Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: a Multidimensional View of Attitudes Toward an Organizational Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
* Academy of Management Beview 2000, Vol. 25, No. 4, 783-794. RETHINKING RESISTANCE AND RECOGNIZING AMBIVALENCE: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEW OF ATTITUDES TOWARD AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SANDY KRISTIN PIDERIT Case Western Reserve University In this article I review studies of resistance to change and advocate new research based on a reconceptualization of individual responses to change as multidimen- sional attitudes. A challenging question for research and practice arises: How can we balance the organizational need to ioster ambivalent attitudes toward change and the individual need to minimize the potentially debilitating effects of ambivalence? I conclude by highlighting the importance of examining the evolution of employee responses to change over time and the need to understand responses to change proposals that emerge from bottom-up, egalitarian change processes. Adapting to changing goals and demands has terms; for instance, practical scholars and schol- been a timeless challenge for organizations, but arly practitioners argue that the concept might the task seems to have become even more cru- have outlived its usefulness (Dent & Goldberg, cial in the past decade. In the for-profit sector, 1999; Krantz, 1999). My purpose here is to sum- global population growth and political shifts marize a critique of existing views of resistance have opened new markets for products and ser- to change and to advocate a view that captures vices at a dizzying pace. To respond to the pace more of the complexity of individuals' responses of change, organizations are adopting flatter, to proposed organizational changes. more agile structures and more empowering, In the first part of the article, I suggest that in team-oriented cultures. As status differences studies of resistance to change, researchers erode, some employees are coming to expect have largely overlooked the potentially positive involvement in decisions about organizational intentions that may motivate negative re- change. Successful organizational adaptation is sponses to change. I also show how studies of increasingly reliant on generating employee resistance have dichotomized responses to support and enthusiasm for proposed changes, change and, thus, somewhat oversimplified rather than merely overcoming resistance. them. Furthermore, I argue that varied empha- The concept of resistance to change has been ses in the conceptualization of resistance have widely studied, but it has limitations. Both Mer- slipped into the literature, blurring our sense of ron (1993) and Dent and Goldberg (1999) have the complexities of the phenomenon. argued for retiring the phrase "resistance to In the second part of the article, I propose a change." The limitations of the concept can be multidimensional view of responses to proposed framed in philosophical terms; for instance, crit- ical theorists and labor policy scholars argue organizational changes, capturing employee re- that the interests of managers should not be sponses along at least three dimensions (emo- privileged over the interests of workers when tional, cognitive, and intentional). Within this studying organizational change (Jermier, view, "resistance to a change" is represented by Knights, & Nord, 1994). Alternatively, the limita- the set of responses to change that are negative tions of the concept can be framed in practical along all three dimensions, and "support for a change" is represented by the set of responses that are positive along all three dimensions. I gratefully acknowledge the comments of Richard Responses to a change initiative that are neither Bagozzi, David Deeds, Jane Dutton, Loren Dyck, Phoebe Ells- consistently negative nor consistently positive, worth, Eric Neilsen, Mary Grace Neville, Janet Weiss, and the reviewers and special issue editor on earlier versions of which were previously ignored but are poten- this work. tially the most prevalent type of initial response. 783 784 Academy of Management Review October can be analyzed as cross-dimension ambiva- Likewise, Lawrence (1954) warns managers to lence in employees' responses to change. avoid creating resistance in subordinates by as- In the third part of the article, I identify the suming that they will always be opposed to implications of this new view for both research change. In the 1990s others have reissued simi- and practice. By highlighting the many other lar warnings (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Merron, sets of responses that can occur, this new view 1993). A prominent consultant noted that the con- shows the importance of ambivalent responses cept of resistance to change "has been trans- to change for research on exit, voice, loyalty, formed over the years into a not-so-disguised and neglect and for research on generating way of blaming the less powerful for unsatisfac- change within organizations. tory results of change efforts" (Krantz, 1999: 42). This tendency to dismiss employees' objec- tions to change simply may be another manifes- A SYNTHESIS OF PAST tation of the fundamental attribution error (Jones CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF & Harris, 1967); that is, managers in charge of RESISTANCE TO CHANGE rolling out a change initiative blame others for the failure of the initiative, rather than accept- Unfavorable Responses to Change Might Be ing their role in its failure. Employees are likely Motivated by the Best of Intentions to do the same thing—assigning blame for In the majority of work on resistance to failed change attempts to their managers, rather change, researchers have borrowed a view from than themselves. However, as Klein (1976) and physics to metaphorically define resistance as a Thomas (1989) argue, in most research on resis- restraining force moving in the direction of tance to change, researchers have taken the per- maintaining the status quo (cf. Lewin, 1952). Fur- spective of those in charge of implementing thermore, most scholars have focused on the change, and so scholars have written less about various "forces" that lead employees away from the perspectives of those with less power. Per- supporting changes proposed by managers. As haps scholars, as well as practitioners, need to Watson (1982) points out, managers often per- be cautioned against playing the blame game ceive resistance negatively, since they see em- unwittingly. ployees who resist as disobedient. And as Jer- Fortunately, in other types of literature—not mier et al. put it, "The most prevalent way of yet well integrated into research on resistance analysing resistance is to see it as a reactive to change—scholars also remind us of a wider process where agents embedded in power rela- range of reasons why employees may oppose a tions actively oppose initiatives by other proposed organizational change. For instance, agents" (1994: 9). Even if they only see employ- research on obedience to authority indicates ees who oppose change as short sighted, man- that resistance might be motivated by individu- agers are tempted by the language of resistance als' desires to act in accordance with their eth- to treat their subordinates as obstacles. ical principles (Milgram, 1965; Modigliani & Thus, the label of resistance can be used to Rochat, 1995). Similarly, the organizational dis- dismiss potentially valid employee concerns sent literature shows that some employee resis- about proposed changes. Of course, for a long tance to organizational actions is motivated by time in the practical literature about managing more than mere selfishness (Graham, 1984, change processes, researchers have been advis- 1986). Also, recent studies of issue selling (Ash- ing practitioners to guard against this. For ex- ford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Dutton, ample, Mary Parker Follett pointed out in the Ashford, Wierba, O'Neill, & Hayes, 1997) indicate 1920s that that employees might try to get top management to pay attention to issues that employees be- we shouldn't put to ... workers finished plans in lieve must be addressed in order for the organi- order merely to get their consent one of two zation to maintain high performance. things is likely to happen, both bad: either we shall Rarely do individuals form resistant attitudes, get a rubber-stamped consent and thus lose what they might contribute to the problem in question, or express such attitudes in acts of dissent or or else we shall find ourselves with a fight on our protest, without considering the potential nega- hands—an open fight or discontent seething under- tive consequences for themselves. This point is neath (reprinted in Graham, 1995: 220). documented in several studies. In the field of 2000 Pideiit 785 ethics, for instance, Clinard (1983) documents fined resistance by using a metaphor from the the "pressures on middle management," such as physical sciences. In their classic study Coch threats to their opportunities for advancement or and French (1948) focused on the undesirable to their job security, that can discourage man- behaviors of workers in response to manage- agers from speaking up about ethical concerns. ment-imposed changes in jobs and work meth- Meyerson and Scully (1995) dramatize the dilem- ods. With their quasi-experiment they examined mas faced by change agents when judging how whether encouraging employee participation in far they can stretch those they wish to lead. planning a change would reduce resistance. Al- Rodrigues and Collinson (1995) analyze the dif- though their conceptual discussion indicated ferent ways in which Brazilian employees use that resistance could involve undesirable be- humor to "camouflage