In this zone, we critically evaluate resistance to change and examine whether it positively or negatively influences the implementation and outcomes of organisational change programmes.
Resistance to change has been described as ‘one of the most widely accepted mental models that drives organisational behaviour’55. It has a long history of academic and practitioner recognition as a vitally important factor that can either positively or negatively influence the outcome of organisational change programmes.
56 As ‘over half of all organisational changes fail’57, managers and the organisation at large need to see beyond their perception of resistance as a foe, the enemy of change that must be defeated,58 and appreciate the potentially devastating effect that it can have on the success and longevity of the business if it not appropriately addressed.
Amarantou et al.59 and Sharma60 concur that a commonly accepted definition of resistance to change is difficult to find in the literature. It has been described as a ubiquitous, multidimensional organisational phenomenon that introduces unexpected delays, uncertainties and costs into the strategic change process.58, 61 Zaltman and Duncan62 view it as any behaviour or way of behaving that seeks to perpetuate the status quo against the pressure to change it. Continuing the organisational behaviour theme, Waddell and Sohal56 espouse that resistance is often associated with negative individual attitudes or counterproductive overt and covert behaviours, such as making dissenting or critical comments, not doing something when an agreement has been made to do it and tardiness in responding to requests.57 Resistance to change has been traditionally understood as an underlying cause of conflict that is unwelcome and injurious to the organisation. According to Waddell and Sohal, in classical management theory, unitarism espoused everyone working towards a single, unitary sense of purpose and direction, which was driven and perpetuated by top management. This was a vehicle to promote organisational efficiency and effectiveness through the introduction of change that managers deemed necessary for organisational success and survival. Pluralism generated individual multiple viewpoints and attitudes to change that managers perceived as incongruous to their own and the organisation at large. Any form of resistance was seen by management as subversion and an attempt by individuals to derail the introduction of change through their own selfinterest and catalyse a reduction of organisational effectiveness and performance. Resistance rapidly gained a reputation as a foe, an enemy of change that protracted transformation programmes by infighting and factional dissent. Management’s response was to eradicate resistance by quashing it as soon as it erupted, to make way for the change to be implemented. This negative view of change was, according to Waddell and Sohal, also considered by early human resource theorists as conflict. Rather than being addressed by managers and tackled head on, it was largely avoided to keep the peace and promote workplace harmony.
Waddell and Sohal report that initial perceptions of resistance as being rooted in parochial selfinterest and conflict have been somewhat softened by anthropological, psychological and social research, which identified that the phenomenon was far more complex and multidimensional than originally thought. Studies highlighted that resistance to change is a byproduct of four key social factors. First, incongruences between individual and management perceptions of change objectives and outcomes (rational). Second, the impact the change will have on the individual’s context and the extent to which they will be displaced by it, such as a change of location (nonrational).
Third, management exercising favouritism or point scoring (political)
and fourth, poor or inappropriate management styles (management). Following on from this, developments in organisational theory has, according to Waddell and Sohal, identified that resistance is also embedded in institutional systems and processes, which, it could be argued, are perpetuated through, and fuelled by, corporate culture. Additionally, the classical view of resistance as an arch nemesis of change, has, over the years, been recognised as a friend rather than foe that could potentially play a major role in an organisation’s change endeavours.
Extant literature suggests there is a tussle between theorists who label resistance as something negative to be eradicated or minimised as quickly as it emerges and others who contend that it is to be welcomed as an aide to change implementation.63 According to Dent and Galloway Goldberg55 , both the literature and organisational practice have perpetuated the ‘people resist change’ mental model that has, they argue, proven to be problematic for individuals and the organisation at large. They assert that the ‘best way to challenge the conventional wisdom is to suggest that people do not resist change per se’, a view that is shared by Waddell and Sohal.
People may resist a loss of pay, comfort, status, the unknown, management ideas that are incongruent with their own or even being dictated to by managers.
However, Dent and Galloway Goldberg argue that the above issues are not the same as resisting or refusing to accept change and make an impassioned plea for theorists and practitioners to ‘dispense with the phrase resistance to change’ and identify more constructive and pertinent models for ‘describing what the phrase has come to mean employees are not wholeheartedly embracing a change that management wants to implement’. In view of this, Ford and Ford57.attest that ‘resistance is more in the eye of the beholder than an objective report by an unbiased and disinterested observer.’ Arguably, it is also perceptual and socially constructed, driven by multiple perspectives of reality and prior experiences.
As such, the authors suggest that one manager’s perception of resistance is not resistance at all through someone else’s eyes. Critically, Ford and Ford contend that managers use resistance as a conception against which to label communications and behaviours they dislike or don’t think should occur and for which they attribute will increase their workload and the time they need to contribute to making the change successful.
Like Dent and Galloway Goldberg, Ford and Ford and Waddell and Sohal profess that resistance might not be resistance at all, but a bona fide, perfectly natural reaction to something within the planned change that individuals may not understand. This, they assert, is a valuable opportunity for managers to listen to what stakeholders have to say and use the intel as a potentially positive force for good, to enhance and improve the change process. Waddell and Sohal add that feedback might highlight aspects of the proposed change that are inappropriate, wrong or poorly thought through and therefore need amending. Rather than being a hindrance, they advise that resistance might also inject a modicum of energy into an apathetic situation and when questioning the status quo should be privileged over silent acquiescence. It is thus an opportunity for managers to evaluate whether the change implementation is on trajectory or whether catharsis is needed to examine, evaluate and put right any problems that individuals can see, to which they may be blinded. In doing so, Waddell and Sohal advocate that resistance and its resisters may become a vital source of innovation and, it could be argued, metamorphose into change champions rather than perceived antagonists.
To conclude, resistance to change is a multidimensional, complex phenomenon that both positively and negatively influences the implementation and outcomes of change. Waddell and Sohal advocate that classical, adversarial perceptions of, and approaches to, resistance have been superseded with softer, more psychosocial attitudes that are intended to aide, rather than hinder, change. Furthermore, Ford and Ford contend that if the organisation blames resistance for the demise of change programmes, it runs the risk of failing to notice a raft of opportunities to strengthen its operational outcomes and modify subjective biases that could otherwise derail implementation. They add that the organisation may also lose a certain amount of credibility in the eyes of the recipients of change, who may consequently refuse to share their specialist knowledge and thus obstruct planned changes. They conclude ‘resistance, properly understood as feedback, can be an important resource in improving the quality and clarity of the objectives and strategies at the heart of a change proposal.’ They advise that if the feedback gained through the process is strategically used, it can ‘enhance the prospects for successful implementation’

1.Theorists suggest that a definition of resistance to change is difficult to find in the literature. Why do you think this is the case? How would you define the concept?

2.Resistance to change has classically become known as an enemy or foe of change. In your role as a Consultant, what strategies would you suggest to the Senior Management Team to alter negative perceptions and attitudes to change?

3.With reference to theory and practice, argue the case for individuals challenging the status quo.

Critically evaluate the implications for organisational behaviour in the workplace.