93
Authors: Tutor: Examiner: Subject: Level and semester:
Authors: Tutor: Examiner:
Subject: Level and semester:
I
Abstract
Globalization, new technologies, culture shifts are some of the factors contributing to the
fast-moving environment where organizations develop their activities. As a consequence,
organizations have to change more frequently in response to the environment. The ability
to manage change effectively has become crucial. However, recent research shows that 2
out of 3 change initiatives fail.
Resistance to change is often cited as a main factor contributing to these failures. Based on
that we decided to analyze the concept of resistance, its sources and what can be done to
cope with it. After reviewing the literature we found that most researchers consider it as an
obstacle; however, we also found that resistance can offer benefits to the change process,
such as addressing possible weaknesses or serving as a source of innovation. We described
a model to diagnose resistance based on the equity theory with an empirical illustration
included. In addition, to manage resistance properly we found that communication and
participation are two methods that target numerous sources of resistance and make
possible to harness its benefits.
Finally, we described the attributes of transformational leaders linking them to a specific
example of the sports field to show the effective role that this leadership style has in terms
of bringing changes to organizations and managing resistance.
Keywords: organizational change, resistance to change, equity implementation model,
transformational leadership, communication, participation.
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, we would like to thank all the people who have contributed in one way or
another to this research process, in particular to the team of tutors.
We want to express our gratitude to our tutor Professor Philippe Daudi because of his
willingness to help us during the writing of our thesis. He gave us valuable advices and
guidance to improve the outcome of this work.
Moreover, Professor Mikael Lundgren has also played an important role complementing
the advices provided by our tutor.
We would like to say that we are proud of having participated in the Master‟s Programme
in Leadership and Management in International Context. It has been a great experience for
us in terms of learning and meeting interesting people from all over the world.
Finally, we want dedicate this dissertation to our families and friends because they have
been of great support.
Kalmar, Sweden, May 2011
III
Table of contents:
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... II
Table of contents: ........................................................................................................................... III
Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. IV
1-INTRODUCTION: ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research purpose: .................................................................................................................. 3
2-METHODOLOGY: .................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Secondary data ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Qualitative Research:.............................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Case studies: ............................................................................................................................ 7
3-ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: ........................................................................................... 8
3.1 Organizational change and change management: .............................................................. 8
3.2 Why change happens? (triggers of change) ........................................................................ 8
3.2.1 External Factors of Change: .......................................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Internal forces: ............................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Typology of changes: ........................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Incremental: ................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Strategic: ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.3 Planned: .......................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.4 Unplanned: ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Organizational change metaphors: .................................................................................... 14
3.4.1 Gareth Morgan Metaphors .......................................................................................... 14
3.4.2 Cameron and Green “four common metaphors”: ................................................... 14
3.5 Organizational change models: .......................................................................................... 16
3.5.1 Lewin and “The Tree Step Model”: ........................................................................... 16
3.5.2 John Kotter “The eight-step model”: ........................................................................ 19
3.6 Change Agents ...................................................................................................................... 22
4-RESISTANCE TO CHANGE ................................................................................................. 25
4.1 Sources of resistance ............................................................................................................ 26
4.1.1 Self-interest or concern over personal loss: .............................................................. 26
IV
4.1.2 Group Resistance .......................................................................................................... 27
4.1.3 Misunderstandings: ....................................................................................................... 28
4.1.4 Different assessments: .................................................................................................. 28
4.1.5 Low tolerance for change: ........................................................................................... 29
4.1.6 Lack of Skills: ................................................................................................................. 29
4.1.7 Organizational Change cynisim: .................................................................................. 30
4.1.8 Fear of failure: ................................................................................................................ 31
4.1.9 Culture: ........................................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Resistance to change psychological approach: ................................................................. 34
4.2.1 Denial: ............................................................................................................................. 35
4.2.2 Resistance: ...................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.3 Exploration: ................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.4 Commitment: ................................................................................................................. 36
4.3 Resistance to change positive aspects:............................................................................... 38
4.4 Reflection about resistance based on the literature: ........................................................ 41
4.5 Equity Implementation Model (EIM): Theory and empirical illustration ................... 41
4.5.1 Case study using the Equity Implementation Model. .............................................. 47
4.6 Coping with resistance to change:...................................................................................... 54
4.6.1 Participation, involvement: .......................................................................................... 54
4.6.2 Communication ............................................................................................................. 57
5-TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ........................................................................... 65
5.1 Background: .......................................................................................................................... 65
5.2 Transformational leadership characteristics: .................................................................... 67
5.3 The “4” Common I‟s: .......................................................................................................... 68
5.3.1 Idealized Influence: (II) (Also known as charismatic leadership) .......................... 68
5.3.2 Inspirational motivation: (IM) ..................................................................................... 69
5.3.3 Intellectual stimulation: (IS) ......................................................................................... 70
5.3.4 Individual Consideration (IC): .................................................................................... 71
6-CONCLUSIONS: ....................................................................................................................... 75
6.1 Future Research: ................................................................................................................... 77
REFERENCES: .............................................................................................................................. 78
V
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Our research structure. 4
Figure 2: Lewin‟s Three Step Process; 17
Figure 3: Kotter‟s Eight Step for Change; 20
Figure 4: Four stages in Resistance to change psychological approach. 35
Figure 5: Defense mechanisms. 36
Figure 6: Three levels of analysis in Equity Implementation Model 43
Figure 7: Compilation of the possible outcomes and inputs that can be modified as a
consequence of the change. 44
Figure 8: mechanisms to improve equity 46
Figure 9: The most important changes observed during the change process in the company.
