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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Resistance to
Resistance to organizational organizational
change: linking research change
and practice
39
Dennis G. Erwin
2
E Consulting, Chicago, Illinois, USA, and Received February 2009
Andrew N. Garman Revised August 2009
Accepted August 2009
Department of Health Systems Management, Rush University,
Chicago, Illinois, USA

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study recently published research to identify findings that
provide research-based guidance to organizational change agents and managers in addressing
individual resistance to organizational change initiatives.
Design/methodology/approach The paper examines published research appearing in
peer-reviewed journals since 1998 that focus on exploring individual resistance to organizational change.
Findings Recent published research provides considerable practical guidance to organizational
change agents and managers in understanding and dealing with resistance to change. Recent research
examines the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of individual resistance and how it is
influenced by: individual predispositions towards openness and resistance to change; individuals
considerations of threats and benefits of change; communication, understanding, participation, trust in
management, management styles, and the nature of relationships with the change agents.
Research limitations/implications This paper is limited to research articles involving
resistance to organizational change published in peer-reviewed journals from 1998 to 2009. Also,
the paper finds that reported research used primarily self-report questionnaires to gather data, which
are quantitatively analyzed. Such a lack of diversity of research methodologies provides a limited
perspective of resistance to organizational change that might have been broadened by qualitative and
practice-based methods (e.g. case studies and action research).
Practical implications A framework is presented linking organizational change research findings to
specific change practitioner recommendations. Limitations of recent research are also discussed.
Originality/value Most studies provide an examination of a limited number of variables
influencing resistance to change, and are not necessary designed to provide practical guidance to
change practitioners. This paper provides a comprehensive framework of constructs and variables
specifically aimed at linking research-based findings to guidance for change practitioners.
Keywords Organizational change, Change management
Paper type General review

Introduction
The results of a recent survey of 1,536 executives involved in a wide variety of change
initiatives indicated that only 38 percent thought these initiatives were successful and Leadership & Organization
only 30 percent thought they contributed to the sustained improvement of their Development Journal
Vol. 31 No. 1, 2010
organizations (Isern and Pung, 2007). Resistance to change is often cited as a reason for pp. 39-56
difficulties in implementing and the failure of change initiatives. For example, q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
Prochaska et al. (2001) cite a Deloitte and Touche survey of 400 organizations DOI 10.1108/01437731011010371
LODJ indicating resistance to change as the number one reason for failures of organizational
31,1 change initiatives. Bovey and Hede (2001a, b) cited numerous studies including one of
500 Australian organizations indicating resistance as the most common problem faced
by management in implementing change.
Researchers and scholarly practitioners have been studying organizational change and
resistance to change for many decades. Much of this research is rooted in Lewin and Golds
40 (1999) unfreezing, moving, and freezing model of organizational change. During the 1990s,
efforts seemed primarily focused on the organizational and systemic levels of analysis
including several studies that attempted, through quantitative as well as qualitative efforts,
to synthesize the work completed thus far (Damanpour, 1991; Robertson et al., 1993). Burke
and Litwin (1992), in addition to indicating systemic-level factors (e.g. mission and strategy,
policy and procedures, and organizational structure) influencing organizational change,
cited pioneering work from authors such as McClelland and Atkinson in arguing for greater
attention to the importance of individual behaviors, needs, values, and motivation in
understanding and influencing the success of organizational change efforts.
Armenakis and Bedains (1999) review of work published during the 1990s
identified several themes, or areas in which greater methodological attention was
needed: content (the what), context (salient environmental factors affecting the
organization), and process (the how, including the phases of change occurring over
time). In their consideration of process, they reviewed stage models of organizational
change such as Judsons (1991) five phases of organizational change, and Kotters
(1995) proposed eight steps for effective change. Armenakis and Bedain importantly
drew attention to the individual reactions to organizational change, or how
organizational change is interpreted and responded to by organizational members,
in reviewing the work of Isabella (1990), Lowstedt (1993) and Jaffe et al. (1994).
Isabella (1990) proposed a four-stage model including: anticipation (information about
the change is assembled), conformation (the implications of the change begin to be
understood), culmination (pre- and post-change results are compared and assimilated),
and aftermath (consequences of the change are evaluated). The Jaffe et al. (1994) model
suggested four reactions organizational members experience as they move through the
change process: denial (refusal to believe the change will be implemented), resistance (not
participating or attempting to avoid implementation), exploration (experimentation with
new behaviors), and commitment (accepting or embracing the change).
Although writings have focused additional attention on resistance, there remains
substantial variability in how the phenomena associated with resistance are perceived and
ultimately operationalized. Several authors have offered definitions broad enough that
they could include almost any unfavorable reaction, opposition, or force that prevents or
inhibits change. Such definitions have also implied that resistance to change is a problem
that needs to be overcome or eliminated (Mabin et al., 2001; Piderit, 2000). However, others
have challenged this perspective of resistance to change because it precludes some of the
more positive aspects and intentions of resistance. For example, it has been proposed that
resistance may be useful, and that it can be productively harnessed to help challenge and
refine strategic and action plans (Mabin et al., 2001) and to improve the quality of decision
making (Lines, 2004). In other cases, resistance may be a productive response to perceived
unethical actions as well as changes that may not be in the best interest of the
organization (Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000). Still others have characterized resistance to
change as a positive process that fosters learning among organization participants
(Msweli-Mbanga and Potwana, 2006). The complex dimensions illustrated by these Resistance to
definitions suggest that a dichotomous view of individual reactions to change organizational
(i.e. compliance is positive and resistance is negative) is probably too narrow.
This study is limited to examining published research involving resistance to change
organizational change appearing in peer-reviewed articles since the Armenakis and
Bedains (1999) review. It is our goal to provide change agents and managers with practice
guidance based on current research in dealing with resistance to change within the context 41
of the organizational change process. A secondary aim of the paper is to identify emerging
trends and themes in recent resistance to change research for those with academic interests.

