Change Response Circumplex Scale

Abstract

The Change Response Circumplex Scale (CRCS) is a 12-item instrument developed by Oreg, Sverdlik, Paine, and Seo (2023) to assess employee reactions to organizational change. This scale utilizes a theoretical bidimensional framework, conceptualized by Oreg et al. (2018), focusing on two core dimensions: valence (positive/negative attitude) and activation (passive/active response). The validation study involved Hebrew- and English-speaking samples, including school employees and participants who had recently experienced significant organizational transitions. Psychometric evaluation confirmed the instrument’s structure through Factor Analysis, establishing its internal Reliability and robust Validity.

Keywords

Change Response Circumplex Scale, Organizational Change, Valence, Activation, Bidimensional Framework, Change Acceptance, Change Proactivity, Change Resistance, Change Disengagement, Employee Attitudes, Incremental Validity, Organizational Behavior.

Authors

Shaul Oreg, Noga Sverdlik, Jill W. Paine, Myeong-Gu Seo.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Change Response Circumplex Scale (CRCS) is to operationalize a comprehensive bidimensional model for classifying and measuring employee responses to organizational transformation. It moves beyond traditional acceptance versus resistance models by integrating two orthogonal continua: the valence continuum (ranging from positive to negative attitudes) and the activation continuum (ranging from passive/disengaged to active/proactive behaviors).

This framework is designed to differentiate nuanced responses, providing a more detailed understanding of how employees react to change initiatives than single-dimension measures typically allow. The resultant four quadrants capture the full spectrum of behavioral and affective reactions to organizational change.

Construct

The CRCS measures a circumplex model of employee responses to organizational change. This model posits that change responses are best understood as combinations of the two underlying dimensions: valence and activation. This interaction results in four distinct response types captured by the subscales:

• Change Acceptance: High valence, low activation (passive positive response).
• Change Proactivity: High valence, high activation (active positive response).
• Change Disengagement: Low valence, low activation (passive negative response).
• Change Resistance: Low valence, high activation (active negative response).

By measuring these four quadrants, the scale offers a nuanced view of how individuals react, allowing researchers and practitioners to differentiate between active resistance and passive disengagement, or between proactive support and passive acceptance.

Validity

The CRCS demonstrated strong psychometric properties across several types of Validity:

• Discriminant Validity: Assessment of the average variance extracted (AVE) confirmed that the factors were largely distinct. The square roots of the four AVE values were higher than the correlations with the other factors, with the primary exception being the correlation between the latent factors of change disengagement and negative change attitude (.83), which was higher than the square root of the change disengagement AVE (.64).
• Construct Validity: Results supported the theoretical structure, showing that affect response types correlated positively with their corresponding behavioral response types and negatively correlated with opposing types. All of the expected correlations were statistically significant (p < .05).
• Predictive and Incremental Validity: The measure proved valuable in predicting the amount and specific types of feedback provided by change recipients. Crucially, it demonstrated incremental value by showing that distinguishing active responses provided predictive power above and beyond simple valence measures alone.
• Concurrent Validity: Correlations were established between the change response types and feedback provided by participants at the time of the assessment, confirming that the scale accurately captures immediate behavioral intentions.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Change Response Circumplex Scale was examined using Cronbach’s alpha across the various samples studied. The internal Reliability estimates for the four subscale scores ranged from a lower bound of .58 to a high of .90. While the lower range suggests some variability in consistency for certain subscales, the overall range indicates generally acceptable to strong reliability for an instrument measuring complex organizational behaviors.

Factor Analysis

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to test the hypothesized four-factor structure corresponding to the four change response types (Acceptance, Proactivity, Disengagement, Resistance). All 12 items loaded significantly (p < .001) onto their intended factors, supporting the scale’s dimensional structure.

The model fit for the four-factor structure was generally satisfactory. Although the Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) slightly exceeded the strict satisfactory threshold of .08, it remained within the acceptable range of .08 to .10, as suggested by Browne & Cudeck (1993). Furthermore, the fit of all three alternative models examined was inferior to the hypothesized four-factor model, confirming the superiority of the circumplex structure.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Format: 12 items. Response options range from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree), utilizing a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English; Hebrew

Population Group: Human (Male and Female)

Age Group: Adulthood (18 years and older)

Population Details: Data was collected from respondents who had recently experienced an organizational_change, including samples of school employees in Israel and the United States.

Test Methodology: Test Validity, Concurrent Validity, Construct Validity, Discriminant Validity, Predictive Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Keywords

Organizational Change Acceptance, Change Proactivity, Change Resistance, Employee Engagement, Psychometrics, Circumplex Scale, Organizational Behavior, Israel, United States.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

• Shaul Oreg: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8895-7151
• Noga Sverdlik: No data is Available
• Jill W. Paine: No data is Available
• Myeong-Gu Seo: No data is Available

Affiliation Email addresses:

• Shaul Oreg: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, School of Business Administration
• Noga Sverdlik: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, School of Education
• Jill W. Paine: IE Business School
• Myeong-Gu Seo: University of Maryland, Robert H. Smith School of Business

Correspondence Address:

Shaul Oreg: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, School of Business Administration, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel, 91905, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching purposes.

Fee: No fee required for usage.

Test Year: 2023 (Developed and validated in 2023, published 2024).

References

Oreg, S., Sverdlik, N., Paine, J. W., & Seo, M.-G. (2024). Activation and valence in responses to organizational change: Development and validation of the change response circumplex scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(1), 135–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001132

Items of the Change Response Circumplex Scale

This is a 12-item scale.

Subscales: Change acceptance; Change proactivity; Change disengagement; Change resistance.

Change Response Circumplex Scale

---

Items

---

Change Acceptance

1. I readily accept the change as it is.

2. I am fully cooperative with the current plan for the change.

3. I take on whatever role is assigned to me as part of this change.

Change Proactivity

1. I am actively supportive of the change.

2. I actively help to move the change forward.

3. I am proactive in my efforts to implement the change.

Change Disengagement

1. I keep my opposition to this change to myself.

2. I tend to foot-drag with respect to the implementation of this change.

3. I tend to disengage from anything that has to do with this change.

Change Resistance

1. I am active in my resistance to this change.

2. I actively try to prevent the change.

3. I am actively trying to alter the change or slow it down.

---

Note: Items are rated from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree).