Bridging transformational leadership, transparent communication, and employee openness to change: The mediating role of trust

Abstract

Based on a random sample of employees (n = 439) in the United States, this study examined the effect of transformational leadership and transparent organizational communication on cultivating employee organizational trust during an organizational change event. We also investigated the interplay between transformational leadership, transparent communication, and organizational trust, and their impact on employee openness to change. The findings suggested that transformational leadership and transparent communication were positively associated with employee organizational trust, which in turn, positively influenced employee openness to change. Theoretical and managerial contributions of the study were discussed.

Full text

Running head: CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION
Bridging Transformational Leadership, Transparent Communication, and
Employee Openness to Change: The Mediating Role of Trust
Citation: Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., & Ferguson, M. A. (2019). Bridging transformational leadership,
transparent communication, and employee openness to change: The mediating role of trust. Public
Relations Review, 45(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.04.012
Abstract
Based on a random sample of employees (n = 439) in the United States, this study
examined the effect of transformational leadership and transparent organizational communication
on cultivating employee organizational trust during an organizational change event. We also
investigated the interplay between transformational leadership, transparent communication, and
organizational trust, and their impact on employee openness to change. The findings suggested
that transformational leadership and transparent communication were positively associated with
employee organizational trust, which in turn, positively influenced employee openness to
change. Theoretical and managerial contributions of the study were discussed.
Keywords: change communication; organizational trust; transformational leadership;
transparent communication

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 1
Bridging Transformational Leadership, Transparent Communication, and
Employee Openness to Change: The Mediating Role of Trust
It has become a norm for organizations to engage in strategic change initiatives to remain
competitive (Johansson & Heide, 2008). Nevertheless, characterized by uncertainties and
ambiguities (Corley & Gioia, 2004), approximately 40% to 70% of change initiatives fail
(Burnes, 2000). Organizational change not only costs time and money, but, when done
inappropriately, also deteriorates employee morale and commitment, resulting in lower work
efficacy and higher turnover rates (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby,
2000; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).
Organizational changes have increased pressure on organizational leaders, who play an
important role in affecting organizational change implementation (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). An
American Management Association survey indicated that leadership was the top determinant of
successful change, followed by corporate values, and communication (Gill, 2002). Successful
leadership not only develops vision, strategy, and culture for change, but also empowers and
motivates employees in change engagement (Gill, 2002). Transformational leadership in
particular has received a great deal of research attention in change management.
Transformational leaders are viewed as charismatic and visionary leaders, and can garner
identification, trust, and confidence from the employees. Research has consistently shown the
positive impact of transformational leadership on employee outcomes across situations including
organizational change (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Paulsen, Callan, & Ayoko, 2013).
The power of transformational leadership to facilitate change implementation lies in its ability to
create and communicate a strong vision, provide empowering opportunities, encourage

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 2
employees to think beyond self-interests, and boost employees’ confidence in adapting to a new
environment (Carter, Armenakis, Feild, & Mossholder, 2013; Herold et al., 2008).
Another major factor, which emerged from previous research, that impacts change
management, is strategic internal communication. Change initiatives that lack strategic internal
communication inevitably fail (Elving, 2005). In fact, it is through effective internal
communications that change implementers provide employees with better understanding of the
content and rationale of the change. Prior research shows that quality internal communication
supposedly reduces perceived uncertainty related to the change and decreases employees’
resistance to change (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007; Elving, 2005). Specifically, this
study evaluates communication transparency, a desirable characteristic of internal
communication (Men & Stacks, 2014). Public relations scholars have consistently found that
transparent communication contributes to various positive employee outcomes, such as
employee trust (Jiang & Luo, 2018; Rawlins, 2008), corporate reputation (Men, 2014), and
employee-organization relationships (Men & Stacks, 2014). However, limited research has been
devoted to examining the role of transparent communication in facilitating organizational
change. Therefore, this study also sets to explore the role of strategic internal communication,
represented by transparent organizational communication, in affecting employees’ reaction to
change. Specifically, the study evaluates employees’ openness to a specific change effort, which
is arguably a necessary condition for successful planned change (Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994).
To fully delineate how leadership and strategic internal communication influence
employee openness to change (Hill, Seo, Kang, & Taylor, 2012), the study proposes employee
trust toward the organization as a potential mediating factor. Trust has been suggested at the core
of organizational performance, success (Currall & Epstein, 2003), reputation (Yang, 2007), and

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 3
organization-public relationships (Hon & Grunig, 1999). It has also been associated with various
employee outcomes such as employee organizational citizenship behavior (Daffy & Lilly, 2013;
Wat & Shaffer, 2005) and job satisfaction (Yang, 2014). Change puts employees in a vulnerable
position and creates varying degrees of uncertainty around them (Allen et al., 2007; Bordia,
Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004; DiFonzo & Bordia, 2002). However, employees’
organizational trust, potentially resulted from effective leadership and communication, can
mitigate their uncertainty and psychological stress and lead to change acceptance (Rousseau &
Tijoriwala, 1999). In other words, employee organizational trust likely mediates the impact of
leadership and strategic internal communication on employee reaction to change.
Therefore, taken together, this study examines how transformational leadership and
perceived transparent communication may interplay to influence employee openness to change
through fostering employee trust during an organizational change event.
Literature Review
Organizational change is triggered by “a relevant environmental shift” that demands
intentional organizational responses to accommodate new procedures, processes, values, and
personnel (Porras & Silvers, 1991, p. 52; Seeger, Ulmer Novak, & Sellnow, 2005). Change
initiatives include a wide array of topics such as the introduction of new technologies, mergers
and acquisitions, organizational restructuring, changes in organizational leadership, downsizing,
and layoffs (Beck, Brüderl, & Woywode, 2008).
It is contended that many changes fail not due to their inherent flaws but because of the
implementation issues (Choi, 2011). Research in change management has gradually shifted to
examine “how change recipients react to organizational change” as a result of different
approaches to change implementation (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011, p. 2). The central role

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 4
employees play in the successful implementation of a change initiative has been acknowledged
both in management practice and scholarship (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993;
Cummings & Worley, 2005; Fugate, Prussia, & Kinicki, 2012). Organizational change literature
is abundant in explicating and investigating different employee responses to change initiatives
(e.g., openness to change, commitment to change, readiness for change, resistance to change,
cynicism about change) (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Jimmieson, Peach, & White, 2008).
Meanwhile, Choi (2011) encouraged researchers to focus on the conditions under which
employees’ support for change can be fostered. For this study, we focus on transformational
leadership and transparent communication as valuable organizational resources that can cultivate
employees’ positive attitudes toward the change. Empirical evidence abounds that
transformational leadership enhances employee job satisfaction, performance, commitment, and
loyalty (Bass, 1999; Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013). The adoption of transformational
leadership is particularly crucial in non-routine situations, such as during the adaptation-oriented
period featured by a need for change (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). The substantial role that
communication plays during organizational change is reflected in the strategic internal
communication between the organization and its employees. As Ford and Ford (1995) stressed,
“change is created, sustained, and managed in and by communication” (p. 560). Looking closely,
strategic internal communication contributes to different facets of a change initiative; it can
reinforce an organization’s strategic objectives and values (Barrett, 2002; Neill, 2018), articulate
shared change visions (Fairhurst, 1993; Luo & Jiang, 2014), create emotional support of the
change (Luo & Jiang, 2014), and enhance mutual understanding between decision-makers,
implementers, and key users (Lewis, 1997).