Study question and method

In support of organizational change practice, our study attempted to answer the
question: What practice guidance do the findings of recent research provide to
organizational change agents and managers in addressing individual resistance
to organizational change? Our goal of providing current research-based guidance to
change practitioners limited our examination to articles reporting the results of
research studies. We further limited our scope to the examination of articles published
since the Armenakis and Bedains (1999) review and specifically addressing individual
resistance to change in the context of organizations.
The search for recent published research articles was conducted by the first author
in July 2009, utilizing three online databases: PsychInfo, Academic Source Premiere,
and Business Source Elite. In each database, the key phrases used were: organizational
change and resistance to change. The scope of the search was limited to articles
published from 1998 through the search date. This search yielded a total of 123 articles.
To be included in this study, the articles were required to meet the following criteria:
.
published in a peer-reviewed journal;
. reported the results of a research study or studies, which involved at least some
process of statistical inference, or, if the study was qualitative, it followed a
recognized methodology (e.g. grounded theory); and
.
the context of the study did not appear to be overly specialized i.e. it had to
contain elements generalizable to settings other than the one under study.

Most articles were eliminated because they did not report study results they were
opinions or discussions or simply mentioned the topic of resistance to organizational
change. A more comprehensive examination of resistance to organizational change
literature, which included these articles would certainly have provided additional
insights and a greater diversity of thinking but examining those articles was simply
beyond the scope of this study of research-based articles.

Results
These steps eliminated 105 of the 123 original articles, leaving 18 remaining research
articles. The findings reported in these 18 articles were based in a diversity of
organization types, including governmental, non-profit, and private sectors, as well as
regions, including Europe, Africa, Australia, and North America. The studies also
covered change in a diversity of circumstances including privatizations, mergers,
a move to new facilities, implementation of new technology, and cultural changes.
LODJ Interestingly, all but two of the reported studies were self-report surveys these
31,1 two studies involved direct observation and interviews with research participants.
A greater diversity of research methodologies would have allowed an examination of
resistance from more perspectives. We would also characterize the research of the past
decade as more divergent than convergent. There does not appear to be a universally
or even widely accepted operational definition of resistance to change, or other
42 important variables (e.g. participation, communication, and trust). Any type of
meta-analysis or synthesis of results across studies, therefore, seems tenuous.
This divergence also suggests the complexity of studying resistance, individuals, and
in relationship to each other. Despite these limitations, the research does provide
promising practical guidance to change agents and managers in their efforts to
understand and deal with individual resistance to organizational change.
The 18 research articles examined seemed to fall into categories addressing the
following questions: What is resistance to organizational change? How do individual
personality differences influence resistance to organizational change? What are key
concerns of individuals upon the announcement of change that influence resistance?
How does the organizational change process influence resistance to change? How do
change agent/employee relationships and management interaction styles influence
resistance to change? The findings of our study are organized to correspond to these
questions. The Appendix lists the research articles and references the questions
addressed and categories examined in each study.

What is resistance to organizational change?

The studies discussed in this section suggest a divergent and evolving definition of
resistance to change. Giangreeco and Peccei (2005) found that anti-change behaviors
were both passive and overt, while Bovey and Hede (2001a, b) found that behaviors in
response to change included supportive versus resistant, active versus passive, and
covert versus overt. Lines (2005) study found that a range of behaviors could be
identified including strong or weak behaviors.
Beyond the behavioral dimension of resistance, Oreg (2006) and Piderit (2000)
clarify the cognitive and affective dimensions of resistance. That is, resistance is
viewed as multi-dimensional involving how individuals behave in response to change
(behavioral dimension), what they think about the change (cognitive dimension), and
how they feel about the change (affective dimension). Capturing the complexity of
resistance, Piderit (2000) suggested that individuals operate in all of these dimensions
simultaneously, and that they may even be ambivalent about the change in each of
these dimensions. Further, rather than a value-laden perspective of resistance, it is
proposed that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards change are not necessarily
good or bad, but rather positive or negative (Lines, 2005) or pro- versus anti-change
(Giangrecco and Peccei, 2005).
Behavioral dimension of resistance. Examining the behavioral dimension of
resistance, Giangreco and Peccei (2005, p. 1816), in their study of the privatization of an
Italian electric company, defined resistance to change as a form of dissent. They
recommend thinking about both pro- and anti-change behaviors. Using self-report
survey data from 359 mid-level managers, they found that anti-change behaviors were
frequently expressed in passive rather than overt ways for example, not actively
supporting change initiatives, or behaving in ways that more covertly impeded the
effectiveness or rate of change. Examples of such behaviors included doing the Resistance to
minimum required, not actively cooperating and promoting the change initiative, and organizational
not making an effort to ensure subordinates understood the change effort.
Lines (2004), in a study of a large European telecommunications company change
undergoing deregulation, indicated that resistance to change involved behaviors that
slow down or terminate (p. 4) a change effort. In a subsequent article, Lines (2005)
proposed that a range of behaviors could be identified in response to attitudes toward 43
organizational change. Such behaviors were categorized as being either positive or
negative toward the change, as well as either strong or weak behaviors. Bovey and
Hede (2001a, b), in their study of nine Australian organizations facing major changes,
developed a framework with similar attributes, proposing that reactions to change
include supportive versus resistant behaviors, active versus passive behaviors, and
covert versus overt behaviors.
Cognitive/affective dimensions of resistance. Recent work has also focused on
clarifying the cognitive and affective dimensions of resistance to change. Oreg (2006, p. 76),
in a study of an 800-employee defense industry organization involved in a merger of two
key departments, described resistance as a tridimensional (negative) attitude toward
change involving the interplay among cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions.
The cognitive dimension involves how an individual conceptualizes or thinks about
change for example, what is the value of the change? Will the change benefit or harm my
department, the organization, or me? Cognitive negative reactions or attitudes towards the
change include a lack of commitment to the change and negative evaluations of the
change. The affective dimension of individual reactions involves how one feels about
the change. Affective reactions to the change include experiencing such emotions as
elation, anxiety, anger, fear, enthusiasm, and apprehension. Affective negative
reactions include stress, anxiety, and anger. The behavioral dimension of individual
reactions involves how an individual behaves in response to change for example:
embracing it, complaining about it, and and/or sabotaging it.
Further complicating but, perhaps, better capturing the complexity of this concept
of resistance to organizational change, Piderit (2000) suggests that individuals operate
in all three dimensions (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) and simultaneously may
be ambivalent in all three dimensions. For example, an individual may be both hopeful
about the opportunities presented by change, but at the same time fearful about not
being able to meet new expectations required by the change. And, the same individual
may be enthusiastically agreeing to the change, while not focused on making the
necessary changes to implement the initiative.

