Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: a Multidimensional View of Attitudes Toward an Organizational Change

* 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 multidimensional 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 and express their dis- haviors and/or aggression, their measures fo- sent" (1995: 740), as well as the times when cam- cused on neither. Instead, the criterioh they used ouflage was powerful (and the conditions under to compare the treatment and control groups which more acerbic satire was used). Thus, friv- was desirable behavior, in the form of compli- olous expression of resistance seems unlikely, ance with the production rate standards set by since individuals who engage in it could face management. (While strict compliance with the severe penalties and are aware that they should rate standards may or may not have been ac- tread lightly. companied by undesirable behaviors or aggres- Hence, what some may perceive as disre- sion, this possibility could not have been cap- spectful or unfounded opposition might also be tured in the measures reported.) This study motivated by individuals' ethical principles or generated a large body of work on the effects of by their desire to protect the organization's best participative decision making (see McCaffrey, interests. It is worth entertaining efforts to take Faerman, & Hart, 1995, for a recent review). those good intentions more seriously by down- More recent studies of resistance also have playing the invalidating aspect of labeling re- focused on behavior. For instance, Brower and sponses to change "resistant." Abolafia (1995) define resistance as a particular kind of action or inaction, and Ashforth and Mael (1998) define resistance as intentional acts Varying Emphases in the Conceptualization of of commission (defiance) or omission. Similarly, Resistance > Shapiro, Lewicki, and Devine (1995) suggest that Studies of resistance would also benefit from willingness to deceive authorities constitutes careful attention to the concept's meaning. As resistance to change, and Sagie, Elizur, and Davidson argues, resistance has come to in- Greenbaum (1985) use compliant behavior as clude evidence of reduced resistance. In contrast, other scholars have described re- anything and everything that workers do which managers do not want them to do, and that work- sistance in emotional terms. For example, Coch ers do not do that managers wish them to do.... and French (1948) acknowledged a more emo- resort to such an essentially residual category of tional component of resistance (aggression), and analysis can easily obscure a multiplicity of dif- in their preliminary theory of resistance de- ferent actions and meanings that merit more pre- scribed the forces that they believed produced cise analysis in their own right (1994: 94). frustration in employees and caused the unde- A review of past empirical research reveals sirable behaviors. Similarly, Vince and Brouss- three different emphases in conceptualizations ine (1996) surfaced the responses of managers in of resistance: as a cognitive state, as an emo- public service organizations to a period of tional state, and as a behavior. Although these change in structure and financial constraints. conceptualizations overlap somewhat, they di- They found that managers' responses were often verge in important ways. Finding a way to bring paradoxically emotional. And, finally, the ideas together these varying emphases should of frustration and anxiety underpin Argyris and deepen our understanding of how employees Schon's (1974, 1978) perspective that resistance respond to proposed organizational changes. arises from defensive routines. The approach Portraying resistance in terms of behavior has that they advocate emphasizes the role of an been common since the earliest work on the external consultant in surfacing the defensive- topic. In his early theorizing, Lewin (1952) de- ness inherent in those routines, finding ways to 786 Academy of Management Review October

minimize or dissipate the anxiety that reinforces label these three dimensions of attitudes the those routines, and making time for calmer con- cognitive, emotional, and intentional. This con- sideration of how to repair them (Argyris, 1993). ception is known as the tripartite view of atti- As Diamond (1986) points out, although the rem- tudes (Ajzen, 1984). edy for resistance that they recommend involves In this view the cognitive dimension of an a cognitive realignment of resistors' espoused attitude refers to an individual's beliefs about theories and their theories-in-use, the underly- the attitude object. In their review of the litera- ing nature of resistance is portrayed as highly ture on the tripartite view, Eagly and Chaiken emotional. define this dimension as follows: "beliefs ex- The idea that resistance can be overcome cog- press positive or negative evaluation of greater nitively suggests that it may include a compo- or lesser extremity, and occasionally are exactly nent of negative thoughts about the change. neutral in their evaluative content" (1998: 271). Watson (1982) suggests that what is often la- The emotional dimension of an attitude refers to beled as resistance is, in fact, only reluctance. an individual's feelings in response to the atti- Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) define tude object. Eagly and Chaiken define this di- resistance in behavioral terms but suggest that mension as the "feelings, moods, emotions, and another state precedes it: a cognitive state they sympathetic nervous-system activity that peo- call "(un)readiness." A reinterpretation of the ple have experienced in relation to an attitude Coch and French quasi-experiment (Bartlem & object and subsequently associate with it" (1998: Locke, 1981) suggests that participation might 272). have motivational and cognitive effects on re- The third dimension of attitudes is the most sistance to change, also implying that cognition complex and controversial, both because in is part of the phenomenon of resistance. some studies researchers find evidence of only Each of these three emphases in conceptual- two dimensions and because others who find a izations of resistance—as a behavior, an emo- third dimension label it inconsistently. The find- tion, or a belief—has merit and represents an ings of past empirical studies of the tripartite important part of our experience of responses to attitude structure are mixed (e.g., Bagozzi, 1978; change. Thus, any definition focusing on one Breckler, 1984; Kothandapani, 1971), and as Ea- view at the expense of the others seems incom- gly and Chaiken conclude, "Evidence supports plete. Therefore, rather than privilege one con- the empirical separability of three classes of ceptualization over the others, I seek to integrate evaluative responses under some but certainly the three alternative views of resistance to not all circumstances" (1993: 13). In the tradi- change. tional tripartite view, the conative dimension of an attitude reflects an individual's evaluations of an attitude object that are based in past be- A NEW VIEW OF RESPONSES TO CHANGE: haviors and future intentions to act. Some re- AMBIVALENT ATTITUDES searchers place more emphasis on past behav- These three emphases in the conceptualiza- iors, whereas others focus on future intentions. tion of resistance to change can be reframed in In some cases a separate attitude dimension a more integrative way by borrowing the con- concerning intentions or behavior has been cept of attitude from social psychology. Mindful identified, but in other cases intentions are so adaptation of the concept might be required, loosely connected with other dimensions of atti- because the research on attitudes does not al- tudes that they have been treated as entirely ways provide clear guidance about which di- separate constructs. mensions of attitudes are most salient. In the context considered here, because an employee facing a newly proposed organization- Multiple Dimensions of Attitudes al change is responding to a novel event, the conative dimension is more likely to reflect in- Early attitude theorists (Katz, 1960; Rosenberg tentions than past behaviors. (The employee & Hovland, 1960) argued that attitudes are struc- might not find the change process particularly tured along three dimensions that roughly cor- novel, but the specific proposal is likely to have respond with the three definitions that have some novel aspects.) Also, it seems more desir- dominated research on resistance to change. I able in this applied context to treat behavior as 2000 Pideiit 787 a separate construct so that the mutual influ- resistance that have been found in organization- ences of attitudes and behavior on one another al studies. Thus, an employee's response to an are not buried in an already complex set of organizational change along the cognitive di- issues. In other words, it is useful to distinguish mension might range from strong positive be- between an intention to resist at the attitudinal liefs (i.e., "this change is essential for the or- level and dissent or protest at the level of actual ganization to succeed") to strong negative behavior, which might or might not be planned. beliefs (i.e., "this change could ruin the compa- By "an intention" I mean a plan or resolution to ny"). An employee's response along the emo- take some action, rather than a plan to try to tional dimension might range from strong posi- achieve some goal (Bagozzi, 1992). tive emotions (such as excitement or happiness) Much of the work on resistance in labor pro- to strong negative emotions (such as anger or cess theory (e.g., Jermier et al., 1994), as well as fear). An employee's response along the inten- some recent work on extrarole behaviors, such tional dimension might range from positive in- as taking charge (e.g., Morrison & Phelps, 1999), tentions to support the change to negative inten- focuses on dissent or protest, whether intentions to oppose it. tional, habitual, or spontaneous. Distinguishing between intention and behavior will allow more The Possibility of Ambivalence in Response to careful study of the connections between the two concepts. Whether the intentional dimen- a Particular Change Proposal sion is sufficiently associated with individuals' One key benefit of using this multidimen- cognitive and emotional responses to be treated sional definition to describe employees' atti- as a dimension of an employee's attitude re- tudes toward proposed changes is that concep- mains an empirical question in the context of an tualizing each dimension as a separate attitude about a proposed organizational continuum allows for the possibility of different change. reactions along the different dimensions. In One remaining contentious question in atti- some cases this might only mean that beliefs tude research concerns the causal relationships about a proposed change are more positive than among the dimensions. Fiske and Pavelchak emotional responses to the change. However, (1986) label the two dominant positions in the with this definition we also recognize the possi- debate the "piecemeal" and "category-based" bility, in other cases, of ambivalent attitudes, views. In the piecemeal view, advanced by where two alternative perspectives are both scholars such as Zanna and Rempel (1988), it is strongly experienced (Foy, 1985; Merton, 1976; posited that variations in evaluation along the Thompson, Zanna, 8f Griffin, 1995). particular dimensions of an attitudinal response The simplest case of ambivalence to imagine will cause variations in global attitude. In the is the case in which an individual's cognitive category-based view (Ajzen, 1984; Davis & Os- response to a proposed change is in conflict trom, 1984), the global attitude is viewed as pri- with his or her emotional response to the pro- mary; changes in the global evaluation are mod- posal. Furthermore, ambivalence within a di- eled as causes of variation in the cognitive, mension is also possible, and, in fact, ambiva- emotional, and intentional dimensions, rather lence within the emotional dimension already than as results of variation in those dimensions. has been reported in research. In particular, Unfortunately, these views are still the subject Russell (1980) and Watson, Clark, and Tellegen of continuing debate in social psychology, and (1988) have presented data suggesting that pos- competing interpretations and new data are still itive and negative affect can co-occur. Similarly, being advanced. Vince and Broussine's (1996) study of public ser- In summary, questions of how the multiple vice managers' responses to change shows that dimensions of employee responses to change incongruent emotions, such as excitement and should be defined—and how they are related to fear, are often experienced simultaneously. one another—remain open to further clarifica- In principle, ambivalence could occur within tion through empirical research. Social psycho- the cognitive or intentional dimensions as well. logical research, however, clearly supports a For instance, an employee exhibiting cognitive multidimensional view of attitudes that can be ambivalence might simultaneously believe that used to integrate the inconsistent definitions of the change proposed in his or her organization 788 Academy of Management Review October

is necessary for its future survival but is not yet tion around a new enterprise-wide software sys- sufficiently well researched. An employee ex- tem. His initial reaction to the restructuring hibiting intentional ambivalence might plan to included positive beliefs, because he felt the oppose a proposed change through anonymous change was sorely needed, as well as positive comments in the suggestion box but might sup- emotions, reflected in expressions of enthusi- port the change in public because of uncertainty asm. However, he reported increasingly nega- about how top management will respond to crit- tive intentions over time, and he planned to icism of the change initiative. Although re- challenge his leadership to cancel the project if search does not shed any light on the likelihood they would not provide the support that was of intentional ambivalence, anecdotal evidence needed. He later spoke out against the dangers of its occurrence can be found; Drummond's of the "behemoth project." Although he still be- (1998) case study of a site manager's indirect lieved the change was needed, he was discour- opposition to the proposed closure of his facility aged by his coworkers' lack of commitment. has similar elements. Thus, this manager's initial attitude can be represented as initially supportive, but it evolved to a more ambivalent state as his negative inten- The Prevalence of Ambivalent Attitudes tions solidified and his negative emotions to- The following examples of employees' re- ward his coworkers' laxity emerged. sponses to organizational change, drawn from The third example is drawn from an interview interviews,' also illustrate the merits of assess- with a consultant who learned that his firm was ing their attitudes toward change along three merging with another consulting company. He dimensions. In the first example an employee initially responded with a combination of ex- had learned that his budget for offering incen- citement and fear, demonstrating ambivalence tives to his distributors was disappearing. His within the emotional dimension of his response emotional response to the announcement was to the change. In his case that ambivalence mo- quite negative. Because the budget cut was an- tivated his efforts to gather information about nounced late in his planning cycle, the an- the rationale for the merger and to assess the nouncement shocked and frustrated him. How- likelihood of job cuts in conjunction with it. Al- ever, he also reported a positive cognitive though he was not comfortable discussing the response to the change: he believed the change change with his superiors, because he did not would have positive effects, since the budget for want to reveal his fears and appear insecure, he product improvements was being increased to and his peers were able to reassure each other allow his distributors to offer their customers a through their surreptitious information gather- more attractive product. Thus, this employee's ing that the rationale for the merger was to response represents dn example of an ambiva- acquire consulting skills in markets that his lent attitude toward the proposed budget original firm had not already entered. As a re- change, because of the incongruity between his sult, he became an active supporter of the cognitive and emotional responses to the pro- merger later on.^ posal. In addition to this anecdotal evidence, there is A second example comes from an interview also a theoretical reason to expect that most with a middle manager in a large, diversified employees' responses to a proposed change will company, who described his response to the re- involve some ambivalence. We know from atti- structuring and centralization of his organiza- tude research that the process of attitude formation often begins with ambivalence (e.g.. ' To illustrate how the tripartite definition of attitudes could be used to describe employees' responses to organizational changes, I collected stories about employees' reac- ^ These three employees' descriptions of their reactions to tions to recently proposed changes in their organization. I change were typical of the reactions reported in interviews, conducted seven interviews with professionals and five with since most of the interviewees described their reactions to managers. The interviewees had varied functional back- the organizational changes that they faced in terms of a mix grounds, and they described their reactions to three types of of positive and negative thoughts, emotions, and behavioral organizational changes (updating work processes, develop- intentions. Four of the twelve interviewees reported endur- ing new initiatives, and restructuring). The interview proto- ing ambivalence in response to the change they faced, and col appears in Piderit (1999). another five interviewees reported initial ambivalence. 2000 Piderit 789