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 5
Research on organizational change is abundant in psychology and management (Oreg et
al., 2011). Nonetheless, given the paramount role communications play in change management,
it is surprising to see a lack of public relations perspective and communication approach to
organizational change (Johansson & Heide, 2008). This study fills this gap by proposing a
normative model that links transformational leadership and transparent communication to
employees’ attitudes toward change, represented by employee organizational trust and openness
to change. Below, we first conceptualize the change outcome, openness to change, then review
literature on employee trust as related to openness to change. Lastly, we conceptualize the two
proposed antecedent factors of the study, namely, transformational leadership and transparent
organizational communication during change, and discuss how they influence employee trust and
openness to change.
Openness to Change
Employees are active participants of change initiatives rather than passive recipients
(Augustsson, Richter, Hasson, & von Thiele Schwarz, 2017). Therefore, employees’ beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors substantially affect change process and outcomes (Nielsen & Randall,
2013). Among these responses, employee openness to change is a “necessary initial condition for
successful planned change” (Miller et al., 1994, p. 60). It is also “the most important element of
organizational culture that leaders should look to build” during change (Ertürk, 2008, p. 463).
Conversely, the lack of openness to change is “an ominous sign” that may well predict the failure
of the planned change (Miller et al., 1994, p. 66).
While openness to change can be an individual trait characterized by flexibility and
novelty (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008), this study treats it as a state that is largely determined by
situational variables related to a specific organizational change and reflects one’s perception,

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 6
evaluation, and experience with the change. Openness to change constitutes two components:
positive affect toward the change outcomes and the willingness to support the proposed change
initiatives (Miller et al., 1994; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). A positive affect is reflected in
employees’ welcoming attitudes of the change, believing that the change will be beneficial to
them. It warrants attention that openness to change only taps into employees’ behavioral
intention and psychological preparedness to change (Augustsson et al., 2017) rather than actual
behavioral support of change. In line with the theory of planned behavior (see Augustsson et al.,
2017), the intention to perform a certain behavior guides the following behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
As acknowledged in literature, openness to change may be a precursor to readiness to change
(Axtell et al., 2002; Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007), job satisfaction, and low intention
to leave a job (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Employee Organizational Trust
Trust has been widely discussed in relational, organizational, and societal level (Cook &
Schilke, 2010), and across disciplines in marketing, management, economics, political science,
psychology, communication, law, and information systems (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007;
Yang & Lim, 2009). Earlier scholars defined trust from a trait perspective and examined
individual characteristics that could predict their trusting dispositions (e.g., Rotter, 1967,
Interpersonal Trust Scale). However, more recent discussions have emerged with a focus viewing
trust as one aspect of organizational relationships (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Mayer, Davis, &
Schoorman, 1995; McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002; Shockley-Zalabak & Ellis, 2006).
For instance, trust was defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712) and “the decision to rely
on another party under a condition of risk” (Currall & Epstein, 2003). This definition reveals two

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 7
central components of relational trust: reliance (dependency) and risk (vulnerability), which are
embedded in organization-public relationships (Currall & Epstein, 2003; Rawlins, 2008). Publics
are in a vulnerable position when handing their relationships with organizations that possess
more power than they do. If organizations prove to be untrustworthy, risks occur, and publics
suffer from loss. Reliance refers to the positive expectation publics collectively cast on
organizations, believing that organizations will fulfill their promise and behave with
benevolence, honesty, reliability, and integrity (Currall & Epstein, 2003; Yang & Lim, 2009).
Similarly, public relations scholars, such as Hon and Grunig (1999), defined trust as “one party’s
level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party” (p. 2). They identified
three underlying dimensions of trust: (1) integrity, which refers to the belief that the company is
fair and just; (2) dependability, the belief that the company will do what it says it will do; and (3)
competence, the belief that the company has the ability to do what it says it will do (1999, p. 3).
Based on definitions provided by Rawlins (2008), and Hon and Grunig (1999), this study defines
employees’ organizational trust as employees’ willingness to be vulnerable to their organizations’
actions based on the belief that their organizations have integrity, and are dependable, and
competent.
As an important organization-public relationship (OPR) indicator, trust, along with five
other OPR dimensions, have been validated and applied in many public relations studies (Ki &
Hon, 2007). For instance, OPR outcomes, including relational trust, have been associated with
organizational reputation (Yang, 2007), positive public attitude and behavioral intention (Ki &
Hon, 2007), public engagement (Men & Tsai, 2016), and positive employee communication
behaviors (Kang & Sung, 2017). Nevertheless, how organizations could utilize organizational

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 8
resources, such as internal communication and leadership, to cultivate employee organizational
trust, particularly during turbulent organizational change, has remained underexplored.
From an internal perspective, the extent to which employees trust their organizations
determines their cooperation, communication, and productive relationships with the organization
(Rawlins, 2008). Trusting employees believe their interests are aligned with their organizations,
which is particularly crucial in the change environment. Research shows that the trusting
relationship between employees and managers is the basis for change initiative success;
specifically, trust in the management cultivates positive employee attitude toward the change
(Devos et al., 2007; Ertürk, 2008), whereas a lack of trust leads to a decrease in the perception of
the legitimacy of the change, less readiness for the change, and stronger behavioral resistance to
the change (Oreg, 2006; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). Along this line of reasoning, we argue
that employees who trust their organizations embrace the vulnerability of their positions while
accepting the rationale and the legitimacy of the change decision made by organizations, thus
being more open to change. Therefore, we propose:
H1: Employee organizational trust during the change is positively associated with
employee openness to change.
Antecedents to Positive Change Outcome: A Social Exchange Perspective
Cook et al. (2005) propose that the trust building process is essentially a social exchange
process. Social Exchange Theory (SET; Blau, 1964), in which this study is grounded, centers on
self-interest and interdependence between two parties. SET has been extensively applied to
examine organizational behavior. In the work setting, employees receive economic and socio-
emotional benefits from the organization. SET delineates that employees who perceive and
benefit from organizational resources will experience a degree of indebtedness, which

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 9
subsequently causes a sense of obligation to repay the organization. On one hand, employees
reciprocate by demonstrating positive attitudes and behaviors (Greenberg, 1980), such as
engaging in more work (Wayne & Green, 1993), demonstrating organizational citizenship
behavior, external advocacy (Men & Yue, in press), organizational commitment, and loyalty
(Eisenberger et al., 2010); on the other hand, it is found that organizational support and care are
important factors that elicit employees’ reciprocal behaviors. Organizational socio-emotional
resources such as authentic leadership, transparent communication (Jiang & Luo, 2018; Jiang &
Men, 2017), employee empowerment (Saks, 2006), and high-performance work system (Gong,
Chang, & Cheung, 2010) have all been associated with employee positive attitudes and
behaviors. In the change management context, this study specifically focuses on the role of
transformational leadership and transparent communication in generating trust and employee
openness to change. Bass and Riggio (2006) have claimed that “transformational leadership is, at
its core, about issues around the processes of transformation and change” (p. 225). Additionally,
transparent communication has been found as contributing to employee trust, work engagement,
and organizational reputation (Men, 2014; Jiang & Luo, 2018; Jiang & Men, 2017; Rawlins,
2008) and could arguably facilitate change implementation (Men & Bowen, 2017). Therefore,
these two factors should play irreplaceable role in the successful implementation of
organizational changes.
Transformational Leadership
Bass’s (1985) transformational leadership has been one of the most researched leadership
styles (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Rather than
stressing the role of rules, standards, and power in organizations, transformational leaders are
“relationship-oriented, interactive, visionary, passionate, caring, and empowering” (Men &

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 10
Bowen, 2017, p. 69), and therefore able to enhance “consciousness of collective interest among
the organization’s members and help them to achieve their collective goals” (García-Morales,
Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012).
Transformational leadership is characterized by four features: First, transformational
leaders exhibit idealized influence by communicating collective purposes and values,
demonstrating confidence and determination, and acting as charismatic role models. Second,
inspirational motivation is displayed when leaders envision a desirable future, motivate
followers to perform at higher levels and achieve common objectives. Third, they serve as a
constant source of emotional support and demonstrate personal care, empathy, sensitivity, and
individualized consideration for the developmental needs of employees. Finally, intellectual
stimulation is displayed when leaders stimulate employees to think outside the box, challenge old
assumptions, and promote their intelligence, learning, and innovation (García-Morales et al.,
2012; Men & Bowen, 2017; Wang et al., 2011). Transformational leaders generate trust, pride,
and respect from employees and are consistently associated with positive employee attitudes and
behaviors in the workplace (Bass, 1999; Braun et al., 2013; Herold et al., 2008).
In the context of organizational change, a transformational leadership style brings about
more positive outcomes than a transactional leadership style (Bass, 1985; Eisenbach, Watson, &
Pillai, 1999; Hill et al. 2012). Transformational leaders engage in creating a purpose, or a vision,
that clearly states the strategic direction of the organization, while meeting the needs of
employees by taking their concerns into consideration. Intellectually, they motivate employees to
think differently and to embrace new opportunities by framing change as a chance for personal
growth. They are also capable of assembling a team to provide coaching and guidance to ensure
employees’ smooth transition to the new environment. Overall, rather than exacerbating change-

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 11
induced uncertainty and dissatisfaction, transformational leaders transform the change initiative
to be more appealing. Empirically, such leadership influence has been associated with positive
employee attitudinal and behavioral reactions during the change (Herold et al., 2008).
Specifically, transformational leadership increases employee change commitment (Herold et al.,
2008), job performance (Detert & Burris, 2007), job satisfaction (Braun et al., 2012), and reduces
employee change-related cynicism (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005).
Consequently, employees who perceive the personal care, emotional support, and
inspirational motivation from transformational leaders will feel an obligation to reciprocate such
support and therefore be more likely to trust their organizations during the change. Prior studies
have showed a positive impact of transformational leadership on promoting employee trust and
loyalty in the workgroup (Bommer et al., 2005) and trust in leadership (Braun et al., 2012;
Kelloway, Turner, Barling, & Loughlin, 2012). In turn, employees with high organizational trust
will make extra efforts, look beyond self-interests, and champion organizational change.
H2: Transformational leadership during the change is positively associated with
employee organizational trust.
H3: Transformational leadership during the change is positively associated with
employee openness to change.
Transparent Communication
Effective leadership cannot function in its fullest capacity without communication. The
adoption of transparent internal communication demonstrates organizational leaders’ genuine
interest in maintaining or enhancing relationships with employees. Transparency is the opposite
of secrecy and is characterized by openness (Rawlins, 2009). Transparent communication is an
excellent characteristic of internal communication (Men & Stacks, 2014) and has received

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 12
increasing prominence in strategic communication literature (Jiang & Luo, 2018). For instance,
communication scholars have found that transparent communication induces organizational trust
(Jiang & Luo, 2018; Rawlins, 2008) and increases perceived corporate reputation (Men, 2014)
and employee-organization relationships (Men & Stacks, 2014).
Transparency consists of informational, participatory, and accountability transparency.
These three elements “work together but are analytically distinct” (Balkin, 1999, p. 393). First,
informational transparency necessitates the disclosure of “truthful, substantial, and useful”
information” (Rawlins, 2008, p. 6). It should be noted that informational transparency is distinct
from mere disclosure. In fact, organizations’ disclosure of overabundant information can cause
confusion rather than clarification. In real life, an organization can claim to have disclosed “all
legally releasable information” to employees by flooding them with meaningless documentations
and emails (Rawlings, 2009, p. 74); however, in this case, the organization has no true or sincere
intention to provide employees with relevant and key information. In the context of change
initiative, top management’s incapacity to implement informational transparency can cloud
employees’ understanding of the content, purpose, and implementation process of the change
initiative. Participatory transparency is an organizational effort to involve employees in
identifying the most relevant and concerned information to meet their informational needs.
Without consulting employees and asking for their feedback, an organization is not able to
provide the substantial and relevant information that employees want and need to know. As
Cotterrell put it, transparency is the enabling of the information receivers’ “active participation in
acquiring, distributing and creating knowledge” (1999, p. 419). Therefore, management should
strive to solicit employee feedback regarding what information they hope to learn and create an
environment where change-related information can be easily accessed. The accountability