How do individual personality differences influence resistance to organizational change?

Research discussed in this section reported that certain psychological variables
influenced how individuals responded to and their ability to cope with change. Oreg
(2003) examined personality variables, which predisposed individuals towards
resistance to change. Wanberg and Banas (2000) examined the influence of personal
resilience on an individuals willingness to accept change, and Judge et al. (1999) found
that self-concept and risk tolerance were related to an individuals success in coping
with change. Bovey and Hede (2001a, b) identified certain defense mechanisms used by
individuals in dealing with change, and explored the relationship of irrational thoughts
and the perceived impact of change to resist.
LODJ Predisposition towards resistance to change. Oreg (2003) studied personality
31,1 characteristics that predisposed individuals towards resisting change. He conducted a
series of seven self-report survey studies involving students, faculty, and staff at
Cornell University and developed a scale to measure dispositional inclinations to resist
organizational change. Factors examined which influence a predisposition towards
resistance included an inclination to seek routines, negative reactions to
44 announcements of change, a short-term focus, and a rigid or dogmatic point-of-view.
Personal resilience and openness to change. Wanberg and Banas (2000) examined
the influence of personal resilience on self-reported openness to organizational change,
and its relationship to outcomes such as job satisfaction, work-related irritation,
intention to quit, and actual turnover. They surveyed 130 members of two professional
associations working in 85 different housing authorities during a major reorganization
of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development involving changes to public
housing regulations. The researchers reported that personal resilience, which they
defined as a combination of self-esteem, optimism, and perceived control, was a
predictor of an employees willingness to accept change; however it was not predictive
of a more positive view of change. In other words, employees with personal resilience
may accommodate a change whether or not they agree with the change or whether or
not they perceive it is beneficial.
Self-concept, risk tolerance, and coping with change. Judge et al. (1999) examined
seven dispositional constructs related to coping with organizational change. They
surveyed 514 managers in six organizations, located in four different countries and five
industries. The companies had experienced recent changes including major
reorganization efforts, downsizing, changes in top management, mergers and
acquisitions, and business divestments. The dispositional constructs examined were
reduced to two factors, which the researchers labeled self-concept and risk tolerance.
Self-concept was comprised of internal locus of control, positive affectivity, self-esteem,
and self-efficacy. Risk tolerance was comprised of higher openness to experience, lower
risk aversion, and higher tolerance for ambiguity. The researchers found that these
factors were related to an individuals success in coping with organizational change as
well as an individuals job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career success,
including both salary and job performance.
Defense mechanisms, irrational thoughts, and perceived change impact. Bovey and
Hede (2001b), in their self-report survey of 615 employees of nine Australian
organizations (both governmental and private sector), examined individuals
self-reported adaptive and maladaptive defense mechanisms and their relationship
to an employees intention to resist organizational changes. The individuals were based
in organizations involved in the restructuring of departments, reorganizations of
systems and procedures, or implementation of new process technologies. The
researchers found that individuals who tended to use maladaptive defense
mechanisms were more likely to resist organizational change, while those who
tended to use adaptive defense mechanisms were less likely to resist organizational
change. The adaptive defense mechanisms they examined were humor and
anticipation. The maladaptive defense mechanisms they examined were denial,
dissociation, isolation of affect, projection, and acting out. Projection, in particular, had
the strongest association with intention to resist change, and individuals with lower
projection were also more supportive of change.
 In this same study, Bovey and Hede (2001a) found that individuals with higher Resistance to
tendencies to blame others, to be inert and passive, to avoid lifes difficulties, and to not organizational
take control of their own destinies (which the researchers called irrational thoughts),
were significantly more likely to resist change. The researchers also found that the change
higher the individuals perception of or feelings about the change impact, the greater
the association between these tendencies (irrational thoughts) and resistance.
45
What are key concerns of individuals upon the announcement of change that influence
resistance?
Studies included in this section examined individuals reactions to the announcements
of change. Giangreco and Peccei (2005) and Oreg (2006) reported that individuals
concerns and perceptions of both the personal and organizational implications and
outcomes of the change guide their reactions to the change. Chreim (2006) found that
individuals reactions were also influenced by whether or not they believe they had the
skills and competencies to be effective in their new roles.
Potential threats and benefits of change. In the Giangreco and Peccei (2005) study of an
Italian electric company, the researchers surveyed 359 mid-level managers to examine the
influence of individuals perceptions of the benefits of change on attitudes towards change,
and ultimately on their level of resistance to change. They reported that individuals
perceptions of the actual content and the outcomes of a change initiative and the extent
they will personally gain or lose as a result of the change are strong predictors of their
attitudes towards change and their level of resistance to the change.
Similarly, in Oregs (2006) self-reported survey study of 177 defense firm employees,
he examined resistance based upon employees concerns about the impact of the
change on their job security, intrinsic rewards (e.g. autonomy, flexibility, and
challenge), and how their power and prestige were affected. Oreg found that concerns
about job security were strongly related to emotional reactions, changes in intrinsic
rewards were related to both emotional and cognitive reactions, and threats to power
and prestige were significantly related to cognitive reactions.
Personal capabilities to accomplish change. In addition to the threats and benefits of a
change, Chreim (2006) found that individuals consider their own skills and
competencies, and make a determination of the likelihood of their success in new
roles. Chreims interview study, using a grounded theory approach, involved 46 senior,
mid-level, and non-managerial employees of two large Canadian banks. The banks
were pursuing two major change initiatives involving the use of new technology
and the implementation of a sales culture. With regard to the technology change, the
themes that emerged from the interviews were that employees embraced the change
if they believed it would enhance their jobs and improve services to customers;
however, they were reluctant to embrace the change and were discouraged if they felt
they lacked the personal capabilities for success. In the implementation of the sales
culture change, the themes that emerged from the interviews were that individuals
embraced the change if they deemed the change consistent with their existing
capabilities and the existing culture.

