Here, uncertainty experiences will be described in relation to organizational change. In view of this, resistance to change is frequently based on a perceived uncertainty by the employees. Resistance to organizational change does not necessarily need to be linked to its outcome, but to the perception of decisions and implementation of change, that is, the organizational change procedure (Potosky and Azan, 2023; Yin et al., 2024). The employee may try to slow down or interrupt the change process due to organizational uncertainty experiences (Lines, 2004). The behaviors that employees develop as an expression of resistance tend to be based on feelings of resentment (Khaw et al., 2022). Folger and Skarlicki (1999) suggest that it may be anything from subtle acts, where the employee does not show willingness to cooperate, to engaging in industrial sabotage. Experiences of organizational uncertainty may occur as a consequence of poor information regarding the organizational change or information perceived by employees as contradictory or ambiguous. Also, if the employees do not understand the aim of the change and how the change process will be carried out, it may facilitate experiences of uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004a; Khaw et al., 2022). More precisely, uncertainty may be conceptualized as;

Experiences of uncertainty in organizational changes create great challenges for employers (Khaw et al., 2022; Yin et al., 2024). Adequate cognitive framing (design thinking), communication and change strategies are of importance to reduce the perceived uncertainty of the employees (Hvidsten et al., 2023; Løhre and Halvor Teigen, 2024; Yin et al., 2024). Bordia et al. (2004a) emphasize that management can reduce employees' experiences of insecurity through adequate communication work before, during and after the change process. The employees who believe that the motives for organizational changes have been clarified and that the results are favorable to themselves tend to accept the changes to a greater extent (Løhre and Halvor Teigen, 2024; Schulz-Knappe et al., 2019).

In case of defective internal communication of information that is also characterized by ambiguity, there is a risk of rumors among the employees, which may facilitate negative emotions, uncertainty and resistance to organizational change (Bordia and Difonzo, 2013; Bordia et al., 2004a,b; Brashers, 2001).

Below, justice experiences will be described in relation to organizational change. Here, employees' perceptions of organizational change may be affected by whether the change is considered fair/just or not (see Arnéguy et al., 2022; Colquitt et al., 2023; Dhensa-Kahlon and Coyle-Shapiro, 2013; Oreg and van Dam, 2009 for overviews). Organizational justice may refer to processes of perceived fairness within the organization, i.e., whether employees perceive that they have been treated fairly in their workplace (Cachón-Alonso and Elovainio, 2022; Colquitt et al., 2023; Greenberg, 2011; Greenberg and Colquitt, 2005). Employees may evaluate the organizational change in several ways (Dhensa-Kahlon and Coyle-Shapiro, 2013; Oreg and van Dam, 2009). For example, the employees may evaluate the fairness of the outcomes of the organizational change, that is, distributive justice, involving perceptions of fairness related to the distribution of outcomes like rewards, time and money (Colquitt et al., 2005, 2023; Greenberg, 2011). The employees may also evaluate the amount and quality of the information provided by the employer regarding the organizational change. That is, informative justice, meaning that there should be regular opportunities to receive relevant and adequate explanations of management decisions (Bobocel and Zdaniuk, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2023; Oreg and van Dam, 2009). Also, employees may evaluate how they were treated during the change procedure. This concerns interpersonal justice, involving perceptions of the supervisor's conduct, in terms of being courteous (Colquitt et al., 2023; Greenberg, 1990, 1993). If employees feel that they have been treated fairly during the decision-making and change process, they feel social supported and tend to develop joy and enthusiasm for the change. Such attitudes create more optimal conditions for the change to be successful (Arnéguy et al., 2022; Colquitt et al., 2023; Ford et al., 2008).

