Chapter 21
Understanding and Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change
Sergio Fernandez
Organizations undergo frequent changes in function and form, ranging from changes in structure, technology, and products to changes in personnel, leadership, and culture (Burke, 2010; Demers, 2007; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Many changes are microlevel ones that affect one individual or a small group, but some are fundamental or revolutionary departures from the status quo, like reorganizations and changes in strategic direction. In a dynamic external environment, adaptable organizations that can change and innovate are more likely to survive and thrive (Burns & Stalker, 1961; March & Simon, 1993). Despite popular perceptions that they are resistant to change, public organizations have changed frequently, especially during the past two decades as new public management reforms have emphasized innovation and continuous improvement in governments around the world (Breul & Kamensky, 2008; Kettl, 2005; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004).
Light (1997) indicates that in the United States alone between 1945 and 1995, Congress legislatively mandated 141 major reforms within the federal bureaucracy. More than 90 percent of federal employees responding to the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey agreed with the statement, “I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better,” suggesting an extraordinary degree of change in the federal bureaucracy (US Office of Personnel Management, 2013). Public organizations even undergo the ultimate form of organizational change, death, with some frequency. While Kaufman (1976) initially concluded that federal agencies are for the most part immortal, more recent empirical research indicates otherwise (Peters & Hogwood, 1988; Lewis, 2002). Lewis (2002) found that more than 60 percent of federal agencies created since the end of World War II have been terminated.
Nearly as commonplace as organizational change is resistance to change. Managers and employees may resist change for good reasons (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1999; Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 2008; Piderit, 2000). Fernandez and Rainey (2006) note that some changes are ill conceived, harmful, and illegitimate in the eyes of organizational members and stakeholders. Hood and Peters (2004), commenting on new public management reforms, state that “uncritical and universal adoption of poorly grounded recipes for institutional design is a commonly observed feature of administrative reform processes” (p. 278). Resistance to change can play a useful role, serving as a source of vital information and feedback that change agents can use to modify and improve change initiatives that are underway (Ford et al., 2008). One thing managers can be fairly certain of, however, is that resistance to change, when overlooked and not adequately managed, will undermine change efforts and lead to failure (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1999; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Del Val & Fuentes, 2003; Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Kuipers et al., 2014; Greiner, 1967).
This chapter begins with a discussion of the concept of resistance to change and the forms it can take in organizations. Public managers must be able to recognize overt as well as covert forms of resistance to change in order to understand the nature and magnitude of resistance. The focus then shifts to an analysis of sources of resistance to change in organizations, including individual, group, organizational, and environmental factors that contribute to resistance. The chapter concludes with a discussion of approaches and practical steps public managers can take to reduce resistance to change in their organizations.
Resistance to Change
To begin to understand resistance to organizational change, it is important to describe people's emotional and cognitive reactions to change. Since Lewin's (1947) groundbreaking work, management scholars have been concerned with resistance to change and how to overcome it in order to change behavior, attitudes, and values. Lewin describes the status quo as a quasi-stationary equilibrium comparable to a river flowing with a certain velocity and direction, during a certain period of time. This quasi-stationary equilibrium can be changed in two ways: adding force in the desired direction or diminishing opposing force. These two approaches differ in the degree to which they elicit tension, with the former resulting in higher tension than the latter. Since higher tension is associated with higher aggressiveness and emotionality, Lewin argues that an approach that emphasizes diminishing opposing force is preferable to exerting force when it comes to overcoming resistance to change. This step in the process of change, which he calls unfreezing, involves overcoming inner resistance to change, or breaking social habits. Once unfreezing has occurred, the change can be introduced, followed by efforts to refreeze or make it permanent.
