Change Response Circumplex Scale

Abstract

The Change Response Circumplex Scale (CRCS; Oreg et al., 2024) is a psychometrically validated, 12-item self-report measurement instrument designed to operationalize employee behavioral reactions to organizational change within a structural circumplex model. Grounded in a conceptual bidimensional framework developed by Oreg, Bartunek, Lee, and Doorenbosch (2018), the CRCS overcomes the pervasive oversimplification in organizational scholarship that reduces change responses to a unidimensional dichotomy of resistance versus support. Instead, the scale integrates two orthogonal conceptual axes: valence (positive versus negative evaluative orientation toward the change) and activation (the degree of energetic mobilization and motoric or behavioral exertion elicited by the change event).

Crossing these two primary axes yields four distinct behavioral quadrants, each captured by a dedicated 3-item subscale: Change Proactivity (positive valence, high activation), Change Acceptance (positive valence, low activation), Change Disengagement (negative valence, low activation), and Change Resistance (negative valence, high activation). Items are assessed using a 5-point Likert-type agreement continuum ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). The scale underwent rigorous psychometric evaluation across multiple occupational and cross-national cohorts, including English- and Hebrew-speaking samples of educational personnel and employees undergoing active institutional restructuring across Israel and the United States.

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) support the hypothesized four-factor structure, demonstrating superior fit indices relative to competing unidimensional, two-factor valence-only, or activation-only specifications. Reliability evaluations reveal subscale internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) spanning from .58 to .90 across diverse occupational samples. Construct validity is corroborated by circular structural relationships, wherein affect types correlate positively with aligned behavioral responses and inversely with polar opposites. Crucially, the CRCS demonstrates incremental predictive validity above and beyond traditional valence measures in forecasting upward and downward feedback, employee voice, and proactive organizational citizenship behaviors.

Keywords

Change Response Circumplex Scale, organizational change, change resistance, change proactivity, change acceptance, change disengagement, circumplex model, activation, valence, employee attitudes, psychometrics, organizational behavior

Authors

The Change Response Circumplex Scale was developed and validated by an international team of researchers in organizational behavior and psychometrics:

• Shaul Oreg, Ph.D. — School of Business Administration, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel. ORCID: 0000-0002-8895-7151. Email: [email protected] (Corresponding Author).
• Noga Sverdlik, Ph.D. — Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
• Jill W. Paine, Ph.D. — Department of Organizational Behavior, IE Business School, IE University, Madrid, Spain.
• Myeong-Gu Seo, Ph.D. — Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.

Purpose

Organizational change represents an omnipresent, disruptive phenomenon within contemporary institutions, encompassing structural realignments, technological digital transformations, mergers, acquisitions, and strategic pivots. For decades, industrial and organizational psychology examined employee reactions through a restricted lens, conceptualizing responses predominantly along a single evaluative continuum spanning from overt resistance to enthusiastic compliance. This conventional paradigm conflated passivity with support and equated all forms of opposition with active disruption, failing to capture subtle yet consequential behavioral nuances.

The primary purpose of the Change Response Circumplex Scale (CRCS) is to resolve this conceptual impasse by providing a psychometrically rigorous, bidimensional measurement framework that simultaneously maps the valence of an individual’s orientation (positive versus negative appraisal) alongside their level of activation (active mobilization versus passive compliance or withdrawal). By doing so, the CRCS offers scholars and human resource diagnosticians an instrument capable of disambiguating responses that appear superficially similar under unidimensional assessments.

In applied research, the CRCS enables organizational scientists to investigate the complex antecedents and trajectories of change initiatives. For example, it allows investigators to examine why employees who hold favorable attitudes toward an organizational vision may nevertheless exhibit passive acceptance rather than active proactivity, or how cognitive fatigue and cynical detachment precipitate silent disengagement rather than vocal resistance. By modeling change responses within a geometric circumplex, the instrument facilitates sophisticated structural equation modeling (SEM) and profile analyses that capture the full spectrum of workplace reactions.

From an applied organizational development and consulting perspective, the CRCS serves as an actionable diagnostic audit. Rather than treating an unresisting workforce as an enthusiastic endorsement of managerial policy, consultants can deploy the CRCS to detect systemic change disengagement—a covert, foot-dragging response that frequently undermines long-term implementation without generating obvious confrontation. Furthermore, identifying the operational drivers that convert passive change acceptance into energetic change proactivity equips organizational leaders to cultivate change champions, optimize communication protocols, and tailor intervention strategies to the specific behavioral orientations present across organizational tiers.

