017;Martela et al., 2021;Ryan and Deci, 2000a). The idea of a self-determined organization has its roots in self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000a), which is linked to three basic psychological needs: the need to feel autonomous, the need to feel competent, and the need to belong to a group and be accepted. When these needs are realized in an organization, they are found to support an individual’s intrinsic motivation and produce greater work engagement and commitment to work (Deci et al., 2017;Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b,2018). Intrinsically motivated individuals are also featured by emotions such as joy and excitement (G€ untert, 2015). Altogether, selfdetermination is found to provide many positive outcomes, both organizational and at an individual level, and as such it is understandable that organizations are adopting more approaches to autonomy and organizational design to increase employee motivation. However, as autonomy increases, individuals not only need to adopt a new way of working but also to adopt a more autonomous approach to work, which as such requires processing and adjusting to changes and overcoming routines (Choi and Ruona, 2011;Vakola, 2014). Consequently, and paradoxically, organizational change requires an individual to learn and adapt to predetermined ideas, thus “undermining one�s autonomy” (Nesterkin, 2013, p. 573). And despite the acknowledged benefits of increased autonomy on performance and satisfaction, adaptation to a newly gained autonomy is a complex process and demands cognitive capacity and is especially challenging for those who have previously experienced low autonomy in their work (Niessen and Volmer, 2010). As a result, it is not surprising that organizational changes trigger emotions (Smollan and Sayers, 2009) as perceptions of future and working conditions are in mind (Kiefer, 2005). Individuals are recognized as going through a cognitive-emotional process, during which they try to understand their experiences, feelings, and overall meaning of change for themselves (Lazarus, 1991;Liu and Perrewe, 2005). From a psychological perspective, it is natural that in the initial stages of change, individuals experience mixed emotions that are anticipatory in nature and do not readily support change. Indeed, individuals fear dangers that they believe change entails and they therefore feel a loss of control (Rafferty et al., 2013;Weeks et al., 2004). Despite the fact that emotions are not stable and may evolve and change during the process of change, at the very beginning, emotions are especially important to recognize and thus have a strong influence on an individual�s coping process (Liu and Perrewe, 2005) and also on how an individual attends to changes (Fugate et al., 2008;Helpap and BekmeierFeuerhahn, 2016). As emotions are often collective and contagious in nature (Hareli and Rafaeli, 2008), the affective element of implementation should not be undermined as an indicator of success of the organization’s change process (Rafferty et al., 2013). The context of the present study is an organization in the middle of implementing new organizational self-determined operating models, which has involved changes at every level of organizing work – not just structural but also in the whole culture and practices. As less hierarchical organizing meant the establishment of self-directed teams and new managerial design, the whole personnel has consequently been affected. In particular, negative emotions are inherent byproducts of organizational change (e.g. Kiefer and M€ uller, 2003) since future changes, working conditions and organizational support raise questions among employees (Kiefer, 2005). Following this notion, we pay our attention to fears as they are strongly linked to a feeling of uncertainty and are characterized as an emotional reaction toward the unknown (Tiedens and Linton, 2001). Previous studies relate fears to the possibility of unpredictable events, risks and harmfulness to employees’ personal interests (Allen et al., 2007;Armenakis and Harris, 2009;Fugate et al., 2008). Despite the “affective revolution” in organization studies (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009), fear has been referred to only in a number of studies (e.g. on organizational silence: Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; change readiness: Weeks et al., 2004; organizational change: Appelbaum et al., 1998,Mealiea, 1978), and often with the perspective of predicting change and preventing possible resistance (Weeks et al., 2004). In our study, we claim that as change is clearly an emotional issue and “people are willing to change, they just JOCM don�t want to be changed” (Wissema, 2000, p. 74), we should move our focus from simply the fear of change to understanding reasons that foster fears in a particular context. In the same manner that Kiefer (2005) studied antecedents of negative emotions in a company merger, we explore the antecedents of fears in a company that is going through a cultural shift. Instead of focusing on experience of change per se, the purpose of the present study is to understand what employees perceive as frightening in an organizational culture, especially a culture which is generally associated with a positive image and in the direction of which so many organizations are increasingly leaning to. This paper builds on and informs three bodies of literature – namely, the literature on selfdetermination, organizational change, and negative emotions – to understand what employees� fears reveal about ongoing organizational change toward self-determined culture. In the following sections, we begin by reviewing the literature on characteristics of self-managed organizational culture, followed by discussion on organizational change and the role of emotions in change. We then proceed to describe the method and results, before finally discussing our findings and implications to current theory and practice. Theoretical framework The ideal of self-determined organizations In recent years, the increase in self-determination can be seen as one of the major operational changes in organizations, aiming at both a better motivation of employees and increased organizational performance (Martela et al., 2021). The move toward the culture of a selfmanaged organization refers to the decentralization of decision-making power from central management to the whole organization, i.e. to a radical dismantling of the hierarchy, for example, by reducing the number of managers (Lee and Edmondson, 2017;Martela et al., 2021; see also Burton et al., 2020) while bringing also more freedom to employees to decide on matters relating to their own work (Morikawa et al., 2022;Ryan and Deci, 2000a). The idea of a self-determined organization has its roots in self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000a) which is linked to three basic psychological needs that, when realized, enable self-determination (Deci et al., 2017;Gillet et al., 2013;Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b,2018). These basic needs are autonomy, i.e. the right to do things one’s own way; competence, i.e. sufficient knowledge, challenge, learning and development of opportunities; and relatedness, i.e. the need to belong to a group and be accepted (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). According to selfdetermination theory, the fulfilment of basic psychological needs plays an essential role in facilitating optimal growth and adaptation according to natural tendencies as well as constructive social development, intrinsic motivation, and personal well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). The reasons for the increase in self-determination can be seen in the desire of the current generation of workers for a less formal hierarchy and having more control over their work in the workplace (Lee and Edmondson, 2017;Turco, 2016). Less hierarchical organizing has been seen to include, for example, self-directed teams (delegating management authority to groups of people), participative management (increasing employee involvement, such as committees where employees can influence issues related to their work experience, starting with working conditions), and empowering employees (managers empowering employees to make decisions and act within the limits of their own authority within the scope of their jobrelated expertise) (Lee and Edmondson, 2017). In practice, self-determination provides autonomy related to how individuals perform and manage their work but also how employees develop the organization. In a self-directed organization, an employee’s ability to use their discretion in how and where they perform their work (e.g. choice of work location; remote working vs. office work) and their ability to determine the goals they promote in their work (e.g. target setting, managing one�s own calendar, etc.) are practical examples. Though the selfdirected model does not only touch upon individuals’ tasks, individuals’ involvement in organizational decision-making (e.g. strategic planning), and the development of collective Journal of Organizational Change Management action (e.g. planning joint events) is also expected (Billinger and Workiewics, 2019;Morikawa et al., 2022). Although the prevailing discourse describes self-directed organizations with “optimistic and upbeat tones” (Billinger and Workiewizs, 2019, p. 1) and emphasis is on the freedom and power given to employees (Lee and Edmonson, 2017), there are increasing concerns related to productivity and efficiency in self-directed organizational structures as managerial role and responsibilities of individual change significantly (Billinger and Workiewics, 2019; Bunderson and Boumgarden, 2010). Self-directed organization requires employees to take more responsibility, but people’s ability to self-direction and self-motivation varies; thus taking initiatives can be challenging for some (Martela and Kostamo, 2017). Drawing from studies on self-directed teams, change to self-direction may also hinder any possibilities of experiential learning and continuous improvement if organizational structures and hierarchies are seen as restricting and self-direction is interpreted too simplistically in organizational change (Lemmetty, 2021). Since clear responsibilities, roles and guided supervision have been noted to promote individual learning (Bunderson and Boumgarden, 2010), the latest studies question the individual-driven nature of self-directedness and highlight the meaning of organizational structures and frames that rather create the possibility for self-directedness instead of expecting it (Lemmetty, 2021). However, there is very little empirical research on working in a self-directed organization and especially on situations where change from the traditional organizing of work has happened in recent times and where personnel are still making sense of the implementation of new ways of work and its reflections on the whole organization (Vuori, 2021). Linking organizational change and fears Organizations are in a constant state of change as technological development, changing customer demands and increased competition push organizations to transform (Brandt et al., 2019;Hubbart, 2023). Though organizational changes are often responses to both external and internal influences (Rutigliano et al., 2017), simplified, organizational changes occur due to “problems that need fixing or some new goals that need to be achieved” (Schein, 2004, p. 319). On a practical level, organizational change can be a process through which an organization makes structural adjustments to address operational cost, productivity, or service quality issues or to identify new growth opportunities (e.g. Hubbart, 2023;Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). In the present study, our focus is on organizational cultural change, which is described to be the most challenging and lengthy change as it transforms both the culture, practices, and underlying assumptions in an organization (Smollan and Sayers, 2009). Since an organization’s culture comprises artefacts, espoused beliefs and values and underlying shared assumptions (Schein, 2004), as such it means that changing culture requires “unlearning” and giving up routines as well as learning something new (Schein, 2004, p. 301). Thus, major changes challenge individuals’ perceptions of the future and may create negative emotions on future working conditions and lead to questioning actions by organizations (Kiefer, 2005;Smollan and Sayers, 2009). In the case of transitioning to a self-determined organizational culture, Manz (1990) found in their early study that organizational change to self-managed teams required a very significant adjustment, especially from managers, and it was experienced uncomfortable as they found that new work design threatened their own status and power. Further, Manz (1990) claimed that the transition to a new culture meant adapting entirely to a new thinking and philosophy. In this paper, we approach organizational change from an employee perspective and lean on Klarner and Diefenbach (2011) definition of organizational change. This includes sequential and simultaneous changes as intentional changes, planned at the top organizational level, which influence employees at multiple hierarchical levels, requiring them to implement and cope with said changes. Seeing change as a dynamic process, acknowledges the evolving emotions during the process, but also accepts the multiple emotions to coexist (Klarner and JOCM Diefenbach, 2011). Focusing on negatively experienced emotions, we draw on Kiefer and M€ uller�s (2003) notion of negative emotions reflecting identity-relevant issues that are tied to the organization, such as strategies and policies in general, and seeing that emotions inform us about how individuals interpret organizational change and view their position within it (Klarner and Diefenbach, 2011). As change threatens one’s stability and continuity, it easily causes negative feelings and resistance to change (Goswami, 2022;Liu and Perrew� e, 2005;Luo et al., 2016). Negative reactions are also found to reflect on employee withdrawal and reduced performance (Weeks et al., 2004) and as such are detrimental to the whole organization and possibly lead to a failure of organizational change. This is all part of the cognitive-emotional process that individuals go through during organizational change while they try to make sense of the change, struggle with emotional tensions, and choose their ways of coping (Liu and Perrew� e, 2005). According to cognitive appraisal theory, individuals try to make sense of and try to understand the relevance of ongoing events (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984;Smith and Kirby, 2009). If an individual perceives change as unfair or uncertain, it tends to be associated with negative appraisals such as fear or threat (Smith and Ellsworth, 1985). Then, depending on how an individual interprets and judges events, it triggers or constitutes emotional responses (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Although change has been recognized as triggering different negative emotions (Kiefer, 2005; Liu and Perrewe, 2005;Smollan and Sayers, 2009), fear is seen as one of the most significant causes of resistance to change (Goswami, 2022). Fear is characterized as “an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger, anxious concern reason for alarm” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2023). Although most studies about fear suggest that fear results in dysfunctional behavior, fear is recognized as inducing significant and rapid behavioral changes (Welbourne, 1994). Moreover, it has been found to affect an employee�s level of psychological resources, change commitment, efficacy, and future expectation (Helpap and Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, 2016). In recent years, fear has been studied in relation to, e.g. organizational climate (Ashkanasy and Nicholson, 2003), organizational culture (Austin and Ciaassen, 2008), organizational readiness for change (Weeks et al., 2004), and employee silence (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). Despite studies having recognized the importance of fear as an underlying influencing factor in organizational changes (Goswami, 2022;Liu and Perrew� e, 2005;Weeks et al., 2004), fear of change has rarely been brought to the front before. However, fear has been associated with different negative behavioral implications (Liu and Perrew� e, 2005). For example, Weeks et al. (2004) studied organizational readiness for change and found that fear of change had hindering effect on sales managers’ performance. Also, Fugate et al. (2008) noticed that fear is associated with reduced control and increased negative forms of coping, namely escape coping. In their work, Lawrence et al. (2014) state that the length of change process alone is found to be emotionally charging and long processes can raise doubts and fears throughout the process. In our study, we define fear as “the result of anticipation of a threat or danger . . . associated with people’s feelings of uncertainty in terms of what will happen next” (Liu and Perrewe, 2005, p. 265). Taking into consideration that emotions are contagious, meaning that they can shape the emotions of other people in organization as well (Barsade et al., 2018), it is crucial to understand what individuals are afraid of in a self-determined organizational culture. Methodology Case study The case organization under study was a Finnish financial services organization which since 2019 started to move toward more self-determined operating models. This meant changes in every level of organizing work, not just structural but also changes in the whole culture and practices. Less hierarchical organizing lead to the adoption of, e.g. self-directed teams and a new managerial design. The company employs around 100 people in total, and the organization can be characterized as a professional and service organization, with Journal of Organizational Change Management geographically dispersed small units with a wide range of staffing levels, managed from the central office in the region. Our approach to the case study is descriptive as it is used to describe phenomenon: here, a specific kind of organizational transformation in the real-life context (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Yin, 2003). Moreover, Yin (2009, p. 18) claims that the case study method is especially convenient when “the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”. Although there is much understanding on how organizational change affects individuals (e.g. Helpap and Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, 2016;Kiefer, 2005;Nesterkin, 2013), there is less knowledge about how individuals perceive change toward self-determined organizations (Niessen and Volmer, 2010). Our empirical data consists of ten individual interviews with employees, selected using dimensional sampling, which is an especially applicable method when only a small number of participants are under study but where the aim is to provide a purposive sample representative of whole organization (Arnold, 1970). This approach was chosen because the organization made it possible to interview only a smaller number of participants. Nevertheless, we aimed to gather as diverse a representation of organizational members as possible. Following Arnold�s (1970) logic of purposive sampling, we recognized the most important dimensions that differ employees from each other when studying organizational change toward self-determined culture. We defined the following as the most important dimensions: job role, gender, location. At the end of the May in 2020, we received a list of employees. The HR-specialist had listed 94 workers by their self-determined work role, 47 of which belong to self-determined workers, e.g. worked in self-determined teams, experts or as supervisors, and 47 to workers whose role was not defined as self-determined, for example, in a customer service role. Because we wanted to study the employees’ voice, we started by excluding individuals in executive roles (4). Though the company was location in seven different locations, one of them had only a small number of employees. Therefore, to preserve anonymity, we chose participants from only six locations. In addition, since we recognized that 75% of the employees on the list were females and the remaining 25% men, we wanted our data to represent a similar ratio as well. Since we were able to choose a small number of interviewees, after carefully taking into consideration different dimensions, aiming to select participants with various combinations of dimensions, we ended up choosing ten participants. Finally, we had five individuals from a self-determined role and five from a non-self-determined role. Of those, seven were females and there were men (F/M) from six locations (A-E) (see Table 1). As the target organization did not permit face-to-face interviews during the Covid-19 pandemic, the interviews were conducted in teams by the second author. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into word, after which the data were pseudonymized by the Table 1. Dimensions of participant characteristics Participants Gender Location Role Participant 1 F A self-determined Participant 2 M A non-self-determined Participant 3 F A non-self-determined Participant 4 F B non-self-determined Participant 5 F C non-self-determined Participant 6 F D/E non-self-determined Participant 7 F E self-determined Participant 8 F F self-determined Participant 9 M A/C/E self-determined Participant 10 M A self-determined Source(s): Authors’ work JOCM interviewer, who was the only one with access to the code keys. In total, the interviews yielded 135 pages of transcribed text. This particular study represents a part of a larger study that is focused on individual�s experience in the middle of ongoing organizational change. For the individual interviews, we used the semi-structured interview method, which is a flexible way of exploring the interviewees’ interpretations and meanings from a subjective point of view and gaining a rich understanding of the phenomenon. The themes were designed based on the basic psychological needs that guide the design of self-determined organizational design. The themes of the interviews were related to the basic psychological needs of autonomy (e.g. the challenge of the job, own independence and own skills), competence (what the job requires and how the interviewee feels she/he can cope with it, and support), relatedness at work (the state of helping, interacting and socializing), and the change toward increased selfdetermination (e.g. a person’s experience of the change process) (e.g. Deci et al., 2017). Method of analysis Our inductive study, guided by grounded theory approach, included several rounds of reading raw interview data and during the process, we recognized that individuals highlighted fears and worries related to change. This led us to refine our research focus and we narrowed down the topic to exploring fears. In the same vein as Glaser and Strauss (2017) outlines, we tried to keep our minds free of preconceived literature and explore data as “investigative journalists” (Murphy et al., 2017, p. 294) and prioritize the lived experience and language of participants. Though we were aware that negative emotions are inherent byproducts of organizational change (e.g. Kiefer and M€ uller, 2003), we were surprised by the strong emphasis on fear-talk. Indeed, emotions typically associated with the intrinsic motivation, the core concept of selfdetermination, were positive, e.g. joy, interest and excitement (G€ untert, 2015), and also studies highlight almost only the positive outcomes, e.g. job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Gagn� eand Deci, 2005), of self-determined organizing (Gagn� eand Deci, 2005). When analyzing data from the perspective of fears, we depended on Fugate’s et al. (2008, 2012) conceptualization of fears as fear appraisals rather than as experiences per se, i.e. the individuals’ evaluations of the meaning of the situation and threats they recognized as influencing them, their colleagues or organization. In our analysis, not only did we include explicit expressions of fear, but we also interpreted expressions of worries, concerns and threat in the same way as Fink and Yolles (2015) equate fear with anxiety and concern. We chose to apply Gioia-method to guide us to analyze our data, as it provides clear steps and visual framework that informs readers about data structure (Murphy et al., 2017). Following the ideas of Gioia et al. (2013), we first began to distinguish expressions that handled fears from raw data. The analysis was done by comparing each interview with another and by gradually recognizing patterns that were organized as first-order codes. As first-order categories were informant-centric terms, at that point we thus leaned on expressions that were used in the data, whereas at the second-order stage, we searched for and generated emerging themes and concepts that could describe and explain the phenomena. In all, we recognized eight second-order categories: fear of changed requirements,fear over workload,fear of isolation,fearof coping,fearof blurred roles,fear of forthcoming steps,fear of pace of change, and lastly fear of the unexpected. Second-order categories moved our analysis to a higher hierarchical level in abstraction and guided us to the final step, to aggregate dimensions, during which we recognized that participants discussed fears on three discursive levels: doing,being, and becoming. This level of abstraction is named as a “larger narrative” by Gioia et al. (2013) (p. 20) and in this case this narrative describes the individuals’ sensemaking process as individuals make sense of what they do, who they are and what is unknown. Throughout the analyzing process, we applied researcher triangulation (Puusa and Julkunen, 2020;TENK, 2023) so that both researchers participated in the analyses and classification of the data. For us, this meant that we read interview data separately, made notions, discussed findings, and Journal of Organizational Change Management conceptualized and created the final table together through feedback and rounds of critical discussions. Empirical findings We begin by presenting our findings in a table that leans on the structure of the analysis process guided by Gioia method. The table presents selected quotes from participants that provide examples of data in parallel categories and dimensions drawn from the data. Following this table that summarizes our findings, we explain the themes one-by-one to open the content and our process toward these interpretations and conclusions (see Table 2). Doing This dimension could be characterized as task-related fears as it includes themes that deal with characteristics and the nature of work itself, what they do and how they work. The identified themes include fear of changed requirements and fear over workload. Table 2. Data structure Aggregate dimensions Second-order themes Expressions Doing Fear of changed requirements “At some point I felt that, wait a minute, I don�t have time to delve into these things ...as learning new errands took time to absorb.” (5) “It is hard for me to define what I should do. Sometimes, different managers have a different outlook then, that they too are against the fact what is expected of me ...”