In another classic contribution to the organizational change literature, Coch and French (1948) equate resistance to change with frustration that is felt during task performance. Frustration is the result of conflict between two opposing forces: the force acting on an employee to achieve at a higher level and the restraining force associated with the difficulty of a job. The degree of frustration is a function of the weaker of these two forces. Such frustration may also be felt when one is expected to perform in a different manner although not necessarily a higher level. Taking a somewhat different view, Levinson (1976) argued that organizational change always involves some degree of psychological loss with the familiar, particularly with organizational routines. The more acute the sense of loss, the greater the sense of helplessness and the less self-efficacy employees feel, thereby increasing the likelihood that resistance will occur.
People's psychological reaction to organizational change appears to occur in stages. As Jick (1990) explains, for most people change feels like losing control. Even if they accept the change cognitively, the emotional reaction could be adverse, including a sense of fear. Hence, it takes time for people to adapt to the newly emerging reality. Jick argues that the process of adapting to change involves passing through several stages and that this process cannot be accelerated without creating undue stress and additional resistance. The person begins by letting go of the status quo and relinquishing negative feelings about the required change (ending phase stage); then he or she moves on to a period of uncertainty and relatively inactivity used to muster strength for moving forward (neutral zone stage); and finally he or she begins to carry out the changes (new beginnings stage). According to Jick, only after people have had sufficient time to let go and mourn the past and dwell in the neutral zone should they be asked to change their behavior.
So far the focus has been on emotional or cognitive aspects of resistance to change. However, people's reactions to change are complex and multifaceted and in many cases become evident in their behavior. According to Piderit (2000), resistance to change can occur at three levels: the affective level (e.g., fear or excitement about change), the cognitive level (e.g., concerns about the repercussions of change), and the behavioral level (e.g., stalling or delaying changes in behavior). Reaction to change at each of these levels lies along a continuum from very positive to very negative. What is often perceived as resistance to change might actually be ambivalence to it characterized by a mixture of reactions, both positive and negative, psychological and behavioral. As Piederit notes, ambivalence can serve a useful purpose during the change process. Disagreement and conflict can result in discarding old ways of thinking and acting and in new opportunities for learning. Ambivalence is also more likely to result in dialogue that leads to the discovery of previously unknown alternatives.
Jellison (1993) provides a useful description of the types of behaviors or tactics people engage in to express their resistance to change. The ability to observe this behavior is crucial, as it will alert a change agent to the presence and even magnitude of resistance to change. One set of tactics aims at causing distractions in order to avoid change. The person resisting change introduces a diversion to shift the focus away from the change that is being introduced. Diversion tactics include displays of extreme emotions, criticisms of the manner in which the change is being presented or introduced, defensive accusations and name-calling, and the use of red herrings. A second set of tactics involves efforts to buy time and delay so that change does not have to occur. Tactics used to buy time include instrumental ignorance, or attempts to feign ignorance or misunderstanding so that things must be explained time and time again; repeatedly asking “why” questions; deliberate attempts to complicate and misrepresent information; and providing excuses for why change cannot or should not occur. Third, some resistance tactics are designed to wear down the change agent so that little energy is left to bring about change. Such tactics include combative arguments that can turn into shouting matches, condescending reactions that trivialize the proposal for change, reluctant acceptance combined with foot-dragging, defiant acceptance that communicates hostility toward the change agent and resentment for having to change, and even catatonic responses. Finally, Jellison describes tactics that suggest pseudo-agreement, including promises to change followed by inaction and the use of ambiguous language to give the impression that one will comply without true intent to do so.
Resistance to organizational change can also be observed in the collective behavior of members of groups and work units. As Burke (2010) notes, group-level resistance to change can take various forms. It may involve turf battles, competition with other groups, and closing of ranks to promote the survival of a group. Group members may also demand changes in the leadership of the group or challenge the integrity and competence of the group leader when he or she is trying to bring about change within the group (Burke, 2010).
Sources of Resistance to Change
The management literature indicates that the sources of resistance to change are varied and operate at multiple levels. This section provides a synthesis of literature on the sources of resistance to change by pulling together concepts and findings from various streams of research. Sources of resistance to change operate at four levels: individual, group, organization, and external environment (see table 21.1).