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 13
dimension of transparency concerns the inclusion of both positive and negative information.
Organizations ought to reveal both sides of a story, and by doing so, avoid any attempt to
manipulate employees’ perceptions and interpretations of the organizational action. When
communicating the change initiative, an organization that values accountability would disclose
both benefits and threats of a change initiative. Otherwise, hiding negative ramifications of the
change initiative will breed rumors and misinterpretations, cause misunderstanding and distrust,
and heighten employee uncertainty, insecurity, and anxiety (Men & Bowen, 2017).
It is worth noting that not all change-related information will be transparent and
complete; however, informing employees beforehand that the provision of information will be
incomplete and providing them with a timeline for additional information is conducive to
reducing employees’ uncertainty and anxiety (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998). The same approach is
articulated by Gergs and Trinczek (2008), who pointed out that “withholding information during
phases of radical change is one of the worst mistakes in change management” (p. 152).
Empirical studies reveal that employees’ positive perception of internal communication
fosters trusting relationships with their managers (Jo & Shim, 2005). Furthermore, Rawlins
(2008) and Jiang and Luo (2017) found a direct positive relationship between transparent internal
communication and employee trust toward organizations. Along this line, we argue that an
organization’s effort in engaging in transparent communication sends out a signal to employees
that the organization is frank, honest, open, and would take employees’ concerns and feedback in
consideration during the change. In the words of Rawlins (2008, p. 3), “a key part of reciprocal
trust is an organization’s efforts to be transparent,” thus, the belief that organizations can
cultivate employees’ confidence and trust by virtue of transparent communication is reinforced.

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 14
Likewise, under the premise of understanding the goals and purposes of the change, employees
would be more open to the change event.
H4: Transparent communication during the change is positively associated with
employee organizational trust.
H5: Transparent communication during the change is positively associated with
employee openness to change.
As one of the most important factors influencing organizational success, trust has been
empirically established as a mediator between transformational leadership and employee
attitudes (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), job satisfaction (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999), and
team performance (Braun et al., 2012; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). Additionally, trust also
results from effective internal communication and in turn affects employee behaviors and overall
organizational outcomes (Shockley-Zalabak & Ellis, 2006). As previously argued,
transformational leadership and transparent communication during the change contribute to
employees’ organizational trust. In turn, when employees trust organizational abilities to
implement the change, they are more likely to believe that the change is beneficial and well-
intentioned, and therefore demonstrate greater openness to change. In this process, trust serves as
a key mediator through which the power of transformational leadership and transparent
communication is manifested. This leads to the final hypothesis:
H6: Employee organizational trust mediates the positive relationships between
transformational leadership (H6a), transparent communication (H6b), and employees’
openness to change.
Method

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 15
The hypothesized model (Figure 1) was tested through an online Qualtrics survey with a
random sample of employees working across a variety of industries in the United States in a 2-
week period in August 2018. Survey Sampling International (SSI), a global sampling service
firm, assisted us in recruiting participants through its patented online sampling platform.
Utilizing stratified and quota random sampling strategies, we obtained a representative sample
with comparable genders, age groups, and organization sizes across various income and
education levels. The final sample included 439 employees with 42.8% males and 57.2% females
who qualified the screening question, which asked whether their company is currently
undergoing a company-wide change or has gone through a company-wide change in the past two
years and the respondents experienced the change. The average age of participants was 40 (SD =
13.11). Regarding their level of position, middle-level management comprised 32.6% (n = 143),
followed by 31.7% non-management (n = 139), 24.8% lower level management (n = 109), and
10.9% top management (n = 48). More than half participants (n = 230, 52.4%) held at least a
bachelor’s degree. The income range with the first and second largest number of participants
were US$30,000 to US$49,999 (n = 92, 21%) and US$50,000 to US$69,999 (n = 90, 20.5%).
Measures
All the key constructs were measured using items derived from established studies and
revised to fit into the change context. The survey instrument included questions measuring the
antecedent variables (transparent communication, transformational leadership), one mediating
variable (organizational trust), and one outcome variable (openness to change). Specifically,
transparent communication was assessed by 16 items adapted from Rawlins (2009) and Men and
Bowen (2017). Measures for three dimensions of transparent communication demonstrated good
reliability (α = .92 for participation, .94 for substantiality, and .91 for accountability).

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 16
Transformational leadership was assessed using 11 items developed by Rafferty and Griffin
(2004). Four underlying dimensions of this construct had acceptable reliability: .84 for idealized
influence, .85 for inspirational motivation, .83 for intellectual stimulation, and .91 for
individualized consideration. Openness to change was examined using four items adapted from
Wanberg and Banas (2000) (α = .87). Six items adapted from Rawlins (2009) and Hon and
Grunig (1999) were used to measure employee organizational trust (α = .92). All items used a
seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
results of the descriptive analysis are presented in Table 1.
Results
As suggested by Kline (1998), we performed a two-step Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) analysis with Mplus 8 software under Maximum Likelihood estimation. The
measurement model including all the measured variables was first evaluated. The structural
equation model was then performed to test the relationships between key constructs. Transparent
communication was treated as a second-order factor with its underlying first-order factors of
participation, substantiality, and accountability, and the same with transformational leadership
with its first-order factors of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Employee organizational trust and openness to
change were analyzed as first-order latent variables. Hu and Bentler’s (1999) joint criteria
evaluate the data-model fit: either Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .96 and Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ 1.0 or Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤
.06 and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .08.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed the measurement model achieved good
data-model fit (CFI = .944; TLI = .940; RMSEA = .054; 90% CI [.050, .058], p = .034; SRMR

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 17
= .037; χ2 = 1,408.788 [p < .001]; df = 616; n = 439). CFA loadings and standard errors are
reported in Table 2. The structural model was assessed based on the specified measurement
model. The control variables included in the SEM analysis were: age, gender, organizational
tenure, position, education level, and income because they are considered as important factors
that may influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors in previous literature. The model
demonstrated good fit with the data: χ2 = 1754.422, df = 826, p < .001, RMSEA = .051, 90% CI
[.047, .054], p = .377, CFI = .936, TLI = .931, SRMR = .072. The hypothesized model was
retained as the final model (see Figure 2).
Hypotheses Testing
The study results showed that employee organizational trust has a strong positive
association with employee openness to change (β = .76, p < .001), thus supporting Hypothesis 1.
One focus of this study was to assess the effects of transformational leadership in
inducing employees’ trust (Hypothesis 2) and openness to change (Hypothesis 3). The link
between transformational leadership and employee organizational trust was positive and
significant (β = .42, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 2. It speaks true to the fact that supervisors
who effectively communicate the change vision, demonstrate personal care, and provide
inspiration to their employees during the change are likely to garner employees’ organizational
trust. However, there was not a direct positive association between transformational leadership
and employee openness to change (β = .18, p = .11), failing to support Hypothesis 3.
Hypotheses 4 and 5 proposed the positive impact of transparent communication during
change on cultivating employees’ organizational trust and employee openness to change.
Hypothesis 4 was supported (β = .48, p < .001), indicating that transparent communication
characterized by substantiality, participation, and accountability plays a key role in trust

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 18
cultivation during the change. However, results showed that transparent communication is not
directly associated with employee openness to change (β = - .11, p = .33), thus failing to support
Hypothesis 5. R-square for organizational trust is .77, and R-square for openness to change is .68.
A test of mediation effects using a bootstrap procedure (N = 5,000 samples) was
conducted to examine the role of organizational trust in linking transparent communication,
transformational leadership, and openness to change. The findings demonstrated that there was a
significant indirect effect of transparent communication (β = .37, p < .001; [95% CI: .22 to .54]),
and transformational leadership (β = .32, p < .001; [95% CI: .20 to .48]), on openness to change
through organizational trust, therefore supporting Hypothesis 6. These results suggest that
organizational trust is a mediator through which transparent communication and transformational
leadership influence employee openness to change.
Discussion and Conclusions
It has become the new norm for organizations to adapt to constant changes in this highly
competitive business environment. Both organizational scholars and practitioners seek different
strategies to gain support from employees to increase the likelihood of change success. Under
this context, the purpose of this study was to investigate how transformational leadership and
strategic internal communication, characterized by organizational transparent communication,
foster employee trust during the organizational change, and how these factors interplay to elicit
employee openness to organizational change.
Transformational Leadership, Transparent Communication, and Employee Organizational
Trust During Change
The roles of transformational leadership in inducing positive employee attitudes (e.g.,
trust and satisfaction with leaders, organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., in-role

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 19
performance, organizational citizenship behavior, creative performance) have been widely
established in literature (Bass, 1999; Braun et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2011). This study supports
and extends this line of research on transformational leadership with a specific focus on its role
in organizational change events, a much-needed but underexplored scenario. The result
demonstrated that transformational leadership played a positive role in engendering employee
organizational trust. Grounded in SET (Blau, 1964), this study suggests that when the leaders
appeal to the higher-order needs of employees, show individualized consideration to employees
(e.g., tend to individual difference, coach employees individually), stimulate employees
intellectually (e.g., teach them problem-solving skills), and show emotional support to
employees (Bass, 1985; Wang et al., 2011) during organizational change, employees tend to
exhibit trust toward the organization. These socio-emotional resources provided by
transformational leaders are especially valued and appreciated by employees who are facing
heightened anxiety and uncertainty during the change. For instance, the emotional links
transformational leaders create with employees during the change induces employees’ awareness,
acceptance, and commitment to a shared purpose and vision of the organization. Such leadership
also encourages employees to overcome internal and external obstacles posed by the change and
provides venues, in the form of change-related workshops and training, for employees to
succeed. In conclusion, this finding points to the key role of transformational leadership and
contextualizes its positive impact on eliciting employee trust during the organizational change.
This study also found a positive association between perceived transparent
communication and employee organizational trust. Many scholars have acknowledged that
effective communication is an important, but underdeveloped concept in organizational change
literature (Johansson & Heide, 2008). Extant literature has examined change communication in

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 20
terms of the perceived information and communication quality (Allen et al., 2007; Miller et al.,
1994), perceived communication satisfaction (Bull & Brown, 2010), and sources of
communication (Allen et al., 2007). This study provided additional evidence on the importance
of transparent communication in successful change implementation. The concept of
communication transparency has been closely tied to trust and credibility as seen in both
professional (Edelman Public Relations, 2018) and academic literature (Rawlins, 2008, 2009).
For instance, empirical studies revealed that transparent internal communication is constructive
in fostering employee trust, corporate reputation, and employee-organization relationships (Men,
2014; Men & Stacks, 2014; Rawlins, 2008). This study has further reinforced the notion that as
organizations increase its communication transparency, they will become more trusted from the
perspective of employees (Rawlins, 2008). Specifically, open, honest, and ethical communication
can narrow the information gaps between employees and organizations, diminish change-related
misinformation and rumors, and reduce employees’ anxiety and stress. Employees upon sensing
organizations’ sincere interest in looping them in the change plan will be more likely to trust
organizations’ intention and capability in implementing the change. In addition, organizations’
efforts in soliciting feedback from employees allow employees to voice out their interests and
concerns, and more importantly, give them a sense of control and ownership of the change.
Impact on Employee Openness to Change: The Mediating Role of Organizational Trust
This study confirmed a strong positive association between employee trust toward
organizations and their openness to organizational change. Specifically, the more employees trust
their organizations during the change; in other words, they rely on their organizations’ words and
actions, hold faith in organizational justice, fairness, and competence in surviving the change, the
more likely they develop a welcoming attitude toward the change and support change. The result

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 21
pointed out the central and direct role of trust in eliciting positive employee attitude and
behavioral preparedness during times of uncertainty. In addition, our emphasis on one important
manifestation of employee change support (i.e. openness to change) embraced the notion that
employees are active participants of organizational change; thus, their attitudes and behaviors
during the change significantly impact the change outcome (Fugate et al., 2012). In this sense,
this study filled the research gap by highlighting the direct linkage between employee trust and
reaction to change and provided empirical evidence for organizational leaders to focus directly
on cultivating employee trust to facilitate change implementation.
Much of prior research focused on the direct effects of leadership and communication on
employee’ support for the change. This study also indicated that organizational trust plays a
mediating role between transformational leadership, transparent communication, and employees’
openness to change. Trust has been linked with a variety of employee behaviors and
organizational performance. For instance, employee trust in organizations leads to high job
satisfaction and performance, low employee turnover, and high organizational commitment
(Shockley-Zalabak & Ellis, 2006). The conclusion that trust fully mediates the influence of
transformational leadership and transparent communication on employee openness to change
emphasizes the indispensable and immediate role of trust. This finding provides empirical
support for the notion that trust is pivotal in the uncertain and rapidly changing environment
(Oreg, 2006; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999) and can be fostered by transformational leaders and a
transparent communication environment.
However, the results did not confirm direct positive associations between
transformational leadership or transparent communication, with employee openness to change.
This finding stands in contrast to previous literature that showed a direct influence of

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 22
transformational leadership on employees’ change commitment and support for the change
(Herold et al., 2008; Burke, 2002). The discrepancies may be attributed to the fact that trust is a
more immediate and relevant factor eliciting employees’ positive attitude towards change than
their perception of leadership behaviors and communication styles.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
As one of the first empirical attempts to examine the impact of corporate communication
and leadership during change on employee reaction to change, the findings provide important
theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, by showcasing the influence of
communication transparency featured by information substantiality, participation, and
accountability on employee change attitudes, namely, trust during change and openness to
change, the study contributes to the change communication literature from an internal public
relations perspective. The findings provide theoretical insights into how transparent
communication works in facilitating change implementation and extends the application of the
strategic transparent communication strategy into the organizational change management
context.
Also, the study demonstrates how organizational leadership interplays with
communication factors to influence change outcomes. Transformational leadership in the context
of organizational change has been extensively studied in previous literature; yet little is known
how it affects employee reaction to change when the factor of strategic internal communication
is taken into consideration simultaneously. The current study fills this research gap by
demonstrating that transformational leadership and transparent internal communication play
equally important roles in generating employee organizational trust during change, which
subsequently leads to employee openness to change. Lastly, by focusing on employee reaction to

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 23
change as a critical change outcome, the study assumed employees’ active participant role during
change. It also delineates how employee openness to change is impacted by leadership and
strategic internal communication by highlighting the critical mediating role of employee trust
toward the organization.
From a pragmatic perspective, the findings provide important practical insights for
public relations professionals, change communication managers, and organizational leaders.
Essentially, to effectively manage change and generate positive employee affect and support for
change, public relations and change communication managers should advocate an open and
transparent communication climate. In particular, employees should be provided with complete,
truthful, and unbiased change-related information in a timely manner, such as being fully
informed about the rationale for change, what the change entails, and how it may impact
employees’ job. Change communication managers should promote employee feedback and
participative communication, proactively listen to employees’ voice opinions, and concerns, as
well as seek for understanding of employees’ information needs. Change communication should
also demonstrate the organization’s accountability, willingness to admit mistakes and reveal both
sides of the story (i.e., benefits and threats) related to the change initiative.
Organizational leaders should communicate a clear and compelling vision for the change
which can help unify employees, guide them in the right direction, and portray a shared purpose
that motivate employees to support change (cf. Men & Bowen, 2017). Leaders at various levels
should demonstrate confidence and determination in their communications and actions, and act
as role models to advocate and support for the change. They also ought to challenge employees
to think outside of the box and be creative and innovative, capitalizing on the transformative
opportunity that change brings about. Most importantly, leaders should recognize employees’

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 24
legitimate feelings such as anxiety and uncertainty toward change and demonstrate genuine care
and consideration for employees’ concerns, feelings, needs, and welfare. Overall, effective
change communication requires collaborative efforts from public relations, human relations
management, as well as leaders across different levels.
A system that incorporates strategic corporate and leadership communication should be
in place to breed employee organizational trust, especially during the turbulent change process.
The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that trust in the U.S. has experienced an
unprecedented crisis. Respondents claim that building trust should be the CEOs’ No. 1 job. This
study further evidenced that trust is most critical in fostering employees’ openness to change and
successful change implementation, and therefore urge companies to propel trust-building as a top
business issue.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Despite the above-stated contributions, the study has encountered several limitations that
should be acknowledged and addressed in future research. First, the study examined transparent
communication and transformational leadership using self-reported data from single employees’
perspective. Without incorporating the communication managers and leaders’ perspectives, only
employee perceptions as opposed to true leadership and communication behaviors were
measured. Future research could utilize other methods, such as ethnography approaches, and
incorporate the change communication managers’ and organizational leaders’ insights to provide
a more in-depth, complete, and balanced understanding of how leadership and communication
factors influence employee change outcomes. Second, a cross-sectional design is limited in
establishing causality between the predictor and outcome variables. Although the use of
structural equation modeling partially remedied the case, a true causal relationship can hardly be

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 25
built without an experimental or longitudinal design or perhaps a longitudinal quasi-experimental
design. Third, the study utilized a generalized approach to examine organizational change, which
did not specify the change type. Future research could specify the model proposed in the study in
specific change contexts, such as merger and acquisition, leadership or culture change. Finally, to
delimit the scope of the study, the model only included transformational leadership and
transparent communication as predictors of employee change attitudes. Other effective
leadership styles (e.g., authentic leadership, ethical leadership, transactional leadership, and
strategic communication strategies (e.g., symmetrical communication), messaging, and emerging
channels (e.g., social media) in relation to employee reaction to change could be examined in
future studies.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 26
Allen, J., Jimmiesons, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational
change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management,
7(2), 187-210. doi: 10.1080/14697010701563379
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.
doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
Augustsson, H., Richter, A., Hasson, H., & von Thiele Schwarz, U. (2017). The need for dual
openness to change: A longitudinal study evaluating the impact of employees’ openness
to organizational change content and process on intervention outcomes. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 53(3), 349-368. doi:10.1177/0021886317691930
Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner, P., & Bolden, R. (2002).
Familiarity breeds content: The impact of exposure to change on employee openness and
well‐being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(2), 217-231.
doi.org/10.1348/09631790260098596
Balkin, J. M. (1999). How mass media simulate political transparency. Journal for Cultural
Research, 3(4), 393-413. doi: 10.1080/14797589909367175
Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: using strategic employee communication to
facilitate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), 219-
231. doi: 10.1108/13563280210449804
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. doi:
10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32. doi:
10.1080/135943299398410

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 27
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Beck, N., Brüderl, J., & Woywode, M. (2008). Momentum or deceleration? Theoretical and
methodological reflections on the analysis of organizational change. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(3), 413-435. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.32625943
Blau, P. M. (1964), Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change:
Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 733-753.
doi.org/10.1002/job.342
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during
organizational change: is it all about control? European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology, 13, 345-366.
Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the
organizational change literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500-
531. doi.org/10.1177/0021886310367944
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270-283. doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006
Bull, M., & Brown, T. (2012). Change communication: the impact on satisfaction with alternative
workplace strategies. Facilities, 30(3/4), 135-151. doi.org/10.1108/02632771211202842