How does the organizational change process influence resistance to change?

Studies included in this section identified change process factors that influenced
individuals attitudes and resistances toward change such as communication of the
LODJ change, the level of understanding of the change, consistency of management actions
31,1 with the goals of the change initiative, and participation in the change process.
Wanberg and Banas (2000), Lewis (2006), and Oreg (2006) found an association
between communication and attitudes towards change. Washington and Hacker (2005)
found that the level of understanding of a change by managers influenced their feelings
towards the initiative. Larson and Tompkins (2005) examined consistency in
46 management actions with the goals of an initiative, and Giangreco and Peccei (2005),
Lines (2004), Msweli-Mbanga and Potwana (2006) all found benefits in employee
participation on attitudes about and resistance to change.
Communication, understanding, and consistency of policies with change initiative.
In the Wanberg and Banas (2000) study of individuals experiencing change in the
public housing industry, the researchers found a positive correlation between
employees who reported they received information about change and their openness to
change. Similarly, Lewis (2006) examined the influence of the communication of the
change initiative on perceived resistance. Lewis reported the higher the perceived
quality of implementation information received about the change initiative, the less the
perceived resistance to change. Lewis study involved undergraduate students in a new
communication technologies class who identified individuals that reported they
worked for organizations recently involved in the implementation of some new type of
communication or information technology (e.g. e-mail and new software). Students
collected 135 questionnaires from participants who reported being from companies in
industries including manufacturing, research and development, health and human
services, education, and retailing.
In contrast and contrary to his expectations, Oreg (2006) found a positive correlation
between individuals who reported receiving information about change and their
resistance to change. Oreg suggested that the result might indicate that simply
providing information does not result in reduced resistance to change, but rather that
employees make decisions of whether or not to resist based upon whether or not they
agree or disagree with the change proposed.
An understanding of the change initiative was found to influence individuals
feelings about a change initiative. Washington and Hacker (2005) surveyed 259
secondary school heads and senior level managers involved in the implementation of a
performance management system in the Botswana public service. They found a strong
relationship between managers understandings of the change and their feelings about
the change. More specifically, managers who reported that they understood the change
were more likely to be excited about the change, less likely to think the change would
fail, and less likely to wish the change had never occurred. The researchers conceded
their study did not directly measure whether or not managers actually resisted or would
resist the change, they suggested that managers stating they were not excited about
the change, thinking it would fail, and wishing the change had not been implemented
are consistent with a negative attitude, or resistance, towards the change initiative.
Larson and Tompkins (2005) study examined not only what management said
about a change initiative but also their actions, and how they both related to resistance
to change. Their qualitative study included observations, document analysis, and
interviews of 48 employees and managers of an aerospace company. They identified
messages delivered by management, which were perceived as inconsistent with the
organizations change initiative. For example, management communicated a push for
efficiency and cost reduction, but the reward system remained focused on technical Resistance to
excellence. The researchers felt that these contradictions between what management organizational
said and what they did reflected managements ambivalence about the change
initiative, resulting in opportunities and justification by employees to resist. change
Participation in the change effort. Several studies found that participation in change
initiatives was associated with more positive views of the change, reduced resistance,
and improved goal achievement. The Giangreco and Peccei (2005) study of middle 47
managers in an Italian electric company, reported that employee perceptions of their
participation in the development and implementation of the change initiative, was
associated with more positive attitudes towards the change and reduced resistance to
change.
Lines (2004) found similar results in a self-report survey study of 138 managers of a
telecommunication company involved in a major strategic reorientation. Lines reported
strong relationships between employee perceptions of their participation and goal
achievement, organizational commitment, and reduced resistance. Lines defined
participation as involvement in the initial assessment and development of the change
plan as well as the right to veto in addition to participating in the process. Goal
achievement included the compatibility of the change with the organizations culture,
and the goals of those individuals affected. Organizational commitment included the
dimensions of attachment, effort, and loyalty. Resistance involved the level of
enthusiasm for the change initiative.
In another study examining participation, Msweli-Mbanga and Potwana (2006)
reported similar findings. They used self-report surveys of 363 employees in a study of
three state-owned South African organizations to examine access to participation,
willingness to participate, and resistance to change. They found a positive association
between access to participation and willingness to participate, and a negative
relationship between willingness to participate and resistance to change. Access to
participation involved providing the ability and opportunity to participate in a
meaningful way by receiving information, the ability to express their opinions, and
involvement in decision making. Willingness to participate involved responding
favorably to participation opportunities by attending meetings, providing input,
working harder, and accepting possible disruption of relationships with colleagues.
Resistance to change included employee perceptions of: the loss of comfort and
privileges, the interests of the individual versus the organization, and the loss of jobs.

