Resistance to Change

Conceptual Overview

A formidable amount of research now exists on the topic of resistance to organizational change. Much of this interest is due to the incredible popularity of change management techniques, especially those associated with culture management, business process reengineering, and technological competencies. Indeed, mainstream management writers and consultants frequently espouse the cliché that change is the only constant. It is therefore unsurprising that resistance is largely interpreted in negative terms, signifying irrationality, stubbornness, and recalcitrance.

The classic research on organizational change is keenly aware that individuals and/or groups might resist. The influential social psychologist Kurt Lewin developed what he called a force-field analysis of organizational change. Evoking the physics metaphor of primary action and reaction, Lewin invited change agents to tally the forces that both favor and oppose change. While resisting forces might involve factors like uncertain information or high risk, the behaviors and attitudes of employees particularly stood out as a resilient impediment. In order to successfully unfreeze, change, and refreeze the organization, managers ought to strengthen the drivers of change and reduce or remove the forces opposing it.

Lewin's use of a physics metaphor to describe organizational change and resistance is indicative of the way he framed employee frustration as just another element in the change process. Other researchers like Alvin Zander and Lester Coch and John French endeavored to become more intimate with the cognitive processes and perceptions of those who resist change. While they shared Lewin's assumption that resistance was a problem to be overcome, they also reflected the neo–human relations mission to empathize with employees' feelings in order to better manage them. Influenced by psychoanalytical ideas, Zander made a key distinction between manifest and latent causes of resistance to change. Managers will often witness symptoms associated with resistance, but these are merely manifestations of more basic causes like low participation and lack of trust. Resistance to change is overcome by treating the underlying causes, much of which demands clearer communication, perceptions of fairness, and increased involvement by those who are subjected to change initiatives. Coch and French studied resistance to change in a textile factory during the late 1940s. Major changes in the labor process were introduced to three groups in different ways. The first group enjoyed little participation and was simply told to learn the new system themselves. The second group was introduced to the new process via a trained fellow worker. The third group was highly involved in the change process, with the advantages of change clearly explained. Unsurprisingly, the first group fervently resisted the change program and their production dropped dramatically, while the third group posted very high production scores. The authors highlighted the importance of participation and cooperation for reducing resistance to change.

...