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 28
Burns, B. (2000) Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics, 4th
Edition, IT/Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Burke, W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational
leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous
incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942-958.
doi:10.1002/job.1824
Chawla, A., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to
change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(6), 485-498.
doi:10.1108/01437730410556734
Choi, M. (2011). Employees' attitudes toward organizational change: A literature review. Human
Resource Management, 50(4), 479-500. doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20434
Cook, K. S., & Schilke, O. (2010). The role of public, relational and organizational trust in
economic affairs. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(2), 98-109.
doi.org/10.1057/crr.2010.14
Cook, K. S., Yamagishi, T., Cheshire, C., Cooper, R., Matsuda, M., & Mashima, R. (2005). Trust
building via risk taking: A cross-societal experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(2),
121-142. doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800202
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate
spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173-208. doi:10.2307/4131471
Cotterrell, R. (1999). Transparency, mass media, ideology and community. Journal for Cultural
Research, 3(4), 414-426. doi:10.1080/14797589909367176
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2005). Organizational development and change. Mason, OH:
South-Western.
Currall, S. C., & Epstein, M. J. (2003). The fragility of organizational trust: Lessons from the rise
and fall of Enron. Organizational Dynamics, 32(2), 193-206. doi:10.1016/S0090-
2616(03)00018-4

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 29
Duffy, J. A., & Lilly, J. (2013). Do individual needs moderate the relationships between
organizational citizenship behavior, organizational trust and perceived organizational
support? Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 14(3), 185-197.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really
open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content, context, and
process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental
simulation studies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 607-
630.doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.6.607-630
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2002). Corporate rumor activity, belief and accuracy. Public
Relations Review, 28(1), 1-19. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00107-8
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during
organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37, 295-303.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational
readiness for change: Factors related to employees' reactions to the implementation of
team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419-442. doi:10.1177/0018726700533006
Edelman Public Relations (2018). 2018 Annual Edelman Trust Barometer.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 80-89.
doi: 10.1108/09534819910263631
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M.
G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader–member exchange and affective organizational

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 30
commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085-1103. doi.org/10.1037/a0020858.
Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 129-138.
doi:10.1108/13563280510596943
Ertürk, A. (2008). A trust-based approach to promote employees' openness to organizational
change in Turkey. International Journal of Manpower, 29(5), 462-483.
doi:10.1108/01437720810888580
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks total
quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(4), 331-371.
doi:10.1177/0893318993006004001
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541-570.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080330
Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a
measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational
change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 503-527.
doi:10.1348/096317907X241579
Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2012). Managing employee withdrawal during
organizational change: The role of threat appraisal. Journal of Management, 38(3), 890-
914. doi:10.1177/0149206309352881
García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012).
Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through
organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.005
Gergs, H. H., & Trinczek, R. (2008). Communication as the key factors to change management:
A sociological perspective. In Holger Sievert and Daniela Bell (Eds.) Communication

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 31
and Leadership in the 21st Century (pp. 141-156). Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung,
Gutersloh.
Gill, R. (2002). Change management--or change leadership? Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307-318.
Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S. Y. (2010). High performance work system and collective
OCB: A collective social exchange perspective. Human Resource Management Journal,
20(2), 119-137. doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00123.x
Greenberg, M. S. (1980). A theory of indebtedness. In K. S. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H.
Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 3-26). New York:
Plenum Press.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and
change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: a multilevel study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346
Hill, N. S., Seo, M. G., Kang, J. H., & Taylor, M. S. (2012). Building employee commitment to
change across organizational levels: The influence of hierarchical distance and direct
managers' transformational leadership. Organization Science, 23(3), 758-777.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0662
Hon, L. & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.
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. doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jiang, H., & Luo, Y. (2018). Crafting employee trust: from authenticity, transparency to
engagement. Journal of Communication Management, 22(2), 138-160. doi:
10.1108/JCOM-07-2016-0055

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 32
Jiang, H., & Men, R. L. (2017). Creating an engaged workforce: the impact of authentic
leadership, transparent organizational communication, and work-life
enrichment. Communication Research, 44(2), 225-243. doi:10.1177/0093650215613137
Jimmieson, N. L., Peach, M., & White, K. M. (2008). Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to
inform change management: An investigation of employee intentions to support
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(2), 237-262.
doi:10.1177/0021886307312773
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277-280. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.02.012
Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (2008). Speaking of change: three communication approaches in
studies of organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
13(3), 288-305. doi: 10.1108/13563280810893661
Kang, M., & Sung, M. (2017). How symmetrical employee communication leads to employee
engagement and positive employee communication behaviors: The mediation of
employee-organization relationships, Journal of Communication Management, 21(1), 82-
102.
Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012). Transformational leadership and
employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership.
Work & Stress, 26(1), 39-55. doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.660774
Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Reliability and validity of organization-public relationship
measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership organization.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 419-438.
doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400302
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford, New
York, NY.

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 33
Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (1979). Choosing a strategy for change. Harvard Business Review,
March-April, p. 106-114.
Lewis, L. K. (1997). Users’ individual communicative responses to intraorganizationally
implemented innovations and other planned changes. Management Communication
Quarterly, 10(4), 455-490. doi:10.1177/0893318997104003
Luo, Y., & Jiang, H. (2014). Effective public relations leadership in organizational change: A
study of multinationals in Mainland China. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(2),
134-160. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2013.864241
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integration model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709–734.
doi:0.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust
measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3),
334-359. doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
Men, L. R. (2014). Internal reputation management: The impact of authentic leadership and
transparent communication. Corporate Reputation Review, 17(4), 254-272.
doi:10.1057/crr.2014.14
Men, L. R., & Bowen, S. (2017). Excellence in Internal Communication Management. Business
Expert Press: New York.
Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal
communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 26(4), 301-324. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2016). Public engagement with CEOs on social media: Motivations
and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 42(5), 932-942.
doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.08.001

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 34
Men, L. R. & Yue, C. A. (in press). Creating a positive emotional culture: Effect of strategic
internal communication and its impact on supportive employee behaviors. Public
Relations Review. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.001
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a
planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59-
80.
Neill, M.S. (2018). Change Management Communication: Barriers, Strategies & Messaging.
Public Relations Journal, 12(1). https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-
content/uploads/NeillMarlene_ChangeManagement.pdf
Nielsen, K., & Randall, R. (2013). Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating
organizational-level interventions. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 22(5), 601-617.doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.690556
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101.
doi:10.1080/13594320500451247
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational
change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 47(4), 461-524. doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
Paulsen, N., Callan, V. J., Ayoko, O., & Saunders, D. (2013). Transformational leadership and
innovation in an R&D organization experiencing major change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 26(3), 595-610.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management
Review, 22(1), 80-109. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9707180260
Porras, J. I., & Silvers, R. C. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual
Review of Psychology, 42(1), 51-78.