How do change agent/employee relationships and management interaction styles

influence resistance to change?
Researchers also examined how the relationships between employees and
managers/change agents, as well as the styles managers employed influenced
resistance to organizational change. Oreg (2006) found that a lack of trust in
management was significantly associated with resistance to organizational change,
and Stanley et al. (2005) explored the concepts of skepticism and cynicism and their
relationships to trust in management and resistance to change. Szabala (2007) found
that different perceived leadership strategies or styles influenced individuals reactions
to change initiatives, and Furst and Cable (2008) found that the management tactics
and their influence on resistance to change depended on the supervisor-employee
relationship. In the final article studied, van Dam et al. (2008) examined the role of the
LODJ manager-employee relationships, the perceived development climate as well as
31,1 information received about the change, participation in the change process, and trust in
management and their relations to resistance to change.
Trust in management and management competence. Oregs (2006) survey study
examined the relationship between trust in management and resistance. Trust
in management involved individuals perceived confidence levels in the ability of
48 management to lead effective change as well as their feelings that they could count
on management to do what was best for the organization and its members. In this
study, of defense firm employees, Oreg found that a lack of faith or trust in
management had a significant association with all types of resistance (cognitive,
affective, and behavioral), and particularly with employees cognitive analysis of the
change initiative. Oreg also found that a lack of trust in management was strongly
related to reports of anger, frustration, and anxiety, increased action against the
change initiative, negative evaluations of the need for and merit of the change and
increased questioning of whether or not management was able to make informed
decisions.
Related to trust are the concepts of skepticism and cynicism. Stanley et al. (2005)
conducted two studies: one involved a self-report survey of 65 individuals from various
organizations; the other involved a self-report survey of 701 individuals from an energy
company undergoing restructuring and culture transformation. The researchers found
that employee skepticism, defined as doubt about the viability of achieving change,
was related to employee perceptions of managements abilities to achieve change.
The researchers reported that communication seemed to alleviate skepticism, but did
not eliminate it. They also found that employees tended to be cynical (which they
defined as a disbelief in management motives) about organizational change when they
were cynical about management in general. Cynicism was negatively correlated with
management trust, and was found to be a predictor of resistance to change. Stanley
et al. indicated that cynicism seemed to be a reaction to experiences within the
organization rather than a pre-disposition of the individual.
Management styles and management-employee relationships. Szabla (2007) studied
how employees perceptions of leadership strategies influence individuals reactions to
organizational change. The survey study involved 241 union employees of a Midwest
county government implementing an electronic performance management system.
Three categories of perceived leadership strategies were used, and reported as follows:
(1) 42.7 percent of employees perceived leadership as rational-empirical leaders
were experts focusing on facts and logic;
(2) 6.6 percent of employees perceived leadership as normative-reeducative
leaders were collaborative and involved individuals in decisions; and
(3) 39.4 percent perceived leadership as power-coercive change was justified only
by leadership who used their position power to lead the change.
Szablas (2007) survey questioned what individuals thought about the change, how
they felt about the change, and how they intended to behave in response to the change.
He reported that members of the rational-empirical group believed the change would
improve their job satisfaction and operations, felt optimism and enthusiasm about the
change, and intended to support the change. Members of the normative-reeducative
group, however, held the most positive beliefs, experienced the most positive emotions,
and had the highest intentions to support the change. Members of the power-coercive Resistance to
group had both positive and negative beliefs indicating they believed the change would organizational
improve operations, but would not satisfy their job-related needs. Members of this
group reported feelings of anger and frustration, but indicated they would support the change
change despite their beliefs and feelings. The researcher suggested the countys social
and cultural system may have lead to member support despite their negative beliefs,
but did not expand on that theory. 49
Furst and Cable (2008) examined how resistance to organizational change is related
both to a supervisors managerial tactics and the employees relationship with that
supervisor (leader-member exchange). The researchers conducted two surveys of
companies involved in changes to new software programs. One involved a US-based
automotive and industrial products company with more than 10,000 employees. For
this survey, 115 employee responses were received, which included 25 manager
surveys that evaluated at least one of their employees, providing a total of 82 matched
pairs of employee-supervisor responses. The other survey involved a US-based
financial services company with 350 employees. For this survey, 66 employee
responses were received, which included 27 supervisor surveys that evaluated at least
one of their employees, providing a total of 55 matched pairs of supervisor-employee
surveys. The researchers combined the results for a total n 137 because they believed
the changes within the organizations were comparable. Briefly, managerial behaviors
were characterized as sanctions (managers threatened to punish or withhold rewards
for non-compliance), legitimization (managers explain change is policy or precedent),
ingratiation (managers provide praise for employee efforts), and consultation
(managers ask for employee suggestions or assistance in implementing change). The
quality of relationships involved the elements of loyalty, emotional support, mutual
trust, and liking each other.
Furst and Cable (2008) found the effectiveness of management tactics in influencing
resistance to change depended on the strength of supervisor-employee relationships.
For those with weaker relationships, sanctions, legitimization, and ingratiation were
positively associated with resistance to change. For those with stronger relationships,
sanctions, legitimization, and ingratiation were associated with less resistance.
The researchers suggested that these findings seemed to indicate that employees
interpret managerial tactics in a way that reinforces their existing perceptions of the
supervisor-employee relationship. Although the authors did not elaborate, the findings
also indicated no significant interaction between consultancy management tactics and
supervisor-employee relationships, but that the effect of consultation on resistance was
significant. That is, the use of consultation tactics is associated with less resistance to
organizational change regardless of the supervisor-employee relationship.
In a similar study, van Dam et al. (2008) examined the role of manager-employee
relationships (leader-member exchange), perceived development climate (i.e.
supervisor support and opportunities for personal development), and various change
process characteristics i.e. providing information about the change, participation in
the change process, and trust in management and their relation to resistance to
change. The study also analyzed the relationship between two individual-level
characteristics openness to job changes and organizational tenure and resistance
to change. The researchers, in their survey study, evaluated 235 responses from
employees of a large The Netherlands housing corporation involved in a merger,
LODJ which was aimed at increasing market share and improving financial performance.
31,1 The change required staff to alter working procedures and practices, and deal with a
different corporate culture.
The researchers (van Dam et al., 2008) found that the three change process
characteristics fully mediated the quality of supervisor-employee relationships
(leader-member exchange) and perceived development climate with resistance to
50 change. In other words, employees that believed they had high-quality supervisor
relationships and that the organization had a strong development climate similarly
responded that they had been provided more information about and more
opportunities for participation in the change process, experienced more trust in
management, and reported less resistance to change. Individual-level characteristics
were also found to influence resistance to change: those employees more open to
change perceived the organizational change in favorable terms, while those with more
tenure were more resistant to change.

Limitations of recent research studies

We would characterize the research of the past decade as more divergent than
convergent. There does not appear to be a universally or even widely accepted
definition for constructs such as resistance to change, or other important variables (e.g.
participation, communication, and trust), nor is there an identified or well-defined set of
measurement approaches. Without such definitions, a synthesis of results across
studies of this phenomenon is tenuous.
Perhaps most striking is that the studies examined resistance at one point in time rather
than in parallel or at different points along the traditional change process models
(e.g. unfreezing, moving, refreezing, or an iterative model such as diagnosis, planning,
implementation, and evaluation). Moreover, most of the studies (as self-report survey
studies across organizations) do not examine resistance as both an individual and social
matter that not only challenges an individuals identity but also the norms and values of
groups within the organizations. Implementing effective change requires interventions at
multiple levels including the individual, group, and organizational levels. Such finer
distinctions, such as how resistance to change evolves over time, is influenced by change
interventions, the sequence of interventions, and how it operates at an individual, group,
and organizational levels, present substantial opportunities for further research.
Lastly, the research tended to be general in nature. The research identified relevant
variables and their association with resistance, but did not provide specific actionable
steps for implementation. Findings derived from diverse research methodologies (e.g.
qualitative studies, case studies, action research, and clinical inquiry) would provide a
greater range of perspectives, and perhaps a more actionable knowledge base.

What practice guidance do the findings of recent research provide to organizational

change agents and managers in addressing individual resistance to organizational
change?
Returning to our original study question, we have culled from these research articles
numerous findings along with associated practice guidance. Notwithstanding the
general nature of much of the research, we have proposed a framework, presented
in Table I, which we believe may be a starting point helpful to practitioners in
understanding and addressing resistance to organizational change initiatives.
Resistance research findings Practice guidance for change agents and managers

What is resistance?
Resistance to change Plan for resistance
Individuals may have negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards Anticipate and plan for resistance to change initiatives: it is an integral part of
organizational change initiatives the change process
How do personality differences influence resistance?
Predisposition to resist Provide additional support
Some individuals are inclined toward negative reactions to change, and tend to Identify those inclined toward negative reactions and work to gain their trust,
be shortsighted, rigid, and dogmatic and help them understand the need for and requirement to change
Those who resist change often deny, dissociate, use projection, act out, blame Engage those more open to change to help encourage those prone to negativity
others, avoid difficulties, and have irrational thoughts about the change Help those with defensive behaviors such as projection and acting out to
understand their behaviors and that they are not acceptable
Openness to change Gain support and help
Other individuals are more open to change with greater self-esteem, optimism, Select and involve individuals with higher levels of resilience, risk tolerance, and
more confidence in their abilities to control outcomes of change, and a greater positive self-concept in leading and implementing change initiatives
willingness to take risks
What are key concerns and responses to change initiatives?
Responses to change Address individuals concerns
Individuals may have concerns about the value of change; how it influences Recognize and be prepared to respond to individuals concerns about change
their roles and status, job security, their departments, the organization, and implications
customers; along with how it fits with organizational values and norms Provide meaningful opportunities for staff feedback about change initiatives
Individuals may not support change resulting in disagreements, complaining, Respond to valid resistance to change and use it to improve the organization and
a lack of cooperation, undermining, or doing minimum work decision making
Individuals may also experience stress, anger, fear, frustration, and anxiety in
response to change
Competence Provide support and training
Individuals consider their competence and the likelihood of achieving Provide adequate support and training in building employee confidence and
successful change which create anxiety and fear their capabilities to accomplish change successfully
What factors in the change process influence resistance?
Communication Communicate, communicate, communicate
The level and perceived quality of communication about the change influences Provide ample, clear and quality, communications about change initiatives,
resistance associated implications, and implementation actions
(continued)
organizational

and practice
Linking research
change

51

Table I.
Resistance to
 52
31,1
LODJ

Table I.
Resistance research findings Practice guidance for change agents and managers

Understanding Ensure understanding of the change

Individuals understanding of change initiatives influences resistance along Provide clear and appropriate details to ensure individuals understand the
with their confidence in the success and their support of change change, how it influences them, and what is expected of them
Management consistency Examine policies and behaviors for consistency
Inconsistencies in change messaging delivered and management behaviors Be certain organizational policies, goals, and management actions and behaviors
provides justification to individuals for resistance are consistent with change initiatives
Participation Encourage and allow opportunities for participation in the change process
Individuals perceptions of their participation in the change process influences Provide meaningful information about the change to individuals, solicit their
their views of change, goal achievement, and resistance input and opinions, and encourage involvement in the decision making process
Provide individuals with the opportunity to participate in the change process
including identifying the need to change, and developing and implementing
change plans
How do management relationships and styles influence resistance?
Confidence and trust Develop confidence and trust
The level of individuals confidence in managements ability to lead effective Developing confidence and trust is a long-term endeavor involving gaining buy-
change, and their perceptions of whether management is attempting to do in to the value of change and the probability for success; openness to
what is right for the organization along with managements underlying constructive criticism and willingness to revise change plans if appropriate;
motivations influences skepticism, cynicism, and resistance to change transparency and clear articulation of the need, benefits, and motivations behind
change and that it is best for the organization
Management styles Emphasize more effective management styles
Leaders viewed as being collaborative seem most effective, while those Encourage collaboration, facts, and logic in managing while avoiding the use of
perceived as focusing only on facts and logic seem less effective, and finally power and coercion
those using power and coercion seem least effective in minimizing resistance
Employee relationships Develop quality manager-employee relationships
The strength of perceived employee-manager relationships and the interest of Assess manager-employee relationships and employee development
managers in the personal development of employees influence resistance opportunities to determine how they can be improved in a meaningful way; and
employees with positive perceptions also believe they have been provided follow-through with the implementation of those initiatives
more information about change initiatives, more opportunities for
participation, and experience more trust, and are less resistant
Concluding comments Resistance to
This study of current published research certainly reflects the complexity of individual organizational
resistance, the challenges of conducting research in organizational settings over time,
and the limitations of traditional research methods in examining such issues and change
providing actionable practice recommendations. The almost exclusive use and
publication of survey studies might suggest a researcher bias towards such traditional
designs or a difficulty in getting non-traditional research published in peer-reviewed 53
journals, or both. Despite the discomfort with non-traditional research methods,
however, they may provide more perspectives that would be helpful in understanding
the messy reality of the practitioners world, and provide a more meaningful and useful
link between research and practice.
The above framework linking research findings with practice guidance, we believe,
provides a starting place or beginning checklist useful to practitioners in considering
resistance in the planning for change initiatives. Researchers have provided insights
into the cognitive, affective, and behavior dimensions of resistance, how various
personality differences and individual concerns influence resistance, and what change
agents and managers might be able to do to appropriately influence resistance. Each of
these areas offers a plethora of opportunities for deeper examination. As indicated in
the limitations of research section above, the framework certainly does not touch all
aspects of resistance or issues facing practitioners. Lastly, although presented as a
framework, we did not intend to suggest there is a connection among the many
variables, but rather a guide for working with organizational issues.