51
1
1-INTRODUCTION:
Business reality has been modified in the last few decades and is characterized by change.
More than 60 years ago Coch and French (1948) already said „frequent changes in people‟s
work are necessary to keep up with competitive conditions and technological
development‟. In the same line, Charles F. Kettering holder of more than 100 patents and
former head of research for General Motors said „If you have always done it that way, it is
probably wrong‟; highlighting the role of change to succeed.
The main reason for this increase in the necessity for change is the fast-moving
environment where organizations develop their activities. Some of the major forces
contributing to this scenario are globalization (which has greatly increased competition),
technological advancements, and shifts in consumer tastes and changes in culture. All these
factors demand adaptation from companies in order to maintain their position in the
market. Nevertheless, not only external forces trigger change, also internal factors such as
low productivity are meant to produce change.
Mostly because of the external factors coming from the environment companies
independently of their size, their activity or sector will have to face a change sooner or
later, or have already undergone a change process in the past. In this respect, Attman
(2000) signals that almost 75 percent of all American Corporations have gone through
some type of systematic change program. As a result, change management significance has
become essential. Nowadays it is a powerful business. Consultants make substantial profits
through program development, implementation and training fees.
A properly managed change can mean positive outcomes for a wide range of individuals.
For managers change can mean solutions to survival, growth, profitability and innovation.
For employees change can imply more opportunities for career advancement and
customers can benefit from products and services which better meet their needs and
therefore improve their satisfaction (Helms Mills et al. 2008).
As we can see successful change can be rewarding however if the initiative fails to achieve
the desired outcomes it will lead to adverse consequences. For instance, managers can be
fired, shareholders can experiment decreases in equity, employees might lose their jobs and
customers become dissatisfied.
2
Information about organizational change has been growing unceasingly in the last few
decades in many formats such as articles, news and books. For instance books related to
organizational change stored in the US Library of Congress went from none to 3400
between 1960 and 2006 (Helms Mills 2003).
Change has become so relevant that many researchers begin to label change management
as a core capability for firms and a source of competitive advantage. As a result leaders
should be well equipped to face the challenges that change poses to guide their
organizations and followers to the right path.
Despite the massive amount of data compiled about organizational change several sources
point that successful organizational change remains elusive. More specifically, statistics on
organizational change initiatives fail to deliver the desirable outcomes from one third up to
80 % of the attempts made (Fisher, 1994; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Higgs and Rowland,
2000; Hirschhorn, 2002; Knodel, 2004; Sirkin et al., 2005; Kotter, 2008). These shocking
statistics reflect the complexity that organizational change engenders.
Lack of commitment, leadership inaction, inadequate planning, and failure to identify the
real reason for change, are among the long list of factors that are acknowledged as
contributors to organizational change failures.
Since change management is a broad topic it is difficult to cover in detail all the aspects
embedded in this topic. Based on that, we have chosen to focus on resistance to change.
One of the reasons for this election is that resistance is accounted as one of main
impediments for successful change implementation (Coch & French 1948). Additionally,
organizations are ultimately composed by individuals. Without employees‟ buy-in it is
almost a utopia to implement change in organizations, therefore the importance of taking
resistance to change seriously into account.
Existing literature about resistance to change can be divided into two different streams of
thinking. On one hand, resistance is considered as a standard and even natural reaction to
change (Bennebroek 2003). In this respect, resistance has a negative connotation and is
seen as something that should be overcome by managers in the process of change. Indeed,
resistance to change has many manifestations that can hinder organizational goals such as
lack of cooperation, apathy, frustration, grievances or strikes.
3
On the other hand, there are some authors who have gone beyond the negative effects that
have been said about resistance and explain the positive aspects that this phenomenon may
confer. Among the more significant contributions that resistance can offer to leaders is
information about the aspects of the change process that need to be readdressed because
they have not been properly defined.
1.1 Research purpose:
Describe, understand and analyze the concept of resistance to change, its sources and the best ways to cope
with resistance.
