Matthew J. Monnot, PhD

Organizational Change Agent Influence: A Conditional Process Model of Key Individual Psychological Resources (2017)

Author: Matthew J. Monnot
Journal: Journal of Change Management, 17(3), 268–295
DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2016.1237534

1 · TL;DR

This study examines why some internal change agents are more influential than others during organizational change.

It proposes and tests a model in which:

  • Cognitive ability and personality (e.g., conscientiousness, emotional stability) form a base of stable traits, while
  • Psychological Capital (PsyCap) – hope, efficacy, resilience, optimism – acts as a state-like, developable resource that helps convert traits into actual influence.

Core idea: organizations should select for potential and develop for capacity when building internal change-agent pipelines.¹

2 · Methodology (Technical)

  • Design: Cross-sectional field study using a structured organizational change simulation.
  • Participants: Employees assigned to internal change-agent roles in a staged organizational change context.
  • Measures:
    • General cognitive ability.
    • Big Five personality facets relevant to achievement and stability.
    • Psychological Capital (PsyCap).
    • Behavioral ratings of change agent influence during the simulation.
  • Analyses:
    • Conditional process modeling using PROCESS for SPSS, testing:
      • Direct effects of cognitive ability and personality on influence.
      • Indirect effects through PsyCap.
      • Conditional paths and resource interactions.²

3 · Methods in Plain English

Employees were placed in a realistic change scenario and asked to act as change agents – persuading others, communicating the case for change, and helping the “organization” adapt.

They completed:

  • Ability and personality assessments,
  • A PsyCap questionnaire.

Observers and/or peers then rated how influential they were in the change process.

The analysis asked:

  • Do smarter, more emotionally stable and conscientious people have more influence?
  • Does PsyCap explain part of this effect?
  • Are there conditions under which these resources matter more?

4 · Key Findings & Nuances

  • Stable traits (cognitive ability and key personality facets) are positively associated with change influence.
  • PsyCap is also positively related to influence and mediates portions of the trait–influence relationship.
  • The model reflects a resource caravan idea: traits and state-like resources combine, rather than compete, to predict effectiveness.
  • The nuance is not just “smart, confident people do better” – it is that change influence is best understood as a dynamic interplay of stable and malleable resources, which opens the door to development rather than fatalism about “natural change leaders.”

5 · Selection + Development Integration

This paper sits at the intersection of selection science and developmental interventions.

  • Selection: Decades of meta-analytic work show that general cognitive ability and conscientiousness are robust predictors of job performance across roles and settings (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Barrick & Mount, 1991).
  • Development: Research on PsyCap demonstrates that hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism are state-like and can be increased through focused, brief interventions (Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2010).

Together, they support a practical formula:

Select for potential, develop for capacity.

  1. Use valid assessments of cognitive ability and personality in selecting or nominating change agents.
  2. Post-selection, invest in PsyCap-building micro-interventions to help those individuals deploy their potential under real-world uncertainty and resistance.
  3. Track PsyCap and related resources over time as leading indicators of change readiness and influence (Avey et al., 2008).

6 · Implementation Ideas

For Leaders & HR

  • Identify internal change agents using both:
    • Evidence-based trait assessments,
    • Observed influence behaviors.
  • Build development paths that:
    • Strengthen PsyCap through reflective exercises, mastery experiences, and positive reframing.
    • Provide coaching on specific influence tactics (framing, coalition building, storytelling).

For People Analytics

  • Model change outcomes (adoption, speed, local engagement) as a function of:
    • Trait profiles (ability, personality),
    • PsyCap levels,
    • Network position (if data available).
  • Use these models to:
    • Locate “quiet” but highly resource-rich employees,
    • Inform the design of change teams and sponsor–agent pairings.

For OD / L&D

  • Embed PsyCap exercises drawn from Luthans et al.’s protocols into change training:
    • Guided goal-pathways work (hope),
    • Confidence and efficacy-building activities,
    • Resilience narratives and reframing,
    • Optimism practices grounded in realistic appraisal.
  • Use simulations similar to the research design to practice, observe, and coach change influence behaviors in psychologically safe environments.

7 · Endnotes (APA Style)

  1. Monnot, M. J. (2017). Organizational change agent influence: A conditional process model of key individual psychological resources. Journal of Change Management, 17(3), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1237534
  2. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  3. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
  4. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
  5. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 387–393.
  6. Luthans, F., et al. (2010). Impact of Psychological Capital development on performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 541–572.
  7. Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48–70.