Psychological Construct

The Change Response Circumplex Scale is structured upon two intersecting, orthogonal axes that define an underlying geometric circumplex. In psychometric theory, a circumplex model arranges constructs circularly around two bipolar dimensions, such that the proximity between constructs reflects their degree of conceptual and statistical correlation. The CRCS operationalizes employee behavioral reactions across these continuous dimensions:

The Core Dimensions: Valence and Activation

The first foundational axis is Valence, which reflects the evaluative orientation of the recipient toward the change initiative. A positive valence signifies that the employee views the change as beneficial, desirable, aligned with institutional goals, or personally advantageous. In contrast, a negative valence signifies that the employee appraises the change as disadvantageous, threatening, poorly conceived, or detrimental to personal or organizational welfare.

The second foundational axis is Activation, a neurobiological and psychological construct rooted in physiological arousal and motor mobilization. In the context of change responses, activation denotes the degree of energetic investment, effort, and active behavioral expenditure an individual directs toward the change process. High activation involves overt, energized, and assertive behaviors aimed at shaping the change environment, whereas low activation is characterized by behavioral quiescence, compliance, inertia, or passive withdrawal.

The Four Behavioral Quadrants

By crossing valence and activation, the CRCS delineates four distinct psychological and behavioral response quadrants:

• Change Proactivity (High Activation, Positive Valence): Located in the upper-right quadrant of the circumplex, change proactivity represents behavior directed toward initiating constructive transformation, championing implementation processes, and exceeding prescribed role requirements to ensure the change succeeds. Employees exhibiting high proactivity do not merely adhere to directives; they actively problem-solve, assist peers, align operational protocols, and mobilize social capital to advance the reform.
• Change Acceptance (Low Activation, Positive Valence): Located in the lower-right quadrant, change acceptance represents a compliant, accommodating, and receptive posture toward the change. The recipient views the initiative positively or neutrally accepts its necessity, but exhibits low energetic mobilization. These individuals do not seek to spearhead implementation or challenge existing plans; instead, they willingly adopt assigned tasks, follow revised protocols, and cooperate without resistance.
• Change Disengagement (Low Activation, Negative Valence): Located in the lower-left quadrant, change disengagement reflects covert opposition manifested through withdrawal, passive resistance, psychological detachment, and deliberate foot-dragging. Rather than engaging in visible confrontation, disengaged employees withhold discretionary effort, keep dissenting viewpoints hidden, and evade tasks associated with the change. This quadrant represents an insidious organizational threat, as it avoids managerial detection while systematically draining momentum from change initiatives.
• Change Resistance (High Activation, Negative Valence): Located in the upper-left quadrant, change resistance entails overt, mobilized opposition against the reform. Resistant employees actively expend energy to prevent, obstruct, slow down, or fundamentally alter the planned change. Behaviors in this quadrant include vocal protesting, organizing collective dissent, petitioning leadership, raising operational barriers, and directly challenging the change agenda through institutional channels.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual genesis of the CRCS lies in the integration of affective circumplex models from cognitive psychology with behavioral theory in organizational science. Decades of affective neuroscience and psychometric research—most notably the circumplex model of affect pioneered by James A. Russell (1980)—demonstrated that emotional experiences are parsimoniously structured by the orthogonal axes of pleasure-displeasure (valence) and activation-deactivation (arousal). Subsequent organizational scholarship, such as the affective-behavioral frameworks formulated by Seo, Barrett, and Bartunek (2004), posited that core affective dimensions serve as proximate drivers of behavioral effort and direction within workplace settings.

Building upon these foundational principles, Oreg, Bartunek, Lee, and Doorenbosch (2018) developed a theoretical bidimensional framework that translated the circumplex architecture into the behavioral domain of organizational change responses. Historically, organizational change research had been dominated by cognitive-affective models (e.g., Coch & French, 1948; Piderit, 2000; Oreg, 2003, 2006) that treated resistance primarily as an overarching negative attitude composed of affective, cognitive, and intentional facets. While highly informative, these earlier paradigms often obscured the critical distinction between passive detachment and active confrontation, treating non-compliance as a homogeneous phenomenon.

