Tapping resistance as a catalyst for effective and lasting change

Details

Although traditional organizational change writers have seen resistance as a hurdle for management to overcome, contemporary authors are providing a glimpse of a new perspective that sees resistance as a functional force for driving effective and lasting change. In this paper, I will review some of the traditional literature that sees resistance as a hurdle and consider traditional strategies change agents use to overcome resistance. I will also consider emerging literature that sees resistance as a natural and necessary part of the change process to identify methods for tapping resistance as a positive force for implementing organizational change. As the applied exercise for the course, I will analyze examples from personal experiences in change processes through the perspective of classical and emerging literature.


Perspectives on the definition of resistance

When implementing change initiatives, leaders hope to foster commitment and compliance from employees. However, humans are creatures of habit who naturally resist change on multiple dimensions. Defining resistance to change is an important step to understanding and managing resistance. However, organizational change literature offers various definitions that mostly view resistance from a managerial perspective, which sees resistance as a negative hurdle that management must overcome to achieve organizational goals.

Individual

Woodman and Dewett (2004) offer a definition of resistance from the perspective of individual employees, saying that resistance is an individual’s negative emotional, cognitive, and intentional response to change. The authors offer changeability, depth, and time as dimensions of individual change that help managers to understand resistance. New employees are readily changeable, making socialization a unique opportunity to make deeper and more meaningful impressions in a short period. However, the more employees settle in their roles, the more they will resist change. Similarly, those who most resist change are likely to need the change (Marcus & Weber, 2001). Woodman and Dewett propose that understanding the organizational influences on individual change provides a richer understanding for dealing with resistance to facilitate systemic change.

Unwillingness

Klein (1969) saw resistance as an unwillingness to support a change. Pideret (2000) updated this by proposing that resistance is an attitude that can be negative emotional, cognitive, and intentional responses to change.

Fear

Explaining the source of resistance from an organizational psychology perspective, Jex (2002) proposes that humans find comfort in routine and will suffer anxiety when they sense a threat to the status quo. This fear generally comes from a belief that change will have an adverse impact or from fear of the unknown.

Overt and covert

Resistance can come from a spectrum of overt and covert forms. Judson (1991) outlines a continuum of change responses to different types of resistance. On an extreme end of the spectrum are active forms of resistance, which include sabotage, work stoppages, reducing productivity to minimal levels, and protests. Resistance can also take passive forms, like doing only what is required and refusing to learn. Change efforts can also face indifference, which includes apathy and passive resignation. Finally, on the other extreme end of the spectrum, employees can openly accept the change by cooperating under coercion or with enthusiasm.

Stability

The competing managerial and critical perspectives both assume that cultural stability is the root of resistance (Nord & Jermier, 1994). From the critical perspective of workers, solidarity can resist management oppressors. From the managerial perspective, cultural hangovers constrict day-to-day processes. Marin and Frost (1996 in Hatch, 2004) called this clash the “organizational culture war games” (191). The battle lines in this war emphasize consistency, harmony, and consensus; with the perspective that culture consists of subcultures with competing epistemological positions. Organizational literature traditionally attempts to resolve the conflict by asserting that fitting employees with organizational values can create cultural harmony. The war games metaphor draws attention to debates within culture but distracts from the cultural dynamics at work within a culture (Hatch, 2004).

Struggle for domination

Malinouski (1945, in Hatch, 2004) saw stability as a counterforce to change, noting that established cultural elements acted as stabilizing forces that limited the emergence of the new system. This limitation causes three possible products of contact between cultures: conflict, cooperation, or compromise. Cultural change through planned incursions becomes domination of one group by another. In this case, resistance emerges in the struggle for domination among the groups. This means that resistance is not in the culture, but that the domination in cross-cultural relationships is accountable for resistance.

Applied to organizational change, this cross-cultural perspective helps to differentiate followers and leaders as belonging to different cultures, explaining the powerful resistance that can occur when management implements change interventions. Understanding power relations suggests that a better approach to cultural change is to not only acknowledge but to also participate in the dynamic processes that already exist in the culture, thus fitting the intervention into the flow of change and stability inherent in the culture. This requires a simultaneous focus on what to preserve and what to change, innovating cultural change by introducing new meaning through dynamic interaction.

Culture

Organizational culture is increasingly gaining attention as a target of organizational change. Writers of organizational literature traditionally focused mostly on culture as a stable force that resists change, moving only through management intervention. In a review of organizational change literature, Hatch (2004) concluded that most of the organizational change literature emphasizes the benefits of changing organizational culture to enhance performance by pitting stability against managerial demands for adaptability. However, classic writings from sociology and anthropology offer a different perspective that organizational change practitioners are starting to notice. Rather than being just a force of resistance, sociologists and anthropologists have documented interacting forces of stability and change in culture, noting the evolution and dynamics of culture.

Competing forces

Early anthropologists of cultural dynamics understood the importance of considering change in relation to stability while noting that different cultures move at different rates. Hatch (2004) proposes that the sociological and anthropological perspectives suggest two important keys for unlocking organizational dynamics. First, just as change is a constant force in humanity, change is also constant in organizational cultures. Second, just as different parts of human culture change at different rates, parts of organizational culture change while other parts remain stable. Stability and change simultaneously exist in organizational culture.


Addressing resistance

Just as resistance can take on a spectrum of overt and covert forms, change agents have a wide assortment of strategies for dealing with employee resistance to change. Early research in organizational change established participation and autonomy as standard approaches for dealing with resistance.

Using participation to drive change

Observing that people who participated in implementing a new procedure in a garment factory had record productivity, while those who did not participate lost productivity, Coch and French (1948) laid the foundation for the common practice of using participation as a means to reduce resistance to change. Trist and Bamforth (1951) found that attempts to specialize coal-mining jobs like a manufacturing line created reduced cooperation among employees, increased distrust of management, and caused disruptive behaviors that reduced productivity and increased absences.

Leaders reversed the trend by adjusting the work processes to return a sense of autonomy and satisfaction. In addition to demonstrating participation and autonomy as effective methods for handling resistance, Trist and Bamforth’s research also starts to expose an important element of resistance that researchers are just starting to notice: worker resistance can serve as a catalyst for rich and lasting change. Imposing a mechanical process on autonomous employees threatened the satisfaction and productivity of workers. In contrast, engaging the workers in the process served as a catalyst for increasing productivity, satisfaction, and organizational flexibility.

Unfreezing status quo

Understanding the status quo as the result of a quasi-stationary equilibrium helps to illuminate how increasing force changes the level of the process. As Lewin (1947) argued, “social habit” implies social process will not change because intrinsic resistance strengthens habit. Reducing resistance requires applying force sufficient to break the habit, a process called “unfreeze” the custom (p. 281). Social habits tend to be anchored in the relationship between the individual and the social group. If individual behavior deviates from the accepted group behavior, the individual faces social pressures to comply with group standards, as long as the individual values membership in the group. If individual resistance happens because of the member’s group membership, reducing individual resistance would mean diminishing the value of the group for the individual. Contrary to expectations that face-to-face encounters might be more effective at changing individuals, research is showing that individual behavior is easier to change when individuals are formed into groups than when they are separated from groups.

Spectrums of change strategy

Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) offered a spectrum of strategies for dealing with different kinds of change.

  • An Education and Communication strategy is used when people have inadequate information. This approach can foster a willingness to participate in the change but can be time-consuming. A Participation and Involvement strategy can be used when other people have important information or the power to resist. This approach adds information to change planning and builds commitment to the change but can be time-consuming.
  • A Facilitation and Support strategy can be used when resource or adjustment problems cause resistance. This approach can help to satisfy specific resource and adjustment needs but can be time-consuming and expensive.
  • A Negotiation and Agreement strategy can be used when people will lose something due to the change. This approach can help to avoid major resistance but can be expensive while laying precedence for others to seek similar arrangements.
  • A Manipulation and Cooptation strategy can be used when other methods do not work or are too expensive. This can be a quick and inexpensive path to change but can create problems when people feel they are being manipulated. An Explicit and Implicit Coercion strategy can be used when speed is important and the leader has power. This approach can quickly overpower resistance but risks creating resentment and anger.

Regardless of the approach the change agent uses, Shermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2007) argue that leaders can take action to achieve a better fit among the context, strategy, and people. This requires that leaders continuously create and adjust to feedback loops throughout the change management process.

Vocabulary of change

Woodman and Dewett (2004) offer changeability, depth, and time as vocabulary for helping leaders to understand and deal with resistance. According to Woodman and Dewett’s model, the least changeable characteristics will likely cause the strongest resistance and take the longest time to change. Understanding organizational influence on individual change can provide a richer understanding for dealing with resistance and facilitate positive change throughout the system.

Case: Reducing apprehension with engagement

High levels of communication throughout the change process can reduce apprehension (Jex, 2002; Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2007; Kotter, 1996). Explaining the reasons, benefits, and methods can help employees to understand the process. Also important here is to center communications on how changes affect the employee, not just about how the changes affect the company.

For example in developing the communications plan for outsourcing manufacturing jobs, the VP of HR for a security systems company [undisclosed name due to non-disclosure agreement] crafted a letter to the employees that began with a lengthy-expression of regret management had for making the difficult decision to outsource 300 manufacturing jobs. The plan was to announce the layoffs by distributing the letter directly to all employees in the company. Fortunately, the chief executive officer asked for some counsel from outside the executive chambers, which led to an entirely different communications strategy. Buried under two pages of management lamenting and justification was how the decision would affect the employees. Under counsel, the leaders shifted the company focus of the communications strategy to an employee focus, emphasizing the generous transition packages the company had arranged for the employees.

Because the company needed the employees to remain productive and loyal during a transition process that required parallel processes for phasing out the old while phasing in the new, the company offered employees two month’s severance pay in addition to their standard severance packages if they would help the company through the transition. More important, rather than outsourcing manufacturing to an overseas contractor, the company had negotiated a contract with a local contract-manufacturing firm, awarding the bid based on a commitment to hiring up to 90% of the company’s existing manufacturing staff.

Rather than distributing the letter, management decided to hold two simultaneous meetings, one with the manufacturing staff, the other with all the other employees whose jobs were not directly affected by the transition. The CEO and other key executives met with the manufacturing staff to lay out the program, emphasizing the benefits and detailing the steps to a successful transition. By focusing on how the layoff affected the employees and by developing parallel processes that engaged the existing employees in its transition, the company streamlined its operations with minimal negative disruption and almost full support from the employees who would be laid off.


Emotion as a catalyst for fast and lasting change

Tobey and Manning (2009) argue that emotional contagion is a predecessor to unfreezing resistance. They propose a model of emotional contagion for synchronizing individual emotions within a group so change agents can facilitate the arousal that drives change. Understanding how individual emotions synchronize to motivate group change provides insight into how change agents can use emotion to overcome resistance. This model also shows how rapid large-scale change is possible through managing individual and group emotions by addressing the defensive reasoning that strengthens resistance.

The “melting glacier” serves as a metaphor that demonstrates the point at which resistance to change shifts to motivation. Rapid change starts when emotional states become contagious enough to unfreeze habitual behavior. Arousal serves as the heating element that starts the melting process. Because emotional arousal precedes rational evaluation, group change can only happen when the unconscious arousal levels become contagious. Central to the intervention method implied by the Toby and Manning model is creating and feeding the "emotional frenzy" that fosters the herd behavior leaders can use to manipulate change. Considering the neurological processes that foster mob mentality, the authors explain how leaders throughout history have nourished the seeds of revolution, and propose a model that change agents can use to apply this power within an organizational context.

To help leaders control the "floodgates" that can overwhelm an organization when the emotional flames are put to the glacier, Tobey and Manning (2009) propose emotional intelligence training to help the leaders develop sensitivity to the emotional levels of organizational members. Introducing the concept of emotional intelligence training for the leaders is quite interesting because it is a model that fosters up an emotional frenzy to manipulate herd behavior that seems antithetical to emotional intelligence concepts.

According to Bradberry and Greeves (2005), emotional intelligence training attempts to teach people how to think before they act on emotions. EI presents a model of how experience passes through the limbic system--the part that controls automatic emotional response--and provides a visual representation of how stopping long enough to think about the experience allows time for the stimulus to be processed in the frontal lobe--the executive functioning center of the brain. EI requires effective communication between the rational and emotional centers of the brain so people can think about what they are feeling and consciously do something productive with that feeling.

The Tobey and Manning (2009) model recognize the same neurological mechanisms as EQ. However, rather than encouraging people to stop and think, the model encourages leadership to manipulate behavior while experience is still in the limbic system. This is equivalent to using the stress response to manipulate people to change.

An important point that Tobey and Manning (2009) make is that emotional stimulus tends to be a prerequisite to individual change; thinking about change is not enough to drive change. For example, knowing that proper diet and regular exercise are vital for maintaining physical health is one thing; eating right and exercising are something else. When people do take action to change eating and exercise habits, that action is usually motivated by emotional stimulus, such as a beloved relative’s death from alcohol poisoning, the upcoming class reunion, a breakup of a long-term relationship, a heart attack, getting fired, etc. Even with such strong shocks to unfreeze the status quo, resulting intrinsic motivators can have limited influence unless supported by extrinsic forces that focus energy and foster persistence to goal attainment (Latham, 2000; Locke & Latham, 2002).

Though emotion as a catalyst for change may be a relatively new concept in the organizational literature, politicians, religious leaders, marketers, magicians, and con artists have long understood the power of emotion to control people for their interests. Tobey and Manning (2009) offer Hitler as a leader who effectively used emotion to manipulate people into action. However, examples of emotional manipulation of people and society are more commonplace than this extreme example.

For example, Moveon.org compared George Bush to Hitler for tapping the emotionally charged 911 aftermath to implement the Patriot Act and promote a Republican agenda (Associated Press, 2010). Similarly, the North Iowa Tea Party compared Barack Obama to Hitler and Lenin for feeding an emotional frenzy to promote democratic socialism (Fox News, 2004). Special interest groups and media from across the political spectrum used accusations of both comparisons to fan emotional frenzy for their causes.

Case study: Backfire

A caveat for change leaders is that using emotion to manipulate individuals and groups can cause adverse consequences for the change agent. For example, from personal experience, a new high school principal fired all experienced teachers and replaced them with new inexperienced teachers who aligned with her political perspectives. The principal used emotional appeals to manipulate the group to organize to protect her political interests. As the teachers adjusted to their environment, they began to realize the manipulative tactics the principal was using and joined external political forces to oust her from the school. Another example would be the cacophony of emotional appeals from political and special interests that followed 9/11 with competing factions attempting to whip up an emotional frenzy to drive change within their interests.

I propose that emotional manipulation seems to work on the stupid, inexperienced, immature, vulnerable, and consciously willing; but may have limited influence or even be counter-productive when attempted on the experienced, mature, intelligent, capable, and skeptical. A lesson from the marketing world applies here: different approaches work with different people depending on different factors, while some appeals will not work on some of the people any time. Leaders who rely on emotion as a tool to break down resistance in individuals and groups should be aware the risks of backlash when people realize they are being emotionally manipulated.

 


Employees as enablers of change

The assumption that employees will resist change drove research into the actions of managers and workers who made the agency the sole “property of an elite coalition of senior executives” (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 2004, p. 176). At the same time, the perspective relegated all workers into a category of homogenous resisters who had no power to change the organization but held power to block the changes the organization needed. Contemporary research is starting to question the assumption that employees will automatically resist change.

Analyzing traditional research from a different perspective, Drazin, et al. (2004) expose a crack in the traditional perspective on resistance by concluding that employees significantly influenced the changes that took place in the organization. This exposes an important point that tends to be missing from traditional perspectives: people have the capacity to recognize necessary change, and the ability to engage in driving change. Dent and Goldberg (1999) propose that the roots of employee resistance are not necessarily in the people but in the organizational obstacles that inhibit change.

Kotter (1996) supported this argument in a study of 100 companies that showed employees typically wanted to change; however, change was blocked not by the employees, but by systemic obstacles, like policy, process, and structure. This highlights the importance of a systems perspective for identifying interacting barriers to change. By having a myopic focus on employee resistance, leaders can overlook the organizational barriers to change, while missing the opportunity to tap employees as a powerful force for addressing the problem.

Reay, Golden-Biddle, and Germann (2006) provide additional evidence that employees may not be the hurdle that the traditional perspective sees by showing how existing employees can be vital forces for organizational change because they have intimate experience with the systemic barriers to change. The traditional perspective predicts that established employees will resist change because their work behaviors are fixed, requiring external interventions that unfreeze the status quo (Lewin, 1951; 1947) while eliminating obstacles to change (Kotter, 1996). This can mean replacing resistant workers with willing workers to accelerate change initiatives. However, in a four-year study of two Canadian medical facilities, Reay, et al. found that “embedded” employees contributed to change initiatives by applying their experience, connections, and familiarity with the culture and people.

Reay, et al. (2006) concluded that insiders could accomplish change that outsiders could not because the insiders held deep knowledge of structure, culture, and politics to drive the changes they want. Regardless of how willing and moldable new employees might be, they could face the same structural and political barriers faced by the employees they replaced. Considering the structural, cultural, political, and cognitive components of “embeddedness” provides an opportunity to understand how established employees create change.

Woodman and Dewett (2004) offer a model that provides insights about sources of resistance through understanding the organizational influences on individual behavior. The antecedents of individual change include organizational socialization processes, organizational training, organizational change programs, and managerial behaviors. These antecedents can have intentional and unintentional influences on individual change. These effects are moderated by changeability, depth, and time. Individual change encompasses changes in behavior and changes in cognitive, affective, and conative characteristics of the individual. Fully understanding organizational change requires understanding how individuals influence the organization and how the organization changes individuals. Understanding individual change journeys within an organizational construct can provide a more complete understanding of organizational change.

 


Resistance as a vital feedback mechanism for effective change

Rather than perceiving resistance as an obstacle to overcome, leaders may find that shifting perspective to seeing resistance as a natural phenomenon that escalates with emotional investment can offer an opportunity for tapping resistance as a feedback mechanism that fosters effective and lasting change. Klein (1969) alluded to this perspective when he noted that inconvenience, fear, insecurity, and momentum are not the only reasons people resist change. People might also resist because something is important to them and they care enough to protect their interests. Applied in an organizational environment, this means that resistance can be a sign that employees are interested in preserving and strengthening the company. Toby and Manning (2009) helped to illuminate how this emotional investment can be a source of fast and lasting change if managed properly.

In seeing resistance as a feedback mechanism, leaders can also broaden insight to the systemic factors that may contribute to or cause resistance, rather than restrict efforts to overcoming resistance that they may not understand. Taking a systems perspective can help leaders identify legitimate reasons for adjusting change initiatives. People might resist because management has used the wrong change strategy. Attempting to force change without engaging those responsible for the change is likely to trigger shock and anxiety that could doom the change effort. People might also resist because they have legitimate concerns about the viability of the change initiative. For example, new management may be attempting to implement change similar to a failed change attempt by prior management.

People may also have resistance to the change team, who they could perceive as self-interested outsiders who care little about the employee’s needs. Observing how employees interpret and respond to the change team could be vital feedback for helping management know whether to take a different approach. Employees also could resist because they know something about the process that management has not identified. For example, employees may have experienced a similar failed change attempt with prior leadership or might know about policies and laws that inhibit the proposed change.

Case: Entrenched bureaucracy embraces status quo

For example (author, personal experience) from personal experience, a new commander of a military base [undisclosed] developed a proposal to offer doctoral-level programs to active duty personnel through the educational services function under her command. The commander asked the educational service officer, a civilian, to implement the plan. The ESO resisted to the point of obstinacy, knowing that the commanding officer could not fire him because he was a civilian. He confided that he would “just wait out” the commander because the military leaders rotate every six to twenty-four months.

Something else he did not tell the commander was why he resisted: he knew of a military policy that specifically prohibited the change the commander wanted to implement. By withholding such information, he hoped to put the commander in an embarrassing position of escalating an order for a prohibited program. The commander fell into the trap. Interpreting the resistance as a hurdle, she escalated assertiveness to push the program. Had the commander considered the resistance as feedback rather than opposition the commander may have been able to discover the reasons for the resistance while illuminating the political dynamics that contributed to her short tenure and the continuance of the status quo. 

 


Hidden resistance

Leaders who face no overt resistance may be facing hurdles that are more imposing and dangerous. Lack of resistance can mean that employees are highly apathetic or they will covertly sabotage the change effort. Regarding apathy, Marcus and Weber (2001) warned that passive adaptation can have adverse consequences because followers are likely to adhere strictly to the letter of the law without achieving necessary results. To Marcus and Weber, failure to develop commitment before imposing change will strengthen passive resistance through which people do what leaders tell them while not changing. This implies that autonomy is necessary for people to internalize change; as long as people are dependent on external forces for implementing the change they are likely to revert to prior practices whenever the external force subsides.

Case: Preserving the consensus

Covert resistance can be more challenging to deal with because leaders cannot identify the source. People might seem exuberant or accepting on the surface, but actively work in the background to sabotage the change. The idea of covert resistance is on my mind as I develop a strategy to apply a collaborative learning model in a Japanese college classroom. Almost everything about collaborative learning is contrary to Japanese education practice, which is a system designed to train students to pass tests, with little emphasis on learning and application of knowledge (Goodman, 2003). The test focus is so honed that many college students rarely attend class; rather, they buy the lecture notes from students who do attend class and cram for the final exam.

The Japanese higher education system is struggling to regain relevancy in a global economy through major reforms. However, despite declining enrollment and failing universities, reformers face rigid barriers in a static system. A president of a struggling private university in Northern Japan has asked me to present a proposal for how he might invigorate student development in his classroom by introducing collaborative learning processes. However, even with his support, I expect that the students, faculty, and system will be highly resistant. Most of the resistance will be the passive kind because the Japanese avoid conflict at all costs to preserve harmony; which is part of the reason their education system and economy are in perpetual crisis.

A challenge will be that I push too hard or implement the wrong plan, which would not only cause my experiment to fail but also will eliminate opportunities to work in the system. Even though Hatch (2004) would recommend that changing culture at the assumption level requires a revolutionary approach, I am hoping to have the time to build a successful model that serves as an alternative that taps into the emerging needs of local Japanese students and businesses by aligning classroom practice with societal values.

Case: Leveraging engagement to reduce resistance

Of course, lack of resistance can also be a positive sign that indicates leaders have engaged stakeholders in developing the change process and addressing points of resistance as part of the proposal.

For example, I was responsible for developing and implementing a program for bringing the computerized products of a global security electronics company into Y2K compliance. The stakeholders included a global network of sales representatives and dealers, 25 years of customers, and the internal employees who would be responsible for implementing the changes. Developing the plan involved dozens of meetings with representatives from each stakeholder group. A strategy I used was to compile all stakeholder information into proposals that I would float as trial balloons. The more the stakeholders thought the proposals were finished products, the more heated their feedback.

The process was turbulent and contentious, partly because that was the nature of the culture. I dreaded my presentation of the program to the annual international dealer’s meeting, an event that was typically contentious. I was especially nervous because I watched while executives skillfully deflected continuous questions about Y2K strategy by telling them that I would address it; it was like I was being set up for a verbal lashing from 700 angry dealers and salespeople. I was surprised that I did not receive a single question at the end of my presentation. The lack of questions caused me concern. Taking my seat next to the VP of sales, I said, "they're so quiet are they planning to lynch me?" He responded, "You just showed them how they're going to get rich through this process; their silence reflects their joy."

The key to the successful program launch was that I had identified and dealt with resistance factors before launching the product. Another key to the successful launch and subsequent implementation was that I had approached the Y2K as a marketing issue instead of an engineering and logistics issue. Most of the preliminary concerns had been about the engineering and logistics challenge of making 25 years of complex systems Y2K compliant. I focused first on explaining how Y2K offered an opportunity for dealers to renew financial relationships with 25 years of customers, who were just as anxious about Y2K compliance as they were. I also presented research showing how many of their customers would be more interested in completely updating their security with entirely new systems, not just in updating the old systems. In short, the dealers had been concerned about implementation challenges but left understanding that they faced an opportunity to make money. The ultimate feedback on the program was in the 350% increase in sales activities leading to Y2K.

 


Conclusion

Traditional change literature typically sees resistance from a managerial perspective that regards resistance as a negative hurdle that to overcome so leadership can achieve organizational goals. However, recent authors are beginning to recognize that resistance is not only a natural and necessary component of any change process but also a positive force that can be tapped for more effective and lasting change.

Just as definitions and types of resistance can vary, change agents have a varied assortment of strategies they can use to manage resistance for a positive outcome.

Coch and French (1948) offered participation as an effective tool for fostering stakeholder ownership and commitment to change. Lewin (1947) presented a model that helps change agents break social habits by unfreezing the status quo and manipulating people and processes toward the desired state.

Tobey and Manning (2009) argued that agents can use emotional contagion to unfreeze resistance. I recognize that fostering emotional frenzy is a change tool that leaders have historically used to manipulate change on individual, group, and societal levels but offer a warning that leaders who rely on emotion as a tool to break down resistance in individuals and groups should be aware the risks of backlash when people realize they are being emotionally manipulated.

Kotter and Schlesigner (1979) offered education and communication, participation and involvement, manipulation and cooptation, and coercion as possible strategies for dealing with different kinds of resistance.

Woodman and Dewett (2004) offered a model for differentiating among changeable and unchangeable characteristics so leaders can focus limited resources on areas they are more likely to influence.

High levels of communication throughout the change process can help to reduce apprehension, but management must be careful to focus communications on how the changes affect the employees, not just on the company. While most literature focuses on employees and culture as barriers to change, I argued that resistance is not only a natural part of any change process, resistance is a vital form of feedback that can help leaders to create and drive more effective change initiatives.

In addition to changing perspectives on resistance as a negative hurdle to a positive force, I argued that leaders should be more concerned when they do not see resistance to a change proposal. Lack of resistance can be a sign that employees are apathetic or will covertly act to disrupt the change process. The level of resistance can be indicative of the level of investment individuals have in the status quo, and can say more about the resistors than about the desired change.

 


References

Associated Press. (2010, July 14). Iowa billboard linking Obama, Hitler removed. (L. Merideth, Editor, A. Press, Producer, & Associated Press) Retrieved August 24, 2010, from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iowa_obama_billboard

Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2005). The emotional intelligence quick book: Everything you need to know to put your EQ to work. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Coch, L., & French, J. J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 512-532.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (2004). Dynamics of structural change. In M. S. Poole, & A. H. Van de Ven, Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 161-189). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fox News. (2004, January 6). Ad comparing Bush to Hitler gets heat. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107426,00.html

Goodman, R. (2003). The why what and how of educational reform in Japan. In R. Goodman, D. Phillips, R. Goodman, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Can the Japanese change their education system? (pp. 7-30). Oxford, England: Symposium Books.

Hatch, M. J. (2004). Dynamics in organizational culture. In M. S. Poole, & A. H. Van de Ven, Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 190-211). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Judson, A. S. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Klein, D. (1969). Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to change. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin, The Planning of Change (pp. 498–507). New York, NY: Rinehart and Winston.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57, 109-112.

Latham, G. P. (2000). Motivate performance through goal setting. In E. A. Locke, Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (p. 445). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. (D. Cartwright, Ed.) New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.

Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. In T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley, Readings in social psychology (pp. 340-44). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705–717.

Marcus, A., & Weber, M. (2001). Externally induced innovation. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. Angle, & M. S. Poole, Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies (pp. 537-560). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nord, W. R., & Jermier, J. M. (1994). Overcoming resistance to resistance: Insights from a study of the Shadows. Public Administration Quarterly, 17 (4), 396-409.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academic of Management Review, 25, 783-794.

Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. (2006). Legitimizing a New Role: Small Wins and Micro processes of Change. Academic of Management Journal, 49 (5), 977-998.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2007). Organizational Behavior (9th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tobey, D. H., & Manning, M. R. (2009). Melting the glacier: Activating Neural Mechanisms to create rapid large-scale organizational change. Organizational Change and Development, 17, 175-209.

Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long-wall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3-38.

Woodman, R. W., & Dewett, T. (2004). Organizationally relevant journeys in individual change. In M. S. Poole, & A. H. Van de Ven, Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 32-49). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.