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.