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 35
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual
and empirical extensions. The leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354.
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.009
Rawlins, B. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and
employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1-21.
Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of
organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71-99. doi:
10.1080/10627260802153421
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35(4), 651-665. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What's a good reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(4), 514-528. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.514
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(4), 863-871.doi.org/10.1037/a0022625.
Schoorman, F. D., 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.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410
Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Post-crisis discourse and
organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 18(1), 78-95.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Ellis, K. (2006). The communication of trust. In T. L. Gillis (Ed.), The
IABC handbook of organizational communication (1st ed, pp. 44-55). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 36
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and
performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.
Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270.
doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017
Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational
citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment.
Personnel Review, 34(4), 406-422. doi: 10.1108/00483480510599752
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee
citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46(12), 1431-1440.
doi:10.1177/001872679304601204
Yang, S. U. (2007). An integrated model for organization—public relational outcomes,
organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research,
19(2), 91-121. doi.org/10.1080/10627260701290612
Yang, Y. F. (2014). Studies of transformational leadership: Evaluating two alternative models of
trust and satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 114(3), 740-757. doi:
10.2466/01.04.PR0.114k27w2
Yang, S. U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on
relational trust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), 341-359.
doi.org/10.1080/10627260802640773
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of First-Order and Second-Order Constructs
αM SD 1234567891011

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 37
1 .92 4.48 1.5
8
1.00
2 .94 4.80 1.5
3
.85** 1.00
3 .91 4.34 1.6
5
.81** .79** 1.00
4 .72 4.95 1.5
8
.63** .66** .60** 1.00
5 .85 4.92 1.4
4
.70** .68** .64** .68** 1.00
6 .83 4.80 1.3
9
.62** .58** .58** .65** .73** 1.00
7 .91 4.73 1.6
1
.67** .64** .67** .65** .74** .68** 1.00
8 .97 4.56 1.4
8
.95** .95** .91** .68** .72** .63** .70** 1.00
9 .94 4.84 1.3
2
.75** .73** .72** .82** .90** .88** .89** .78** 1.00
1
0
.92 4.55 1.5
0
.76** .71** .76** .63** .69** .63** .71** .79** .76** 1.00
11 .87 4.98 1.3
7
.62** .55** .55** .53** .57** .56** .56** .61** .63** .73** 1.00
Note. 1 = TC-participation; 2 = TC-substantiality; 3 = TC-accountability; 4 = TL-vision; 5 = TL-
motivated inspiration; 6 = TL-intellectual stimulation; 7 = TL-individualized consideration; 8 =
TC (transparent communication); 9 = TL (transformational leadership); 10 = trust; 11 = openness
to change.
**Correlation is significant at p < .001 (2-tailed).

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 38
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Factor Scale items Std.
loadings
S.E.
Transparent Communication
Participation
(β = 0.975, SE =
0.011)
The company asks for feedback from
people like me about the quality of its
information during the change.
0.762 0.02
9
The company involves people like me to
help identify the information I need
during the change.
0.815 0.02
1
The company provides detailed
information to people like me during the
change.
0.813 0.02
3
The company makes it easy to find the
information people like me need during
the change.
0.842 0.01
9
The company asks the opinions of people
like me before making decisions during
the change.
0.792 0.02
3
The company takes the time with people
like me to understand who we are and
what we need during the change.
0.851 0.01
8
Substantiality
(β = 0.929, SE =
0.014)
The company provides information in a
timely fashion to people like me during
the change.
0.836 0.01
9
The company provides information that is
relevant to people like me during the
change.
0.859 0.02
0
The company provides information that is
complete during the change.
0.874 0.01
5
The company provides information that is
easy for people like me to understand
during the change.
0.838 0.01
9
The company provides accurate
information to people like me during the
change.
0.868 0.01
7
The company provides information that is
reliable during the change.
0.881 0.01
7
Accountability The company presents more than one side 0.808 0.02

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 39
(β = 0.914, SE =
0.017)
of controversial issues during the change. 4
The company is forthcoming with
information that might be damaging to the
organization during the change.
0.854 0.01
9
The company is open to criticism by
people like me during the change.
0.857 0.01
9
The company freely admits when it has
made mistakes during the change.
0.842 0.01
9
Transformational Leadership
Idealized Influence
(β = 0.856, SE =
0.034)
My direct manager has a clear
understanding of where we are going
during the change.
0.829 0.02
5
My direct manager has a clear sense of
where he/she wants our unit to be during
the change.
0.869 0.02
3
Intellectual
Stimulation (β =
0.952, SE = 0.018)
My direct manager challenges us to think
about old problems in new ways during
the change.
0.836 0.02
1
My direct manager has ideas that have
forced us to rethink some things that we
have never questioned before during the
change.
0.811 0.02
9
My direct manager has challenged us to
rethink some of basic assumptions about
our work during the change.
0.769 0.03
3
Inspirational
Motivation
(β = 0.891, SE =
0.023)
My direct manager says things that make
employees proud to be a part of this
organization during the change.
0.816 0.02
7
My direct manager says positive things
about the work unit during the change.
0.783 0.02
9
My direct manager encourages people to
see changes as situations full of
opportunities.
0.767 0.03
5
Individualized
Consideration
(β = 0.889, SE =
0.020)
My direct manager considers employees’
feelings before acting during the change.
0.850 0.01
9
My direct manager behaves in a manner
which is thoughtful of employees’ needs
during the change.
0.876 0.02
1
My direct manager sees that the interests
of employees are given due consideration
during the change.
0.911 0.01
4
Organizational Trust I’m willing to let my organization make
decisions for people like me during the
change.
0.735 0.02
7
I trust my organization to take care of
people like me during the change.
0.865 0.02
0

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 40
Whenever my organization makes an
important decision during the change, I
know it will be concerned about people
like me.
0.840 0.02
1
My organization can be relied on to keep
its promises during the change.
0.826 0.02
1
I believe that my organization takes the
opinions of people like me into account
when making change-related decisions.
0.866 0.01
6
My organization has the ability to
accomplish what it says it will do during
the change.
0.732 0.03
4
Openness to Change I would consider myself open to the
changes.
0.632 0.03
7
I am looking forward to the changes in
my work role.
0.830 0.02
5
Overall, the proposed changes are for the
better.
0.833 0.02
6
I think that the changes will have a
positive effect on how I accomplish my
work.
0.854 0.02
2
Note. All the loadings are standardized and significant at the .001 level.

CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION 41
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
Note. Mediation hypothesis H6.
Figure 2. The hypothesized structural model with standardized path coefficients.
Note. Mediation hypothesis H6.
***p < .001