Table 21.1 Sources of Resistance to Organizational Change
Individual-level sources (Watson, 1971; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Bovey & Hede, 2001; Ford et al., 2008)
|
Group-level sources (Lewin, 1947; Feldman, 1984)
|
Organizational-level sources (Merton, 1940; Thompson, 1965; Pierce & Delbecq, 1977; Hannan & Freeman, 1977 1984)
|
External environmental-level sources (Hannan & Freeman, 1977 1984; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996)
|
Individual-Level Sources of Resistance
Watson (1971) asserts that resistance to change stems in part from forces that contribute to stability in personality. One of these forces is homeostasis, a built-in regulatory mechanism within the body that keeps physiological states fairly constant and that at the psychological level results in complacency. Habit and primacy, or persistence of patterns of thought and behavior that enable one to cope with a situation, are other forces fostering resistance to change. In addition, Watson notes that lack of self-trust in one's impulses and insecurity lead to repetition of old and counterproductive patterns of behavior, even when the situation calls for a novel response. Finally, he points to the superego as a force acting against change. As he explains, the superego “is a powerful agent serving tradition. The repressive constraints that operate—partly unconsciously—do not derive from the realities of life in the present or the preceding generation. The Superego of the child corresponds to the Superego of the parent, not to her rational conclusions based on experience . . . An individual needs considerable ego strength to become able to cope realistically with changing situations in disregard of the unrealistic, perfectionistic demands of the Superego” (p. 753).
According to Bovey and Hede (2001), defense mechanisms operating on a largely unconscious level, including humor, anticipation, denial, dissociation, isolation of affect, projection, and acting out, also hinder attempts to change. In their empirical analysis, they found that adaptive defense mechanisms like humor and anticipation were less likely to result in resistance to change. Conversely, the unconscious inclination to use maladaptive defense mechanisms like projection and acting out leads to higher levels of resistance to change.
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) point to additional psychological factors and processes that lead to resistance to change. First, people resist change because they focus on their own best interests rather than on those of the group or the organization, and they develop a fear that change will impose personal costs. Second, resistance to change can occur when people do not understand the true implications of change, including the repercussions of maintaining the status quo and the costs and benefits involved in changing. Lack of trust may also incite resistance, as when managers are perceived not to act in the best interests of employees, to behave unpredictably, and to be unreliable. Third, change agents may erroneously conclude that they and the targets of change possess the same information about the need for and consequences of change. As Kotter and Schlesinger explain, “Managers who initiate change often assume both that they have all the relevant information required to conduct an adequate organization analysis and that those who will be affected by the change have the same facts, when neither assumption is correct. In either case, the difference in information that groups work with often leads to differences in analyses, which in turn can lead to resistance” (p. 108). Finally, some people have a low tolerance for change because they lack confidence in their ability to adapt to the magnitude and pace of change required by managers. Importantly, this can occur even when they have accepted the need for change and believe change is beneficial.
There is a tendency in the literature and among change agents to attribute resistance to change to the people whose affect, cognition, or behavior are expected to change. Ford et al. (2008) argue, however, that change agents can be their own worst enemy by engaging in a range of counterproductive activities that serve to generate additional resistance. For example, change agents break agreements before and during the change process and fail to restore confidence and trust once these have been breeched. They may also be the source of communication breakdowns that undermine support for change, for example, when they misrepresent facts about change to minimize the risks and induce cooperation. Finally, change agents often fail to listen to ideas, proposals, and concerns from employees that can lead to learning and more effective implementation of organizational change.
Group-Level Sources of Resistance
Group structure and dynamics can also generate resistance to organizational change. Lewin (1947) observed how group standards reinforce social habits, a key source of resistance to change that needs to be overcome. He explains that individuals may be willing to deviate from group norms and standards to some extent but usually not to the point where it invites criticism, ridicule, or even expulsion from the group. So long as group standards remain unchanged, people will resist change, with the resistance growing in proportion to the degree to which the change forces them to depart from group standards.
Small groups and teams in organizations have norms that establish acceptable standards of behavior for their members. These norms vary in the degree to which they emphasize flexibility and change on the one hand, and consistency and rigidity on the other. Groups often place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors in order to conform to group norms (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969; Feldman, 1984). Strong pressures to conform to norms that promote consistent and predictable behavior thus become a source of resistance to change. In a similar fashion, group cohesiveness can stand in the way of change. Group cohesiveness refers to the degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in and preserve the identity of the group. Cohesiveness has been found to be positively correlated with group satisfaction, morale, and productivity, especially when group performance norms emphasize high levels of achievement and performance (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009; Evans & Dion, 1991). However, members of very cohesive groups may resist organizational changes when they are perceived to threaten group identity, status, resources, and membership.
Organizational Sources of Resistance
For quite some time, management scholars have been concerned with the effects of organizational structure on the ability to change and adapt. Merton's (1940) analysis of bureaucracy offered the most elaborate and compelling analysis of the dysfunctional behaviors stemming from formal bureaucratic structures. He borrowed from Thorstein Veblen's notion of “trained incapacity” to explain how strict adherence to rules designed for one situation precludes employees from responding appropriately to a different situation when conditions change, thereby thwarting their efforts to adapt. As Merton explains, bureaucracies demand reliability and strict devotion to rules, to the point where rules become absolutes or ends in themselves. This makes it very difficult for bureaucrats to respond effectively to novel situations not covered by the rules. Webb and Chevreau (2006), for example, describe how the decades-long emphasis on centralization and hierarchical control during responses to crises, as evident in many emergency responses plans, has stifled efforts by the emergency management community to encourage autonomous and creative responses, even though the complexity and interconnectedness of today's world demand such flexibility from emergency managers.
In a similar vein, innovation scholars have explored how excessive formalization of behavior can become an obstacle to innovation. The proliferation of standard operating rules and procedures deprives employees of the autonomy necessary to act in creative and innovative ways (Thompson, 1965; Damanpour, 1991; Pierce & Delbecq, 1977). This problem becomes particularly acute when managers insist on strict adherence to the rules, thus discouraging experimentation and departures from tradition that are often the source of more significant organizational changes adopted on a large scale (Kanter, 1983).
Population ecologists have offered an insightful analysis of organizational dynamics that produce resistance to change. Hannan and Freeman (1984) proposed the concept of structural inertia as a cause of resistance to change or a limitation on an organization's ability to adapt. As they explain, structural inertia is a consequence of environmental selection processes rather than a precondition for selection. This is because actors prefer organizations that are reliable and account rationally for their actions. To achieve high levels of reliability and accountability, organizations must be able to reproduce their structures continually. This is achieved through the process of institutionalization and by creating standardized routines. Resistance to structural change is an unintended consequence of reliance on these mechanisms for making organizational structures highly reproducible. Importantly, structural inertia seems to increase as organizations become older and larger.
According to Hannan and Freeman (1977 1984), internal sources of structural inertial are varied. For example, organizations make large investments in physical and human capital that are not easily transferable. Costs incurred from these investments reduce the range of feasible strategic options available to managers. Second, established patterns of data reporting and collection serve as a filter to limit the variety of information available to decision makers about happenings inside as well as outside the organization. This constrains consideration of possible opportunities and threats and of courses of action that can be taken. Third, the internal structure of an organization reflects and reinforces the political equilibrium among contending units and coalitions. Any change to internal structure may disrupt this equilibrium and threaten the sources of influence and flow of resources to some groups, which then become opposed to change. Finally, there are the effects of history. As they explain, “once standards of procedure and the allocation of tasks and authority have become the subject of normative agreement, the costs of change are greatly increased” (Hannan & Freeman, 1977, p. 931). Normative agreements generate resistance to change by providing a justification or principle to those who do not want change to occur and by precluding consideration of many alternatives.