Finally, and of certain importance for the present study is that employees may also evaluate how the organizational change was planned and implemented, and to what extent their opinions were taken into account, that is, procedural justice (Colquitt et al., 2005; Greenberg, 2011; Reiss et al., 2019). Here, procedural justice accounts for perceived justice during the decision-making process and to what extent employees have had the opportunity to be involved in, and influence, that process. Therefore, procedural justice is a key part of organizational change (Cobb et al., 1995; Rodell and Colquitt, 2009). It is crucial for employees' experience of change processes as fair that the following criteria, i.e., rules of procedural justice, have been met (see Colquitt, 2001 for an overview of procedural justice rules);

Accordingly, in order to maintain employees' experiences of procedural justice, the management of organizational change should integrate the views of those concerned regarding the decision-making processes and give them influence (Roald and Edgren, 2001). Employees are more likely to accept organizational change if they perceive the procedures as fair vs. unfair. If employees experience injustice in the change process, it may generate feelings of resentment and revenge. This in turn may reduce willingness to cooperate. Resentment and anger due to perceptions of unfair procedures during organizational change may motivate employees to engage in resistance (Bernerth et al., 2007; Foster, 2010; Sverke et al., 2008). Employees' type and degree of participation in an organizational change process may also imbue the employees with certain moral perceptions and emotions, which in turn might affect their reactions (Bruhn et al., 2001).

Additionally, justice perceptions have been shown to relate to a wide range of outcomes (Adamovic, 2023), such as: work performance (Wang et al., 2015), job satisfaction (Greenberg, 2011), organizational commitment (Ho, 2025; López-Cabarcos et al., 2015), counterproductive behavior (De Cremer, 2006), turnover intention (Aryee et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2024), organizational citizenship behavior (Blader and Tyler, 2009), health-related factors like sick leave, stress-related problems, cardiovascular problems, burnout and emotional exhaustion (Cachón-Alonso and Elovainio, 2022; Greenberg, 2010; Ndjaboué et al., 2012; Robbins et al., 2012; Piccoli and De Witte, 2015), and anxiety and depression (Spell and Arnold, 2007). For an overview, see Cachón-Alonso and Elovainio (2022). In view of this, organizations have strong incentives to make sure that employees perceive both processes and outcomes of organizational change as fair (Dhensa-Kahlon and Coyle-Shapiro, 2013; Oreg and van Dam, 2009).

Here, justice as related to uncertainty during organizational change will be described in terms of theoretical frameworks regarding these phenomena. In view of this, and according to Fairness' Heuristic Theory employees' experience of uncertainty during an organizational change may be due to lack of information about the trustworthiness of the authorities implementing it (Lind, 2001; Lind and Earley, 1992; Van den Bos, 2001; Van den Bos et al., 1998). When individuals experience this type of uncertainty or doubt in a situation, they tend to look for, and make use of, justice judgements (Elovainio et al., 2005; Yin et al., 2024). According to the Uncertainty Management Model, which builds on Fairness Heuristic Theory, individuals' assessment of justice is an effective method of dealing with uncertain or unpredictable situations they face. If employees experience uncertainty during organizational change, issues of justice in the change process tend to become more important. Employees then form more distinct judgements of justice as a way of dealing with the uncertainty of the change (Elovainio et al., 2005; Yin et al., 2024). If the employees' justice judgements are solid and clear, uncertainty tends to decrease. This also reinforces stronger employee acceptance of organizational change decisions (Oreg and van Dam, 2009). If the employee does not experience a noticeable uncertainty during organizational change, the need for distinct justice judgments will be weaker (Elovainio et al., 2005). Thus, individuals may care about procedural justice in situations where they strive to achieve control, e.g., in organizational change, in order to reduce potential uncertainty associated with these situations (Sagie and Koslowsky, 1996; Yin et al., 2024)). In line with this, procedural justice is important to employees because it makes them feel valued and respected by the management. Employees' belonging- and identity needs are also satisfied by being treated procedural fair. This in turn may increase employees' experiences of management trustworthiness and decrease feelings of uncertainty associated with, e.g., organizational change (Colquitt et al., 2006; De Cremer and Blader, 2006).

Seven employees participated in the present study. We obtained richness of information by this number of participants, in that the participants were of different ages and genders and had different organizational positions and employment times, see below. This may justify sufficiency of the sample. The content of the answers for the 6th and 7th interview were similar to the other participants' answers in some respects. Accordingly, saturation was obtained by the interviews of the present study (see Hennick et al., 2017, for a critical account of number of participants as a measure of saturation, see also O'Reilly and Parker, 2013; Thorne, 2020).

Three blue- and four-white collar workers participated in the present study. The blue-collar workers were operative industrial workers (system and production operators) and the white-collar workers were desk officials (market service managers, flow managers, system technician). The participants were employees in the business area of the company that in the near future was to undergo an organizational change and they were working within a manufacturing business of stainless steel in the middle of Sweden. Three of the participants were women and four men. Mean age was 51 years (SD = 9.12), range 39–61 years. Mean employment time within the organization was 20 years (SD = 9.80), range 5–39 years.

The six predetermined themes were investigated by main and follow-up questions. The interview guide was made in relation to the background information, about the imminent organizational change and its implications (see Appendix 1 for the interview guide). The background information was given to all participants at the start of each interview (see Procedure section below). Hence, the participants' experiences of uncertainty and procedural justice were expressed in the context of an imminent organizational change.

The interview questions about uncertainty in the context of organizational change were based on theoretical accounts by Bordia et al. (2004a), Schulz-Knappe et al. (2019) and the Uncertainty Management Model (Elovainio et al., 2005). The questions in the interview guide captured experiences of the following phenomena (which constitute the three main themes of uncertainty of organizational change); trustworthiness of the organizational management and change in terms of necessity and aim of the organizational change; valence of the organizational change in terms of positive vs. negative attitudes about it; job role in terms of if, and how, it will affect one's job role.

The interview questions about procedural justice in the context of organizational change were based on theoretical accounts by Colquitt (2001), Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Leventhal (1980). The questions in the interview guide captured experiences of the following phenomena (which constitute the three main themes of procedural justice of organizational change); procedural control in terms of opportunity of making one's voice heard during the process; decision control in terms of opportunity of influencing the organizational change process in a desired direction; accuracy of information in terms of correct and accurate information from organizational management regarding the change.

An HR manager of the organization was contacted in order to ask employees to participate in the present study. The manager emailed us contact information of those eight employees who agreed to participate. The employees were then sent a covering letter about participation in the study. All these employees gave their final agreement to participate in the study during February–March 2020. Restrictions regarding external visitors to the organization were implemented at this time due to the COVID-19 situation. The planned face-to-face interviews were therefore conducted by telephone. All participants were informed about- and approved this. One of the participants refrained from participating due to changes in workload.

At the time of the interviews, which were conducted during March–April 2020, the participants were informed verbally about the aim and ethical considerations of the study as well as the estimated duration of the interview. Participants received the same information about the change and its implications at the start of the interviews. This was done to ensure that all respondents' answers were based on the same basic knowledge about the imminent organizational change. Participants were given an opportunity to ask questions about the study's content and structure, were also asked if they consented to the interview being recorded. Prior to each interview, the participant gave her/his informed consent to participate. They were also informed that completion of the interview was taken as an indication of their informed consent to participate in the present study. During the interviews, follow-up questions were asked in relation to the main questions when needed. The participants were also given the opportunity to ask for clarifications if they found some of the questions hard to comprehend and they were asked if there was something they wanted to add in relation to the answers given to each question.

Two of the authors conducted the interviews. At each interview these authors were both present, one conducting the interviews and the other taking notes. One semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant, that is seven interviews in total. All interviews were recorded with an Ipad and a cellphone and the interviews were conducted on speakerphone. In order to reduce the risk of disturbances we conducted the interviews in a separate room. The duration of the interviews varied between 22 and 46 min.

We conducted a deductive, theory-driven, thematic analysis in line with the Hayes model (1997, see also Hayes, 2021), involving four steps (for a similar approach, see Azungah, 2018). First, we formulated the theoretical predetermined main- and sub-themes of the study. Second, we designed the interview guide based on the main- and sub-themes, we conducted the interviews which all were transcribed in their entirety and we prepared the data in the form of transcripts. Third, each theme was analyzed separately, and we determined which data belonged to each theme. Two of the present authors coded the transcripts independently of each other by identifying key concepts as initial coding categories in accordance with the theoretical accounts of uncertainty and procedural justice (see Materials). Then the codes were compared and discussed reflectively. To ensure that all relevant data were properly coded and sorted under the correct theme the process was repeated once again. Fourth, we read the text for each theme separately to check that the respondents' answers were properly analyzed. All descriptions were summarized under each theme, regardless of who said what, and we selected representative quotes from the transcripts that were considered to adequately reflect the summaries for each theme.

No formal ethical approval was needed for the type of research conducted in the present study according to Swedish juridical restrictions of research ethics (see Etikprövningsmyndigheten/The Ethics Review Authority, n.d.), since no sensitive personal data were collected, such as the health of the participants. The present study, however, followed the research ethic principles of the APA (American Psychological Association, 2020) and the Declaration of Helsinki (see World Medical Association, n.d.) regarding informed consent from the participants, treatment of participants and handling of research data and results. All participants gave their informed verbal consent to participate at the time of the interviews to the two of the authors of the present study who conducted the interviews. Participation was voluntary and the participants had the right to cancel their participation at any time, preferably during the course of the study with regard to the consent requirement, and they were anonymous with reference to confidentiality requirements. All participants were informed that their individual answers could not be linked to a specific individual in the final report and that only the authors of the present study had access to their individual answers that could identify individual participants. Finally, all participants were asked if they agreed to the interviews being recorded, and they also received information about the purpose of the recordings.

Trustworthiness criteria have been met in the present study by credibility, dependability, and transferability (see Graneheim, 2004; Rapp et al., 2021) in the following ways.

Credibility: Desk officials and operative industrial workers may experience organizational change in different ways. By including both white- and blue-collar workers we collected different experiences and work role perspectives. By this, we obtained a wealth of information about uncertainty and procedural justice in the context of organizational change (see Bernerth et al., 2007; Morgan and Zeffane, 2003; Rashid et al., 2004; Rodell and Colquitt, 2009). Also, participants of different genders, ages and employment times within the present organization were included in the present study. This further contributed to a greater variation in experiences of the current phenomena, thereby strengthening the credibility of the present study.

Dependability was obtained by asking all participants the same interview questions and the high level of agreement between the researchers of the present study concerning all steps of the data analysis. Furthermore, an open and reflective dialogue between the researchers contributed to consistent judgements and interpretations during the data collection and analyses (see also Data analysis section).

Transferability was obtained by consistently applying two well-supported theoretical frameworks of organizational uncertainty and procedural justice. Also, transferability was facilitated by providing detailed descriptions of the pre-determined themes, quotes from respondents for each theme and by the background for organizational change and its implications. In addition, clear descriptions of the characteristics and selection of participants, and of data collection and the process of analysis contributed to transferability. Hereby, the results of the present study might to some extent be applied to other organizations, foremost private companies, where the structure, management, communication, task assignments and type of organizational change are similar to the present organization.

Only a few respondents experienced uncertainty due to the organizational change. One respondent was ambivalent and reported some aspects of uncertainty but others of no uncertainty.

Regarding trustworthiness, the respondents neither experienced the change as necessary or had trust in it. As R2 put it: “No, I do not think it is necessary, I also think that it can even be a bit dangerous. [] That is, that it becomes productively narrow and more vulnerable in that way”.

Regarding valence, it was reported that the separated business area, as perceived as the solid base for the main company, would be disconnected from the main group and that this would mean a great loss for the main company. This was considered a negative aspect of the organizational change. As one of the respondents put it: “In some way it's like you sell out the soul or the heart if you separate from the main group” (R2).

Regarding job role, it was reported that an organizational change would entail a change of the Internet system that would in turn affect employees' individual job-role in a non-predictable way: “Changing the IT system will probably mean a change in the work role [], my role may change because of it” (R7).

Justice experiences (Yes/No): Among those respondents who experienced organizational uncertainty there were experiences of both procedural justice and also lack of procedural justice.

Regarding procedural control (i.e., voice opportunity), it was reported that there had been opportunities to get in touch with the management group and present one's point of view. As R2 put it: “I could probably quite easily get in touch with those a little higher up in the organization and ask some questions, and say what I think, absolutely” (R2). However, one respondent did not experience procedural control and said: “We have discussed it in the department and so on, but it has not been something that I know that has been brought up in the organization” (R7).