The purpose of this study is to gain better understanding of the phenomenon of resistance
to change. We will describe the concept according to the different perspectives and reflect
upon both views. Moreover, we will analyze the sources and manifestations of resistance to
change, including some short empirical examples to allow better assimilation of the
concepts by the readers.
After collecting all the previous information about resistance we will continue by
researching the best ways to manage resistance so that the negative effects are diminished
and the positive ones are obtained. The aim is managing resistance effectively so that the
change process can run smoothly.
As mentioned before effective organizational change is quite complex in view of the high
number of failures that it produces, therefore finding a universal solution that fits every
context is unlikely. Nevertheless, we will try to describe the best strategies that could be
adopted by leaders in order to deal with resistance.
4
2-METHODOLOGY:
We will start the methodology by explaining the basic structure for the thesis which can be
illustrated in the next graph:
Figure 1: Our research structure.
*Source: own elaboration by the authors.
The thesis will be divided into three parts. We will go from general to particular: beginning
by organizational change followed by resistance and leadership.
1- Organizational change:
In the first part, we will review the most important aspects of this topic taking into account
that it is not main focus of the study. Some aspects will not be analyzed in-depth since
organizational change is very extensive. However since the context that we have chosen to
analyze resistance is within organizational change processes it is imperative to gain
understanding about the change process to link it with resistance. Some of the basic issues
examined in this part will be the concept of change, the causes and factors that drive
organizations to change, a typology of changes, metaphors about the organizations and a
description of some of the change models available in the literature.
5
2- Resistance to change
The second part will deal with the core topic of the thesis which is resistance to change.
The way to depict this part will be approaching the concept through the lenses of the two
available perspectives in the literature. The first one will highlight the problems that
resistance can cause as well as the sources of resistance. The second approach will be
focused on the positive aspects of resistance to change.
Afterwards, we will continue with the analysis of the strategies or measures that can be
taken to cope with resistance. Finally, to conclude this chapter we will explain the equity
implementation model as a tool to assess resistance within organizations. To complete and
better illustrate the proposed model a case study will be reviewed where the responses from
the employees to the change initiative are analyzed through the lenses of this model.
Furthermore, the case study will serve to identify the main aspects of the theoretical part in
a real context.
3- Transformational leadership
Leaders have a pivotal role in the process of change as well as in coping with resistance to
change. Because of it, we will analyze the transformational leadership style. We have
chosen this particular style since a good stream on research points that it is appropriate in
times of change.
The way to present this part will be relating the main characteristics attributed to
transformational leaders to the figure of Josep Guardiola (current coach of FC Barcelona).
To end the study we will state the main conclusions that can be drawn based on the whole
report.
2.1 Secondary data
The thesis will mostly rely on secondary sources of information. Secondary sources of
information are already elaborated and can be found in many formats such as articles,
books and news among others (Kurtz et. Al 2007). The reason to choose secondary data is
the fact that organizational changes as well as resistance to change have been studied for
around 60 years. Therefore we think we can have enough with secondary information in
order to answer the main questions of the study. In addition, since secondary data is
6
already elaborated and ready to use we can have more time to review a wider range of
sources to have a complete picture of our topic (Stair & Stair 2009).
When using secondary data the researcher has to make sure that the sources he uses are
reliable. In this respect we can say that our main sources of secondary data have been
published scientific articles stored in different databases that are available for students of
Linnaeus University. It is useful also to compare sources in order to avoid possible biases
coming from the different motivations of authors of the articles. We have reviewed about
50 different articles to ensure that the information was enough accurate.
In addition to articles, we have used some books related to our topic. We have rarely relied
on web sites since the validity and reliability of them is more difficult to assess.
Secondary sources of information might become easily outdated. Therefore when possible
we have tried to include sources of information that were recent.
2.2 Qualitative Research:
The methodology used for this study is primarily qualitative based. We will continue by
explaining the arguments that led us to choose qualitative information over quantitative,
since beforehand one cannot say that either methodology is better; it will depend on the
characteristics of the study since both methodologies have advantages and limitations
(Cadler 1994).
Qualitative research aims at getting deeper understanding of a phenomenon and getting a
complete description of it (Walcott 1999). Therefore it fits with our research purpose.
The main objective of the thesis is analyzing the phenomenon of resistance as well as
depicting the possible solutions to this issue. This issue is more directed to be studied in its
own context. In this case the context is an organizational setting where subjective aspects
of the individuals are relevant and must be taken into account. That is one of the reasons
to choose qualitative data (Ruiz et al. 1998). In addition, resistance to change is a dynamic
process that happens overtime therefore qualitative data seems to be more suitable.
Van den Ven and Pool (1990) underline organizational change processes as a good example
where qualitative research and in particular case studies are appropriate to use.
7
2.3 Case studies:
As it was done in the previous category we will present some of the reasons that we took
into account to include case studies in our research.
A case study “consists of a detailed investigation, often with data collected over a period of
time, of phenomena within their context” (Cassel & Simon 2004).
Case studies are widely used in organizational studies and across social sciences such as
sociology, organizational psychology and employment relations (Cassel & Simon 2004). In
addition, the use of this method for research purposes is being increasing (Yin 1994)
leading to boost the confidence in case studies as a rigorous research strategy.
The use of case studies confers flexibility to the research and also allows studying the
phenomenon in its context. As we have mentioned before our topic is more prone to be
studied in its context therefore the adequacy of case studies.
Moreover, case studies have been acknowledged as a good method when aiming at getting
a holistic approach of the situation so we think that it is adequate for our research. In
addition, case study research excels at bringing understanding of a complex issue or object
and can extend experience or add strength to what is already known through previous
research (Soy 1997).
8
3-ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:
3.1 Organizational change and change management:
Organizational change has been defined by many scholars. For instance, Van de Ven &
Poole (1995) refer to it as “an empirical observation of difference in form, quality, or state
over time in an organizational entity‟. The entity may be an individual‟s job, a work group,
an organizational strategy, a program, a product, or the overall organization”. According to
this definition we can say that change is equivalent to modification or alteration.
New technologies, shifting demographics, reforming governments, increased competition,
and frequent modifications in consumers‟ preferences are some of the predominant
characteristics of our society that make change so prevalent. Such environment makes us
stop debating about whether changing but instead we have to focus on when, how and in
what direction we must change (De Wit & Myer 2010).
The prevalence of change within organizations has provoked change management to
become a hot topic generating multiple theories and discussions among scholars. Change
management can be seen as “a systematic approach and application of knowledge, tools
and resources to deal with change. Change management means defining and adopting
corporate strategies, structures, procedures and technologies to deal with changes in
external conditions and the business environment”. <http://www.shrm.org>
3.2 Why change happens? (triggers of change)
Wille and Hodgson did a survey in 1991 to identify the most common factors triggering
change in organizations. The following variables were the most prevalent:
- Financial losses and profit reductions
- Increased competition ( accounting almost 50% of the change initiatives)
- Technological development
- New chief executive
- Industry recession
Organizational change is usually promoted by external or internal factors.
9
3.2.1 External Factors of Change:
External forces come from the environment where organizations develop their activities.
Organizations have little control over these forces however; they affect firm‟s survival and
competitive position. They are the most common trigger for organizational change. The
external environment impacts organizations in three general ways as argued by Thames and
Webster (2009):
1. The environment provides opportunities for the organization to improve what it
does. External shifts can offer possibilities for improvement usually when there is
an alignment of the new opportunities and the core capabilities and mission of the
organization.
2. The environment poses obstacles to an organization‟s efforts to achieve goals. The
other side of the first effect is that the shifts can mean challenges that the
organization should face to maintain its position. The threats can come from
several variables such as increased competition or restrictive legislations.
3. The environment might present opportunities on how an organization delivers
products and services. Introduction of new technologies or practices can lead to the
implementation of new processes that are able to meet customer‟s demands in a
more effective way than before.
The external environment can be divided into two categories: global environment and
specific environment. The first one refers to the variables that affect organizations
independently on their activity; however the impact does not have to be the same. For
example, a rise in interest rates will be far more damaging for a firm with high leverage
compared to other which relies more on equity. The specific environment refers to the part
of the environment that directly affects the achievement of organizational goals (suppliers
and customers among others).
Identifying the source for the change is important when a company is facing pressures.
Sometimes things go wrong and a change is proposed without carefully evaluating what is
the main factor that has triggered this situation. Armenakis and Harris (2011) point that
“just as it is unlikely that a disease can be cured if diagnosed incorrectly, change efforts
designed based on faulty diagnoses are unlikely to be successful”. Following the
explanation they say that organizational diagnose is about recognizing the symptoms such
10
as decreased sales, increased employee turnover and then identifying the root causes to
those symptoms.
Proper identification of the source of change provides some benefits as noted by Matejka
& Murphy (2005).
- First identifying the source of change will be very useful in order to transmit to the
employees the need for change. This will help to create a sense of urgency which is
mentioned as a relevant factor in implementing change according to Kotter (1995).
For instance, it is not the same to tell the participants that the company wants to
change because of survival reasons than explaining them that new competitors have
entered the market and are getting market share diminishing our company profits.
- The second positive aspect worth mentioning is the possibility of reevaluating the
need for change once the source has been correctly pointed. For example, a
company might be facing pressures, that after been analyzed, come from a segment
of the market that has been left unattended on purpose since the size of the
customers belonging to this segment is not enough to develop a specific strategy.
Therefore the pressures that in the beginning seemed to provoke a change finally
do not need to be addressed.