(1) Fear over workload “I am a bit afraid of my workload growing . . . how am I keeping up with the other tasks so that those don�t get forgotten?” (7) Being Fear of isolation “It has definitely increased in my team and in our whole house during the past years that we just do things alone” (10) “..now there are just empty rooms compared to old times, when there were lots of colleagues and time to discuss with them both about work and private matters . . . today, there is obviously a lot less of that.” (4) Fear of coping “It’s just that you have to take care of yourself. The employer does not come to say,�hey, let’s lower your goals�”(1) Fear of blurred roles “There should be more guidance on new roles . . . now I am in a situation where there is no one to ask for advice here at the office.” (5) “I am not sure about the expectations . . . what do they expect me to achieve?” (10) “It would be good as well to get support on how to succeed and how to adapt to upcoming changes”. (3) Becoming Fear of forthcoming steps “We have had it fairly often, that it is not rationalized, or any arguments given about why we are going through these changes . . . we lack understanding behind these decisions.” (1) Fear of pace of change “. . . the situations change so quickly when the need for orientation comes up, and then the job changes accordingly, so it’s a bit difficult, you can’t organize it directly, you don’t know what I’m going to do next month.” (1) Fear of the unexpected “I have been following these changes to self-determined and agile culture already for years and it feels that it has always led to downsizing actions.” (7) “We have been talking a lot about being and becoming agile, but then you start noticing things that are far from being agile.” (2) Source(s): Authors’ work JOCM Helpap, S. and Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S. (2016), “Employees’ emotions in change: advancing the sensemaking approach”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 903-916, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0088. Hubbart, J.A. (2023), “Organizational change: considering truth and buy-in”, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 3, doi: 10.3390/admsci13010003. Jensen, J.M. and Raver, J.L. (2012), “When self-management and surveillance collide: consequences for employees’ organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 308-346, doi: 10.1177/10596011124458. Kiefer, T. (2005), “Feeling bad: antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change”, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 875-897, doi: 10.1002/job.339. Kiefer, T. and Muller, W.R. (2003), “Understanding emotions in organizational change: the role of identity in ongoing change processes”, Academy of Management Conference, pp. 1-6, Seattle, August. Kish-Gephart, J.J., Detert, J.R., Trevi~ no, L.K. and Edmondson, A.C. (2009), “Silenced by fear: the nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 163-193, doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002. Klarner, P. and Diefenbach, T. (2011), “Employee emotions during organizational change – towards a new research agenda”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 332-340, doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2011.06.002. Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979), “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 106-114. Lawrence, E., Ruppel, C.P. and Tworoger, L.C. (2014), “The emotions and cognitions during organizational change: the importance of the emotional work for leaders”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 257. Lazarus, R.S. (1991), “Cognition and motivation in emotion”, American Psychologist, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 352-367, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.352. Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer Publishing Company, New York. Lee, M.Y. and Edmondson, A.C. (2017), “Self-managing organizations: exploring the limits of lesshierarchical organizing”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 35-58, doi: 10.1016/ j.riob.2017.10.002. Lemmetty, S. (2021), “Employee opportunities for self-directed learning at technology organisations: features and frames of self-directed learning projects”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 139-155, doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2020.1765758. Liu, Y. and Perrewe, P.L. (2005), “Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational change: a process model”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 263-280, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.12.001. Luo, W., Song, L.J., Gebert, D.R., Zhang, K. and Feng, Y. (2016), “How does leader communication style promote employees’ commitment at times of change?”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 242-262, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-11-2014-0204. Martela, F. and Kostamo, T. (2017), “Adaptive self-organizing: the necessity of intrinsic motivation and self-determination”, in Eskola, A. (Ed.), Navigating through Changing Times - Knowledge Work in Complex Environments, Routledge, New York, doi: 10.4324/9781315164663-4. Manz, C.C. (1990), “Beyond self-managing work teams: toward self-leading teams in the workplace”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, pp. 273-299. Martela, F., Hakanen, J., Hoang, N. and Vuori, J. (2021), “Itseohjautuvuus ja ty€ on imu Suomessa – Onko itseohjautuvuus ty€ ohyvinvoinnin vai -pahoinvoinnin l€ ahde?”, Aalto University publication series. Business þEconomy 3/2021. Aalto University. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management. Journal of Organizational Change Management Mealiea, L.W. (1978), “Learned behavior: the key to understanding and preventing employee resistance to change”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 211-223, doi: 10.1177/ 105960117800300207. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2023), “Fear definition & meaning”, available at: https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/fear#:∼:text5%3A%20an%20unpleasant%20often%20strong% 20emotion,state%20marked%20by%20this%20emotion (accessed 3 November 2023) Morikawa, M., Martela, F. and Hakanen, J. (2022), “Itseohjautuvuus suomalaisessa ty€ oel€ am€ ass€ a– miss€ aja ketk€ asit€ akokevat?”, Hallinnon Tutkimus, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 312-328, doi: 10.37450/ ht.111867. Murphy, C., Klotz, A.C. and Kreiner, G.E. (2017), “Blue skies and black boxes: the promise (and practice) of grounded theory in human resource management research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 2, pp. 291-305, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.08.006. Nesterkin, D.A. (2013), “Organizational change and psychological reactance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-594, doi: 10.1108/09534811311328588. Niessen, C. and Volmer, J. (2010), “Adaptation to increased work autonomy: the role of task reflection”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 442460, doi: 10.1080/13594320902990396. Puusa, A. and Julkunen, S. (2020), “Uskottavuuden arviointi laadullisessa tutkimuksessa”, 2020, in Puusa, A. and Juuti, P. (Eds), Laadullisen Tutkimuksen N€ ak€ okulmat Ja Menetelm€ at, pp. 189-201, Gaudeamus. Rafferty, A.E., Jimmieson, N.L. and Armenakis, A.A. (2013), “Change readiness: a multilevel review”, Journal of management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 110-135, doi: 10.1177/0149206312457417. Reissner, S.C. (2010), “Change, meaning and identity at the workplace”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 287-299, doi: 10.1108/09534811011049617. Rutigliano, N.K., Wedderburn, N.V. and Beckem II, J.M. (2017), “Navigating organizational change: from resistance to acceptance, learning, and growth”, in Wang, V. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management, IGI Global, pp. 1005-1021, doi: 10.4018/978-1-52251049-9.ch070. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000a), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 02 No. 1, pp. 68-78, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000b), “Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 54-67, doi: 10.1006/ ceps.1999.1020. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2018), “Self-determination theory”, in Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness, The Guilford Press, doi: 10.1521/978.14625/28806. Sanchez-Burks, J. and Huy, Q.N. (2009), “Emotional aperture and strategic change: the accurate recognition of collective emotions”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 22-34, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0347. Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Smith, C.A. and Ellsworth, P.C. (1985), “Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 813-838, doi: 10.1037/00223514.48.4.813. Smith, C.A. and Kirby, L.D. (2009), “Putting appraisal in context: toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1352-1372, doi: 10.1080/ 02699930902860386. Smollan, R.K. and Sayers, J.G. (2009), “Organizational culture, change and emotions: a qualitative study”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 435-457, doi: 10.1080/14697010903360632. TENK (Research Ethics Advisory Board) (2023), “Good scientific practice and the handling of suspected violations thereof in Finland”, Research Ethics Advisory Board’s Code of Practice 2023. Research Ethics Advisory Board Publications 2/2023, available at: https://tenk.fi/fi/ohjeetja-aineistot JOCM Tiedens, L.Z. and Linton, S. (2001), “Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 973-988, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973. Turco, C. (2016), The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media, Columbia University Press, New York, doi: 10.7312/turc17898. Vakola, M. (2013), “Multilevel readiness to organizational change: a conceptual approach”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 96-109, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2013.768436. Vakola, M. (2014), “What’s in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the perceived impact of organizational change”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 195-209, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-05-2012-0064. Van Dijk, R. and Van Dick, R. (2009), “Navigating organizational change: change leaders, employee resistance and work-based identities”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 143-163, doi: 10.1080/14697010902879087. Vuori, J. (2021), “Vapautta, vastuuta, valtaa: fenomenografinen tutkimus itseohjautuvuudesta”, Ty€ oel€ am€ an Tutkimus, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 348-372, doi: 10.37455/tt.98465. Weeks, W.A., Roberts, J., Chonko, L.B. and Jones, E. (2004), “Organizational readiness for change, individual fear of change, and sales manager performance: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-17, doi: 10.1080/ 08853134.2004.10749012. Welbourne, T.M. (1994), “Fear: the misunderstood component of organizational transformation”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 30-37, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.461. Wissema, J. (2000), “Fear of change? A myth!”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7490, doi: 10.1080/714042454. Yin, R.K. (2003), “Design and methods”, Case study research, Vol. 3 No. 9.2, p. 84. Yin, R.K. (2009), “Case study research. Design and methods”, in Applied Social Research Methods Series, 4th ed, Thousand Oaks: Sage, Vol. 5, doi: 10.1080/02699930902860386. Corresponding author Jenni Kantola can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Journal of Organizational Change Management