See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309745905

Organizational Change — Managing Employees Resistance

Chapter · February 2016

DOI: 10.1142/9789814656023_0042

CITATIONS READS

0 10,887

2 authors, including:

Viorel Cornescu
University of Bucharest
19 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roxana Adam on 23 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Organizational Change. Managing
Employees Resistance

Viorel Cornescu, Roxana Adam

“NicolaeTitulescu” University, Bucharest, Romania.
National Institute of Economic Research, Romanian Academy, Bucharest,
Romania.
cornescuviorel@yahoo.com
roxana_adam2004@yahoo.com

Abstract:
This paper presents a theoretical perspective concerning the
management of change and innovation and correlates it with aspects of
employees’ reactions to change. The central proposal of the paper is that
resistance to change is a basic human characteristic and it strongly
depends on every individual’s nature. Each organizational change
induces a certain level of resistance in employee behavior which may in
turn affect its implementation and the smooth running of things. The
review shows that change is uncomfortable and managers need to find
new ways of thinking and doing it, ways that should lead the
organization to solve its problems in the most efficient manner. The
paper derives its originality from the fact that it exceed the focus on the
technical elements of change and it brings to the forefront the key human
element which is central to the successful implementation of change in
organizations. The case study presents the orientation of a Romanian
university towards organizational change. It reveals the most common
types of organizational change among faculties and some significant
factors that could contribute to block the change. Analyzing the nature of
the successful methods used in producing new ideas or to increase
individuals’ creativity, the study reveals the importance of financial and
non-financial incentives in motivating employees.

Keywords: organizational change, resistance to change, employees,

influence factors, university, financial incentives.
JEL Classification: O. Economic Development, Technological Change,
and Growth.

Introduction

Organizational change emerges from the dynamics of the

environment and is inevitable in a society based on fast technological
development. Organizations change when the market demands it and
often represents the organizations' intention to grow and or to achieve its
objectives. Managing organizational change is a difficult phase in an
organizations life, because it involves a transfer from a “known” to an
“unknown” situation. Starting from the assumption that these changes
are not once-in-a-lifetime technological or structural revolutions that
involve mass layoffs or the elimination of traditional professions, we
consider that organizational changes lead on to an increase in
productivity which, in a competitive market, may be vital to business
progress.
Rieley and Clarkson (2001) suggested that if organizations
weren’t constantly changing, its performance could not be effective or
improved. However, during the past years, due to the large number of
new or improved products and services for more and more organizations
change is vital. Let’s think a little bit to the story of Kodak Company. A
considerable number of authors wrote about Kodak and its years of
success and also about its failure. Gavetti et al. (2004) analyzed the
situation of Kodak Company through time. Starting from 1993, when
George Fisher was chosen as chief executive, the Kodak Company was
oriented to an organizational change process, yet in 1997 “the old-line
manufacturing culture continues to impede Fisher’s efforts to turn Kodak
into a high-tech growth company. Fisher has been able to change the
culture at the very top. But he hasn’t been able to change the huge mass
of middle managers, and they just don’t understand this [digital] world.”
(Gavetti, Henderson and Giorgi 2004). The company tried also an open
discussion in the Motorola style, Kodak executives tended to be very
polite and things looked much easier than they actually were. Kodak’s
employees didn’t like confrontation and venerated authority […] Fisher
tried to introduce the Motorola-style of open discussion, but change was
difficult (Gavetti, Henderson and Giorgi 2004).
Luecke (2003) claimed that to be effective and able to improve
performance people need routines, therefore we consider that people
need habits to become acquainted with a new process, but at the same
time, in the new era of fast technology, change is a requirement, it’s the
way to performance. Organizational change is a process that should
come as a response to the organizations' needs, while taking account of
its employees and in accordance with a well-established schedule.
Organizational change is influenced by contextual factors and there isn’t
a recipe for success to prescribe the amount of time needed since an
organizational change took place before another organizational change.
Change isn’t about regularity in time, it’s about organizational and
employee’s needs, about performing or surviving in a competitive
market. It is wrong to consider change itself to be inherently good
(Hultman 1979) or bad, because change can only be evaluated after its
goals were or not achieved and its consequences. However, sometimes
employees predict consequences based on the perceived information or
on their past experiences.
From a theoretical perspective, change was characterized most
often by how it comes about. When change is characterised by how it
comes about, a large number of papers refers to planned and emergent
change (Bamford and Forrester 2003). Planned change refers to a
premeditated, agent-facilitated intervention intended to modify
organizational functioning for a more favorable outcome (Lippit,
Watson, and Westley 1958) and it is the most common type of change.
The planned action of a change agent (individual or group) to create
something new is characterized by: it has a main and rational purpose,
the method used in the change process influences the quality and
direction of change and in any change process, the adoption rate is
different. According to the Emergent approach, change is a continuous,
dynamic and contested process that emerges in an unpredictable and
unplanned fashion. For Weick (2000), the advantages of Emergent
change include: “… sensitivity to local contingencies; suitability for on-
line real-time experimentation, learning, and sense making;
comprehensibility and manageability; likelihood of satisfying needs for
autonomy, control, and expression; proneness to swift implementation;
resistance to unraveling; ability to exploit existing tacit knowledge; and
tightened and shortened feedback loops from results to action.”(Burnes
2009)
According to Burnes (2004) the two approaches share a
common, and major, difficulty, which is that whilst both claim to be
universally applicable; they were developed with particular change
situations, organisations types and environments in mind. The Planned
approach appears to be predicated on the assumption that organisations
operate in stable or relatively predictable environment, the managers can
identify where change is required, that change projects are concerned
primarily with group attitudes and behaviours, and the change is about
moving from one fixed point and that the steps or phases in between are
relatively clear and realisable. He also claims that the Emergent
approach, on the other hand, assumes that organisations are open and
fluid systems that operate in unpredictable and uncertain conditions over
which they have little control. It further assumes that change is a
continuous process of adaptation which, because of its speed and
frequency, managers can neither fully identify nor effectively control
centrally (Burnes 2004).
With minor differences, both theories consider that managers
and employees are oriented towards change. They are characterized as
willing to change, competent and adaptable, ready to implement change.
Skipping the theoretical aspects, what actually happens is that no matter
the type of change, change creates challenges for us all. It brings stress
and anxiety, as well as the possibility for optimism (Carnall 2007). Due
to its uncertainty, change creates challenges for employee and managers,
being a difficult process also for those who are managing change.

Resistance to Change

Although change is intended to be a benefit for the organization

or its employees, the employees’ behavior it is not always for change.
Resistance to change is the employees’ natural reaction to the change
process. When change is introduced in organization, it produces a range
of reactions due to the inherent uncertainty or to the incentives that alter
human behavioral patterns such as: status quo, anxiety, lack of tolerance,
etc.
Frequently resistance to change is defined as a reaction of human
behaviour against undesired consequence of change, in other words a
natural reaction caused by losing-control anxiety. Ford, Ford and
McNamara (2002) in a review of the literature say that resistance occurs
because it threatens the status quo, or increases fear and the anxiety of
real or imagined consequences including threats to personal security and
confidence in an ability to perform.
Resistance is a natural phenomenon in the change progress; it is
not necessarily towards change itself, but towards the implications of the
change. The process of passing from known to unknown implies
uncertainty, therefore individuals’ perceived threats towards a state
which they knew, controlled and it was a satisfactory stage. Change
menaces the way people make sense of their actions, bringing into
question their rationality, values and their understanding or assessment of
the situation at different stages. In organizations, moreover, people resist
change because they: perceive negative effects to their interests; the
uncertainty of the future situation determinates a high degree of
discomfort; are attached to the organizational culture, lack of convention
or clarity to what is needed; they just dislike the change or due other
contextual situations, personal characteristics and organizational goals.
Resistance to change represents an obstacle to in any change
initiatives. The specific features of change, a high degree of ambiguity or
risky parameter, can lead to a lack of participation and transmission of
correct information among those involved. Resistance to change is
divided into three groups of factors (Mabin, Forgeson and Green 2001):
individual, group and organizational.
An interesting approach to the individual’s resistance is Kotter
and Schlesinger’s (1979) research, the authors suggest that people resist
change for various reasons, but the most common reasons for resisting
change are:
- Individuals interests, people are characterized by their own
interests and by the desire not to give up something of value;
- A misunderstanding of the change and its implications;
 - A belief that the change does not make sense for the
organization;
- Low tolerance for change.
From the literature, Coch and French (1948) focused their
research on individual factors by analyzing psychological factors such
as: fear, feelings of failure, resentment, frustration, and low motivation.
Other studies have approached factors like: habit, tradition, stability,
insecurity (Watson 1969) or selective perception, economic implications,
fear of the unknown, loss of freedom, (Mullins 1999) and other auxiliary
factors.
According to Mabin, Forgeson and Green (2001) divisions of
resistance to change into three groups of factors, we associate the Watson
orientation on conformity to norms, systemic and cultural coherence,
vested interests, sacred values, and rejection of outsiders (Gravenhorst
2003) to the group factors approach and Mullins orientation on
organization culture, maintaining stability, investment in resources, past
contracts and agreements, and threats to power or influence (Gravenhorst
2003) to the organizational factors approach. Resistance is a normal
stage in change progress, it is a natural defense mechanism. Regarding
human behavior, resistance is a common reaction of individuals because
people are naturally wary of change.
Individuals’ reactions to change are a result of their emotions
with respect to change (Liu and Perrewe 2005). Also, recent studies
have provided evidence of a complex relationship between employees’
emotions and their reactions to change (Avey, Wernsing, and Luthans
2008; Hareli and Rafaeli 2008). Starting from the conceptual framework
of the operationalizing cognitions of Bovey and Hede (2001) we have
schematized the individual's cognitive process at the impact of the
change (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Individual's cognitive process at the impact of the change

Research indicates that irrational ideas are significantly and

positively correlated with employees’ resistance to change. Individuals
tend to have automatic thoughts that incorporate what has been described
as faulty, irrational, or “crooked thinking” (Bovey and Hede 2001; Wittig
2012). The individual's cognitive process at the impact of the change
shows that employees have their own ideas of what it means the
particular change. The ideas might be rational, as well as irrational. Ellis
and Harper (1975) defined irrational ideas through examples, some of
them are: the approval from all important people in a person’s life; fears
of failure request a high degree of competency; the individual is
preoccupied with anxiety, self-blame or that people are acting unfairly;
they don’t control their own feelings and destiny; it is easier to avoid
life’s difficulties than facing them, today behaviors’ and feelings of
individuals are influenced by their own past experiences, etc.
Starting from individual cognition and passing through the
information offered by the organization regarding the change, leads each
employee to draw a personal map, according to his perception about the
change process. The designed map of the change impact together with
the individuals’ ideas creates powerful emotions. Later, based on these
emotions, employees will decide to adopt or to resist organizational
change. Eisenberger, Fasolo and Davis-LeMastro (1990) in their
empirical study have demonstrated that employees’ perceived
organizational support is related to various attitudes and behaviors. Other
authors (Vakola, Tsaousis and Nikolaou, 2004) identified multiple
studies in which the positive attitudes of employees toward change were
vital in achieving successful organizational change initiatives.

Managers, Employees and

Organizational Change

Organizational change is an ambitious objective which involves

different actors of organizations, often employees and managers. From
the managements' perspective resistance is the behavior of organization’s
members who refuse to adopt an organizational change (Chew et al.
2006; Cheng and Petrovic-Lazarevic 2004; Coghlan 1993).
Resistance to change was studied through various models of
resistance and the two most important are: a psychological model and a
systems model. The psychological model of resistance states that in basic
human characteristics resides the source of resistance to change:
personalities, perceptions and needs. The idea of change suggests itself
for most people a kind of manifestation of resistance response, often
caused by uncertainty, lack of tolerance and threatened self-importance.
The basic principle of the systems model of resistance is that resistance
to change shows that the members of the organization feel
uncomfortable with the modifications required by the change, it is not a
change per se that people resist but the changes associated with it, such
as losing their comfort or something that are satisfied with.
There are also others models which study resistance to change,
such as: organization’s culture, institutionalized resistance to change, and
so on. When it comes to the organizations’ culture, employees are
sharing common organizational standards and norms which influence
their behavior and any attempt to change its core elements must be
thoroughly designed because other ways might meet employee
resistance. While the institutionalized resistance to change explains that
the organizational members perceive the change as being unnecessary
and therefore they manifest resistance to it.
Besides these theoretical models, in reality resistance may be
summarized as any employee actions perceived as attempting to stop,
delay, or alter change (Bemmels and Reshef 1991). Resistance to change
is not the fundamental problem to be solved. Rather, any resistance is
usually a symptom for more basic problems underlying a particular
situation (Singh and Waddell 2004). Resistance can therefore serve as a
warning signal (Judson 1966) for managers. There are a variety of factors
which can lead to resistant behavior, according to their nature we can
classify in: psychological, economic and social factors. An important
role in organizational change it is played by social factors, furthermore
by the management factors. Inappropriate or poor management style also
contributes to resistance (Judson 1966).
Ansoff (1988) defined resistance as a multifaceted phenomenon
which introduces unanticipated delays, costs, and instabilities into the
process of a strategic change, therefore management may greatly benefit
from techniques that prudently manage resistance, by utilizing or
overcoming it.
In the managerial context, at the beginning, resistance was
presented as an enemy of positive changes that were to bring
organizational progress and growth (Azad et al. 2013), later more
advanced sociological and psychological researches have approached
positively the concept, in a strong contrast to the traditional viewpoint,
revealing its utility as a way to actually improve management of change
in modern organization (Azad et al. 2013).
Resistance can reveal aspects of change which may prove to be
inappropriate, or they might reveal a problem in the organization’s
method of communication. The big issue for managers is not how to
eliminate resistance, rather to identify its cause.
According to Singh and Waddell (2004), managers must be
aware that employees manifest resistance due to the different aspects of
the change, in addition they should be encouraged to reevaluate the
change and its implications. They should regularly communicate and
consult the organizations employees, to search alternative methods of
introducing change. An important role in the change process is that
managers should involve employees in the change project, requiring
feedback to ensure support. Therefore the natural outcome of people's
internal defense mechanism (Bovey and Hede 2001) could be used by
management in the favor of the change process.
As Yue (2008) mentioned, some employees will find developing
a broader set of relationships at work to be a stimulating new challenge
and personally fulfilling; however, others may find these new
relationships to be incompatible with their more restricted concept of
self, and experience increased role strain and stress.
When the organization is on the verge of implementing change,
the employees’ behaviour must be analysed and monitored by managers.
Through a brief passing in specialized literature, we have selected the
most three common recommended methods to overcome or manage the
resistant behaviour:
a. Improving information and communication – the best
alternative when managers identify that the primary cause of resistance is
lack of information;
b. Employees involvement and participation – employees’
involvement in the change process leads to promotion of the change
process, a promotion made by organizations employees. Resistance is
unlikely to come from employees that took part in the change process
and they provide useful information to improve the implementation of
desired change;
c. Management assistance and support – when employees
encounter problems adapting to change, leading to a resistant behaviour,
in order to facilitate the transition management representatives should
guide employees in this regard.
An effective change requires management approaches that
enhance change through employees’ participation, motivation and a
correct perception of information. To encourage employees’
participation, managers have to offer material, moral and emotional
support according to the circumstances encountered. In a change process,
managers also ought to attempt to know what can influence employees’
behavior, the most important ways to motivate them, such as: job
satisfactions, gains or other intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. Another
sensitive part is that managers should be able to interpret the inputs of
the employees’ black box and to ensure the information and organization
objectives have been correctly perceived. We can conclude that,
depending on the relationship between managers and subordinates,
resistance may be managed in favor of change and overcome. Is this a
problem about rules, about skills about managers’ characteristics? We
can’t claim one or another, theoretically it’s about all that implies this
relationship, and in reality it’s a complex process depending on many
factors, circumstance and, most important, human characteristics.
Moreover resistance to change in organizations occurs when it creates
too much role incapability for employees.
Zeffane R. (1996) argues that change can only succeed if it is
based solidly on an understanding of how people behave, what motivates
them, and how improved positive attitudes can be developed. In
organizational change good communication between managers and
employees should be developed, it is preferable that everyone who is
affected by change to be involved in planning and implementing change.
As we have already mentioned, employees are an important component
in organizational change, it is useful to know their concerns and fears,
because, through an appropriate management style, it is possible to
diminish the impact of change in order to avoid loss of productivity and
decreased performance.

Case Study

Purpose: This study presents the organizational change in the

academic environment. It presents the profile of a Romanian university
regarding the process of change, the management approach towards
change and the main factors which influence organizational change.
Research limitations/implications: This study assumes that
universities are similar to companies, with various hierarchical levels. It
examines the organizational change at only one time point in faculties of
one university. The reference period is the currently mandate and
perceptions of the change may differ over time.
Methodology: Participants include the faculty governing body,
one representative for each faculty of the studied university. An online
questionnaire was used in order to obtain representative data, by
identifying different aspects of the organizational change in faculties to
describe the university orientation towards organizational change.
A preliminary study showed that the university is a promoter of
the “new” and “change”. The preliminary study took
the form of informal interviews with 20 Romanian professors from
different universities and was conducted as a preliminary step to the
present work, therefore, after the interviews we designed the framework
of the current research. The University is an institution which produces
ideas and knowledge. It generates new insights, which in one way or
another will inevitably lead to change. Romanian higher education
system is oriented toward a knowledge-based society and the universities
are pursuing the valorization of staff (professors) creativity and also to
train young specialists with an opening towards: apply the “new”, create
the “new” and mitigate or eliminate resistance to change of organization
members.
We have divided the main organizational change which can be
found in universities into three groups: changing the occupational area
and content of staff faculty duties (e.g. new tasks, new working methods,
equipment and new programs, etc.), changing the status of university
employees (e.g. didactic promotion, salary increase, delegating
managerial, professional development, etc.) and changing the formal and
informal social relations within the faculty staff (e.g. restructuring the
micro-groups, informal leaders revaluation, increasing cohesion between
groups, reducing conflicts, modify faculty employees value, etc.).
The University, as an organization, is not exempt from resistance
to change, which may take the form of: the university management
resistance to faculty’s employees' proposals (faculty management or
professors), employee resistance to management's proposal or to
students’ proposal. Since universities are operating at different
hierarchical levels, we have associated universities' structure with a
pyramid at the top of which the Academic Senate and the Rector can be
found, in the middle are the university faculties and at the bottom are all
the departments of each faculty. The tip of the pyramid is represented by
the legal provisions which are limiting the university activities, and the
pyramid base line is represented by students. Because the general
operating diagram of Romanian universities is too complex, and
resistance to change can manifest from the bottom up, and also in the
other direction, from the top of the pyramid down, we have chosen to
investigate only the changes that may occur within the university, the
main influence factors and the employee (professors) resistance.
Findings: Based on the survey response from the faculty
governing body of thirteen faculties of the same Romanian university,
the results of the statistical analysis show that the studied university is
oriented towards change, all the faculties acted to change the
occupational area and content of staff faculty duties, 85% of faculties
claimed to change the status of university employees and more than 90%
claimed to change the formal and informal social relations within the
faculty staff.
For the organizational change within the university’s faculties,
the most important objectives were: improving learning conditions for
students and improving communication and information exchange across
the university or with other institutions or organizations. Other
significant objectives have been: to improve teaching methods and to
improve learning conditions for students to improve the ability to
develop new educational approaches.
During the reference period of the study, the implementations of
changes within the three change categories were:
- aim to change the occupational area and content of staff faculty
duties: 54% have been accepted and in a proportion of 46%have been
implemented;
- aim to change the status of university employees: 77% have
been implemented, 15% have been accepted and 8% refused;
- aim to change the formal and informal social relations within
the faculty staff: a proportion of 46% have been implemented, 38%
accepted, 8% refused, while for a proportion of 8% no change were
necessary.
Most of the changes regarding the content of teaching and staff
duties introduced in university were: the addition of new tasks for
employees with the same career positions, significantly improved or new
working methods and new bachelor/ master programs. In most of the
cases, changes were initiated and supported by faculty heads and
professors.
 Regarding the change of employees’ position within university,
most of the introduced changes were: the collaboration with external
experts, employees’ promotion, attracting new employees for new
positions and investments in research and development. Also this time,
the changes were initiated and supported mostly by faculty heads and
professors.
For the third organizational change type, changing the formal
and informal social relations within the faculty, the most common
changes within university were: to reduce the within-group conflicts and
increase cohesion between groups. The actions were initiated and
supported mostly by faculty heads and professors.
Most of the changes at faculty level already existed in other
university’s faculties; the organizational changes that have been recorded
in faculties with no precedent in university mostly were focused on the
formal and informal social relations change, within the faculty staff.
The most significant factors that have prevented the university’s
faculties to accept change or which have blocked it were cost factors,
such as: lack of university or faculty funds and lack of funding from
external sources. Another significant factor was the discouraging
legislative regulation, while employees though lack of motivation and
complacency had a significant impact.
Of the analyzed faculties 92% used various methods to stimulate
new ideas and creativity among professors. The nature of the successful
methods used in producing new ideas or to increase creativity have been:
financial incentives for the creation and development of new ideas and
non-financial incentives such as free time, public recognition, mobility,
honorary titles, etc.
Practical implications: These findings suggest that the main
problems encountered in achieving organizational change were
determined by higher cost, discouraging legislative regulations and
human capital. We also observed that financial and non-financial
incentives were successful methods used in producing new ideas and
increase creativity. Therefore we consider that a possible cause of
employee resistance or disinterest toward organizational change within
university may be low motivation due to lack of financial and non-
financial incentives.
 Originality: This study shows that the analyzed university is
oriented toward change, by adopting several organizational changes.
A nationwide study may bring to the forefront important factors for the
Romanian education system which may contribute to the development of
a knowledge-based society.

Conclusions:

The organizational change creates challenges for managers and

employees and therefore change has a big impact on individuals in the
organization. The theoretical aspects characterise individuals as willing
to change and adapt, moreover ready to implement change. We consider
that effective management of change is based on a clear understanding of
human behavior in the organization.
Through the literature review presented we have shown that
some of the organizational change issue and a positive perspective
regarding resistance to change. Due to the challenge of change,
individuals may have a defensive or negative attitude and to resist to
change. Therefore, successful implementation of change in organization
demands a good knowledge of the features and a high orientation
towards analysing the employees’ behaviour.
The case study has shown the orientation of a Romanian
university towards organisational change. Analysing the three
organisational change types, the factors that could lead to a resistance to
change or which may block it and, by identifying the change promoters,
we have created the profile towards organisational change of one
university. The study also suggests an assumption for future research:
increasing employees’ motivation to get involved in the organizational
change process, minimize employees resistance to change. Considering
that in most of the cases, changes were initiated and supported by faculty
heads and professors, we consider that the proper employees’
motivation may contribute in a constructive manner to a positive
organizational change.
In conclusion, involving individuals directly in the organizational change
process may bring out good change ideas and contribute towards
organizational change acceptance. Therefore change agents should
consider the behavior characteristics of individuals in order to achieve
effective and successful organizational change.
 Bibliography

Agboola A.A. and Salawu R.O. (2011) Managing Deviant Behavior and Resistance to
Change.International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6, No. 1; January.
Ansoff, H.I., (1988) The new corporate strategy, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., &Luthans, F., 2008. Can positive employees help positive
organizational change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48—70.
Azad et all, (2013) Resistance To Change: A Blessing Or A Curse? , Interdisciplinary
Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business ,Vol 4, No 12, April.
Bamford, D. R. and Forrester, P. L., (2003) Managing planned and emergent change
within an operations management environment, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 23(5), pp. 546–564.
Bernard Burnes, (2004) Managing change: a strategic approach to organisational
dynamics, Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Bernard Burnes, (2009) Managing change, Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2009.
Bemmels and Reshef, 1991.Manufactoring employees and technological change, Journal
of Labour Research, 12 (3), pp. 231-246.
Bovey, Wayne H. and Hede, Andy (2001) Resistance to organizational change: the role
of cognitive and affective process, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 22/8, pp. 372-382.
Cheng, Joseph S. L. and Petrovic-Lazarevic, Sonja., (2004) The Role of Effective
Leadership in Doing More with Less in Public Universities. Paper presented at
Global Business and Technology Association Sixth Annual Conference, Cape Town,
South Africa, June.
Chew, Mindy Man Min, Cheng, Joseph S. L. and Petrovic-Lazarevic, Sonja, (2006)
Managers’ Role In Implementing Organizational Change:,Journal of Global
Business and Technology, Volume 2, Number 1, Spring.
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948) Overcoming resistance to change.Human
Relations, 1, 512-532.
Coghlan, David.,1993. A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(4): 10-14.
Carnall, C.A., (2007) Managing Change in Organization, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall,
London, UK.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990) Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75: 51-59.
Ellis, A. and Harper, R.A. (1994) A new guide to rational living, Wilshire Book
Company, North Hollywood, CA.
Giovanni Gavetti, Rebecca Henderson and Simona Giorgi (2004) Kodak (A), February
18, (2004), Harvard Bussiness School.

17
18 Bibliography

Gravenhorst, Kilian M. Bennebroek (2003) A Different View on Resistance to Change,

Paper for “Power Dynamics and Organizational Change IV” Symposium at the 11th
EAWOP Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, 14-17 May.
Hultman, K., (1979) The Path of Least Resistance, Learning Concepts, Denton, TX.
Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2008) Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35—59.
Jeffrey D. Ford, Laurie W. Ford, Randall T. McNamara (2002) "Resistance and the
background conversations of change", Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 2, pp.105 – 121.
Judson (1966) A managers guide to making changes, London: Jhon Wiley & Sons.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979) Choosing strategies for change.Harvard
Business Review, 57, 106-114.
Kotter, J. Schlesinger, L., Sathe, V. (1986) Organisation, 2nd ed, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Lippit, R., J. Watson, and B. Westley (1958) The dynamics of planned change. New
York: Harcourt Brace.
Liu, Y., &Perrewe´, P. L. (2005) Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational
change: A process model. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 263—280.
Mabin, Victoria J., Forgeson, Steve and Green, Lawrence (2001) Harnessing resistance:
using the theory of constraints to assist change management. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 25(2/3): 168-191.
Mooketsi, D. S., (2009) Managing Deviant Behavior and Resistance to Change,
Unpublished Assignment Submitted to the Department of Management, Faculty of
Business, University of Botswana, as Part of Assessment for MGT 674.
Mullins, L. J., (1999) Management and organisationalbehaviour (5th ed.). London:
Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Rieley and Clarkson (2001) Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review.
Singh M. and Waddell D. (2004) E-Business Innovation and Change
Management, Paperback, Waddell, Idea Group Inc.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I., (2004) The role of emotional intelligence and
personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change.Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 88-110.
Watson, G. (1969) Resistance to change. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne & R. Chin (Eds.),
The planning of change (2nd ed., pp. 488-498). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Wenhe Yue (2008) Resistance, the Echo of Change, International Journal of Business
and Management, Vol. 3, No. 2.
Wittig, C. (2012) Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change, OdPractioner, vol. 44,
No.2.
Zeffane, R. (1996) Dynamics of strategic change: critical issues in fostering positive
organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol.17,
No.7.
 17

View publication stats