External forces can be classified into different categories. A commonly used differentiation
for these variables comes from the SEPT (also known as PEST or STEP) analysis.
According to these method forces can be political, economical, sociological or
technological. Years later some authors have expanded this method by including
environmental and legal dimensions. We think that previously legal forces were included in
the politics category. Concerning environmental issues, they are gaining much more
importance nowadays since society values eco friendly organizations and green movements
are increasing.
After clarifying the method we will proceed to briefly describe the categories to know what
the main external causes that produce organizations to change are.
3.2.1.1 Economics:
Economic variables play an important role in how companies develop their activities. In
this category interest rates, inflation or disposable income can trigger changes in firms. For
instance an economic downturn can produce the need for change and adopt cost-cutting
11
strategies in order to be able to reach more customers since their incomes could be
insufficient to afford our product.
3.2.1.2 Technology:
Technology is defined as the “application of practical sciences to industry or commerce”
<http://dictionary.reference.com/>. Shifts in technology are major contributors to change
initiatives. For example, the rapid development of computers has forced many firms to
change their ways of doings things and implement different software programs to perform
and monitor their every-day activities.
3.2.1.3 Politics and legislations:
Decisions made by authorities can account as reasons to change. Government policies such
as giving subventions, privatization of companies or changes in taxes are some examples of
forces included in this category.
3.2.1.4 Environmental:
Nowadays environmental issues are taken much more into consideration. The increased
prevalence of climate changes due to global warming is affecting the way business is
conducted in some sectors. Weather and climate are important factors especially for sectors
such as farming, tourism and insurance. In addition, great awareness about environmental
aspects has lead companies to include policies to ensure that their business is less harsh
with the environment. For instance, the implementation of ISO 14001 is done by some
firms to prove their commitment to respect the environment. Pressures regarding this issue
can come from governments, NGOs or consumers.
3.2.2 Internal forces:
These forces originate inside the organization and signal the company that something
should be altered. Some examples for internal triggers are:
- A decline in effectiveness can drive a change within a firm to implement cost-
cutting strategies or instating layoffs.
- Internal crisis produced by strikes can make the firm reconsider its wage policies or
other claims made by the demonstrators.
12
- Realizing that the atmosphere in the organization is negative, with apathy and
lethargic workers can induce the company to try cultural shift or run motivational
programs to change the situation.
- Sometimes the own organization has to promote the change in order to avoid
inertia or inflexibility.
3.3 Typology of changes:
Changes can be classified in different categories. We have chosen the scope of the change
where we find incremental and strategic changes. According to the degree of planning we
have planned and unplanned change.
In regards to the scope, sometimes it is difficult to say categorically whether one change is
incremental or strategic since there is no standard to evaluate whether the impact of change
in the organization is enough to be considered strategic. In those cases is best to think
about a continuum in whose ends we place incremental and strategic changes so we can
find different degrees in this category.
3.3.1 Incremental:
Changes belonging to this category are defined according to De Wit & Meyer (2010) “as
fine-tuning alterations whereby existing procedures are upgraded, activities are improved
and people are reassigned”. The main objective is to improve the performance of the firm
but within the confines of the existing system. In addition, although the impact of the
changes can be significant they only affect some parts of the organization with the
objective of attaining specific improvements (Nadler & Tushman 1989).
Incremental changes suit best organizations that require minimal strategic realignment.
Companies that already meet most demands of key stakeholders for sustainable practices
can promote incremental changes to keep the organization aligned with stakeholders‟
expectations (Dunphy et.al 2003).
Incremental changes allow organizations to achieve small wins according to Weick (2007).
He describes small win as a “concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate
importance”. He continues by saying that “small wins represent controllable opportunities
that produce visible results”. He points that one small win can be seen as something
13
irrelevant but a series of wins can reveal a pattern that may attract allies, deter opponents
and lower resistance to subsequent proposals.
Finally incremental changes usually have a less traumatic effect on the employees since the
transition from the previous state of change to the desired state goes at a slower pace than
in transformational changes.
3.3.2 Strategic:
They have a much bigger impact on the organization (far-reaching consequences). They
imply changes in the way the firm does its business as well as alterations in the way the firm
is configured. They are also referred as transformational or radical and they affect
organizational mission, strategy, leadership and culture (Burke & Litwin 1992). Often
transformational changes are triggered by external factors that force the organization to
change in large scale. In other occasions performance drops or new competitors demand a
new way of operating.
3.3.3 Planned:
The intentions of planned change are usually positive. Planned changes are based on the
deliberateness of the organization who decides to take steps to move from the current state
to another one. The objective of the change can be obtaining previously unattainable goals
or achieving them more efficiently or effectively. In contrast with unplanned change,
planned changes are usually generated inside the organization.
3.3.4 Unplanned:
These changes mostly happen in response to external drivers such as market forces,
economic crisis, social changes or economic opportunities. We can say that unplanned
changes are not intended by organizations since they usually occur spontaneously or
randomly without a change agent‟s attention (French et al. 2008). To manage unplanned
changes it is recommended to act as soon as possible when the change is recognized to
minimize negative impacts and to harness any possible benefits (French et al. 2008).
Because unplanned change tends to be disruptive in many occasions, it is important when
possible to have a backup plan when facing them. It is impossible for instance to know
when the network will stop working but it is useful to have some guidelines to follow just
in case this event happens. This way the change could be seen as unexpected since no one
14
could foresee when the event was going to happen but instead of unplanned we could say
semi-planned since the backup plan helps in dealing with the change.
3.4 Organizational change metaphors:
Study about organizations has been approached by multiple perspectives. Everyone has his
own assumptions about the way organizations work. One useful mechanism to express the
assumptions that we hold about organizations is through the use of metaphors.
3.4.1 Gareth Morgan Metaphors
Gareth Morgan (1986) says that metaphors “are primal forces through which humans
create meaning by using one element of experience to understand another”. He continues
explaining the peculiarities of metaphors by stating that they “give us the opportunity to
stretch our thinking and deepen our understanding, thereby allowing us to see things in
new ways and act in new ways‟ but on the other hand they also „create distortions”. To
clarify further the idea we can say that metaphors are important since they allow us to focus
on certain parts of the organization but at the same time they restrict our understanding by
ignoring other parts. Because of the constraints that metaphors imply it is useful to use
several of them instead of only one.
Morgan states some of the advantages that opting for studying a situation through various
metaphors has:
- Approaching the same situation in different ways allows new insights and actions
that were not possible before.
- Different metaphors are able to create practical knowledge and not just theoretical.
- The use of metaphors leads to the creation of new metaphors creating competing
and complementary insights.
3.4.2 Cameron and Green “four common metaphors”:
In regards to these metaphors Cameron and Green (2004) analyze four on the most
common used metaphors in the field of organizational change by noting the effects of the
different assumptions on how the process of change is carried on.
15
3.4.2.1 Machines:
According to Morgan (1986) when thinking about organizations as machines we see them
as “rational enterprises designed and structured to achieve predetermined ends”.
In this perspective senior managers “define targets and timescales”. Consultants advise on
techniques. The change initiative is made top-down and training is conducted in order to
adapt employees to the new situation. Participation from employees holding positions at
the bottom of the hierarchy is almost non-existent. This view of organizations is usually
promoted when efficiency is a top priority. Nevertheless, this approach seems to be
outdated for many firms since it works well on stable environments which are something
very strange in nowadays society.
The guidelines for this approach are that change must be driven. Furthermore, since the
approach to change is top-down resistance is likely so it should be managed by leaders.
3.4.2.2 Political systems:
When organizations are seen through this perspective we consider them as “systems of
government that vary according to the political principles employed” (Morgan 1986). These
political principles can be similar to those employed in democracies, anarchies,
bureaucracies or autocracies among others.
The usefulness of this metaphor stems in the fact that it highlights the importance that
conflict, competing interests and power play in organizations (Cameron & Green 2004).
The implication of this metaphor regarding organizational change is that changes need
support from participants with power within the firm. The more support the better for the
change initiative.
Change will result in winners and losers so the atmosphere can be negatively affected by
the reactions of the people that will lose as a consequence of the change.
3.4.2.3 Flux and transformation:
From this point of view “organizations are seen as part of the environment” and not as
systems that try to adapt to it (Cameron & Green 2004). This metaphor is useful to explain
turbulent times because managers can act and direct change but they are not totally in
16
control of the situation. Changes are more into the emerging side than in the deliberate
one. As a result of this last argument managers cannot predict changes; they are seen as
“enablers that point gaps and contradictions” (Cameron & Green 2004).
3.4.2.4 Organisms:
This metaphor considers organizations as living, adaptive systems. According to Morgan
(1986) different environments benefit different organizations depending on the
characteristics of these firms such as how they are structured or their culture. For instance,
bureaucracy can fit in stable environments while flexible structures are likely to succeed in
fast-changing environments.
Organism view of organizations sees them as open systems whose aim is to reach certain
harmony between organizational members‟ needs and the constraints or requisites that the
environment imposes.
Cameron & Morgan (2004) argue that changes following this approach are designed in
response to variations in the environment promoting participation and involvement
through organizational members.
One clear limitation of this perspective is the belief that organizations are at the mercy of
the environment. Nowadays it is clear that firms can also act modifying the environment by
launching innovations or reaching agreements with other competitors.
3.5 Organizational change models:
There are many change models available in the literature so we will review some of the
most common to have a clear idea of what are the main steps that can help to effectively
implement change process within organizations.
3.5.1 Lewin and “The Tree Step Model”:
Lewin change model was one the first to be developed. It has served as a starting point for
other authors who have created their own models later on. The model consists of three
different stages to which we have added some recommendations provided by other sources
in order to make the process run as smooth as possible.
17
Figure 2: Lewin‟s Three Step Process;
*Source: http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/pub/1.0/principles-management-and-
orga/32778#web-32778
3.5.1.1 Unfreeze
It is the first stage and it based on preparing the organization to accept that the proposed
change is necessary. Reaching this goal involves breaking down the status quo in order to
be able to build a new one.
The mission is not easy since the change agent needs to transmit why the existing way of
doing things is not anymore appropriate for the organization. One of the best ways to
achieve this purpose is to show evidences that point to the necessity of changing things.
For example a decrease in customer sales, surveys that show client dissatisfaction or any
other proof that supports the decision to change.
The aspects that need to be challenged are at the core of the organization such as beliefs,
attitudes and behaviors that currently form the organization. The desired result of these
actions should be awakening people‟s motivation so that they move to the desired new
state.
3.5.1.2 Change or Transition
In this step it is relevant to realize that transition requires time. Often leaders spend a lot of
time planning change and analyzing it but when they decide to implement it they expect
people to change very fast. Some useful techniques in the phase are:
Challenging people to attain greater goals showing confidence in their abilities.
18
Being alert to people‟s reactions so that you can provide support if they are having
a hard time accepting change.
Using an external change facilitator which can provide fresh ideas and make the
process easier to follow.
Making the first steps of the change process the easiest ones to attain. Since most
of the times the hardest task is to begin the change, small victories can boost
motivation to keep going with the change.
Involving people and offering them to participate can make the difference between
success and failure since it builds commitment and shows concerns for employees‟
opinions.
Managing people by objectives which means setting the goals that you want people
to achieve but letting them some freedom to choose the way they think they can
better reach these goals. Sometimes employees know better how to organize
themselves than a manager since managers have many different tasks and things to
do so that they do not have a specialized view of each of the workers‟ journey.
Making changes in the structure aligned with the desired behaviors and manners
proposed by the change initiative.
3.5.1.3 Refreeze
In the last stage the goal is to reach stability again. However, since the pace of change is
really increasing some people advice not to completely refreeze as a means of being able to
unfreeze with less complications the next time. On the other hand, refreezing is positive
since it increases efficiency of the new processes that have been established. Some of the
methods that can help with refreezing include:
Providing evidences and showing employees that change has happened in a
successful way which is benefitting the organization.
Trying to avoid that employees have the chance to go back to the way they were
used to do things before the change. For instance, if a new software was
implemented it is best to delete the previous one to avoid temptations to use it.
Using rewards appropriately when the desired behaviors are met. Sometimes the
current reward system was designed for the previous state; therefore it is positive to
update it so that it goes hand in hand with the new settings. For instance, giving
19
individual rewards when the firm is aiming to enhance team work is something
incongruent that should be avoided.
Rituals and symbolic actions can be done since they are used to attribute meaning
to situations. A meeting or a celebration when the change implementation has
finished might serve to keep people‟s motivation high and show the recognition
that the organization has for their efforts towards the initiative.
3.5.2 John Kotter “The eight-step model”:
This model is really popular and well-known in the change management field. It was
developed by John P. Kotter who is a professor at Harvard Business School who included
this model in his book „leading change‟ published in 1995. In his research, after working as a
consultant for a hundred companies involved in change processes, Kotter identified 8
common problems that were present in non-successful change initiatives. With this
experience he created an eight-step model that addresses these eight issues that were
preventing change processes to be successful.
In the next figure we can see a summary of the model proposed by Kotter.
20
Figure 3: Kotter‟s Eight Step for Change;
*Source: http://dynamicsofhr.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/kotters-8-steps-for-change/
Kotter‟s model as well as his insights about leading change emphasize that leaders should
focus on people and forget about treating the staff as machines. In this sense, changes in
employees‟ behaviors are one of the main tasks in order to implement change effectively.
21
Kotter‟s model also highlights the important role of communication during the change
process.
One of the advantages of this model is that it is easy to follow since it is made of steps.
However it should be noted that it can take a considerable amount of time to implement
changes using this model. In case of unplanned change the organization may lack time to
do everything listed in the model since leaders are not meant to skip steps. Kotter (1999)
says that “creating a vision and a strategy can be done in a few weeks but it usually takes 12
or even sometimes 24 months”. As we can see the model seems to be more prone to
planned change since the author also highlights the importance that leaders act proactively
towards change.
