You are on page 1of 7

Constructive Derivatives From 1

Running Head: CONSTRUCTIVE DERIVATIVES: CHANGE RESISTANCE

Constructive Derivatives From Resistance to Change in Organizations: A Literary Review

Timothy A. Hayes

Point Loma Nazarene University


Constructive Derivatives From 2

Abstract

Summarizes existing literature on the positive or constructive derivatives and benefits

resulting from resistance to change. Reviews early perceptions of resistance to change and

current challenges to those theories with regards to change benefits. Examines research on

five categories of benefits resulting from change resistance.


Constructive Derivatives From 3

Constructive Derivatives From Resistance to Change in Organizations: A Literary Review

Introduction

Change theory and resistance to change was first contemplated in the early 1900’s

by Kurt Lewin in relationship to Field Theory and Systems Theory (Schein, 2003). The

term “Resistance to Change” was first published and popularized in 1948 by Coch and

French when they researched overcoming resistance to change at Harwood Manufacturing

Company (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Between 1940 and 1970 there were five studies

published with the term “Resistance to Change” in their titles, three of the works started

with “Overcoming Resistance to Change” (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Both the term

“Overcoming Resistance to Change” and the early studies viewed change resistance as a

negative factor in organizational progress and therefore something to be overcome.

Waddell and Sohal (1998) assert that “Resistance has been classically understood as a

foundation cause of conflict that is undesirable and detrimental to organizational health”

(Understanding Resistance Over Time, ¶2).

Contemporary studies in organizational change argue that resistance to change is

not entirely negative. These new theories contend that resistance to change is not

something to be overcome, but something to be utilized (Waddell & Sohal, 1998).

Several constructive and advantageous elements may result from change resistance.

Negative Perceptions of Resistance to Change

According to Maurer (1996) one-half to two-thirds of major corporate changes fail.

Early change theories suggest that this failure to implement change is strongly linked to

both individual and institutional “resistance to change” (Agocs, 1997). Resistance to

change was viewed as a problem to solve or a dilemma to overcome. Agocs (1997) states:
Constructive Derivatives From 4

Individuals are said to resist change because of habit and inertia, fear of

the unknown, absence of the skills they will need after the change, and

fear of losing power. Organizations are said to resist change because of

inertia, sunk costs, scarce resources, threats to the power base of the old

dominate coalition, values and beliefs, conformity to norms, and inability

to perceive alternatives. P.918

Coch and French (1948) attempted to find methods to reduce resistance through

participative measures. Other approaches included meeting the force of resistance with

force for change, applying the force of reason, ignoring the resistance, or making deals to

overcome it (Maurer, 1996). Wadel and Sohal (1998) state, however, that this way of

meeting resistance with resistance:

Amounted to little more than information "battering" where the recipients

of change are confronted with a barrage of slide shows, data analysis and

hefty reports. Though these techniques may be categorized as participative

in form, they are far from participative in nature. They amount to little

more than an exercise in salesmanship and clearly illustrate an adversarial

management mindset. (The Management of Resistance, ¶6)

Challenges to Early Resistance Theory

Maurer (1996) disagrees with the historical approaches to overcoming resistance to

change. Maurer instead writes that there are constructive benefits that can be derived by

management and organizations from change resistance.

All of these approaches assume that your way is the right way, and that

others must be persuaded or forced to go along…instead of bringing us

together, these strategies build walls between us, driving us even farther
Constructive Derivatives From 5

apart…we cut ourselves off from input that may lead to even better

solutions than the ones we've thought of. Those who resist may know

something of the costs involved, the troubles that lie ahead, and the

possibilities or alternatives that we could never dream of. (Maurer, 1996,

Why These Approaches Don’t Work, ¶2)

Waddell and Sohal (1998) also take a skeptical approach to early resistance studies

asserting that “there is in fact utility to be gained from resistance, therefore it should not be

avoided or quashed as suggested by classical management theory.” (Introduction, ¶3)

Constructive Derivatives form Resistance to Change

Contemporary research shows that resistance to change is an unavoidable and

natural part of human behavior (Bovey & Hede, 2001) and may even benefit the overall

organizational change process (Coetsee, 1999; Maurer, 1996). Literature shows four main

categories of benefits from resistance to change: (a) determining whether a proposed

change is inherently good (Piderit, 2000); (b) organizational Stability (Maurer, 1996); (c)

energy and commitment (Coetsee, 1999); and (d) Superior alternatives (Piderit, 2000).

According to Waddell and Sohal (1998) it is a fallacy to assume that every

organizational change is inherently good. Change can only be evaluated by its

consequences over time. Resistance to change may reveal weaknesses in a change

proposal and either alter the change or encourage its dismissal. Pederit (2000) found that

resistance reveals valid employee concerns about proposed changes and may show that a

change is not sufficiently researched.

Resistance to change may also help achieve organizational stability. Maurer (1996)

notes that properly managed resistance to change can actually create a climate of trust,

openness, and honesty. Accordingly, Waddel and Sohal (1998) wrote that resistance is
Constructive Derivatives From 6

critical to organizational survival, “While pressure from external and internal environments

continue to encourage change, resistance is a factor that can balance these demands against

the need for constancy and stability” (The Utility of Resistance, ¶5).

Resistance to change also leads to higher energy and commitment. Coetsee (1999)

found that resistance to change actually leads to more commitment whereas passivity leads

to less commitment. According to Waddell and Sohal (1998), “the individual requires a

certain dissatisfaction with their current or future states in order to gain sufficient

motivation…with resistance and conflict comes the energy or motivation to seriously

address the problem at hand” (The Utility of Resistance, ¶10). Resistance to change can act

as a catalyst to strengthened eventual commitment to the same change.

Finally, resistance to change may lead to superior alternatives. Piderit (2000) notes

that “divergent opinions about direction are necessary in order for groups to make wise

decisions and for organizations to change effectively” (Implications for Research and

Practice, ¶7) and “the implication of all this research is that moving too quickly toward

congruent positive attitudes toward a proposed change might cut off the discussion and

improvisation that may be necessary for revising the initial change proposal in an adaptive

manner” (Implications for Research and Practice, ¶8). Waddell and Sohal (1998) further

state that resistance to change “encourages the search for alternative methods and

outcomes” (The Utility of Resistance, ¶13). In this case, resistance to change can produce

alternatives that might be better than the change originally proposed.


Constructive Derivatives From 7

References

Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and…

[Electronic version]. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917-932.

Bovey, W. H. & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive

and affective processes [Electronic version]. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 22, 372-383.

Coch, L. & French, J. (1948) Overcoming resistance to change. In Matteson, M. T. &

Ivancevich, J.M. (1999) Management & Organizational Behavior (pp.187-210).

Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Coetsee, L. (1999). From resistance to commitment [Electronic version]. Public

Administration Quarterly, 23, 204-223.

Dent, E. B. & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change" [Electronic version].

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25-42.

Maurer, R. (1996). Using resistance to build support for change [Electronic version]. The

Journal for Quality and Participation, 19, 56-64.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional

view of attitudes toward an organizational change [Electronic version]. Academy of

Management. The Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-795.

Schein, E. H. (2003). Kurt Lewin's Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom: Notes

Toward a Model of Managed Learning. Retrieved November 16, 2003, from

http://www.sol-ne.org/static/research/workingpapers/10006.html

Waddell, D. & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management

[Electronic version]. Management Decision, 36, 543.