The theoretical framework of the CRCS posits that an individual’s behavioral response to an organizational disruption is determined simultaneously by: (a) their cognitive and affective appraisal of the change’s merit, utility, and threat level (valence); and (b) their level of motivational arousal and behavioral mobilization (activation). The circumplex geometry enforces specific structural expectations: quadrants positioned 180 degrees apart (such as Change Proactivity versus Change Disengagement, or Change Acceptance versus Change Resistance) should display the strongest negative correlations, reflecting conceptual opposition. Conversely, adjacent quadrants separated by 90 degrees (such as Change Acceptance and Change Proactivity, which share positive valence but differ in activation) should display moderate, non-negative associations.

This structural arrangement aligns directly with contemporary theories of employee proactivity (Grant & Ashford, 2008) and employee voice, demonstrating that energetic engagement is fundamentally distinct from mere evaluative support. By establishing a rigorous circumplex representation, Oreg et al. (2024) provided a comprehensive theoretical architecture that captures both active and passive manifestations of support and resistance.

Validity

The psychometric properties of the CRCS were established through rigorous empirical testing across diverse samples comprising educational personnel, school administrators, and private-sector employees who had undergone significant structural changes in Israel and the United States (Oreg et al., 2024).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was evaluated by assessing whether the 12 items aligned with the geometric constraints of a circumplex. In accordance with circumplex methodology, the latent factors exhibited the anticipated circular pattern of correlations. Affective response types demonstrated significant, positive correlations with their theoretically aligned behavioral response types and negative correlations with their diametrically opposed counterparts. For instance, positive change affect was positively correlated with Change Proactivity and Change Acceptance, while displaying significant negative correlations with Change Disengagement and Change Resistance. All hypothesized circular relationships achieved statistical significance at p < .05 or lower.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity across the four subscales was examined using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, which dictates that the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each latent construct should exceed its correlations with all other latent constructs:

• For Change Proactivity, Change Acceptance, and Change Resistance, the square roots of the AVE values systematically exceeded the inter-factor correlation coefficients.
• A notable boundary condition emerged between Change Disengagement and general negative change attitude: the correlation between the latent factor of change disengagement and negative change attitude reached .83, which was higher than the square root of the change disengagement AVE (.64). This shared variance reflects the close empirical proximity of psychological withdrawal and negative evaluative appraisals, though the constructs remain conceptually distinct.

Predictive and Incremental Validity

A primary criterion for the CRCS was establishing incremental predictive validity beyond traditional, unidimensional measures of change valence. Oreg et al. (2024) evaluated the measure’s capacity to forecast both the volume and qualitative nature of feedback provided by change recipients. The active quadrants (Change Proactivity and Change Resistance) explained substantial additional variance in upward employee feedback, proactive voice, and organizational citizenship behaviors above and beyond that explained by valence alone. Specifically, high activation uniquely predicted whether employees actively communicated with change managers, demonstrating that valence alone is insufficient for predicting overt workplace engagement during institutional transitions.

Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity was established by administering the CRCS concurrently with assessments of spontaneous feedback behavior and operational performance metrics during live institutional changes. The behavioral response subscales mapped predictably onto concurrent employee behaviors: proactive employees consistently initiated task adjustments and assisted colleagues, while resistant individuals formally questioned operational leadership.

Reliability

The reliability of the CRCS has been substantiated across multiple cross-national and cross-linguistic empirical samples. Internal consistency analyses yielded acceptable-to-excellent Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across all four subscales:

• Overall Range: Across varied employee samples and validation phases, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four subscales ranged from .58 to .90.
• Change Proactivity: Consistently demonstrated robust internal consistency, with alpha coefficients typically exceeding .80 across occupational cohorts, reflecting strong item communality in tapping proactive transformation behaviors.
• Change Resistance: Displayed high reliability coefficients across samples (alphas typically ranging between .78 and .88), indicating clear operationalization of active opposition and counter-implementation efforts.
• Change Acceptance: Demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with coefficients ranging from .65 to .82 across studies, reflecting stable measurement of accommodating, compliant behaviors.
• Change Disengagement: Displayed moderate internal consistency across samples, with lower-bound alpha estimates around .58 in specific field cohorts and reaching up to .75 in larger standardized samples. The lower-bound estimate reflects the complex, multi-faceted nature of withdrawal phenomena (e.g., combining foot-dragging with covert secrecy), but retains psychometric utility as a brief 3-item subscale.

Composite reliability coefficients estimated within structural equation models confirmed that the latent constructs accounted for adequate variance relative to measurement error across both English and Hebrew versions of the instrument.

Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the 12-item CRCS was evaluated through rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation across multiple independent samples (Oreg et al., 2024).

Factor Loadings

In the hypothesized four-factor measurement model, each of the 12 items was specified to load exclusively onto its designated latent factor: Change Acceptance (3 items), Change Proactivity (3 items), Change Disengagement (3 items), and Change Resistance (3 items). All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant at p < .001. Standardized loadings across the indicators were strong and consistent, confirming that each item reliably reflects its targeted behavioral quadrant.

Model Fit and Alternative Model Comparisons

The hypothesized four-factor model demonstrated satisfactory fit across multiple independent samples. While the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was slightly above the conventional .08 threshold in certain samples, it remained consistently within the .08 to .10 range, which is recognized by psychometricians as reasonable and acceptable for concise multidimensional instruments (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Other standard fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), demonstrated acceptable to excellent alignment with the empirical data.

To substantiate structural validity, the four-factor circumplex model was systematically compared against three competing alternative nested models:

1. A Unidimensional Model: In which all 12 items loaded onto a single general change response factor.
2. A Two-Factor Valence Model: In which items were partitioned purely by evaluative direction (combining Change Proactivity with Change Acceptance into a positive factor, and Change Resistance with Change Disengagement into a negative factor).
3. A Two-Factor Activation Model: In which items were partitioned purely by mobilization level (combining Change Proactivity with Change Resistance into a high-activation factor, and Change Acceptance with Change Disengagement into a low-activation factor).

The CFA results revealed that all three alternative models exhibited substantially inferior fit relative to the hypothesized four-factor circumplex model across all fit indices (e.g., significant increases in χ², pronounced drops in CFI and TLI, and marked deterioration in RMSEA). These findings provide strong empirical confirmation that both the valence and activation axes are indispensable for accurately modeling employee responses to organizational change.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below is the technical specification and administrative structure of the Change Response Circumplex Scale:

• Test Type: Original psychometric self-report rating scale
• Author Origin: Developed by Shaul Oreg, Noga Sverdlik, Jill W. Paine, and Myeong-Gu Seo (2024)
• Target Population: Human adults (aged 18 years and older) employed in organizations undergoing active or planned institutional, technological, or structural changes
• Administration Format: Individual self-report questionnaire, administered via paper-and-pencil, online survey platforms, or enterprise feedback software
• Item Count: 12 items distributed equally across four subscales (3 items per subscale)
• Available Languages: English and Hebrew (psychometrically validated across US and Israeli employee samples)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type agreement continuum formatted as:
  • 1 = Disagree
  • 2 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 4 = Somewhat Agree
  • 5 = Agree

  (Note: The authentic validation study defines the anchor points from 1 = disagree to 5 = agree).

• Subscale Architecture:
  • Change Acceptance: Items 1, 2, and 3 (Low Activation, Positive Valence)
  • Change Proactivity: Items 4, 5, and 6 (High Activation, Positive Valence)
  • Change Disengagement: Items 7, 8, and 9 (Low Activation, Negative Valence)
  • Change Resistance: Items 10, 11, and 12 (High Activation, Negative Valence)
• Scoring Instructions: Subscale scores are calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean of the three corresponding items. All items are positively keyed within their respective subscales; no reverse-scoring is required. Subscale scores range from 1.00 to 5.00, with higher scores reflecting greater manifestation of the specific behavioral response type. Researchers may also compute activation and valence coordinate scores for circumplex geometric plotting.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Change Response Circumplex Scale was developed and published in 2023 (formally appearing in the January 2024 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology).

• Permissions: The scale is open for non-commercial academic research and instructional/teaching purposes without fee. Researchers may administer the CRCS in empirical studies provided that appropriate formal scholarly attribution is given to the authors and the original publication (Oreg et al., 2024).
• Commercial Licensing: Use of the instrument within commercial consulting practices, fee-for-service enterprise diagnostics, or proprietary organizational software may require permission from the authors or the copyright holder (American Psychological Association).
• Correspondence Contact: For inquiries regarding translation, adaptation, or specialized research protocols, correspondence should be addressed to Prof. Shaul Oreg, School of Business Administration, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel, 91905; Email: [email protected].

References

• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). SAGE Publications.
• Coch, L., & French, J. R., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674800100408
• Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
• Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680
• Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247
• Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., Lee, G., & Doorenbosch, B. (2018). An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0335
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001132
• Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707722
• Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
• Seo, M.-G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670972

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)