When it comes to decision control, experiences of procedural justice were reported, i.e., there had been opportunities to influence the decision making: “Of course I might have been able to contribute if I had done it. [] Yes, it works both via Intranet, and it is quite open and transparent in the company, so opportunity does exist, absolutely.” (R2). However, another respondent thought that he/she had not had any influence over the decision-making process of the change.

Regarding accuracy of information, experiences of procedural justice were reported in that there had been adequate information about the change process by the Intranet and e-mail. As R2 put it: “But I think it has been, quite good. [] And they have described the process quite well, what will need to be done and eh, even the timing, that is how the schedule has looked like, with the different steps and so” (R2). Another respondent, however, thought that most of the information had come from sources other than the main company, as he/she put it: “It feels like that you get the information from the wrong source as well” (R7). Also, R7 thought that the information from the main group of the company had been irrelevant.

Several respondents reported no experiences of uncertainty regarding the organizational change. As reported above, one respondent had been ambivalent and reported both aspects of uncertainty and of no uncertainty.

Several of the respondents experienced trustworthiness in terms of economic benefits. Respondents thought that the change was motivated because it would likely increase the economic value of the business area. One respondent explained: “Yes, absolutely, if one lists the business area, we will get money. Money that we do not have today to develop” (R1). Also, the change was thought to increase the independence of the business area and, therefore was thought to be trustworthy. As one respondent put it: “That they become independent, self-governing. Yes, maybe it's for survival” (R4).

Regarding valence of the organizational change, and in line with the trustworthiness experiences, several of the participants experienced it as positive, especially in economic terms. A separation of the business area from the main company would imply new ownership and investments, which probably would be of value to the business area and the employees. One of the respondents expressed this: “After all, the new owners have money for investments. Has improved things in many companies, if it gets the right owner” (R3). Another respondent said: “Those who are interested in the shares and the company will buy more, I can only see that as positive” (R5). Also, the opportunity for self-determination would increase, which would be positive. As R4 put it:

Concerning job role, most of the respondents did not feel any uncertainty but instead experienced control. Some of the respondents thought that the digital systems might change but that this would not affect the work tasks. As one respondent put it: “We will have business as usual as well” (R1). Another respondent explained that: “Of course, there was a lot of talk about it from the beginning when you thought about what it was, but it has settled down” (R5).

Justice experiences (Yes/No): Several of the respondents without experiences of uncertainty reported experiences of procedural justice, while others did not experience any kind of procedural justice regarding the organizational change. Some respondents were ambivalent regarding procedural justice and thought that the change was procedural just in some respects but not in others.

Regarding procedural control (i.e., voice opportunity), several respondents thought that they had had the opportunity to express their point of view or concerns or put questions to the line manager at meetings or via Intranet. As one respondent put it: “Yes, you have got the opportunity to write, it's good with the Intranet that you can ask questions directly” (R6). However, a few respondents thought that they had not been able to express their thoughts and feelings regarding the change. As R4 put it: “Because we never talk about it, it becomes nothing”.

Regarding decision control, several of the respondents thought that it was more of voice opportunity than any real type of influence over the decision process of the organizational change. As R5 put it: “I have got that [voice opportunity] but not to anybody that has any right to decide. I have been able to talk to my immediate supervisor, but he/she is far from the organizational management”. Another respondent said: “It will be as it will be, but you can't do anything about it yourself” (R4). R3 said: “No, it is not anything that I can influence”

However, one respondent thought that he/she had some degree of influence due to the Webinars, where the employees could express their concerns to the main company manager. R6 said: “Yes I think so, I could even talk to him directly”.

When it comes to accuracy of information, several of the respondents thought that they had received adequate and relevant information regarding the organizational change. They thought that the change process and the time plan were described satisfactorily. Some thought that the information via Intranet and at group meetings was of value in understanding the change process. Here, R6 said: “Overall, the company is informative because you have an Intranet, and everything comes out there straight away. [] So yes, I would say that there are such opportunities. But I feel satisfied with the information”.

However, some of the respondents thought that there was a lack of adequate information, both in terms of quantity and quality. They thought that they had to find information about the organizational change by themselves. As R4 put it: “No, in the morning when you drink coffee, you usually say “did you read what was written in the newspaper”? It just becomes like that”. One of the respondents (R3) called for more informative group meetings: “You could have called like a factory meeting then [] so that those who were interested could have received a little more information”.

In sum, uncertainty was combined with justice as well as with lack of justice for each of the deductive themes (italics). Lack of uncertainty was combined with justice as well as with lack of justice for each of the deductive themes (italics). See Table 1 for details.

Strategical uncertainty, in terms of negative valence and lack of trustworthiness (Bordia et al., 2004a; Elovainio et al., 2005), has been shown to be prevalent during early stages of organizational change (Allen et al., 2007). This is in line with the present study, which investigated uncertainty of organizational change prior to implementation of the change, i.e., a pre-change uncertainty. Here, trust in the management system during organizational change is fundamental to gain support from the employees, i.e., a positive valence of the change (Cui and Jiao, 2019; Khaw et al., 2022). Trustworthiness and positive valence of the change may be facilitated by direct dialogue between employees and higher management (Løhre and Halvor Teigen, 2024; Morgan and Zeffane, 2003). This is in line with some results in the present study, where several of those participants who experienced the organizational change as necessary and positive (in terms of economic value), also thought that the information from the main company was of value and relevance. However, some of the participants who expressed no uncertainty experiences thought that information was lacking, both in terms of quantity and quality.

Also, employees may not understand the reason for change, i.e., expression of strategical uncertainty, due to lack of relevant information, that information is being communicated at an inappropriate time to the employees or that it has come from the wrong source. Due to this, the change may be negatively valued (Allen et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2004a; Khaw et al., 2022). This might also be in line with the present study, where some employees who experienced uncertainty also expressed lack of procedural justice in terms of information that had come from sources other than the main company. Also, that information provided by the main company was irrelevant. Some of the participants described that they had to find information about the organizational change by themselves. However, transparent communication and including employees in the information process have been shown to facilitate positive attitudes toward the change (Løhre and Halvor Teigen, 2024; Schulz-Knappe et al., 2019). Also, perceived justice and social support of organizational change may reduce uncertainty (see Colquitt et al., 2006; Kebede and Wang, 2022; Yin et al., 2024). In the present study, this was expressed by those respondents who described that they had been accurately informed and involved in the change procedure and who also expressed a positive valence and trustworthiness of the organizational change.

Moreover, job-related uncertainty has been shown to be widely prevalent during organizational change and has typically been experienced early in the implementation procedure (Allen et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2004a). In the present study, lack of control regarding job role was experienced prior to the implementation of the change, that is, during times of information and rumors from different sources, which also might have heightened this type of uncertainty. By this, experiences of lack of control and psychological distress may increase during the change process (Khaw et al., 2022; Yin et al., 2024, see Bordia and Difonzo, 2013 for an overview). However, distinct and clear leadership behavior and cognitive framing (thinking and communicating) of the change may mitigate employees' fear and by that facilitate implementation of the change (Hvidsten et al., 2023; Potosky and Azan, 2023).

Furthermore, previous studies have shown participation in decision-making, i.e., procedural justice experiences by decision control, to be negatively related to both strategic and job-related uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004a). Also, stronger decision control and procedural control have been shown to correlate with organizational change commitment in general (see Cobb et al., 1995; Oreg and van Dam, 2009; Reiss et al., 2019). In the present study, however, experiences of uncertainty were combined with experiences of procedural control and decision control in some cases, as well as experiences of no procedural control and no decision control in other cases. This indicates that whether uncertainty experience of organizational change is combined with experiences of- or lack of process control and decision control experiences may vary between different employees. Even though this concerns some cases, these results may challenge previous findings and theoretical accounts of the relation between uncertainty and procedural justice where this relationship is described as linear (see e.g., De Cremer and Blader, 2006; Elovainio et al., 2005; Lind, 2001; Oreg and van Dam, 2009).

Uncertainty experiences (yes/no) in the present study may be the effect of procedural justice (yes/no), i.e., procedural control, decision control and accuracy of information (yes/no) may have triggered experiences of uncertainty (yes/no). This is in line with some previous studies, where e.g. stronger perceptions of procedural justice have indirectly been shown to predict affective commitment to change, that is employees help in the implementation of the change (Kayani et al., 2022), via relational contract. Here, change commitment indicates weaker uncertainty perceptions (Bernerth et al., 2007; Cho et al., 2017). However, some of the respondents in the present study who had experiences of procedural justice also had experiences of uncertainty, and some who had experiences of no procedural justice had experiences of uncertainty regarding the organizational change. This mixed combination of uncertainty and justice experiences (yes/no) contrasts with theoretical and empirical accounts of the Uncertainty Management Model (Elovainio et al., 2005) asserting that justice perceptions may be stronger during organizational uncertainty. According to this model, employees' assessment of justice is an effective way of dealing with uncertainty, for example, during organizational change (Bordia et al., 2004a). That is, justice perceptions are triggered by uncertainty experiences. Also, uncertainty perceptions have been shown to moderate the effects of organizational justice on, e.g., job satisfaction (Wolfe et al., 2018), and uncertainty has been shown to moderate the relationship between anticipatory justice and experienced justice (Rodell and Colquitt, 2009). The results of the present study where uncertainty (yes/no) and justice experiences (yes/no) were not clearly matching each other for some cases may be due to the time context of the organizational change. The present interviews were prior to the full implementation of the organizational change. Due to this, the participants may not have developed clear uncertainty and justice experiences of the organizational change and by that some of them described a mixed experience of these phenomena. Experiences of uncertainty and justice are to a great extent a combination of work-related emotions and cognitions (Beugré, 2009; Colquitt et al., 2023; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Hillebrandt and Barclay, 2013; Howell and Sweeny, 2020) which may be dependent on time in order to be clearly developed (see Knez, 2014, 2016).

A few respondents had experiences that were in line with the Uncertainty Management Model because they reported experiences of uncertainty in combination with distinct experiences of procedural justice (yes/no). By their procedural justice judgements, these respondents may have reduced the unpleasant feeling of uncertainty. Hence, when they found themselves in unclear or unpredictable situations, their “firmly constructed fairness judgments either removed uncertainty or alleviated much of the discomfort that uncertainty would otherwise generate” (Elovainio et al., 2005, p. 2502).

Our results contribute to understanding employees' uncertainty and justice experiences of organizational change and the combined experiences of these, as complex phenomena. Employees with uncertainty experiences in combination with procedural injustice experiences may report stronger resistance to organizational change (see Allen et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2004a,b; Folger and Skarlicki, 1999), while employees with no uncertainty experiences in combination with procedural justice experiences may not only accept, but also promote implementation of organizational change (see Colquitt et al., 2006; Dhensa-Kahlon and Coyle-Shapiro, 2013; Elovainio et al., 2005). Additionally, there may be employees with uncertainty experiences in combination with procedural justice experiences, and also employees with no uncertainty experiences in combination with procedural injustice experiences. These individuals may have an ambivalent attitude, with mixed reactions, to organizational change (see Allen et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2004a,b; Colquitt et al., 2006).

Accordingly, the present study suggests the importance for employers and HRM practitioners to take employees' individual uncertainty and justice experiences, and not least the combination of these, prior to organizational changes into account. To do this they may handle and reform change reactions such as ambivalence and resistance more constructively. By unambiguous information about the organizational change and its' consequences the employer may reduce the spreading of rumors that in turn may entail uncertainty and injustice experiences. If the employer and/or HRM practitioners succeed in creating a sense of trust and justice for the employees, the organizational change may be more successfully implemented with less negative implications such as hostility, disappointment and revenge taking. This in turn may have beneficial consequences for the organization as well as the employees' wellbeing and health (see Cachón-Alonso and Elovainio, 2022; De Cremer, 2006; Knez, 2016).