References
Armenakis, A.A. and Bedain, A.G. (1999), Organizational change: a review of theory and
research in the 1990s, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 293-315.
Bovey, W. and Hede, A. (2001a), Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and
affective processes, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 372-82.
Bovey, W. and Hede, A. (2001b), Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence
mechanisms, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 534-48.
Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H. (1992), A causal model of organizational performance and
change, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 523-35.
Chreim, S. (2006), Managerial frames and institutional discourses of change: employee
appropriation and resistance, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 1261-87.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.
Furst, S. and Cable, D. (2008), Employee resistance to organizational change: managerial
influence tactics and leader-member exchange, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 2, pp. 453-62.
Giangreco, A. and Peccei, R. (2005), The nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance to
change: evidence from an Italian context, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 1812-29.
Isabella, L. (1990), Evolving interpretations as a change model unfolds: how managers construe
key organizational events, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 7-41.
Isern, J. and Pung, C. (2007), Harnessing energy to drive organizational change, McKinsey
Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 1-4.
LODJ Jaffe, D., Scott, C. and Tobe, G. (1994), Rekindling Commitment: How to Revitalize Yourself,
Your Work, and Your Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
31,1
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T.M. (1999), Managerial coping with
organizational change: a dispositional perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84
No. 1, pp. 107-22.
Judson, A. (1991), Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change, Basil
54 Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Kotter, J. (1995), Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review,
March/April, pp. 58-67.
Larson, G. and Tompkins, P. (2005), Ambivalence and resistance: a study of management in a
concertive control system, Communication Monographs, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Lewin, K. and Gold, M. (1999), Group decision and social change, The Complete Social Scientist:
A Kurt Lewin Reader, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 265-84
(reprinted from Newcomb, T.M. and Hartley, E.L. (Eds), 1948, Readings in Social
Psychology, pp. 330-41, Henry Holt, New York, NY).
Lewis, L. (2006), Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of
perceptions of success and resistance, Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 70 No. 1,
pp. 23-46.
Lines, R. (2004), Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational
commitment, and change goal achievement, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 193-215.
Lines, R. (2005), The structure and function of attitudes toward organizational change,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2, pp. 1-25.
Lowstedt, J. (1993), Organizing frameworks in emerging organizations: a cognitive approach to
the analysis of change, Human Relations, Vol. 46, pp. 501-26.
Mabin, V., Forgeson, S. and Green, L. (2001), Harnessing resistance: using the theory of
constraints to assist change management, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 25 Nos 2-4, pp. 168-91.
Msweli-Mbanga, P. and Potwana, N. (2006), Modelling participation, resistance to change, and
organisational citizenship behaviour: a South African case, South African Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 21-9.
Oreg, S. (2003), Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 680-93.
Oreg, S. (2006), Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-101.
Piderit, S. (2000), Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view
of attitudes toward an organizational change, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 783-94.
Prochaska, J., Prochaska, J. and Levesque, D. (2001), A transtheoretical approach to
changing organizations, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 247-61.
Robertson, P.J., Roberts, D.R. and Porras, J.I. (1993), Dynamics of planned organizational
change: assessing empirical support for a theoretical model, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 619-34.
Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. and Topolnytsky, L. (2005), Employee cynicism and resistance
to organizational change, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 429-59.
Szabla, D.B. (2007), A multidimensional view of resistance to organizational change: exploring Resistance to
cognitive, emotional, and intentional responses to planned change across perceived change
leadership strategies, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 525-58. organizational
van Dam, K., Oreg, S. and Schyns, B. (2008), Daily work contexts and resistance to change
organizational change: the role of leader-member exchange, development climate, and
change process characteristics, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 313-34.
55
Wanberg, C. and Banas, J. (2000), Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 132-42.
Washington, M. and Hacker, M. (2005), Why change fails: knowledge counts, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 400-11.

Further reading
Burke, W.W. (2002), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Piderit, S. (1999), Navigating relationships with coworkers: understanding employees attitudes
toward organizational change, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 60 No. 5, p. 1662
(UMI No. 9929921).

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

Corresponding author
Dennis G. Erwin can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 56
31,1

articles
LODJ

Table AI.
Questions and topics
addressed in the research
Author(s) Question categories Topics addressed
Appendix

Bovey and Hede (2001b) What is resistance? Behavioral dimension of resistance

How do personality differences influence resistance? Defense mechanisms, irrational thoughts, and
perceived change impact
Bovey and Hede (2001a) What is resistance? Behavioral dimension of resistance
How do personality differences influence resistance? Defense mechanisms, irrational thoughts, and
perceived change impact
Chreim (2006) What key elements influence resistance? Personal capabilities to accomplish change
Furst and Cable (2008) How do relationships and style influence resistance? Management styles and relationships
Giangreco and Peccei (2005) What is resistance? Behavioral dimensions of resistance
What key elements influence resistance? Potential threats and benefits of change
How does the change process influence resistance? Participation in the change effort
Judge et al. (1999) How do personality differences influence resistance? Self-concept, risk tolerance, and coping with change
Larson and Tompkins (2005) How does the change process influence resistance? Communication, understanding, and consistency
Lewis (2006) How does the change process influence resistance? Communication, understanding, and consistency
Lines (2004) What is resistance? Behavioral dimensions of resistance
How does the change process influence resistance? Participation in the change effort
Lines (2005) What is resistance? Behavioral dimension of resistance
Msweli-Mbanga and Potwana (2006) How does the change process influence resistance? Participation in the change effort
Oreg (2003) How do personality differences influence resistance? Predisposition towards resistance
Oreg (2006) What is resistance? Cognitive/affective dimensions of resistance
What key elements influence resistance? Potential threats and benefits of change
How does the change process influence resistance? Communication, understanding, and consistency
How do relationships and style influence resistance? Trust in management and competence
Stanley and Topolnytsky (2005) How do relationships and style influence resistance? Trust in management and competence
Szabla (2007) How do relationships and style influence resistance? Management styles and relationships
van Dam et al. (2008) How do relationships and style influence resistance? Management styles and relationships
Wanberg and Banas (2000) How do personality differences influence resistance? Personal resilience and openness to change
How does the change process influence resistance? Communication, understanding, and consistency
Washington and Hacker (2005) How does the change process influence resistance? Communication, understanding, and consistency
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.