Challenging “Resistance to Change”

Abstract

This article examines the origins of one of the most widely accepted mental models that drives organizational behavior: the idea that there is resistance to change and that managers must overcome it. This mental model, held by employees at all levels, interferes with successful change implementation. The authors trace the emergence of the term resistance to change and show how it became received truth. Kurt Lewin introduced the term as a systems concept, as a force affecting managers and employees equally. Because the terminology, but not the context, was carried forward, later uses increasingly cast the problem as a psychological concept, personalizing the issue as employees versus managers. Acceptance of this model confuses an understanding of change dynamics. Letting go of the term—and the model it has come to embody—will make way for more useful models of change dynamics. The authors conclude with a discussion of alternatives to resistance to change.

Dynamics of Resistance to Change: A Sequential Analysis of Change Agents in Action

“…That is, recipients' resistance to change in terms of sustain talk may elicit specific verbal reactions by change agents. The change literature has often demonized resistance to change and illustrates it as something problematic (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). In consequence, a prominent way of dealing with resistance to change is the tendency to eliminate, minimize or suppress resistance (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005).…”

“…In consequence, a prominent way of dealing with resistance to change is the tendency to eliminate, minimize or suppress resistance (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). Elimination strategies range from soft methods, such as education or negotiation, to hard methods, such as coercion (for an overview, see Dent & Goldberg, 1999). In this case, change agents themselves may respond to recipients' resistance by using arguments or even openly confronting the change recipient about the need to change.…”

“…Instead of demonizing resistant change recipients (cf. Dent & Goldberg, 1999), we built on a multidimensional resistance concept that includes both hindering (sustain talk) and driving forces (change talk; cf. Lewin, 1952;Piderit, 2000).…”

“…Whereas this traditional person-centred approach demonizes resisting employees (Dent & Goldberg, 1999;Giangreco & Peccei, 2005;Kotter, 1995), more recent approaches propose that change agents themselves may contribute to the resistance they face . A key to understanding successful change agent -recipient relationships lies in understanding their conversational dynamics (Barrett et al, 1995;Ford & Ford, 1995).…”

Ambivalencia Actitudinal Ante el Cambio Organizacional: Un Análisis Desde el Individuo en Contexto Laboral

“…Se indica que la resistencia no estaría estructuralmente alojada en las personas, sino que sería producto de intereses en conflicto y de la ausencia de una ambiente que brinde apoyo en situación de cambio organizacional (Dent & Goldberg, 1999;Evans, 2001). …”