Environmental-Level Sources of Resistance
In addition to internal sources of structural inertia, Hannan and Freeman (1977 1984) argue that a number of pressures emanating from the external environment also produce structural inertia. For example, legal and fiscal barriers to exit and entry (e.g., government licensing requirements, regulated monopolies, legal commitments to other organizations) inhibit change, as do production standards and industry practices that perpetuate existing patterns of acquisition of inputs and use of technologies. Turbulence and complexity in the task environment make it hard to gather relevant information for exploring new opportunities. Moreover, there are legitimacy constraints that originate from the external environment. As Hannan and Freeman explain, “any legitimacy an organization has been able to generate constitutes an asset in manipulating the environment. To the extent that adaptation . . . violates the legitimacy claims, it incurs considerable costs” (p. 932).
Hannan and Freeman's analysis of structural inertia focuses primarily on factors in the task environment that contribute to structural inertia. The task environment is the set of external actors and forces that relate directly to the achievement of the mission and goals of the organization and influence its ability to obtain inputs and dispose of outputs. Neoinstitutional theory indicates that the normative environment includes its own set of actors and isomorphic forces, including the state, regulators, professions, and trade organizations, that encourage change toward a prevailing template but inhibit radical change that leads to organizations' becoming different from others in their organization field. As Greenwood and Hinings (1996) explain, prevailing templates reflect the underlying ideas, values, and norms in the external environment and represent a way of organizing that has a taken-for-granted nature few individuals rarely examine or question. They argue that organizations vary in the degree to which they are susceptible to isomorphic pressure to undergo convergent change. The greater the normative embeddedness or strength of the institutional forces coalescing around a particular template, the less likely it is that revolutionary change will occur and that change that does occur is convergent in nature. In addition, the more tightly coupled the institutional context is, the more likely one is to find actors and mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance with prevailing ideas, values, and norms, thereby discouraging revolutionary change. Finally, organizations that are more open to influence from the organization field are more likely to undergo convergent change and find it more difficult to experience revolutionary change. Organizations that are able to overcome isomorphic pressures and undergo revolutionary change are characterized by high levels of internal dissatisfaction with the template and the presence of a coalition or group with the power to push forth revolutionary change as well as the ability to mobilize resources and skills needed to bring about such change (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).
Overcoming Resistance to Change
Since resistance to change is so widespread and presents a serious obstacle to organizational change initiatives, it is crucial for change agents to become familiar with methods for overcoming resistance. The management literature has a variety of practical recommendations for how to reduce resistance to change in organizations (see table 21.2). Lewin (1947) offered two approaches to overcoming initial resistance to change, or two methods of unfreezing individuals: adding force in the desired direction or diminishing opposing forces. Lewin argued, and much research since then has confirmed (see Burke, 2010), that the latter approach is more efficacious since the former generates higher levels of aggressiveness and emotionality and lower constructiveness.
Table 21.2 Approaches for Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change
|
Sources: Lewin (1947); Schein (1964); Jick (1990); Judson (1991); Armenakis et al. (1993); Kets de Vries and Balazs (1999); Van Dam, Oreg, and Schyns (2007); Armenakis, Harris, and Field (1999); Burke (2010); Battilana and Casciaro (2013).
Numerous scholars elaborated on Lewin's work, including Schein (1964), who argued that changes in behavior and attitudes tend to be emotionally resisted because they imply that previous behavior and attitudes are inappropriate, a conclusion that causes unease. To alter the existing equilibrium and bring about Lewin's unfreezing, he proposes three necessary processes. First, employees must be confronted with evidence that disconfirms, or fails to confirm, the desirability and sustainability of the status quo, such as data indicating declining performance or customer satisfaction. Second, employees must be induced to feel guilt anxiety for not acting to change the current state of affairs. Finally, the first two processes must be complemented by the creation of psychological safety among employees so that they do not fear embarrassment, humiliation, or loss of self-esteem resulting from changes in behavior. Only then are people ready to develop new responses based on newly gathered information and to begin to stabilize and integrate the change (see table 21.2).
Kets de Vries and Balazs (1999) also believe employees must be made to feel guilt or discomfort in order to induce change. However, they say that discomfort, in the form of stress or psychic pain brought about by the status quo, must be followed up by a focal event that triggers a behavioral response aimed at reducing the stress (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1999). Short of fabricating a crisis, leaders can foment dissatisfaction by convincing employees that preserving the status quo will prolong or even accentuate the pain (see also Nadler & Nadler, 1998). Resistance to change can be reduced even further by offering hope in the form of a compelling vision of how stress and discomfort will be alleviated (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1999). Also helpful for reducing resistance is a public declaration of the intent to change. As they explain, telling others of the intent to change signals acceptance of conditions precipitating change and that defense mechanisms standing in the way of change (e.g., denial) have run their course. A public declaration of the intent to change also imposes the threat of social sanctions like losing face if the person does not follow through with the change.
Armenakis et al. (1993) place even greater emphasis on communication as a mechanism for promoting readiness for change. They argue that the readiness for change must address two issues: the need for change, or the discrepancy between the status quo and the desired end state, and the individual or collective efficacy for or perceived ability to change. They suggest three influence strategies for communicating the message for change: persuasive communication, management of external information, and active participation. Persuasive communication involves explicit transmission of information regarding discrepancy and efficacy. It can be oral (in-person speeches, teleconferencing, recordings), which is more likely to also communicate a sense of urgency and commitment to change on the part of the change agent, or written (memos, reports, and newsletters). Managing external information entails using individuals or entities outside the organization to bolster the message for change so that it becomes more believable and credible. This can be accomplished by providing information about the change to outsiders like the media (e.g., through press releases) or disseminating change-relevant information produced outside the organization. Finally, active participation enables employees to discover for themselves the need for change (e.g., through a planning session or by reading customer complaints) and build their sense of efficacy through vicarious learning and enactive mastery.
According to Armenakis et al. (1993), the choice from among influence strategies depends on the situation. When both readiness and urgency for change are low, an aggressive approach that employs all three strategies is recommended, especially since time is available for creating readiness. Vigorous persuasive communication is required when readiness is low but urgency is high, as happens during a crisis. Time is of the essence here, so management of external information and active participation, more time-intensive strategies, are not recommended. When readiness for change is high and urgency is low, a less intensive program that continues to communicate discrepancy and efficacy through written persuasive communication and use of external messaging suffices. Finally, active participation is necessary in situations where both readiness and urgency for change are high in order to maintain momentum for change as it begins to unfold.
Whereas the authors discussed so far focus on creating discomfort to get people to change, Jick (1990) emphasizes the need to help employees cope with the stress generated by change in order to reduce resistance. He argues that managers should do a number of things to let employees know that apprehension about change is a natural response for those undergoing a process of adaptation, including allowing employees to express their anxiety, frustration, and anger, expressing empathy, and giving them time to mourn the past. In addition, managers should provide support in the form of resources needed for change, information that delineates the expectations relating to the change, and rewards for making progress. Finally, managers must create capability for change. This involves continuing to foster a safe environment where failures go unpunished and successes are rewarded, providing nonjudgmental feedback, offering guarantees against personal loss (including loss of status, rank and compensation), and allowing employees to have a voice in the planning and implementation of change.
Judson (1991) provides one of the most comprehensive treatments of the topic of resistance to change. He points to a range of approaches change agents can take to overcome resistance. Many of the methods he proposes for reducing resistance we have already covered, but a few that were not warrant careful consideration. For instance, Judson warns against using compulsion, threats, and bribery, including relying on authority to command change and threats of disciplinary action, demotion, and job loss. These methods are the most likely to generate hostility, resentment, and delay. More effective at reducing resistance are persuasion, rewards, bargaining, and offers of security and guarantee. Monetary and nonmonetary rewards—from pay and benefits to assignment of more interesting and intrinsically rewarding jobs—can be offered to offset some of the costs employees incur as a result of change, thereby reducing resistance. Like rewards, bargaining can reduce resistance by compensating those adversely affected by change. The success of bargaining, however, depends on willingness to bargain and room for compromise. Offering security and guarantees against loss of status, influence, resources, and employment minimizes resistance by reducing insecurity, the root cause of much resistance. Insecurity can also be due to a lack of self-efficacy in regard to the ability to adapt or change, so offering training and educational opportunities can also be a means of providing security.
Judson (1991) spends a fair amount of time discussing the benefits of employee involvement and participation and how to use these methods for overcoming resistance to change. Participation occurs along a spectrum, from mere consultation about the change on one end to joint decision making and even delegation of decision-making authority about the change at the other end. Participation in the change process can promote understanding of change and its consequences, increase commitment to the change, and create a sense of self-determination. However, to be successful, participation requires that employees have the desire to participate and feel secure enough to express their thoughts and feelings, that change agents feel secure in their role and are not wedded to a particular course of action, and that participants receive credit and are recognized openly for their contributions to the process (Judson, 1991).
Finally, emerging research suggests that the nature of the relationship between those leading change efforts and followers responsible for implementing change influences the likelihood that resistance will occur. Van Dam et al. (2008) found that change agents who developed high exchange relationships with followers experienced lower levels of resistance to change. High exchange relationships are those characterized by high levels of mutual communication, trust, and commitment between leader and follower, some of the same factors that are associated with receptivity to change (Tierney, 1999). To develop high exchange relationships, leaders can assign more interesting and desirable tasks, delegate more responsibility, share more information, provide emotional support, and share tangible rewards with followers (Yukl, 2012). In a similar vein, Battilana and Casciaro (2013) found that change agents who developed strong ties to followers who were ambivalent or had mixed feelings about the change were more likely to co-opt them and reduce the level of resistance to change. Strong ties are those characterized by high levels of commitment, intimacy, and reciprocity between individuals; like high exchange relationships, they take considerable time and effort to cultivate.
Summary
This chapter described the concept of resistance to change, the various forms resistance can take, and the tactics employees use to resist change initiatives. Resistance to change appears to develop in stages, is not always overt, and may take subtle forms that an effective change agent must be able to recognize in order to assess the magnitude and strength of resistance. Employee responses to change are multifaceted and what may appear to be resistance may actually be ambivalence, which can serve a useful purpose by generating discussion that leads to learning opportunities and discovery of new alternatives.
Resistance to change is a consequence of many factors. Individual-level factors such as personality, self-interest, mistrust, and misunderstanding can cause resistance to change, as can group-level phenomena like group standards and norms and group cohesion. Resistance to change can also come from organizational-level conditions that produce structural inertia, as well as excessive formalization and adherence to rules. Moreover, resistance to change may be due to factors in the external environment such as barriers to exit and entry, technological constraints, and isomorphic forces compelling organizations to undergo convergent change while at the same time discouraging revolutionary change.
The chapter also reviewed the literature on organizational change in order to identify practical approaches public managers can use to reduce resistance to change. A variety of methods were discussed, but the ones that appear most often in the literature and seem to be most important are communication, exchange, employee consultation and involvement in decision making about the change, efforts to build mutual trust, and psychological support.
The implications for practicing public managers are straightforward. First, managing successful organizational change is a critical contingency in today's turbulent and rapidly changing environment, and the ability to recognize and take steps to reduce resistance to change is critical to the process of managing change. Indeed, a common theme across many frameworks and models of organizational change is the need to address resistance to change in order to implement change effectively (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). Second, because the sources of resistance to change are varied and operate on multiple levels, no simple response is likely to suffice.
Finally, the recommendations for reducing resistance to change offered in this chapter represent practical steps public managers can take with modest effort and commitment of resources. Some sources of resistance to change require elaborate responses involving organizational redesign and even changes in organizational culture. However, a combination of communication, compensation, and participation can go a long way toward reducing individual resistance to change and opening the way for successful organizational change to occur.