Authors : Sean Somersall-Weekes

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bdcsrmhp

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2xp2kh59

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26mar505

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Organisational change initiatives frequently show early signs of progress before substantive capability development has occurred. Existing research attributes this pattern to expectancy dynamics, symbolic cues, and social contagion, yet these perceptual mechanisms are rarely integrated with structural predictors of employee experience such as personal values, organisational climate, meaning of work, and commitment. This conceptual paper synthesises these literatures to propose a Behaviourally-Informed Transformation Integrity Model. We argue that early uplift reflects a form of premature collective sensemaking; a behavioural placebo mechanism, while sustained progress depends on deeper structural drivers of satisfaction and wellbeing. Two overlooked moderators, accountability and generational perception, shape how employees interpret symbolic cues and how quickly early narratives of success form or collapse. We introduce the placebo gap, defined as the divergence between perceived momentum and actual capability, and propose it as a measurable governance risk indicator. The paper concludes with testable propositions and practical guidance for distinguishing symbolic progress from structural change.

Keywords : Organisational Change; Placebo Gap; Collective Sensemaking; Organisational Climate; Accountability; Generational Perception; Behavioural Mechanisms; Expectancy; Transformation Integrity; Governance Risk.

References :

1. Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169–183.
2. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.
3. Benedetti, F. (2009). Placebo Effects: Understanding the Mechanisms. Oxford University Press.
4. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. Little, Brown.
5. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. HarperCollins.
6. Correia, N., & Carvalho, M. (2026). How values, commitment, and organizational climate shape job satisfaction and well-being. Academia Mental Health and Well-Being, 3.
7. Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375–394.
8. Deloitte. (2023). Gen Z and Millennial Survey. Deloitte Insights.
9. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
10. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
11. Lyons, S. T., & Kuron, L. K. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157.
12. Pew Research Center. (2015). The Whys and Hows of Generations Research.
13. Somersall‑Weekes, S. (2026). The placebo effect in organisational change: Expectancy, behavioural mechanisms, and the illusion of progress. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 11(2), 1058–1061.
14. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–210.
15. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage.