Enhancing the success oforganizational change

Matching readiness strategies with sources ofresistance

Dennis R. Self and Mike SchraederTroy University Montgomery, Montgomery, Alabama, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to provide guidance on specific ways by which organizations canovercome resistance by matching readiness strategies with forms of resistance.

Design/methodological approach – The paper summarizes literature on resistance to change andreadiness to change, leading to the development of specific recommendations for reducing resistancethrough specific readiness strategies.

Findings – Resistance, though common, may be more effectively managed if specific readinessstrategies are matched with requisite sources of resistance.

Practical implications – The paper provides guidance on addressing primary sources of resistanceby matching them with specific elements proposed by Armenakis et al. that lead to readiness forchange.

Originality/value – The synthesis of literature related to creating readiness for change andresistance to change leads to a resistance to change typology, including three domains. While thesedomains have been addressed in change literature, the paper further expands on these domains byoffering potential sources of resistances within each domain. This should lead to future research thatexplores these domains and sources within each domain in greater depth.

Keywords Organizational change, Change management, Strategic change

Paper type Conceptual paper

It is readily acknowledged that organizations experience change on an ongoing basis.Indeed, within the last few decades, organizations have been exposed to globalenvironment changes (Ghoshal, 1987), workforce changes (Lerman and Schmidt, 2002),technological changes (e.g. Connor, 1992; Wanberg and Banas, 2000), an increasinglycompetitive environment (David, 2006) and an economic environment that isincreasingly volatile (Hoskisson et al., 2000). For the sake of survival, organizationshave attempted to anticipate and adapt to these changes through strategies includingorganizational redesign (Greenwood and Hinings, 1988), which often embodieschanging the very culture of the organization (Gilmore et al., 1997). Organizationsfailing to adapt or respond to these changes in a timely fashion run the risk of losingmarket share to competitors, losing key employees, jeopardizing shareholder support,and possibly even demise (Collins, 2001; Vollman, 1996).

The first challenge organizations face is recognizing the need for change. Thesecond, and possibly more significant, challenge organizations face is effectivelydeploying strategies to implement change. Contemporary literature outlines amultitude of various strategies for implementing change in an organization

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Organizationalchange

167

Received January 2008Revised October 2008

Accepted October 2008

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal

Vol. 30 No. 2, 2009pp. 167-182

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0143-7739

DOI 10.1108/01437730910935765

(cf. Armenakis et al., 1999; Beer et al., 1990a; Caruth et al., 1995; Galpin, 1996; Huy,2001; Kotter, 1995; Leppitt, 2006; Nadler, 1998). However, most major changes fall shortof intended goals (Gilmore et al., 1997). In fact, several sources suggest that at least halfof all change efforts fail to meet the anticipated objectives (e.g. Choi and Behling, 1997;Maurer, 1996; Pascale et al., 1997).

While the causes of these piteous results are, arguably, multi-faceted, one of theplausible antecedents to the failure of change could be that organizational managershave failed to understand fully what is necessary in guiding their organizationsthrough a change initiative. Proper planning of the implementation can help mitigatethe likelihood of failure of change and also help prevent other undesirableconsequences such as reduced employee morale, diminished commitment andincreased cynicism (Gilmore et al., 1997; Kim and Mauborgne, 1993; Nutt, 1986;Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). An essential component of properly planning theimplementation of a change initiative is the recognition of possible employee resistancetoward change (Del Val, 2003; Ford et al., 2001). It is important to consider this in theplanning efforts since resistance to change is considered by some to be the mostsignificant threat to the successful implementation of strategic initiatives (Geisler,2001; Maurer, 1996).

Fortunately, effective planning and management of the change process is notimpossible. Through the use of previously developed change strategies, it is possiblefor organizational leaders to increase the likelihood of a successful changeimplementation. There are a number of models from which change leaders maydraw (c.f. Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996; Nadler, 1998). One model applying specificstrategies to a change initiative is the institutionalization of change model developedby Armenakis et al. (1999). The model focuses on the creation of readiness for change,guiding the organizational members to adopt the change, ultimately incorporating thechange into the very culture and fabric of the organization.

The purpose of this article is to summarize specific resistance beliefs, and, throughthe application of the five elements of the readiness for change message developed byArmenakis et al. (1993, 1999) provide a summary of possible strategies fortransforming these resistance beliefs to readiness beliefs that will ultimately supportthe change, thus increasing the likelihood of success.

Resistance to changeMaurer (1996) defines resistance as, “a force that slows or stops movement” (p. 23),with Bridges (1986) suggesting that it is an incomplete transition in responding tochange. Similarly, Kotter (1995) suggests that resistance is an obstacle in anorganization’s structure that prevents change. Other researchers define resistance tochange by its displayed behaviors. For example, Hultman (1995) argued that resistanceconsists of two dimensions: active and passive. Active resistance includes behaviorssuch as being critical, selective use of facts, sabotaging, and starting rumors. Passiveresistance is displayed by behaviors such as public support, but failure to implementthe change, procrastinating, and withholding information or support.

Palmer et al. (2006) framed their discussion of resistance to change in terms of whypeople resist change, drawing from a number of sources (e.g. Dym, 1999; Maurer, 1996;Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). While there are numerous studies addressing positedreasons why people resist change, there is not a common typology that

LODJ30,2

168

comprehensively addresses all potential sources of resistance. However, Holt et al.(2007) offer insight into this topic through their observation that change readinessscales typically assess along four dimensions, including the content of the change, thecontext of the change, the change process and factors related to individuals involved inthe changes. Considering the close relationship between readiness and resistance, thesefour common dimensions serve as a robust foundation for the development of aresistance typology. For the purpose of this article, the readiness dimension of changecontext will be embodied in the resistance domain of organizational factors, thereadiness dimension of individual attributes will be embodied within the resistancedomain of personal factors, and the readiness dimensions of content and process willbe included into a single resistance domain, labeled change specific factors. Thesedomains, as well as potential sources within each domain are summarized in Table I.These domains of resistance will be used as framework for identifying possiblereadiness strategies for reducing resistance in subsequent sections of this article.

The first domain in Table I, personal factors as a potential source of resistance tochange, encompasses numerous facets to consider. These facets include, but are notlimited topersonal attributes suchasdisposition, current issues inan individual’s life,andeven concerns related to their personal external environment. In regard to personalattributes, for example, individuals may simply possess a low tolerance for change(Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). In other cases, individuals may resist change simplybecause the change represents uncertainty, and they fear the unknown (Karim andKathawala, 2005; Visagie and Botha, 1998). Coupled with uncertainty, individuals mighteven resist change because they are concerned about their own personal failure (Mink,1992).

From a dispositional perspective, it is instructive to consider the “Big 5” personalitytype, openness to experience, with individuals high in this trait depicted as being moreopen minded and willing to attempt new things (Nikolaou et al., 2007). Conversely,individuals with lower levels of the trait, openness to experience, are likely to be lessinterested in trying new things. Intuitively, then, this can be applied to the context ofchange since organizational change often requires individuals to engage in newroutines and activities. Thus, individuals with lower levels of openness to experience

Domain Potential sources within the domain

Personal factors Personal concerns and attributes that evoke dislikeor aversion to change in generalCurrent issues in personal life that make changeunappealingConcerns over issues in the external environment

Organizational factors The history of change within the organizationCredibility of the organizationCredibility of the change agent

Change-specific factors (content and process) The change is not perceived as right or needed forthe organizationThe process of planning the change was flawedConcerns about the interpersonal impact of thechange

Table I.Domains of resistance to

change and associatedsources

Organizationalchange

169

might be less supportive of organizational changes and more prone to resist change tothe extent that it requires them to engage in new activities.

On a final note related to personal factors as sources of resistance to change, it isreadily acknowledged that individuals have a multitude of needs. Maslow (1987)developed a widely accepted hierarchy of needs that are common to most individuals.It is edifying to consider this hierarchy, elucidating five levels of individual needs, inthe context of resistance to change. The second level in hierarchy, safety needs, reflectan individual’s “. . . need to operate in an environment that is physically andpsychologically safe and secure, one free from threats of harm” (Greenberg and Baron,2008, p. 251). Thus, it could be argued that anything in an individual’s environmentwhich poses a threat to their security could be potential source of resistance. In linewith this assertion, striving for security is among the reasons for resistance to changelisted by Visagie and Botha (1998). This resistance could be prompted by personalconcerns related to the fear of losing a job or a reduction in benefits. It could also extendto the individuals non-work life (Palmer et al., 2006), wherein other factors that threatenthe perception of security, ranging from personal illness, loss of a close relative or lovedone, or even the threat of a natural disaster could conceivably have an indirect effect onan individuals resistance to change, prompted by the fact that they are concernedabout other issues in their lives. These concerns in their personal lives could lead to asense of instability that is, then, extended to the work environment, where their senseof instability could make them less willing to support organizational changes becausethey are preoccupied with issues in their personal lives.

In addition to personal factors, there are also a host of organizational factors thatcould evoke resistance to change. Organizational factors leading to resistance couldinclude the perceived credibility of the organization, the perceived credibility of thoseleading the change, and also the organization’s history or track record related tochange. Karim and Kathawala (2005), for example, list distrust of management as asignificant cause of resistance. In this same study, politics is also offered as one of theprimary antecedents of resistance. Similarly, Mink (1992) lists lack of trust in the oneinitiating the change as a possible source of resistance.

Over time, organizations undertake a number of changes. In turn, individualsdevelop a sense of an organization’s history as it relates to change (Palmer et al., 2006).If organizations have successfully implemented changes in the past, individuals mighthave more confidence in the probability of success for current changes, and, thus, beless likely to demonstrate resistance. On the other hand, some organizations have atrack record of botched change attempts that could lead to a sense of cynicism amongstemployees (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). This is important to note since researchershave found that resistance is related to cynicism (Stanley et al., 2005). Aside from theorganization’s history of change, individuals may also resist change because theyperceive that there are too many changes being undertaken simultaneously (Mink,1992; Palmer et al., 2006).

The third domain of resistance shown in Table I embodies factors specific to thechange itself. These factors might include the processes undertaken to implementthe change (Palmer et al., 2006), as well as the specific content encompassed within thechange. With regard to process related resistance, individuals perceiving thatprocesses were flawed may have a tendency to exhibit higher levels of resistance thanthose who perceived the process to be logical and equitable. Moreover, those who are

LODJ30,2

170

directly impacted by the change may have a tendency to resist the change if they arenot included in the process of planning the change (Mink, 1992).

Resistance may also result from factors related specifically to the content of thechange. For example, individuals may lack clarity or understanding related to thechange, thus resulting in resistance (Alas, 2007). Furthermore, individuals may notview the change, itself, as being appropriate for the organization, thus prompting themto resist the change. This particular source of resistance is directly related to thespecific nature or content of the change. Concerns about the content of the change maylead to additional resistance if individuals perceive that the change will have anundesirable impact on them (Carter, 2008). The perceived negative impact, in turn,could include concerns about how the change may impact their job, how the changemay impact their friendships (Karim and Kathawala, 2005) and also how the changemay impact interactions with valued coworkers (Klaus, 1997).

It is important to note, as Palmer et al. (2006) contend, that resistance to changecomes not just from employees, but management as well. Jacobsen (2008), for example,notes that resistance may result from middle managers failing to get involved in thechange process. Typical conversations about resistance to change inevitably lead to anindictment of lower level employees (Piderit, 2000) when, in fact, resistance can occur atany level within the organization since leaders and managers are prone to resist changefor the same reasons as the other levels employees (e.g. Agocs, 1999; Audia et al., 2000).

The concept of resistance to change is not without its critics. Wheatley (in Maurer,1996) said:

I absolutely believe that the whole focus on resistance to change is just a by-product of verybad change processes. The resistance we are experiencing in organizations says nothingabout human nature or our innate ability to deal with change in a changing world (p. 51).

Wheatley’s comment reinforces a contention, noted earlier, that change initiatives oftentend to fail because of “bad change processes.” As Piderit (2000) noted:

Successful organizational adaptation is increasingly reliant on generating employee supportand enthusiasm for proposed change, rather than merely overcoming resistance (p. 783).

Thus, the first step in the process of implementing a change initiative is creatingreadiness for the change.

Readiness for changeThe genesis of readiness lies in Lewin’s (1947) concept of unfreezing or gettingorganizational members to let go, both physically and psychologically, of the currentways of doing things within the organization. Management must provide evidence thatthe current ways are no longer acceptable or appropriate if the organization is toremain successful or regain success.

One approach to creating readiness (as well as managing the changeimplementation process) was proposed by Kotter and Schlesinger (1979). Theyoffered six methods including, among others, education and communication,participation and involvement, facilitation and support, and even explicit andimplicit coercion. However, Armenakis et al. (1993, 1999) defined readiness as thecognitive evaluation made by the member that can lead to the member’s support for orresistance to the change initiative. Thus, if creating readiness is the first step of the

Organizationalchange

171

implementation process and is properly done, employees should be more willing tosupport and ultimately adopt the change. If this first step is neglected, however, someemployees may actively or passively resist the change initiative.

The comprehensive and pragmatic nature of Armenakis et al.’s (1999)characterization of change readiness, coupled with prolific citations of this model innumerous other contemporary studies, make Armenakis et al.’s (1999) modelparticularly appealing in the context of this article. Armenakis et al. (1999) believedthat readiness for change is created in the message delivered by management to theemployees. The introduction of a new change initiative can create uncertainty andconcern for the future in the minds of organizational members. The change message isused to address the uncertainty and concern by answering five questions:

(1) Is the change necessary?

(2) Is the change being introduced the right change to make?

(3) Are key organizational members supportive of the change?

(4) Do I or we (the organizational members) have the ability to successfullyimplement the change?

(5) What is in it for me if we change?

These questions are answered through five components of the change message.The first component of the change message, labeled discrepancy by Armenakis et al.

(1993, 1999) answers the first question, “Is the change necessary?” Discrepancy isdefined as the difference between the current state and an ideal or desired state. Untilorganizational members are aware that the current state is not desired and that adifferent state is preferred, there will be no incentive to consider a change. Beer et al.(1990a) argued that change will not occur until organizational members recognize thatthere is a “clear and present danger; a tangible and immediate problem that must beconfronted if the organization is to remain economically viable” (p. 55). Coch andFrench’s (1948) comparison of their plant’s product (pajamas) with those made by acompetitor is an example of creating this awareness. In another example, Galpin (1996)described a petro-chemical company that used industry benchmarks to demonstrate toits employees the necessity of a specific change.

The second component of the change message is appropriateness. This componentanswers the question, “Is this the right change?” When a change initiative is introducedinto an organization, it must be recognized that this is not done in a vacuum. Inrecognizing the need to change, employees will ask, “change to what?” Not only mustmanagement demonstrate there is a need to change, they must also provideinformation that the proposed change initiative is the correct one. Beckhard and Harris(1987) observed that the key diagnostic question to answer in introducing a changeinitiative is what the initiative is intended to correct or improve. Yet, managementmust recognize even if organizational members agree that a change is necessary, theymay still disagree with the proposed change initiative (Kissler, 1991). Kissler describedan organization in which management pushed to create a more participativeenvironment, getting organizational members more involved to improveorganizational effectiveness. While mid-level supervisors agreed with the need toimprove the organization’s effectiveness, they were not in favor of shifting to a moreparticipative workplace. However, not only does there have to be agreement that the

LODJ30,2

172

proposed change initiative is appropriate, but also there must be agreement that theinitiative is congruent with the culture, structure, formal systems, etc. of theorganization (Buller et al., 1985). Thus, the change initiative’s fit with the organizationis as important as whether or not the initiative is the right one.

The third component of the change message is principal support. This componentanswers the question, “Who supports this change?” For Armenakis et al. (1999)principal support was necessary to, “provide information and convince organizationalmembers that the formal and informal leaders are committed to successfulimplementation . . . of the change” (p. 103). When a change initiative is introduced,organizational members will look to see if management is serious about the proposedchange, especially if there was no follow-through for past change initiatives or if thepast changes failed. Attempting to make sense of the change initiative andmanagement’s motives, organizational members will seek information from sourcesother than those managers introducing the change. The sources typically consideredby employees are those viewed as reliable. Larkin and Larkin (1994) observed that“Programs don’t change workers – supervisors do” (p. 85). Larkin and Larkin believedthat the frontline supervisor is the most important individual in enlisting support fromorganizational members for a change initiative. When leadership announces a change,an employee often turns to his or her immediate supervisor for an explanation of themeaning of the change. If the immediate supervisor is also unaware of the justificationfor the change, readiness could be impacted for both the member and the supervisor.Likewise, an employee’s peers are also important in providing meaning to a proposedchange initiative. Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999) found that while organizationalmembers in a hospital did not trust top management, they trusted the perceptions oftheir peers.

Although evidence has been presented for the importance of immediate supervisorsand peers in creating readiness for change, it should not be assumed that this level ofsupport is the only level that matters. Change is typically introduced by and driven bytop management. Thus, their reactions to a proposed change initiative carries greatweight in the minds of organizational members. Covin and Kilmann (1990), forexample, reported that the visibility of support for and commitment to a changecreated a positive perception of the change, whereas, a visible lack of support orinconsistent behaviors on the part of management led to a negative perception of thechange. A final example of the importance of principal support was described byVollman (1996). Vollman was a consultant for a firm with a management informationsystem that was in disarray. Vollman and his associates recommended a new systemto bring order to the organization. Nevertheless, a key executive, who opposed thechange, held so much power within the organization that Vollman and his associatesalso recommended that the organization wait until the executive completed hisscheduled retirement before implementing the needed change.

The fourth message component proposed by Armenakis et al. (1999) is that ofefficacy. Efficacy addresses the question of “Can I/we successfully make this change?”Bandura and Locke (2003) define efficacy as, “. . . the power to produce desired effects;otherwise one has little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties” (p. 87).Galpin (1996) contends that management has the responsibility to provideorganizational members with the training and education needed to implementsuccessfully a change initiative. This is important because employees may lack the

Organizationalchange

173

confidence that the change can be successfully implemented. Past failures bymanagement to provide such education or training to prepare the organization forchange can lead to employees lacking confidence in themselves to be successful inimplementing a change. This can also lead to employees having a lack of confidence inmanagement’s ability to lead them in implementing the change. Conversely,management may even doubt the abilities of the organization’s employees to besuccessful, or their own abilities. This perspective fits research by Ketterer and Chayes(1995), McCall (1993), and Vollman (1996). Ketterer and Chayes (1995) suggested thatorganizations must develop the leadership talent necessary to enable the organizationto meet the challenges of a changing environment. Thus, development and training ofpotential leaders is imperative. McCall (1993) observed that failing to select, train, andpromote individuals equipped to deal with a changing environment could lead to amanagement team’s being ill-equipped to recognize the need for change, and thensuccessfully guide the organization through the process of change. Finally, Vollmancontended that the high-failure rates observed in change initiatives could be a result ofmanagement’s failure to understand the knowledge, skill, and ability requirementsnecessary for an organization to be successful in implementing a change initiative.

The final component of the change message for creating readiness is valence. Whenfaced with a change in their present situation, employees frequently ask, silently orvocally, “What’s in it for me/us?” Armenakis et al. (1993, 1999) observed if theindividual, impacted by a deviation from present policies or procedures, perceivedthere was no benefit to changing, or if the pain of changing outweighed the gain fromchanging, then the employee would resist the change. Conversely, if it can bedemonstrated that the member would be better off from the change, at least in the longrun, the member would be more likely to embrace the change. This evaluativejudgment of the change is a key component of valence. Goodman et al. (1980) focusedon the attractiveness of the change outcomes. Thus, it is not just whether or not there isa benefit to changing, but how attractive the benefit is to the member. Even ifmanagement has demonstrated there is a need for a particular change initiative and theorganization will be better off for it, and even if the employee recognizes this, he or shewill still focus on how the change individually impacts him or her.

Judson (1996) applied a relational framework to how organizational members viewchange. Faced with a change initiative, organizational members seek to understandhow the initiative will impact their jobs, their relationships with their coworkers, to theorganization itself. Viewed through an efficacy lens, members might worry that theyare not capable of making the necessary-job-related changes to continue to perform inthe organization. Also, supervisors may resist any change perceived to undermine theirauthority. Klein (1984), for example, found that supervisors tended to resist changesassociated with employee-involvement programs if the programs were perceived bythe supervisors as leading to a loss of supervisor authority.

The next section provides specific suggestions or strategies for applying these fivecomponents to the four sources of resistance identified earlier. However, it is importantto iterate that each of the five components of the change readiness message do notstand-alone. Each component is interrelated with the others, influencing or shaping theothers. The components are additive in nature, as well, shaping both the nature of thereadiness for change message and organizational members’ readiness for change.

LODJ30,2

174

The change readiness matrixCertain readiness components are better suited for preventing or minimizing thelikelihood of resistance to change. By arranging the five readiness components(Armenakis et al., 1999) with the three major sources of resistance, identified earlier inTable I, in a matrix form, potential relationships between the components andperceptions can be seen (Table II).

Personal factorsThere is a consensus among many managers and consultants that people typicallydislike change. However, as Dent and Powley (2003) observed, not all change isperceived as bad by organizational members. While organizational members mayagree that a change is necessary, they may believe that the change initiative proposedby management will not work (Kissler, 1991). A perceived dislike of change can liewithin a context of efficacy and valence. Change that leaves an organizational memberfeeling vulnerable in terms of his or her ability to successfully take part in the changecan trigger resistance towards the change. As Galpin (1996) noted, a lack of confidencein one’s ability to adapt to a particular change initiative can lead to resistance towardit. By communicating, management can create the belief among employees that theappropriate training and education will be provided (principal support and efficacy),and that those receiving the training and education will benefit in terms of the ability toperform and take advantage of opportunities that may arise from implementation ofthe change initiative (valence).

Most people dislike ambiguity or a sense of not being in control. The uncertaintycan arise from a lack of information as to whether the chosen course of action is theright action or even needed, how others feel about the change, whether one has theknowledge, skills, or ability to be a successful part of the change, and uncertainty as tohow one will be impacted by the proposed change initiative. Thus, the role ofmanagement is to clarify that the proposed change is both necessary (Beer et al., 1990b)(discrepancy) and the best one to achieve the goals of the organization(appropriateness). Additionally, being visible to answer questions about theproposed change initiative not only involves application of the discrepancy andappropriateness components, it also demonstrates an application of theprincipal-support component (Covin and Kilmann, 1990).

Personal fear, prompted by uncertainty about whether or not an individual cansuccessfully adapt to a change initiative may be resolved, at least partially, through theefforts of management to provide the necessary training and education fororganizational members to enable them to adapt to the change initiative (Galpin,1996). Finally, uncertainty can emerge from concern about an individual’s future withthe organization, the individual’s future relationship with coworkers, or whether or notthere are desired benefits or pain associated with the change initiative (Judson, 1996;Kissler, 1991). As Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) demonstrated in their longitudinal

Discrepancy Appropriateness Principal support Efficacy Valence

Personal factors £ £ £ £ £Organizational factors £ £ £Change-specific factors £ £ £ £

Table II.The readiness for

change-resistance tochange matrix

Organizationalchange

175

study, face-to-face presentations to plant employees by management concerningbenefits and issues related to a merger were powerful strategies in building support forthe merger (also demonstrating principal support).

As previously mentioned, security is a major concern for individuals. A perceptionthat a change initiative will have a negative effect on one’s interest is clearly a valenceissue. While the negative effects can include a fear of the loss of authority, status,rewards, opportunity to do what one does best, relationships with coworkers, control orautonomy, a major fear today is the fear of possible economic loss (David, 2006). Withnews reports on the outsourcing of jobs, increasing costs of health care, and thecontinual use of downsizing as a management tool to control costs, the fear of economicloss is likely the most salient issue related to valence. As articulated earlier, actionstaken by management to mitigate the impact of a change initiative on organizationalmembers can have beneficial effects to the organization. As researchers such as Kissler(1991) and Klein (1984) observed, those changes negatively impacting organizationalmembers, in whatever way, will not be positively received (Valence). Indeed, the natureof some change initiatives will mean that some negative outcomes cannot be avoided.In these situations management is wise not to ignore or smooth over the potentiallynegative impact. By addressing these issues in a straightforward manner and strivingto make sure that the change initiative is implemented fairly, management may be ableto ameliorate, to some extent, the reactions of those negatively affected (Maurer, 1996;Moorman, 1991; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997).

Organizational factorsAs previously discussed, individuals who do not perceive organizations as crediblemay be prone to resist changes in the organization. Consequently, efforts undertaken toenhance the organization’s credibility may have ancillary benefits of reducingresistance to change. Clearly communicating the need for the change to employees byoffering external information about the rationale for the change could be a powerfulfirst step in regaining credibility (Carter, 2008) (discrepancy and appropriateness). Thiscommunication should also be fostered in an environment characterized by open andsupportive, where individuals are able to share their concerns, frustrations, and needswithout fear of retribution (Schultz, 2007) (principal support), thus enhancing thecredibility of the organization, as well as those leading the change.

Allowing individuals to participate in the change process is recognized as one of themost popular strategies undertaken to combat resistance (Chirico and Salvato, 2008),and with good reason given empirical evidence that participation in making decisionsreduces resistance (Vithessonthi, 2007). Utilizing the strategy of employee involvementnot only enhances two-way communication within the organization, but sends animplicit message to employees that they are valued and that the organization truststhem enough to be included in the decision-making process.

To regain confidence as a credible leader, and thus reduce resistance, leaders shouldroll up their sleeves and get directly involved in the essence of the change, attendingtraining with employees, listening with an open mind to their comments, and servingas an advocate for the employees during times of dispute (principal support).

LODJ30,2

176

Change-specific factorsThe way we do things around here becomes the way we do things around here becausethat way has been reinforced through past success. Over time, policies, procedures,routines, the formal systems of the organization become entrenched because they havebeen successful. Similarly, over time, congruence among culture, structure, and formalsystems has emerged and a set of values and norms are now in place. There is aperceived fit among all (Buller et al., 1985). Thus, a change initiative represents anassault on the very identity of the organization, and such a change might be the mostdifficult change to attempt. As a result, management must apply all of the componentsof the change-readiness message if it expects to implement a change initiative in such asituation.

Cameron and Quinn (1999) provided a list of suggestions or strategies formanagement to follow in attempting to change a culture. The change readinesscomponents fit within the strategies provided by Cameron and Quinn. For example,Cameron and Quinn proposed that management must explain why the change isnecessary and that management creates readiness, which may be defined as showingthe advantages of changing and the disadvantages of not changing (discrepancy).Explaining why and creating readiness (as they define it) may also apply todemonstrating the appropriateness of the change, but they also recommend thatmanagement identify small wins. Showing measured progress as the change evolveswill build beliefs that the change is appropriate. Identifying small wins also is a keystep in building confidence within the organizational members (efficacy). Small winscan also be a step toward satisfying valence concerns as people begin to see somebenefit in the change by the wins they experience. In support of this contention, Carter(2008) also suggests that managers promote successful change by facilitating visible,public celebrations of progress being made (principal support).

Finally, Cameron and Quinn called on management to demonstrate social support.By that, they mean that management should build a coalition of supporters for thechange. They specifically recommend identifying opinion leaders. This fits with theArmenakis et al. (1999) readiness component of principal support. By identifying andencouraging those supporters at all levels for the change, it becomes easier for otherorganizational members to join in making the change implementation successful.Establishing opinion leaders can also be fostered through the involvement andparticipation of employees in the decision making processes, encouraging them to takedirect ownership in the success of the change.

ConclusionPiderit (2000) commented that, “Rarely do individuals form resistant attitudes, orexpress such attitudes in acts of dissent or protest, without considering the potentialnegative consequences for themselves” (p. 784). Piderit went on to conclude, “. . . whatsome may perceive as disrespectful or unfounded opposition might also be motivatedby individuals’ ethical principles, or by their desire to protect the organization’s bestinterest” (p. 785). Management should never assume that the reason resistance to aparticular change initiative is occurring is because people don’t like change. To objectin writing to a change initiative or to stand in front of management and verbalize it isan act of courage. Management should, therefore, carefully consider any actions thatare perceived to be resistant towards the proposed change initiative, because the

Organizationalchange

177

actions may well be grounded in the reality that the change initiative either is thewrong initiative altogether, or is flawed in some way. However, just because there is noovert resistance to the change initiative management never should assume that it hascrafted the perfect change initiative because, again, it is an act of courage to verbalizeopposition to a change initiative that might be carrying the endorsement of the highestlevels of management.

The five elements of the change message for creating readiness for change proposedby Armenakis et al. (1999) provide management with a means by which readiness for achange initiative is created, leading to the support of the proposed change, rather thanthe rise of resistance to the change initiative. By a careful consideration of whether ornot the change is necessary to move the organization from a current state to a desiredstate, whether or not the proposed change initiative is the best means to reach thedesired state, whether or not a guiding coalition of support for the change is in place,whether or not both management and the organizational members have the knowledge,skills, and ability to successfully implement the change initiative, and, finally, whetheror not there is a perception that some positive benefit will be derived from theimplementation of the change initiative, whether in the short term or long term,management will have crafted a change initiative that can readily be embraced by theorganizational members, not resisted. By managing the creation of readiness effortacross all stages of the change initiative implementation, and not just at the beginning,the likelihood of success will be significant.

Limitations and directions for future researchWhile the insights offered in this article add to our understanding of the relationshipsbetween readiness strategies and resistance, there are noteworthy limitations thatmerit consideration. For example, the central thesis of this article is conceptual.Consequently, inferences drawn between the posited impact of certain readinessstrategies on resistance must be made with guarded confidence. Future studies couldenhance our understanding of the true relationships between these readiness strategiesand resistance through cross-sectional, empirically based analyses. It should also benoted that the recommendations and insights offered in this article are based onselected change models. Future research in the area of readiness and resistance mightbe enhanced by making comprehensive comparisons between some of the most widelyrespected models. On a final note, this article introduced a relatively pragmatictypology of resistance. Future studies could contribute to our understanding ofresistance through a more in-depth exploration of the specific nuances andsub-components associate with each of the three domains.

References

Agocs, C. (1999), “Institutional resistance to organizational change: denial, inaction andrepression”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 917-31.

Alas, R. (2007), “Reactions to organizational change from the institutional perspective: the case ofEstonia”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 19-31.

Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2002), “Crafting a change message to create transformationalreadiness”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 169-83.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Feild, H.S. (1999), “Making change permanent: a model forinstitutionalizing change interventions”, in Passmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds),

LODJ30,2

178

Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,pp. 289-319.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993), “Creating readiness fororganizational change”, Human Relations, Vol. 46, pp. 681-97.

Audia, P.G., Locke, E.A. and Smith, K.S. (2000), “The paradox of success: an archival and alaboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 837-53.

Bandura, A. and Locke, E.A. (2003), “Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 87-99.

Beckhard, R. and Harris, R.T. (1987), “Assessing the present: benchmarks for change”,Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change, 2nd ed., Addison-WesleyPublishing Company, Reading, MA, pp. 57-70.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990a), The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990b), “Why change programs don’t produce change”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 158-66.

Bridges, W. (1986), “Managing organizational transitions”, Organizational Dynamics, Summer,pp. 24-33.

Buller, P.F., Saxberg, B.O. and Smith, H.L. (1985), “Institutionalization of planned organizationalchange: a model and review of the literature”, in Goodstein, L.D. and Pfeiffer, J.W. (Eds),The 1985 Annual: Developing Human Resources, University Associates, Tucson, AZ.

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:Based on the Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Carter, E. (2008), “Successful change requires more than change management”, The Journal forQuality and Participation, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 20-3.

Caruth, D., Middlebrook, B. and Rachel, F. (1995), “Overcoming resistance to change”,SAM Advance Management Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 23-7.

Chirico, F. and Salvato, C. (2008), “Knowledge integration and dynamic organizationaladaptation in family firms”, Family Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 169-81.

Choi, T.Y. and Behling, O.C. (1997), “Top managers and TQM success: one more look after allthese years”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11, pp. 37-49.

Coch, L. and French, J.R.P. (1948), “Overcoming resistance to change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1,pp. 512-32.

Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t,HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Connor, D.R. (1992), Managing the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers Succeed andProsper when Others Fall, Villard Books, New York, NY.

Covin, T.J. and Kilmann, R.H. (1990), “Participant perceptions of positive and negative influenceson large-scale change”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 233-48.

David, F.R. (2006), Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Del Val, M.P. (2003), “Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study”,Management Decision, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 148-55.

Dent, E.B. and Powley, E.H. (2003), “Employees actually embrace change: the chimera ofresistance”, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 40-54.

Organizationalchange

179

Dym, B. (1999), “Resistance in organizations: how to recognize, understand and respond to it”,OD Practitioner, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 6-19.

Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and McNamara, R.T. (2001), “Resistance and the background conversationsof change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-21.

Galpin, T.J. (1996), The Human Side of Change: A Practical Guide to Organizational Redesign,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Geisler, D. (2001), “Bottom-feeders: people who reject change”, Executive Excellence, Vol. 18No. 12, p. 19.

Ghoshal, S. (1987), “Global strategy: an organizing framework”, Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 8, pp. 425-40.

Gilmore, T.N., Shea, G.P. and Unseem, M. (1997), “Side effects of corporate culturaltransformations”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 33, pp. 174-89.

Goodman, P.S., Bazerman, M. and Conlon, E. (1980), “Institutionalization of plannedorganizational change”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research inOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2008), Behavior in Organizations, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1988), “Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamicsof strategic change”, Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 293-316.

Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2007), “Readiness for organizationalchange: the systematic development of a scale”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 232-51.

Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M. and Wright, M. (2000), “Strategies in emerging economies”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 249-67.

Hultman, K.E. (1995), “Scaling the wall of resistance”, Training and Development, October,pp. 15-18.

Huy, Q. (2001), “Time, temporal capability, and planned change”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 601-23.

Jacobsen, J. (2008), “Avoiding mistakes of the past: lessons learned on what makes or breaksquality initiatives”, The Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 4-9.

Judson, A.S. (1996), Changing Behavior in Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Cambridge,MA.

Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T.D. (1992), The Challenge of Organizational Change:How Companies Experience it and Leaders Guide it, Free Press, New York, NY.

Karim, A. and Kathawala, Y. (2005), “The experience of manufacturing firms with theimplementation of different production philosophies: a United States survey”,International Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 351-65.

Ketterer, R.F. and Chayes, M.M. (1995), “Executive development: finding and growing championsof change”, in Nadler, D., Shaw, R. and Walton, E. (Eds), Discontinuous Change:Leading Organizational Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 35-44.

Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R.A. (1993), “Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary topmanagement compliance with multi-nationals’ corporate strategic decisions”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 502-26.

Kissler, G.D. (1991), The Change Riders: Managing the Power of Change, Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA.

LODJ30,2

180

Klaus, L.A. (1997), “Minimize employee resistance to change by focusing on human side”,Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 12, p. 12.

Klein, J.A. (1984), “Why supervisors resist employee involvement”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 62, pp. 87-94.

Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change: why transformational efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 59-67.

Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, HBS Press, Boston, MA.

Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979), “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard BusinessReview, March-April, pp. 106-14.

Larkin, T.J. and Larkin, S. (1994), Communicating Change: How to Win Employee Support forNew Business Directions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Leppitt, N. (2006), “Challenging the code of change: part 1. Praxis does not make perfect”,Journal of Change Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 121-42.

Lerman, R.I. and Schmidt, S.R. (2002), “An overview of economic, social, and demographic trendsaffecting the labor market”, report to the Urban Institute for US Department of Labor,available at: www.dol.gov (accessed December 27, 2002).

Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science;social equilibria and social change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 5-41.

McCall, M.W. Jr (1993), “Developing leadership”, in Galbraith, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (Eds),Organizing for the Future, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 170-84.

Maslow, A.H. (1987), Motivation and Personality, 3rd ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.

Maurer, R. (1996), Beyond the Wall of Resistance: Unconventional Strategies that Build Supportfor Change, Bard Books, Inc., Austin, TX.

Mink, O.G. (1992), “Creating new organizational paradigms for change”, International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 21-35.

Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizationalcitizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship behavior?”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.

Nadler, D.A. (1998), Champions of Change: How CEOs and Their Companies Are Mastering theSkills of Radical Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M. and Vakolar, M. (2007), “Individuals’ inducements and the role ofpersonality: implications for psychological contracts”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 649-63.

Nutt, P.C. (1986), “Tactics of implementation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29,pp. 230-61.

Palmer, I., Dunford, R. and Akin, G. (2006), Managing Organizational Change: A MultiplePerspectives Approach, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.

Pascale, R., Millemann, M. and Gioja, L. (1997), “Changing the way we change”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 127-39.

Piderit, S.K. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensionalview of attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 25, pp. 783-94.

Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: not theexception but the norm”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 245-59.

Organizationalchange

181

Rousseau, D.M. and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999), “What’s a good reason to change? Motivatedreasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 84, pp. 514-28.

Schultz, J.R. (2007), “Eight steps to sustain change”, Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 25-31.

Schweiger, D.M. and DeNisi, A.S. (1991), “Communication with employees following a merger:a longitudinal field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 110-35.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,procedural, and interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-43.

Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. and Topolnytsky, L. (2005), “Employee cynicism and resistance toorganizational change”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 429-59.

Visagie, J.C. and Botha, C.J. (1998), “Contextual and empirical approach to social change andsocial responsibilities”, Management Decision, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 694-701.

Vithessonthi, C. (2007), “Perceptions affecting employee reactions to change: evidence fromprivatization in Thailand”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 248-55.

Vollman, T.E. (1996), The Transformation Imperative: Achieving Market Dominance throughRadical Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Wanberg, C.R. and Banas, J.T. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in areorganizing workplace”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 132-42.

Corresponding authorDennis R. Self can be contacted at: selfd@troy.edu

LODJ30,2

182

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints