793731

research-article2018
MCQXXX10.1177/0893318918793731Management Communication QuarterlyDeline

Article
Management Communication Quarterly
2019, Vol. 33(1) 39­–67
Framing Resistance: © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Identifying Frames sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0893318918793731
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918793731
That Guide Resistance journals.sagepub.com/home/mcq

Interpretations at Work

Mary Beth Deline1

Abstract
Programs aimed at implementing change in organizations regularly experience
high failure rates. Exploring resistance to change is one promising way to
better understand what might be done to improve these rates. Resistance
to change has often been envisioned as employee noncompliance with one-
way change messages. This study instead conceptualizes resistance as an
interpretive system between implementers and employees. The project
developed a grounded typology of the interpretive structures that employees
and implementers used to interpret others’ behaviors as resistance or not.
Four frames (or cognitive schema) that guide resistance interpretations
were identified: (a) disagreeability, (b) protecting role performance, (c)
conflicting stakes, and (d) habitual environment. Analyses examined patterns
in these frames. This work develops a map of resistance frames that
researchers studying resistance to change, communication campaigns, and
implementation communication will find useful.

Keywords
resistance, implementation, organizational change, roles, frames, stakeholders,
implementation communication strategies

1Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Mary Beth Deline, School of Communication, Illinois State University, Fell Hall, Normal IL,
61790, USA.
Email: delinemb@gmail.com
40 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

Attempts to implement change in organizations fail 50% to 70% of the time

(Barrett & Stephens, 2017; Ijaz & Vitalis, 2011). These failure rates provoke
key questions—what causes these failures, and how can they be reduced?
Studying the implementation process holds promise for better understanding
these failure rates because it is understudied in relation to the other stages of
change in organizations, and rarely examined empirically (Klein & Knight,
2005; Real & Poole, 2005). Implementation refers to a process of putting
changes in place within an organization (Lewis, 2007; Real & Poole, 2005).
Such implementations require communication to articulate concepts, provide
social support, and coordinate feedback between implementation parties
(Lewis, 2006). Just as there is little empirical work on implementation, there
is a corresponding lack of implementation communication studies in the
organizational communication literature (Lewis, 2007).
One way researchers have addressed failure to change during implementa-
tions is by examining resistance to change (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis,
2011; Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). Much of this literature uses an implicit one-
way message communication model that defines resistance as noncompli-
ance with a one-way change message. These studies focus on psychological
traits that predict employee noncompliance with these messages (Ford, Ford,
& D’Amelio, 2008; Garner, 2013; Oreg et al., 2011). However, the one-way
model contrasts with the shared, reciprocal conception of communication
often used by today’s organizational communication researchers (Ashcraft,
Kuhn, & Cooren, 2009). Conceptualizing organizational communication as
shared between parties suggests that a reciprocal communication model
called the “double interact” is a fruitful way to examine resistance.
The double interact model advances a system approach to communication
and consists of three stages: a message sent, a behavioral interpretation of the
message, and, finally, an interpretation of the behavioral interpretation
(Weick, 1979). For instance, in the first stage, an implementer would ask
employees to undertake new energy conservation behaviors. The second
stage would consist of employees interpreting and undertaking behaviors in
response to the sent messages. Such behaviors (also called “coping behav-
iors”) might include complaining, asking questions, or searching for informa-
tion (Lewis & Seibold, 1996). The third stage would consist of implementers
and other employees interpreting these behaviors as resistance or not. This
third stage, where resistance is interpreted, is referred to in the rest of this
article as a resistance interpretation (RI). Implementers are defined as “. .
.those empowered by organizations, through role responsibility or expertise,
to introduce change” (Lewis, 2000, p. 24).
Expanding the communication model for studying resistance from a one-
way message to a three-stage interpretive negotiation system between parties
Deline 41

offers many potential research avenues. The first and second stages (sending
change messages and behaviorally interpreting such messages) have been
theorized and empirically studied in a number of fields that apply to resis-
tance. For example, implementation communication strategies have been
studied in the first stage (Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001), while topics
such as reactance or dissent have been examined in the second stage (Dillard
& Shen, 2005; Garner, 2013). This study addresses the third stage of the
double interact (interpretations of behaviors in response to change messages).
The third stage is understudied (Lewis & Russ, 2011) yet deserves research
attention. For instance, work shows that differences exist in how implement-
ers and employees interpret resistance in the third stage (Ford et al., 2008):
Do these differences somehow contribute to implementation failure? Others
argue that understanding implementers’ reactions to feedback is key to imple-
mentation outcomes (Lewis, 2007). Better knowledge of these third-stage
processes can help us examine the system of resistance communication.
To examine the third stage, this exploratory, interpretive case study used
semistructured interviews and survey data to investigate the implementation
of a sustainability program in a large Midwestern educational organization.
Using the double interact as a conceptual model, the study examined frames
used by implementers and employees to make RIs of others’ behaviors during
the implementation. This study defines frames as cognitive expectations that
guide our interpretations (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014).

Literature Review
Change Implementations and Implementers
Real and Poole (2005) argue that implementation studies are usually driven
by one of four primary objectives: determining success factors for imple-
menting a specific change, finding innovative organization indicators, under-
standing how a change is implemented, and identifying factors that broadly
influence implementation success. This study extends the third approach by
focusing on how resistance processes occur during change implementations.
To do so, this study considers resistance to change as a reciprocal communi-
cation system, suggesting that both employees and implementers are involved
in the resistance communication process (Ford et al., 2008; Weick, 1979).
Including implementers in the resistance process is important because
understanding implementers’ reactions to feedback is key to implementa-
tion outcomes (Lewis, 2007). However, there has been a lack of investiga-
tion into how implementers communicate during implementations (Lewis,
2006; Lewis & Russ, 2011). One formal approach that implementers use to
42 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

communicate during implementations is implementation communication

strategies. Lewis et al. (2001) developed a typology of such strategies,
ranging from an “Equal Dissemination” model, where information is sent
equally across the organization, to a “Need to Know” model, where infor-
mation is sent only to those who have to know about the change. Examining
implementers’ strategies in relation to resistance might shed light on imple-
menters’ goals and expectations for implementations, and how they con-
tribute to resistance.
A small amount of research on implementers shows that differences exist
in how implementers and employees interpret resistance (Ford et al., 2008).
This finding suggests conflicts between employees’ and implementers’ inter-
pretations of resistance might illuminate implementation and resistance pro-
cesses within workplaces, and subsequent ways to improve them. To further
examine this idea, the resistance literature holds promise.

Interpreting Resistance to Change

Despite its long history, there has been a lack of consensus about what resis-
tance represents, and how to best study it (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004;
Mumby, Thomas, Marti, & Siedl, 2017). This lack of consensus is not sur-
prising given that resistance is investigated in fields as diverse as psychology
(Oreg et al., 2011), sociology (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004), organizational
studies (Ford et al., 2008), and organizational communication (Garner, 2013;
Mumby, 2005). A key contention between scholars concerns the definition of
resistance itself, ranging from an objective fact (Oreg et al., 2011) to a co-
constructed social reality (Ford et al., 2008; Garner, 2013). Researchers who
address resistance as an objective fact tend to examine it using the one-way
communication model (Ford et al., 2008; Garner, 2013; Oreg et al., 2011).
However, given the shared conception of communication largely found
within the organizational communication literature, using a reciprocal model
to investigate resistance is warranted.
The double interact is such a model. It stipulates that reality is
co-constructed by parties. This co-construction uses both socially shared com-
munication actions (such as framing that occurs during the sending and receiv-
ing of messages between parties) and individual processes (such as using
frames to interpret messages). Frames have a long history in psychology, soci-
ology, and communication studies; however, their meaning is often muddled.
Organizational communication studies define frames in two primary ways: (a)
as cognitive expectations about situations gained through experiences and (b)
as discourses between parties that jointly make sense of cues (Cornelissen &
Werner, 2014; Dewulf et al., 2009). Other communication areas study frames,
Deline 43

but conceive of them differently. For instance, mass media studies often con-
ceive of news or media frames as communication tactics within texts to make
definitions or suggested approaches to a problem salient (Matthes & Kohring,
2008). Organizational communication tends to focus on cognitive frames or
framing.
Frames occur at individual, dyadic, and organizational levels of analysis,
while framing, due to its shared nature, necessitates at least a dyadic level of
analysis (Dewulf et al., 2009). For instance, a dyadic framing approach might
study the cues within a conversation to investigate how laughter is interpreted
as sarcastic or wholehearted, while a frame approach would examine the cog-
nitive frames that were used to identify a situation as humorous (Dewulf
et al., 2009). Both frames and framing can pertain to issues (meanings associ-
ated with a situation), relationships (meanings of oneself and others in one’s
environment), and processes (interactions between people) (Cornelissen &
Werner, 2014; Dewulf et al., 2009).
Pearce (1995) distinguished these two processes, framing and using
frames, respectively, as the social construction of reality and the construction
of social reality. Both processes occur within the double interact. Although
there have been few empirical studies of the double interact (Anderson,
2003), a branch of organizational communication scholarship called speech
act schematics is notable for doing so. This branch of scholarship, a type of
discourse analysis, focuses on both framing and frames through interaction
processes and language (Fairhurst, 2007). Researchers in this tradition have
critiqued the double interact for its generality and shown how process frames
of interaction guide (but do not determine) the framing of speech acts (Cooren
& Fairhurst, 2004). Researchers have used this approach to show, for exam-
ple, that speech act closures are resisted in leadership interactions (Larsson &
Lundholm, 2013), as well as to examine how authority is co-produced
through enactment and resistance (Benoit-Barné & Cooren, 2009).
The present study instead focuses on the construction of social reality by
attending to implementers’ and employees’ resistance frames during the third
part of the double interact process. This stage has been understudied relative
to the other stages (Lewis & Russ, 2011), and no work could be found on
resistance frames in this third stage beyond the process frames already
detailed in the speech act schematic literature (see Figure 1).
A few studies of frames in the first two stages of the double interact model
are conducive for resistance research. Researchers studying the first stage of
the double interact (sending a change message) found that implementers’
issue frames include whether the change is considered significant or nonsig-
nificant (Sonenshein, 2010). They also found that process frames in the first
stage include whether the change process is seen as formal or informal, or as
44 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

Stage 1: Change Message

Issue Frames: significant/insignificant change (Sonenshein, 2010)

Process Frames: formal/informal; reciprocal/non-reciprocal (Maitlis, 2005)

Stage 3: Resistance Stage 2: Coping

Interpretations Behavior

Process Frames: sancons (Cooren Issue Frames: role protecon or

& Fairhurst, 2004) threat; capability (Chreim, 2009;
Kellogg, 2009)
Resistance Frames:
Disagreeability
Protecting Role
Performance
Conflicting Stakes
Habitual Environment

Figure 1.  Frames for different stages of the double interact during change
implementations.
Note. Italicized frames were identified in this study.

reciprocal or nonreciprocal (Maitlis, 2005). Studies of the second stage of the

double interact (behaviorally interpreting the change message) found that
issue frames include considering whether the change supports or detracts
from participants’ current roles, as well as their ability to enact the change
(Chreim, 2006; Kellogg, 2009).

Roles as Frames
Role frames are ubiquitous in organizations and therefore might be related
to workplace RIs. Roles are social structures containing frames that guide
our identities and behaviors (Sluss, Van Dick, & Thompson, 2011). They
have long been studied by researchers in sociology, organizational behav-
ior, and communication. Most researchers agree that roles are comprised
of three main elements—a role identity (such as a “manager” identity),
role behaviors, and role expectations sent from an individual or group
called the “role set” to the role holder (Sluss et al., 2011). These role
expectations are frames (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Roles are enacted,
maintained, and changed through a process called a role episode (Kramer,
Deline 45

2009). A role episode is a specific type of double interact: It consists of

the role set sending role frames to the role holder; the role holders inter-
preting these role frames and adopting, rejecting or adapting them; and
the role set interpreting the behaviors enacted by the role holder (Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek, 1964). Few studies have examined the micropro-
cesses of these role episodes. What little we know about such episodes is
that they often involve changes to task role frames (what role behaviors
should be done) as well as relational role frames (how tasks should be
done) (Kramer, 2009).
Relational role frames that govern how tasks should be done are devel-
oped and used by employees when embedded within the role system of an
organization (Kahn et al., 1964; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). The socially
structured web of roles proffers a sense of routine and stability and results
in relational role frames about differing levels of politeness, manners, and
emotional labor (Grandey, Diefendorf, & Rupp, 2014; Hayton, Carnabuci,
& Eisenberger, 2012). These relational role frames influence relational
messages: “meanings that define the nature of the relationship” (Knobloch
& Solomon, 2005, p. 352). In effect, the role double interact can be under-
stood as a series of offers and counteroffers about both task and relational
role behaviors by different parties involved in the creation, maintenance,
or change of a role (Kramer, 2009). Because change interrupts roles (Klein
& Knight, 2005; Lewis, 2007), investigating role frames in combination
with other frames is a promising way to investigate RIs.
To do so, this study examined the third stage of the double interact model
in resistance contexts. It investigated the frames used by implementers and
employees to make RIs. This examination led to two research questions:

Research Question 1: How do implementers and employees frame

resistance?

The double interact model includes implementers in the resistance process,

and although some have theorized about their importance to that process, there
is little empirical work (Lewis, 2006; Lewis & Russ, 2011). In addition, a
small body of work indicates differences in how implementers and employees
interpret resistance (Ford et al., 2008). Exploring the similarities and differ-
ences in resistance frames and how those resistance frames are used with other
frames by implementers and employees will identify implementer contribu-
tions to resistance processes. This led to the second research question:

Research Question 2: How do implementers’ and employees’ resistance

frames, and their use, compare with each other?
46 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

Method
This project is an exploratory, interpretive case study (Cepeda & Martin,
2005; Ketokivi & Choi, 2014; Yin, 2003). It investigates resistance frames in
the context of a large educational enterprise in the Midwest that implemented
a turnkey sustainability program in the summer of 2013. The organization
had a volunteer “advisory group” of 13 employees who guided the sustain-
ability initiative’s implementation. About half of the organization’s employ-
ees took part in the conservation campaign. This section details the setting,
the data collection, data analysis, and analytic rigor.

Setting
The organization that developed the turnkey sustainability program is a non-
profit organization, while the organization that implemented the program is a
large and storied educational enterprise in the Midwest, with roughly 700
employees. The mission of the educational organization is to transfer knowl-
edge generated at an educational organization into community classrooms.
The change implemented in the educational organization encourages sustain-
ability behaviors at home and in the office through team competition. Players
were asked to undertake a daily sustainable action in a variety of areas, such
as energy or water conservation, or transportation.
The educational organization’s sustainability team implemented the pro-
gram. The group first obtained political buy-in for the project from manage-
ment and funding via a technology grant. They then organized a 13-person,
volunteer advisory group to adapt the program to the organization and
develop a rollout plan. The rollout used multiple communication channels
such as conference calls and emails, and advisory team members made them-
selves available to answer questions about the program. This rollout seems to
align with the Equal Participation implementation strategy that seeks to
equally disseminate information and receive input as a way to legitimate
change through consensus building (Lewis et al., 2001). During implementa-
tion, 333 employees out of 700 undertook at least one sustainability action in
the program, and created 55 teams.

Sample and Collection

Data were obtained via semistructured qualitative interviews conducted by
the researcher, as well as a survey conducted by the nonprofit organization
that developed the sustainability program. The survey was provided to the
author by the nonprofit organization, and was solely used to triangulate
Deline 47

frame categories. The interview sample consisted of six implementers (rep-

resenting 46% of the implementers’ advisory team) and 32 employees who
participated in the program. The sample was obtained through a purposive
search for participants that used self-selection and snowball approaches
(Patton, 2014). Participants were recruited though an organizational wide
email from upper management, followed by individual emails from the
researcher. In the case of self-selection, individuals interested in participat-
ing in the study contacted the researcher to schedule an interview. This was
followed by snowball sampling when participants provided names and con-
tact information of other potential participants who were then contacted by
phone or email. Participants ranged widely on several characteristics, such
as how well their team did compared with others, and location. This range
was used to examine if and how frames emerged across different contextual
variations; the range enhances confidence in the nature of these frames
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Qualitative semistructured interviews occurred from March to April 2014,
6 months after the program ended in the organization. The interviews lasted
from 20 to 130 min, with an average length of 60 min, and most were done in
person. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Six interviews
(representing 16% of the total sample) occurred over the phone due to sched-
uling conflicts. The interviews were developed to address why and how RIs
occurred. This led to 35 interview questions for employees and 44 interview
questions for implementers, such as (a) “What did you notice, if anything,
people doing or not doing in reaction to the program being put in place?” and
(b) “Was there anything that surprised you about what people were doing or
not doing in reaction to the program? Tell me more.”1 Interview pretesting
occurred in the winter of 2013 with several graduate students, and based on
their responses, the questions were revised to improve participant compre-
hension and more strongly elicit frames.

Data analysis. Interview data were analyzed in two different ways to

answer Research Questions 1 and 2. The first analysis created a grounded
typology of implementer and employee resistance frames through frame
analysis (Brummans et al., 2008; Fiss, 2011; Golan & Bamberger, 2015).
This typology answered Research Question 1—how do implementers and
employees frame resistance? Grounded typologies are classification sys-
tems developed through empirical observations and theory (Cornelissen,
2017; Delbridge & Fiss, 2013; Golan & Bamberger, 2015). Developing
such a typology supports Gioia and Pitre’s (1990) interpretive approach to
theory by describing the structures that guide interpretations (in this case,
frames). It also supports an exploratory, rather than confirmatory, approach
48 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

to theory. This exploratory approach was used because of the undertheo-

rized and understudied nature of the third stage of the double interact
model in resistance research (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). This study
used the double interact as a conceptual model to establish case boundaries
and frames as key factors for investigation (Cepeda & Martin, 2005; Keto-
kivi & Choi, 2014).
Developing a grounded typology requires three steps—(a) identification
of variation during a phenomenon, (b) the identification of “types” of cat-
egories, and (c) detailing how these types are associated with outcomes or
patterns (Golan & Bamberger, 2015). I used frame analysis of RIs that
occurred in a subsample of the interviews to develop the typology. After
transcribing the interviews, several were chosen to begin coding due to
their fit with ideas that developed during the interviews. However, such an
approach increased the possibility of a weaker analysis, by seeking tran-
scripts to further initial interpretations, rather than challenging those inter-
pretations and seeking others (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). To
guard against this weaker analysis, a subsample of all the implementers and
randomly selected employees were chosen for codebook development.
After finalizing the codebook, the subsample was coded with it (Miles
et al., 2014).
RIs were defined as moments when participants explicitly interpreted oth-
ers’ behaviors as resistance. These instances were identified using two defini-
tions of resistance and resisting from the Oxford English Dictionary: explicit
judgments from participants of others’ behaviors that the participant thought
were evidence of resisting, opposing, withstanding, slowing, stopping, hin-
dering, preventing, impeding, or opposing the program or a part of it.
Accounts were also considered intentional, using another definition from the
Oxford English Dictionary, so that the resistor was perceived as actively try-
ing or endeavoring to resist. I then examined these resistance accounts to
identify frames, using open and axial coding from the constant comparative
analysis. Frames were operationalized as categories that regularly occurred in
participants’ accounts (Brummans et al., 2008; Gray, 2004; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Constant comparative analysis is a key component of grounded theory
studies, but the open and axial coding from the methodology is also often
used in frame analysis and interpretive case studies (see Brummans et al.,
2008; Canary, 2010; Kramer, 2009).
Open and axial coding of participants’ resistance accounts generated
categories and subcategories of frames that participants used to make RIs.
The analysis took several steps. First, I read the transcripts and noted
instances of RIs. In addition, I wrote memos which are written reflections
of the researchers’ conceptual thoughts about the phenomenon, and can be
Deline 49

used to identify questions and extend researcher assumptions and argu-

ments (Miles et al., 2014). Frames used in these RIs were then open coded.
Afterward, axial coding ordered the open codes into categories and subcat-
egories of frames (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Major frame categories
included role behavior, issue, relationship, process, and hindrance frames.
For example, a representative role behavior frame was adaptivity, which
was defined as discussing behaviors in terms of how they did or did not
cope with, respond to, or support change (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007).
A representative issue frame was optionality, which meant the situation
was or was not left up to one’s choice, while a representative relationship
frame was openness, where the relationship with the resistor was perceived
as closed or open. Process frames described events or processes associated
with RIs, such as game participation. Finally, hindrance frames pertained
to processes or issues that the respondent considered to be hindered by
resistance, such as team formation.
Frames were then clustered together (Brummans et al., 2008; Vough,
2012) using comparative grids of the issue, process, relationship, and hin-
drance frames associated with each of the three role behavior frames, for both
implementers and employees (Miles et al., 2014). (The role frames were
adaptive, initiative, and proficient behaviors.) Once these comparative grids
were created, the top issue, process, relationship, and hindrance frames asso-
ciated with these role behavior frames were identified, and the accounts that
featured these frames were re-read. This process led to the identification of
four resistance frames: Disagreeability, Protecting Role Performance,
Habitual Environment, and Conflicting Stakes. The transcripts were then re-
read and coded with these resistance frames.
The second analysis addressed Research Question 2—how do imple-
menters’ and employees’ resistance frames, and their use, compare with
each other? I compared implementers’ and employees’ resistance frames
and their association with other frames. Accounts coded with resistance
frames were reread and the top role, issue, relationship, process, and hin-
drance frames associated with the resistance frames in these accounts were
noted, and examined for patterns (Miles et al., 2014; Vough, 2012). The
first pattern examination investigated which resistance frame was most fre-
quently used by implementers and employees. The second pattern examina-
tion investigated whether implementers and employees shared any
resistance frames, and if so, whether they shared any other frames when
sharing the resistance frames (Brummans et al., 2008; Vough, 2012). This
analysis identified differences and similarities between implementer and
employee resistance frames and their use.
50 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

Analytic Rigor
To ensure rigor, the study was guided by Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) concep-
tion of trustworthiness. The concept contains four major criteria: credibility
refers to ensuring the logic of the argument is not divorced from the context,
while transferability means providing rich enough description of the study
that it can be applied elsewhere. Confirmability pertains to whether or not the
research is confirmable, and dependability refers to whether the process of
research was stable over time (Cepeda & Martin, 2005; Lincoln & Guba,
1985). To address credibility, rival explanations were sought, memos were
written, peer debriefing occurred, and researcher responsiveness was
accounted for during the interview process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton,
2014). Researcher responsiveness pertains to providing participants with
interpretations of what they had said, and giving them the opportunity to
confirm, disconfirm, or extend the interpretation in the interview (Kvale,
2007; Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). Peer debriefing
referred to obtaining critiques and suggestions to refine the codebook catego-
ries from a researcher not involved in the study (Corley & Gioia, 2004).2
Rival explanations involved developing codes based on the peer debriefing
discussions and coding the data with them; these codes did not appear to
provide any extra insight into the phenomenon under study and so the rival
explanations were dropped. Finally, memos were written and used to re-eval-
uate codes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2014).
To address confirmability, the interviews were recorded and triangulation
was used in the analysis.3 Transferability was attended to through attempts to
richly detail this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Finally, dependability was
addressed through the use of a reflexive research journal throughout the
study’s progress (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In addition to all of these methods,
the literature was also consulted to sharpen and strengthen the category defi-
nitions (Brummans et al., 2008). This process resulted in the development of
a codebook, which was then used to code the subsample.

Results
Analyses resulted in three key findings. First, responding to Research
Question 1, analysis identified four resistance frames (see Figure 2).
Responding to Research Question 2, analysis revealed two frame patterns
(Miles et al., 2014). The first pattern was that the most used resistance
frame for both implementers and employees was the Disagreeability frame.
The second pattern was that when employees and implementers shared
resistance frames, the only other frame that they consistently shared was a
negative relationship frame.
 Figure 2.  Grounded resistance typology.

51
Note. The quotes are examples of participants’ accounts that reflect each of the resistance frames.
52 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

This section describes the resistance frames and their use among imple-
menters and employees, and is structured as follows. First, I define each
resistance frame, and identify whether it was shared between implementers
and employees. Then, in line with Research Question 2, I describe how the
resistance frame was used by implementers and employees, through associ-
ated top issue, relationship, process, role behavior, and hindrance frames (see
Brummans et al., 2008, for another similar example). Finally, I summarize
which, if any, of these top frames were shared by implementers and employ-
ees when they were using their resistance frames.

Resistance Frame: Disagreeability

The Disagreeability resistance frame is defined as not being in agreement
with others in an unpleasant way. Implementers perceived questions about
the program and adapting it as disagreeable. Employees, on the contrary,
identified people that they had previously deemed disagreeable as resistors.
Implementers and employees shared the Disagreeability frame.

Implementers—Resistance as disagreeableness about the program. Implement-

ers who used the Disagreeability frame saw resistors as disagreeable because
they were framed as habitually wanting to change or adapt the sustainability
program that the implementers were trying to put in place. Resistors were
also framed as negative about the program, through the use of descriptors
such as “grumbly” to characterize resistors. Implementers perceived this dis-
agreeableness to hinder positive attitudes toward the program.
Implementers framed the program as optional, and framed themselves as
unable to change what they saw as rigid, nonadaptable program elements,
such as the program’s timing. In addition, implementers who used this resis-
tance frame were most likely to use a process frame of program evaluation.
This meant that they largely saw resistance occurring during evaluations of
the program by employees. Finally, implementers largely used an adaptive
role behavior frame in conjunction with this resistance frame: They focused
on whether employee’s responses to the program were “cop[ing] with,
respond[ing] to and support[ing] change or not” (Griffin et al., 2007).

Employees—Resistance as disagreeable people.  Employees who used the Dis-

agreeability resistance frame saw resistors as inherently disagreeable people.
Instead of having a fixed notion of the program, employees had a fixed notion
of the resistor and of their history of negative contributions to the employees’
social environments. They used relationship frames that painted resistors as
negative and closed. They also used an issue frame focused on certainty that
Deline 53

the resistor was going to be disagreeable about the program. In addition to

assessing the predictable disagreeability of their colleagues, employees
framed these resistors as nonadaptable and unable to change. In addition,
they focused on game evaluation processes, and also saw resistance hinder-
ing positive attitudes toward the program. Finally, they also focused on
whether employees’ responses to the program were adaptive or not.

Implementer–employee comparison. Implementers and employees shared a

variety of frames while also sharing the Disagreeability resistance frame.
Shared frames among implementers and employees included nonadaptable
and unable issue frames, game evaluation process frames, negative relation-
ship frames, and hindrance frames focused on positive attitudes. Finally,
implementers and employees who shared the Disagreeability resistance
frame also shared the adaptive role behavior frame.
Although these frames were shared, there were some notable differences
in their use. Both implementers and employees shared unable and nonadapt-
able issue frames, but they focused on different parties in the resistance pro-
cess. Employees used the unable frame to discuss how resistors were unable
to change in response to the program, while implementers used it to discuss
changes requested of themselves that they felt they could not make to the
program. Another difference pertained to the nonadaptable issue frame. For
implementers, the program was seen as nonadaptable, while employees
framed resistors as dispositionally nonadaptable. This meant that employees
focused on the predictability that the resistor would resist, while implement-
ers instead focused on the predictability of the program, and labeled attempts
to modify it “resistant.” In contrast to these differences, both parties shared
negative relationship frames while using the Disagreeability frame, meaning
that they both framed relationships with resistors as negative.

Resistance Frame: Protecting Role Performance

The Protecting Role Performance resistance frame refers to resistance
impacting abilities to perform as a “good” or “productive” implementer or
employee. Implementers largely perceived resistors as threatening their new
role of implementer. Employees, on the contrary, largely saw resistors
attempting to be proficient employees who were unable to participate in the
program because of their regular work time constraints. Implementers and
employees shared the Protecting Role Performance frame.

Implementers—Resistance is a threat to being a good implementer. Implement-

ers who made RIs using the Protecting Role Performance frame were
54 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

concerned with social costs related to their inability to modify the program to
resistors’ needs. Such social costs included social sanctions of participants by
resistors, as well as identity threats to the organization and its members (Mor-
rison, 2011). Implementers also perceived resistance occurred because of the
program’s timeframe.
When using the Protecting Role Performance frame, relationships with resis-
tors were framed as negative and intractable. Implementers using this frame
were also most likely to frame resistance as occurring during game participa-
tion, and were consequently concerned about participation being hindered by
resistance. Finally, implementers using this resistance frame were most likely to
focus on whether employees’ reactions to the program were adaptive or not.

Employees—Resistance is being a good employee.  Employees who used the Pro-

tecting Role Performance frame largely saw resistance as an acceptable way to
be productive and perform well in their regular jobs. Like implementers,
employees focused on the program timeframe, but they focused on the inability
of resistors to participate in the program given job requirements. Employees
tended to use this resistance frame during game evaluation processes, meaning
that they noticed resistance when others were evaluating the program. Rela-
tionships with resistors were framed as largely negative, closed, and intracta-
ble. Employees were also most likely to use a hindrance frame that centered on
how program participation was hindered by resistance. Finally employees used
a proficient role behavior frame that focused on whether responses to the pro-
gram were fulfilling regular job duties or not (Griffin et al., 2007).

Summary.  Implementers and employees shared a range of frames when sharing

the Protecting Role Performance frame. Shared issue frames included program
timeframe and inability frames, while shared relationship frames included nega-
tive and intractable resistor relationships. Finally, both parties shared a hin-
drance frame focused on how resistance hindered program participation.
Although both parties shared the timeframe issue frame, they focused on
different aspects of it. Implementers reflected on their inability to modify the
program timeframe, while employees reflected on how the timeframe nega-
tively impacted other employees’ abilities to participate in the program.
Turning from differences to similarities, both parties shared a focus on the
negative nature of their relationships with resistors.

Resistance Frame: Conflicting Stakes

The Conflicting Stakes resistance frame focuses on how implementation team
coordination was hindered by organizational conflicts. Implementers who
Deline 55

used the Conflicting Stakes resistance frame were concerned with ensuring
adequate organizational representation for the program. Implementers, for the
most part, did not share the use of this frame with employees.

Implementers—Resistance is conflicting organizational stakes. Implementers

who used the Conflicting Stakes resistance frame were concerned with how
implementation team coordination was hindered through implementer dis-
putes. These disputes centered on differing stakeholder definitions of sustain-
ability and how those definitions should be adapted. There seemed to be an
implicit expectation among many who used this frame that implementation
team coordination would not involve conflict. For example, some of the
implementers detailed conflicts as “pushback” or a “controversy” or an
“attack” that was unexpected.
Implementers who used this resistance frame were also largely concerned
with the process of how the program would fit into the organization. Turning
to associated relationship frames, implementers who used this resistance
frame saw resistors as open to discussion. Finally, implementers largely used
an initiative role frame that focused on whether responses to the sustainabil-
ity program led change or not.

Resistance Frame: Habitual Environment

The Habitual Environment resistance frame focuses on how team formation
was hindered because of withdrawal by office colleagues. Employees, for the
most part, did not share the use of this frame with implementers.

Employees—Resistance is the habitual environment.  Employees who used the

Habitual Environment resistance frame were largely concerned with the cer-
tainty resistors exhibited about not participating in the program, and their
negative contribution to team formation. Employees focused on several team
formation impediments, such as nonresponse to coordination emails or refus-
als to participate. Employees also focused on the optional nature of the pro-
gram and its timeframe as potential issues contributing to resistance.
Employees framed relationships with resistors as closed. Their percep-
tions that these relationships were closed cut off their attempts to engage
others in components of the program. They largely perceived this resistance
occurring during game evaluations. Finally, they were most likely to focus on
whether responses to the program were adaptive or not.
56 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

Pattern Identification
Analysis revealed two patterns. First, Disagreeability was the most commonly
used resistance frame by both implementers and employees. Second, imple-
menters and employees shared the Disagreeability and Protecting Role
Performance frames, but did not share the Conflicting Stakes and Habitual
Environment frames. Results also indicated that when implementers and
employees shared the Disagreeability and Protecting Role Performance frames,
the only associated frame that they also consistently shared was the negative
relationship frame. These patterns have implications for theory and practice.

Discussion
This section discusses the grounded typology and pattern analyses, and their
potential implications for organizational communication and resistance
research.

Theoretical Implications: Resistance Frames and Systems

Resistance has been theorized as an interpretive system (Ford et al., 2008;
Hollander & Einwohner, 2004), but empirical resistance studies from system
perspectives are few. Systems are interdependent models and variables
should be examined in relation to each other (Sherry, 2015). This article
adopts a systems approach to understanding resistance by addressing the
third stage of the RI double interact system. To do so, it maps frames that are
used in the third stage of the double interact to make RIs.
This map of resistance frames prepares the groundwork for investigating
resistance as an interpretive system. Researchers can use these resistance
frames to examine patterned consistencies between frames in the different
stages of the double interact. They can also use the resistance frames to
explore the upstream and downstream effects of differing frames on RIs and
implementation outcomes. For example, do certain types of change messages
or behaviors elicit specific resistance frames? In addition, do certain types of
resistance frames lead to particular implementation outcomes, such as higher
or lower participation rates? This map enables resistance and organizational
communication researchers to address these questions.

Theoretical Implications: Relational Transgressions, Uncertainty,

and Resistance
The first pattern analysis showed that when implementers and employees
shared resistance frames, the only other frame that they also consistently shared
Deline 57

was the negative relationship frame. This finding suggests that relational trans-
gressions and uncertainty might be related to sharing resistance frames.
As discussed in the literature review, role frames focus on what behaviors
should occur (task role frames) as well as how these behaviors should occur
(relational role frames) (Kramer, 2009). This latter type of frame directs
attention to relational communication. In this study, participants framed their
relationships with resistors as negative when sharing Disagreeability or
Protecting Role Performance resistance frames. A potential explanation for
this pertains to change itself: Changes might cause violations of relational
role frames that are part of regular workplace roles (Sluss et al., 2011). These
violations, also known as relational transgressions, range from failing to keep
a promise to inappropriate, disrespectful behavior (Metts & Cupach, 2007).
Role violations often result in negative emotions (Sluss et al., 2011). The role
violation process could explain why negative relationship frames were the
only shared frame associated with sharing resistance frames. The process
might also explain the use of the Disagreeability frame, where both imple-
menters and employees focused on how resistors transgressed their expecta-
tions that they would adapt to the program.
Relational transgressions also lead to relational uncertainty. Relational
uncertainty refers to the degree of confidence about ones’ interpersonal
relationships (Theiss & Knobloch, 2013). Relational uncertainty might
explain the frame of Protecting Role Performance. With this frame, imple-
menters faced with changing role relationships sought to protect their new
role identity. Employees, on the contrary, attempted to protect their habit-
ual role identity. A promising approach for implementation communica-
tion and resistance scholars is a focus on how relational transgressions and
uncertainty are associated with shared negative relationship frames and
shared resistance frames. A potential area for theory extension using this
analysis relates to Weick’s (1993) theorizing on how systems of change or
resilience (read: resistance) function.
Weick (1993) argued that change occurs when changes to role frames or
framing affect each other in a shared feedback loop. These loops occur when the
first change leads to a second change, and so on. Resistance systems, on the
contrary, occur when one part of the system does not change in relation to the
other. For example, if social interactions become puzzling and decrease, then an
increase in attention to and reaffirmation of traditional frames will occur in a
resistant system (Weick, 1993). Conversely, Weick (1993) suggests another type
of resistance system occurs when a lack of attention to role frames and declining
social relations result in increased social interactions and framing. These two
types of resistance systems align with the two resistance frames shared by
implementers and employees. The Protecting Role Performance frame (that
58 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

might be associated with relational uncertainty) represents attention to, and reaf-
firmation of, traditional role structures. The reaffirmation of such structures in
Weick’s resistance system is initiated by puzzling decreasing social interactions.
The Disagreeability frame represents attention to framing (how people jointly
make meaning) and relational transgressions associated with framing, that
Weick suggests is initiated by frame changes in resistant systems.
Considering Weick’s theorizing in association with these resistance frames
raises questions with theoretical implications: (a) Do the Disagreeability and
Protecting Role Performance frames occur during RIs in other settings; (b) if
they do occur, are they related to relational transgressions and relational uncer-
tainty, and, if so, how; and (c) if these frames consistently occur in other settings,
do they occur as a result of resistant systems in the way that Weick (1993) argues
they will? Weick’s theorizing also offers an opportunity to engage with the cor-
pus of organizational communication research on resistance, that has often
viewed the concept as a form of micropolitics and investigated it through fram-
ing, and critical organizational communication scholarship that typically under-
stands power as enacted through framing practices in line with stakeholder
interests (Ashcraft et al., 2009; Pal & Buzzanell, 2013). Attention to how power
affects relationships between framing and frames within resistance systems as
theorized by Weick (1993) might yield new insights for the field.

Theoretical Implications: Critical Resistance Scholarship

The double interact model offers an opportunity to extend change process mod-
els that have traditionally been used in critical organization communication
scholarship on resistance. For example, Mumby’s (2005) model of resistance is
based on a dialectical model of resistance-control that suggests micro-interac-
tions manifest both power and resistance. Key drivers of such dialectical models
are conflicts between opposing forces (Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016;
Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). Critical organizational communication research in
resistance using a dialectical model indicates that employee acceptance or non-
acceptance of managerial frames is related to different types of resistance
(Chreim, 2006). Other such research using a dialectical model shows that the
attempted use of control co-creates discursive resistance (Zanin & Bisel, 2017).
However, the double interact model prioritizes an evolutionary model of
change, predicated not on conflict but on processes of variation, selection,
and retention (Monge & Poole, 2008; Van de Ven & Sun, 2011; Weick, 1979,
2015). In the double interact, what is selected are interpretations (Weick,
2015). This selection occurs through a process of competition for “best fit”
where selection criteria are applied to interpretive variations (Van de Ven &
Sun, 2011; Weick, 1979). Power, in this model, is constituted through
Deline 59

communicative practices of variation, selection, and retention (Hardy &

Thomas, 2016; Schoeneborn et al., 2014).
In this way, power can itself be conceived of as an evolutionary force.
Although organizational communication scholarship using an evolutionary
model is relatively rare (Monge & Poole, 2008), let alone such work with a
critical resistance focus, some work does exist. For instance, Hardy and
Thomas (2014) identified two types of resistance emerging from communi-
cative practices that enacted power in differing ways, representing implicit
strategies of variation and selection. Work that examines selection and reten-
tion practices may also be an area ripe for critical organizational communica-
tion scholarship (Hardy & Thomas, 2016). For example, Dewulf and Bouwen
(2012) identified five implicit selection and retention practices when dealing
with frame differences, ranging from frame disconnection to frame accom-
modation. In addition, Gray, Purdy, and Ansari (2015) identified implicit
frame selection and retention practices of scoping, regularity, and emotional
intensification. Examining how power is enacted in such practices might be a
profitable way to investigate power from an evolutionary perspective, and
extend critical organizational communication scholarship.

Theoretical Implications: Strategic Frames and Resistance

The second pattern analysis showed that the Disagreeability frame was the
most commonly used resistance frame by both implementers and employees.
This might have occurred because of the Equal Input implementation com-
munication strategy used by the organization. Implementation communica-
tion strategies are patterned ways that implementations are communicated to
organizational stakeholders (Lewis et al., 2001). The Equal Input strategy
may have acted as a strategic frame: such frames are shared cognitive frames
that are held at the organizational level and direct organizational action, while
organizational frames writ large refer to a frame held by other organizational
members (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014).
The Equal Input strategy focused on achieving consensus across the orga-
nization to achieve legitimacy for the change (Lewis et al., 2001). Consensus
refers to agreement levels among a collective that occur because of a need for
social coordination (Desmidt & George, 2016). In this way, the Equal Input
strategy may have not only acted as a strategic frame for how change should
occur (via organization wide agreement), but also how resistance should be
identified (via disagreement). In other words, framing change as agreement
might have led to resistance being framed as disagreement, and then disagree-
ability, by organizational members.
If the Equal Input strategy acted as a strategic frame for how resistance
should be identified, this begs the question of whether different
60 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

implementation communication strategies enact discrete types of strategic

resistance frames. As Lewis and her colleagues (2001) noted, implementa-
tions are often undertaken using one of six implementation communica-
tion strategies. A comparative case study would provide useful insights by
examining whether different implementation communication strategies
enact discrete resistance frames.
Such work raises questions about what effect strategic resistance frames
could have on the organizational communication contexts where resistance
is interpreted, enacted, and maintained. For instance, a consensus commu-
nication context for resistance frames occurs when organizational and stra-
tegic resistance frames are both shared and perceived to be shared (Brønn
& Brønn, 2003; Cho & Kelly, 2014). Is a consensus context more likely to
lead to overt resistance by organizational members (Hollander & Einwohner,
2004)? Conversely, a false consensus communication context occurs when
organizational members think that organizational and strategic resistance
frames are shared but they are not (Brønn & Brønn, 2003). Would this false
consensus context be more likely to lead to asymmetrical types of resis-
tance, such as unwitting resistance, by organizational members (Hollander
& Einwohner, 2004)? Better understanding the communication contexts
that are associated with different forms of RIs and implementation com-
munication strategies could be a fruitful area of research for organizational
communication investigators.

Limitations
Single case studies limit a study’s generalizability (Sonenshein, 2010). This
case study represented one kind of program (optional), a specific kind of
implementation (voluntary), and a specific approach to implementation
strategy (culling the implementation team from across the organization).
This approach is appropriate, as most sustainability initiatives these days
are voluntary and optional (Norton, Parker, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2015).
However, work that examines other contextual factors such as required
implementations, or having an implementation team of peers, could be used
to investigate the transferability of the findings from this case.
An additional limitation is that participants selected themselves to par-
ticipate in the study. Those who opted into the study may have valued
environmental sustainability and may underrepresent those who do not
share such values. As a result, the RI data may be more robust from the
perspective of those who care about the implementation being effec-
tively enacted in the organization to advance environmental values. The
data may be less robust for those who have ambivalent or contrary envi-
ronmental values.
Deline 61

Practical Implications
These findings have significance for those who plan, enact, and evaluate orga-
nizational change. First, the study details four resistance frames. These resis-
tance frames deserve attention from implementation planners who can use
them to better plan for, and counter, these frames with training efforts. For
instance, implementers often framed resistance as Disagreeability about the
change program. Implementation planners can offer training for implementers
reframing disagreeability as a form of employee feedback and engagement
with the change. Such efforts might involve discussing implementers’ expec-
tations that employees be “pleasant” or “agreeable” during a change, and how
to react to “disagreeable” communication styles during a change. These efforts
might decrease implementer perceptions of resistance to the change.
In addition, employees used the Habitual Environment frame to make
RIs. This frame was related to frames of resistor certainty and closed rela-
tionships when being a change advocate in office or workgroup environ-
ments. The use of this frame suggests implementers may need to consider
how to support change advocates’ leadership efforts during change imple-
mentations. This might involve creating support groups for change advo-
cates, where they can communicate with others going through the same
process, and share tactical suggestions. Such groups might lead to more
effective employee leadership on the change.
Finally, this study suggests that implementation communication strategies
frame change as well as resistance. If so, and if research finds that implemen-
tation communication strategies contain distinct resistance frames, then
implementation planners should consider themselves as resistance imple-
menters, as well as change implementers. For example, an Equal Input strat-
egy might consistently elicit a Disagreeability resistance frame. It is unclear
how the relationship between strategic resistance frames and organizational
resistance frames would contribute to implementation outcomes—more
research is needed. This research, in turn, could provide guidelines to imple-
mentation planners considering what type of resistance may be elicited as a
result of their implementation strategy choices.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the two organizations who opened their doors to me and the
participants. I would also like to thank the editor and the three anonymous reviewers
for their comments and suggestions. For their encouragement and support, I would
like to thank Drs. Cliff Scherer, Katherine McComas, Lee Humphreys, Rich Stedman,
Danya Glabau, Linda Van Buskirk, and Kajsa Dalrymple. Finally, I would also like to
thank the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for supporting this work via a student
62 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

research grant, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC) for supporting this work via a doctoral scholarship.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article: The author received funding support for
this project from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation via a student research grant. This
research was also supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada (SSHRC) via a doctoral scholarship.

Notes
1. Full sets of interview questions can be obtained upon request.
2. The purpose of debriefing is to develop robust reflexivity about the material
to enhance analysis; there is no formula for debriefing, and the purpose is not
to train someone to evaluate data in the same way (Barber & Walczak, 2009;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
3. Triangulation is a process whereby multiplicity (of sources, investigators, meth-
ods, or theories) is used to enhance the analysis in a study, and is arguably a
defining feature of case studies (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Patton, 2014; Yin, 2003).
Triangulation was used in this case not to ensure consistency across data, but to
examine variance and thereby ensure the categories were rich (Patton, 2014).
To do this, the postsurvey data as well as questions in the interview pertaining
to frames were examined for role frames using the codebook. Those that fit the
codebook categories were labeled in the data; those that did not were labeled
“other.” The “other” categories were revisited but did not occasion the develop-
ment of new code(s), as they mainly referred to the interface of the sustainability
program on computers and tablets.

References
Anderson, M. H. (2003). How can we know what we think until we see what we said?
A citation and citation context analysis of Karl Weick’s The Social Psychology of
Organizing. Organization Studies, 21, 1675-1692. doi:10.1177/0170840606068346
Ashcraft, K., Kuhn, T., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments:
“Materializing” organizational communication. The Academy of Management
Annals, 3, 1-64. doi:10.1080/19416520903047186
Barber, J. P., & Walczak, K. K. (2009, April 13-17). Conscience and critic: Peer
debriefing strategies in grounded theory research. Paper presented at annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Deline 63

Barrett, A. K., & Stephens, K. K. (2017). The pivotal role of change appropriation
in the implementation of health care technology. Management Communication
Quarterly, 31, 163-193. doi:10.1177/0893318916682872
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544-559.
Benoit-Barné, C., & Cooren, F. (2009). The accomplishment of authority
through presentification. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 5-31.
doi:10.1177/0893318909335414
Brønn, P. S., & Brønn, C. (2003). A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as
a basis for communication and learning. Journal of Communication Management,
7, 291-303. doi:10.1108/1363254031080743
Brummans, B., Putnam, L., Gray, B., Hanke, R., Lewicki, R., & Wiethoff, C.
(2008). Making sense of intractable multiparty conflict: A study of fram-
ing in four environmental disputes. Communication Monographs, 75, 25-51.
doi:10.1080/0363775080195273
Canary, H. (2010). Constructing policy knowledge: Contradictions, communi-
cation, and knowledge frames. Communication Monographs, 77, 181-206.
doi:10.1080/03637751003758185
Cepeda, G., & Martin, D. (2005). A review of case studies publishing in manage-
ment decision: Guides and criteria for achieving quality in qualitative research.
Management Decision, 43, 851-876. doi:10.1108/00251740510603600
Cho, M., & Kelly, K. S. (2014). Corporate donor–charitable organiza-
tion partners. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 693-715.
doi:10.1177/0899764013480566
Chreim, S. (2006). Managerial frames and institutional discourses of change:
Employee appropriation and resistance. Organization Studies, 27, 1261-1287.
doi:10.1177/0170840606064106
Cooren, F., & Fairhurst, G. (2004). Speech timing and spacing: The phenomenon of orga-
nizational closure. Organization, 11, 793-824. doi:10.1177/1350508404047252
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake
of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173-208.
doi:10.2307/4131471
Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model,
or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate.
Academy of Management Review, 42, 1-9. doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0196
Cornelissen, J., & Werner, M. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of
framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature.
The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 181-235. doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.
875669.1110.0735
Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the
social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38, 325-
331. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0085
Desmidt, S., & George, B. (2016). Do we see eye to eye? The relationship between internal
communication and between-group strategic consensus: A case analysis. Management
Communication Quarterly, 30, 84-102. doi:10.1177/0893318915609406
64 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

Dewulf, A., & Bouwen, R. (2012). Issue framing in conversations for change:
Discursive interaction strategies for “doing differences.” The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 48, 168-193. doi:10.1177/0021886312438858
Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., & Van
Woerkum, C. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and nego-
tiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62, 155-193.
Dillard, J., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in per-
suasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144-168.
doi:10.1080/03637750500111815
Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in management studies.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 1155-1179. doi:10.2307/3069350
Fairhurst, G. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychol-
ogy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fiss, P. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in
organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 393-420.
Ford, J., Ford, L., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 362-377. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193235
Garner, J. (2013). Dissenters, managers, and coworkers: The process of co-construct-
ing organizational dissent and dissent effectiveness. Management Communication
Quarterly, 27, 373-395. doi:10.1177/0893318913488946
Gioia, D., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The
Academy of Management Review, 15, 584-602.
Golan, M., & Bamberger, P. (2015). Mapping the emergent choreography of assis-
tance: The dynamics of dyadic peer helping relations in organizations. Academy
of Management Discoveries, 1, 124-149.
Grandey, A., Diefendorf, M., & Rupp, D. (2014). Bringing emotional labor into
focus. In A. Grandey, M. Diefendorf, & D. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional labor in the
21st century (pp. 1972-1982). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 14, 166-176.
Gray, B., Purdy, J. M., & Ansari, S. (2015). From interactions to institutions:
Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institu-
tional fields. Academy of Management Review, 40, 115-143. doi:10.5465/
amr.2013.0299
Griffin, M., Neal, A., & Parker, S. (2007). A new model of work role perfor-
mance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 327-347. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
Hardy, C., & Thomas, R. (2014). Strategy, discourse and practice: The intensification
of power. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 320-348. doi:10.1111/joms.12005
Hardy, C., & Thomas, R. (2016). Power and process: The production of “knowing” sub-
jects and “known” objects. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE hand-
book of process organization studies (pp. 466-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hayton, J., Carnabuci, G., & Eisenberger, R. (2012). With a little help from my col-
leagues: A social embeddedness approach to perceived organizational support.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 235-249.
Deline 65

Hollander, J., & Einwohner, R. (2004). Conceptualizing resistance. Sociological

Forum, 19, 533-554. doi:10.1007/s11206-004-06
Ijaz, S., & Vitalis, A. (2011). Resistance to organizational change: Putting the jigsaw
together. International Review of Business Research Articles, 7, 112-121.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., & Snoek, J. (1964). Organizational stress. London,
England: John Wiley.
Kellogg, K. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change
in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 657-711. doi:10.1086/603535
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method.
Journal of Operations Management, 32, 232-240. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.0
Klein, K., & Knight, A. (2005). Innovation implementation: Overcoming the chal-
lenge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 243-246.
Knobloch, L., & Solomon, D. (2005). Relational uncertainty and relational informa-
tion processing: Questions without answers? Communication Research, 32, 349-
388. doi:10.1177/009365020527538
Kramer, M. W. (2009). Role negotiations in a temporary organization: Making sense
during role development in an educational theater production. Management
Communication Quarterly, 23, 188-217. doi:10.1177/0893318909341410
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London, England: SAGE.
Larsson, M., & Lundholm, S. E. (2013). Talking work in a bank: A study of organiz-
ing properties of leadership in work interactions. Human Relations, 66, 1101-
1129. doi:10.1177/0018726712465452
Lewis, L. (2000). Blindsided by that one and I saw that one coming. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 28, 44-67.
Lewis, L. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predic-
tors of perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication,
70, 23-46. doi:10.1080/10570310500506631
Lewis, L. (2007). An organizational stakeholder model of change implementation
communication. Communication Theory, 17, 176-204. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2007.002
Lewis, L., Hamel, S., & Richardson, B. (2001). Communicating change to nonprofit
stakeholders: Models and predictors of implementers’ approaches. Management
Communication Quarterly, 15, 5-41. doi:10.1177/0893318901151001
Lewis, L., & Russ, T. (2011). Soliciting and using input during organizational change
initiatives: What are practitioners doing. Management Communication Quarterly,
26, 267-294. doi:10.1177/0893318911431804
Lewis, L., & Seibold, D. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innova-
tion adoption. Communication Monographs, 63, 131-157.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, England: SAGE.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. The Academy
of Management Journal, 5, 243-243. doi:10.5465/AMJ.1962.5065118
Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward
improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258-279.
doi:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2008.00384.x
66 Management Communication Quarterly 33(1)

Metts, S., & Cupach, W. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions. In B.

Spitzberg & W. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication
(pp. 243-277). London, England: Psychology Press.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. London,
England: SAGE.
Monge, P., & Poole, M. S. (2008). The evolution of organizational communication.
Journal of Communication, 58, 679-692. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00408.x
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for
future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373-412.
Morse, J., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strate-
gies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 13-22.
Mumby, D. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies. Management
Communication Quarterly, 19, 19-44. doi:10.1177/0893318905276558
Mumby, D., Thomas, R., Martí, I., & Seidl, D. (2017). Resistance redux. Organization
Studies, 38, 1157-1183. doi:10.1177/0170840617717554
Norton, T., Parker, S., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Employee green
behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda.
Organization & Environment, 28, 103-125. doi:10.1177/1086026615575773
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organi-
zational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 47, 461-524. doi:10.1177/0021886310396550
Pal, M., & Buzzanell, P. (2013). Breaking the myth of Indian call centers: A postcolo-
nial analysis of resistance. Communication Monographs, 80, 199-219.
Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London, England:
SAGE.
Pearce, W. (1995). A sailing guide for social constructionists. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz
(Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 88-113). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics,
and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of
Management Annals, 10, 65-171. doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
Real, K., & Poole, M. (2005). Innovation implementation: Conceptualization and
measurement in organizational research. Research in Organizational Change
and Development, 15, 63-134. doi:10.1016/S0897-3016(04)15003-9
Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., & Taylor, J.
R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and sys-
tematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 285-316.
doi:10.1177/0893318914527000
Sherry, J. (2015). The complexity paradigm for studying human communication:
A summary and integration of two fields. Review of Communication Research,
3(1), 22-54. doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2015.03.01.007
Sluss, D., & Ashforth, B. (2008). How relational and organizational identifica-
tion converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19, 807-823.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0349
Deline 67

Sluss, D., Van Dick, R., & Thompson, B. (2011). Role theory in organizations: A
relational perspective. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and orga-
nizational psychology (pp. 505-534). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re changing—or are we? Untangling the role of progres-
sive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation.
Academy of Management Journal, 53, 477-512. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51467638
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London, England:
SAGE.
Theiss, J. A., & Knobloch, L. K. (2013). A relational turbulence model of military
service members’ relational communication during reintegration. Journal of
Communication, 63, 1109-1129. doi:10.1111/jcom.12059
Van de Ven, A. H., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in implementing models of orga-
nizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 58-74.
Vough, H. (2012). Not all identifications are created equal: Exploring employee
accounts for workgroup, organizational, and professional identification.
Organization Science, 23, 778-800. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0654
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York, NY: Random
House.
Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652. doi:10.2307/2393339
Weick, K. (2015). [Review of the book The social psychology of organizing by K. E.
Weick, 1979, 2nd ed.]. M@n@agement, 18, 189-193.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research. London, England: SAGE.
Zanin, A. C., & Bisel, R. S. (2017). Discursive positioning and collective resis-
tance: How managers can unwittingly co-create team resistance. Management
Communication Quarterly, 32, 31-59. doi:10.1177/0893318917717640

Author Biography
Mary Beth Deline, (PhD, Cornell University), is an assistant professor in the School
of Communication at Illinois State University. Her main research interests include
resistance to change, organizational change and development, and information
avoidance.