Thompson et al., 1995). Furthermore, within the responses to change, conceptualized as multidi- typology of alpha, beta, and gamma change, an mensional attitudes. initial response that is uniformly negative seems possible only in response to alpha IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH changes, which involve a "variation in the level AND PRACTICE of [a] state, given a constantly calibrated mea- suring instrument" (Golembiewski, Billingsley, There are five key implications of this alter- & Yeager, 1976: 134). Because some employees native view for research and practice. First, a will already have formed an attitude toward the multidimensional view of responses to proposed current point, they may be able to infer their change may enhance our accuracy in predicting attitude toward the proposed shift immediately. employee behaviors that have been difficult to However, as Beer and Walton (1987) point out, predict in past research. beta change involves developing a new under- For example, understanding exit, voice, loy- standing of what constitutes a shift on the refer- alty, and neglect has continued to challenge ence dimension (or a "variation in the level of [a] theorists and empirical researchers (Hirschman, state, complicated by the fact that some inter- 1970; Janssen, de Vries, & Cozijnsen, 1998; Rus- vals of the measurement continuum . . . have bult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Saunders, been recalibrated," according to Golembiewski Sheppard, Knight, & Warshaw, 1992; Withey & et al. [1976: 134]). For example, a team trained in Cooper, 1989). One premise that could aid in dialectic decision making might come to rede- developing such a predictive framework is the fine what is meant by "too much conflict" in its idea that employees find it more difficult to ex- meetings. Given the more complex process in- press negative emotions than negative beliefs. volved in making sense of a change proposal (This premise is certainly implicit in Argyris and that involves such a recalibration, it seems un- Schon's [1974, 1978] work, although some em- likely that employees' inferences about their at- ployees may exhibit more facility than others in titude toward a change proposal, such as the expressing their emotions.) From that premise it proposal to engage in a structured decision- would follow that employees would be more making process, could be immediate. likely to engage in voice than in loyalty or ne- Similarly, the gamma change process, which glect when they experience ambivalence within involves "a complete conceptual redefinition" their cognitive response to a proposed change. (Beer & Walton, 1987: 342) and which may in- Because they can easily articulate their beliefs volve either the addition of new dimensions or about the change, they would be more likely to the complete replacement of old reference di- share their reflections with the managers intro- mensions with new ones (Porras & Silvers, 1991: ducing the organizational change. Conversely, 57), is even more complex. Thus, when facing employees would be more likely to exhibit ne- beta or gamma change, employees seem more glect when ambivalence occurs within the emo- likely to engage in the formation of a new atti- tional dimension of their response to change or tude, rather than simply shift their old attitude when an incongruity arises between their cog- along a stable dimension. It seems reasonable nitive and their emotional reactions. Because it to assume that most employees' initial re- is difficult for them to articulate their negative sponses to a beta or gamma change will be emotional responses to change, they would be ambivalent. more likely to wrestle with their ambivalence alone or to avoid the subject entirely. For these reasons I conclude that conceptual- izing employees' responses to proposed organi- Similarly, understanding the nature of ambiv- zational changes as multidimensional attitudes alence in employee responses to change also permits a richer view of the ways in which em- might be useful in predicting the mode in which ployees may respond to change. Because of the employees will communicate their responses to potential for a multidimensional view of re- change agents and in identifying the most ap- sponses to change to inspire future research in propriate process for addressing their re- such directions, I join Dent and Goldberg (1999) sponses. For instance, when employees are ex- and Merron (1993) in arguing that we should periencing emotional ambivalence rather than retire the phrase "resistance to change," and I uniformly negative responses to a proposed advocate a new wave of research on employee change, they may be more likely to express their 790 Academy of Management Review October

responses through humor (e.g., Rodrigues & Col- nett argues that "an emphasis on failure, nega- linson, 1995) or other indirect modes of commu- tive feedback, stress, or 'crisis' as a learning nication (e.g., Drummond, 1998). In such a case, stimulus has eclipsed the potential importance more data about the change initiative might not of other meaningful stimuli (e.g., opportunities, be very useful, even if it can be provided effi- people, and success)" (1994: 8) as conditions that ciently in large-scale rollout meetings. Instead, foster learning. Similarly, research on strategic more impromptu and casual conversations change processes indicates that disagreement might be more effective in creating an atmo- can play a key role in supporting organizational sphere in which employees feel safe expressing renewal. Studies by Barr, Stimpert, and Huff their negative emotional responses openly. (1992), Burgelman (1991), and Floyd and Wool- Conversely, when employees are experienc- dridge (1996) show that if the organization's ing cognitive ambivalence about a proposed managers do not experiment, it seems unlikely change but no negative emotional responses, that they will be able to carry out a renewal they may be quite direct in expressing their con- process. The implication of all this research is cerns. In such a case, change agents might find that moving too quickly toward congruent posi- that their listening ability is more important tive attitudes toward a proposed change might than their ability to communicate their own per- cut off the discussion and improvisation that spectives on the change to employees. Oversell- may be necessary for revising the initial change ing the benefits of the change may not be effec- proposal in an adaptive manner. tive in securing employee support, if employees It is not clear, however, whether the expres- already accept that the change will have some sion of resistance (i.e., uniformly negative re- positive outcomes but feel a different perspec- sponses to change) is likely to encourage con- tive is required. tinued discussion, debate, and improvisation. Of course, the merits of these premises are Indeed, the honest expression of ambivalence empirical questions, to be examined in future seems more likely to generate dialogue than the research on predicting employee voice, loyalty, expression of either determined opposition or and neglect and in research on the modes in firm support. which employee responses to change are ex- Several research pieces also indicate that am- pressed and managed. bivalence and its acknowledgment might have A second key implication of the new multidi- positive effects. Pratt and Barnett (1997) argue mensional view of employee responses to pro- that ambivalence is needed to stimulate un- posed organizational changes is that the degree learning (the discarding of obsolete and mis- of ambivalence in an employee's attitude may leading knowledge), which is a necessary pre- have both desirable and undesirable conse- cursor to change. Similarly, Weigert and Franks quences. Paying attention to balancing those argue that the expression of ambivalence in consequences will help us understand how to public "is likely to lead to public collective re- manage change processes successfully. A vari- sponses" (1989: 223), suggesting that acknowl- ety of research indicates that divergent opinions edging ambivalence can provide a basis for mo- about direction are necessary in order for tivating new action, rather than the continuation groups to make wise decisions and for organi- of old routines. Furthermore, recent research on zations to change effectively. For instance, re- creativity indicates that "insight is primarily de- cent research on institutionalized dissent (Co- pendent on analogical retrieval.... moreover, hen & Staw, 1998) shows that, sometimes, this retrieval usually is cued by some external organizations encourage and plan for dissent event" (Sternberg, 1988: 3). Work by Langley and and ritualize disagreement. Although the fact Jones (1988) and by Weisberg (1988) shows that that organizations encourage dissent does not the ability to perceive a situation from a differ- necessarily imply that dissent is functional, it is ent angle or to apply a novel analogy is often one reasonable explanation for the prevalence the key to finding a previously unconsidered of such an organizational practice. alternative that may lead to novel behavior. All Furthermore, research on organizational this work suggests that by fostering ambiva- learning indicates that disagreement and dis- lence and reframing our understanding of the confirmation of expectations can be important status quo, we are better able to generate new triggers for developing knowledge. In fact, Bar- possibilities for understanding and action. 2000 Pideiit 791

For change agents and for theorists, the strat- keeping pace, except in some emerging re- egy of fostering ambivalence rather than sup- search. For example, in the appreciative inquiry port in the early stages of a change initiative process (Cooperrider, 1998; Cooperrider & Sriv- invites a different view of how the first stage of astva, 1987), the proposal emerges from and is a change process should play out. The first tempered and repeatedly revised by an inclu- stage in creating change should be generating sive dialogue among a large number of employ- widespread conversation, rather than beginning ees across many levels of hierarchy. In this ap- the change process by engaging a small group proach the important question of what it means of managers in identifying the desired change to respond to a "proposed change" is framed, and later aiming to gain broader employee sup- when the nature of the change that is proposed port for that proposal. This strategy is less con- remains ambiguous for much of the process. sistent with a view of change as a planned pro- Here, finding answers to the questions of how cess (Porras & Silvers, 1991) and more consistent multiple dimensions of an employee's re- with a microlevel perspective on change as a sponses to a change evolve over time and how continuous process in which "ongoing adapta- such shifts are related to the effectiveness with tion and adjustment" occur (Weick & Quinn, which change is implemented seems even more 1999: 362). Some models of this type of change important. process are emerging, such as the trialectic view of change advocated by Ford and Ford A fourth implication of these ideas is that (1994) and the five-stage process model of break- employee responses to change may evolve away organizations developed by Dyck and over time, and paying attention to this evolu- Starke (1999). How change agents begin to gen- tion might yield insights about how to manage erate conversation around ambivalence about change initiatives successfully. For example, new possibilities is an important question for a formal change announcement from the CEO future research on the first phase of the change may shift employees' cognitive responses to a process. change quite quickly from negative to posi- Ambivalence, however, must be fostered with tive, but their emotional responses may re- care; we also know from other streams of re- quire more time to shift from negative to pos- search that acknowledging ambivalence might itive, through many informal conversations not always be optimal. On the one hand, after the formal rollout speech. Observing pat- Weigert and Franks warri that "if ambivalence terns of attitudes and ambivalence over time is not ritually enacted and meaningfully inter- might be more useful in predicting the success preted, its power to fuel extreme responses of a change initiative than examining the fa- grows" (1989: 223). On the other hand, Schwartz vorability of employees' attitudes toward the (1986) examined the effect of inner dialogue on change at any one point in time. The implica- personal and relational well-being and found tion is that both scholars and managers need that an inner dialogue characterized by a high to pay more attention to the dynamic pro- ratio of positive to negative statements was as- cesses that help to acknowledge and sustain sociated with greater well-being. This finding ambivalence without letting it impede the mo- suggests that acknowledging both polarities of mentum of change. an ambivalent attitude toward a change proposal with equal time might be unhealthy. Thus, A final implication of these ideas is that schol- the question that emerges for research and prac- ars who wish to understand the full range of tice concerns the tensions generated by foster- individual responses to proposed organization- ing ambivalence: How can we balance the need al changes should assess those responses along for ambivalence with the need to limit its debil- multiple dimensions. Applied research is itating effects? needed to continue the process of mindfully A third key implication of the new multidi- adapting the concept of tripartite attitudes from mensional view concerns the need to expand social psychology. Relevant methods for opera- our research beyond our past focus on top-down tionalizing the dimensions could include inter- organizational change. Increasingly, change views (Piderit, 1998), surveys (Piderit, 1999), and processes are managed in emergent and demo- even more novel approaches, such as drawing cratic ways. However, our theorizing may not be (Vince & Broussine, 1996). 792 Academy of Management Review October

CONCLUSION 1998. Out on a limb: The role oi context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Adminis- There is power in metaphor, but the physical trative Science Quarterly, 43: 23-57. metaphor of "resistance to change" may have Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. 1998. The power of resistance: taken us as far as we can go. In this article I Sustaining valued identities. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. critiqued research on resistance to change for Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: 89- failure to take the good intentions of resistors 120. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. seriously and for the varying emphases in con- Bagozzi j R. P. 1978. The construct validity of the affective, ceptualizations of resistance. I proposed a new behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude by conception of responses to proposed organiza- analysis of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavior tional changes as multidimensional attitudes. Research, 13: 9-31. This new conception is intended to encourage Bagozzi, R. P. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, inten- an appreciation for the prevalence of ambiva- tions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: lence in individuals' responses to change. Inves- 178-204. tigations of what motivates those responses to Barnett, C. K. 1994. OrganizaJiona7 learning theories: A re- change also will be needed, as well as studies view and synthesis of the literature. Working paper. of both the positive and the negative conse- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. quences of ambivalence of different types. Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. 1992. Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic These ideas are not all new to the field, but Management Journal, 13: 15-36. earlier admonitions about the benefits of em- Bartlem, C. S., & Locke, E. A. 1981. The Coch and French ployee input and the drawbacks of dismissing study: A critique and reinterpretation. Human Relations, subordinates' responses to change were not con- 34: 555-566. sistently brought to center stage in organization Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. 1987. Organization change and studies. If we can do better, we will be able to development. Annuai Review of Psychology, 38: 339-367. offer guidance to all employees involved in Breckler, S. J. 1984. Empirical validation of affect, behavior, change processes and not just to change agents and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal with official authority. Our research will begin of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 1191-1205. to give equal attention to top-down, planned Brower, R. S., & Abolafia, M. Y. 1995. The structural embed- change and to bottom-up or egalitarian change dedness of resistance among public managers. Group processes. Finally, we will take on the challenge and Organization Management, 20: 149-166. of helping organization members reap the ben- Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strat- efits of ambivalence toward change for organi- egy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and zations while minimizing its potentially stress- field research. Organization Science, 2: 239-262. ful effects for individuals. Clinard, M. B. 1983. Corporate ethics and crime: The role of middle management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. 1948. Overcoming resistance to REFERENCES change. Human Relations, 1: 512-532. Ajzen, I. 1984. Attitudes. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), WiJey encycJo- Cohen, L. E., & Staw, B. M. 1998. Fun's over, fact checkers are pedia of psychology, vol. 1: 99-100. New York: Wiley. here: A case study of institutionalized dissent in the magazine publishing industry. Advances in Qualitative Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional Organization Research, vol. 1: 105-136. prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental so- Cooperrider, D. L. 1998. Capturing what matters most in the cial psychology, vol. 20:1-63. New York: Academic Press. practice of appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action: A guide to overcom- Academy of Management, San Diego. ing barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in Organizational Argyris, C, & Schon. D. 1974. Theory in pracHce. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass. Change and Development, 1: 129-169. Davidson, J. O'C. 1994. The sources and limits of resistance Argyris, C, & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning. Read- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley. in a privatized utility. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations: 69- Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. 101. New York: Routledge. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human RelaHons, 46: 681-703. Davis, D., & Ostrom, T. M. 1984. Attitude measurement. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of psychology: 97-99. Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. New York: Wiley. 2000 Pideiit 793

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. 1999. Challenging "resistance Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). 1994. Resis- to change." Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, tance and power in organizations. London: Routledge. 35(1): 25-41. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. 1967. The attribution of attitudes. Diamond, M. A. 1986. Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3: 1-24. critique of Argyris and Schon's contributions to organi- Katz, D. 1960. The functional approach to the study of atti- zation theory and intervention. Journal of Management tudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24: 163-204. Studies, 23: 543-562. Klein, D. 1976. Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to Drummond, H. 1998. Go and say, "we're shutting": Ju Jitsu as change: The defender role. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, a metaphor for analyzing resistance. Human Relations, R. Chin, & K. E. Corey (Eds.), The planning of change (3rd 51: 741-759. ed.): 117-124. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Wierba, E. E., O'Neill, R., & Hayes, E. Kothandapani, V. 1971. Validation of feeling, belief, and inten- 1997. Beading the wind: How middle managers assess tion to act as three components of attitude and their con- the context for issue selling to top managers. Strategic tribution to prediction of contraceptive behavior. Journal of Management Journal, 15: 407-425. Personality and Social Psychology, 19: 321-333. Dyck, B., & Starke, F. A. 1999. The formation of breakaway Krantz, J. 1999. Comment on "challenging 'resistance to organizations: Observations and a process model. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 44: 792-822. change.'" Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 35(1): 42-44. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Langley, P., & Jones, R. 1988. A computational model of sci- entific insight. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1998. Attitude structure and func- creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives: tion. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), 177-201. New York: Cambridge University Press. Handbooi of social psychology, vol. 2: 269-322. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Lawrence, P. R. 1954. How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 32(3): 49-57. Fiske, S. T., & Payelchak, M. A. 1986. Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in Lewin, K. 1952. Group decision and social change. In G. E. schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Hig- Swanson, T. M. Newcombe, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Read- gins (Eds.), Handbooi of motivation and cognition: Foun- ings in social psychology (2nd ed.): 459-473. New York: dations of social behavior, vol. 1: 167-203. New York: Holt. Guilford. McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R., & Hart, D. W. 1995. The Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. 1996. The strategic middle appeal and difficulties of participative systems. Or- manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ganization Science, 6: 603-627. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, Merron, K. 1993. Let's bury the term "resistance." Organiza- and attraction in change. Academy of Management Re- tional Development Journal, 11(4): 77-86. view, 19: 756-785. Merton, R. K. 1976. Sociological ambivalence and other es- Foy, N. 1985. Ambivalence, hypocrisy, and cynicism: Aids to says. New York: Free Press. organization change. JVew Management, 2(4): 49-53. Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. 1995. Tempered radicalism Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. 1976. Mea- and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organiza- suring change and persistence in human affairs: Types tion Science, 6: 585-600. of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Milgram, S. 1965. Some conditions of obedience and disobe- Behavioral Sciences, 12(2): 133-157. dience to authority. Human Relations, 18: 57-76. Graham, J. 1984. Abstract of a dissertation on principled Modigliani, A., & Rochat, F. 1995. The role of interaction organizational dissent. Paper presented at the annual sequences and the timing of resistance in shaping obe- meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational dience and defiance to authority. Journal of Social Is- Psychology, Toronto. sues, 51(3): 107-123. Graham, J. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: 1-52. Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403-419. Graham, P. (Ed.). 1995. Mary Parker Follett^prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Bos- Piderit, S. K. 1998. United we stand: Embedding attitudes ton: Harvard Business School Press. toward change in social relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to San Diego. decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Piderit, S. K. 1999. Wavigating relationships with coworiers: Understanding employees' attitudes toward an organi- Janssen, O., de Vries, T., & Cozijrisen, A. J. 1998. Voicing by zational change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. adapting and innovating employees: An empirical study University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. on how personality and environment interact to affect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51: 945-966. Porras, J. L, & Silvers, R. C. 1991. Organization development 794 Academy of Management Review October

and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42' Thomas, R. J. 1989. Participation and control: A shopfloor 51-78. perspective on employee participation. Research in the Pratt, M. G., & Barnett, C. K. 1997. Emotions and unlearning in Sociology of Organizations, 7: 117-144. Am way recruiting techniques: Promoting change Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. 1995. Let's not through "safe" ambivalence. Management Learning, be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. 28(1): 65-88. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Anteced- Rodrigues, S. B., & Collinson, D. L. 1995. "Having fun"?: Hu- ents and consequences: 361-386. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence riior as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies, 16: Eribaum Associates. 739-768. Vince, R., & Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense, and attach- Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. 1960. Cognitive, affective, ment: Accessing and working with emotions and rela- and behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J. Rosen- tions underlying organizational change. Organization berg (Ed.), Attitude organization and change: 1-14. New Studies, 17: 1-21. Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. 1988. and validation of brief measures of positive and nega- Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and tive affect: The PANAS scales./ournal of Personality and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070. job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 31: 599-627. Watson, T. J. 1982. Group ideologies and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 19: 259-275. Russell, J. A. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 1161-1178. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organizational change and Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Greenbaum, C. W. 1985. Job experi- development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 361-386. ence, persuasion strategy, and resistance to change. Weigert, A., & Franks, D. D. 1989. Ambivalence: Touchstone Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6: 157-162. of the modern temper. In D. D. Franks & E. D. McCarthy Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Warshaw, P. R. (Eds.), The sociology of emotions: 205-227. Greenwich, 1992. Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Respon- CT: JAI Press. sibility and Rights Journal, 3: 241-259. Weisberg, R. W. 1988. Problem solving and creativity. In R. J. Schwartz, R. M. 1986. The inner dialogue: On the asymmetry Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary between positive and negative coping thoughts. Cogni- psychological perspectives: 148-176. New York: Cam- tive Therapy and Research, 10: 591-605. bridge University Press. Shapiro, D. L., Lewicki, R. J., & Devine, P. 1995. When do Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, employees choose deceptive tactics to stop unwanted loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, organizational change? Research on Negotiation in Or- 34: 521-539. ganizations, 5: 155-184. Zanna, M, P., & Rempel, J. K. 1988. Attitudes: A new look at an Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). 1988. The nature of creativity: Contem- old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The porary psychological perspectives. New York: Cam- social psychology of knowledge: 315-334. New York: bridge University Press. Cambridge University Press.

Sandy Kristin Piderit is an assistant professor of organizational behavior in the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. She re- ceived her Ph.D. at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. In her research she examines the roles of individuals in organizational change and the dynamics of relationships among coworkers.