To finish the description of the change models we will briefly describe the most important
steps that have been recognized among the existing approaches to have an overall idea of
what it is recommended to succeed in this process. Whelan-Berry & Somerville (2010)
depict in their article these common used steps as follows:
Establishing a clear compelling vision
One of the main starting points that are typically mentioned in the models is the relevance
of identifying the reason for change, creating a sense of urgency and communicating that
reason or vision (Kotter 1995, Galpin 1996, Cummings & Worley 2004). The vision refers
according to Bennis & Nanus (2004) as a “mental image of a possible and desirable state
for the organizations”. They continue arguing that the goal of this vision should be
“articulating a view of a realistic, credible, attractive future for the organization, a condition
that is better in some important ways than what now exists”.
Moving the change to the group and individual level:
It refers to the understanding of the vision through all the levels of the organization
(departments, teams, individuals). Since different groups and individuals will probably have
different reactions to the proposed vision it is important to analyze how this vision will
work for these specific groups and individuals (Goodman 1982).
Individual adoption of change:
Vision acceptance and performance according to this vision ultimately happens at an
individual level (March 1981, Marshak 1993, Sullivan et al. 2002). The reason for this
22
argument is that successful organizational change demands employees to change their
values, attitudes and behaviors (Cameron & Quinn 1999): therefore the importance of the
adoption of the vision at and individual level. To explain changes at this level several
models exist which describe the phases that people follow when adopting changes and are
based in psychological research.
Sustaining the momentum of implementation:
The basic idea behind this step is allocating enough resources to the change process.
(Kotter 1995, Galpin 1996, Cummings & Worley 2004). Often change initiatives lack the
necessary resources in form of time, assets or attention leading to failure (Godman 1982).
Jick (1995) highlights the importance of sustaining the momentum of change when the
change is meant to take long time to be implemented as it is the case of cultural shifts.
Institutionalizing change:
This step is similar to the refreezing phase of Lewin‟s model and is also present in Kotter
(1995), Armenakis et. al (1999), and Cummings & Worley (2004). It is based on the
measures to maintain and continue with the change so that it becomes part of the
organization‟s everyday activity.
3.6 Change Agents
When speaking about organizational change it is common to explain the figure of the
change agents. Indeed, when we think about big changes in history we tend to associate
them with specific individuals. For instance, we link the theory on natural selection with
Darwin and we associate peaceful and non-violent methods to reach certain objectives with
Gandhi.
Everett Rogers defines change agents as “figures with one foot in the old world and one in
the new”. They create a bridge between both worlds so that others can travel. In addition
he identifies some critical roles played by change agents:
- They articulate the need for change
- They are accepted by others as trustworthy and competent
- They see and diagnose the problems from the perspective of their audience
- They motivate people to change
23
- They work through others in translating intent to action
- They stabilize the adoption of innovation
- They foster self-renewing behavior in others
Identifying change agents is important when undergoing a change process. When these
agents are indentified the leader should place them in key positions to assist the
implementation.
When we think about change agents we associate them with people holding positions at the
top of the hierarchy however, this is not a necessary condition. People with no formal
authority to lead can be change agents since they lead with the power of their ideas (hbr
2004). In addition, change agents are not usually satisfied with the things the way they are
so looking for people who think otherwise is a good strategy for finding these agents.
Finally, new employees who do not have the same mindset as the people culturally
embedded in the firm can be good candidates.
When selecting change agents the insider-outsider dilemma arises. Both perspectives have
their strengths and weaknesses. Outsiders are believed to be a good alternative since they
are not bound with company‟s historical formula so they find easier to break with the old
rules and implement change. On the other hand Insiders are considered to be a good
alternative since they know the business and values so that they can understand the
company and avoid causing disruption.
Donald Sull recommends a balance between insider-outsider. His formula consists of
selecting leaders from the company but outside the core business. Some examples are seen
in the figures of Jack Welch at GE and Jürgen Scrempp at Daimler Chrysler. Furthermore,
the formation of management teams to leverage the strengths of outsiders and insiders is
also advisable.
Another alternative can be creating change agents. Some companies have tried this
approach which is also plausible. For instance General Motors in its joint-venture with
Toyota decided to rotate manufacturing managers to a plant where Toyota‟s methods were
used to learn them and later on come back to the other plants to act as change agents and
implant the methods that they have been learning (HBR 2004).
24
In brief we can say that change agents “see the need for change and articulate it effectively
to others”. They are “critical catalysts for a change initiative and should be placed in key
positions” during transition (HBR 2004).
25
4-RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Resistance to change is the core topic of our thesis. In this chapter we will describe the
concept of resistance, analyze the different sources or reasons that lead to employee
resistance and explain the possible solutions that can be adopted in order to effectively deal
with the issue. The concept of resistance as it has already been mentioned will be looked
through the lenses of two perspectives: one negative and the other positive.
Resistance to change is a recurrent topic in the change management literature. We can find
several definitions that help us to indentify the main aspects related to this concept. For
instance, Ansoff (1988, p. 207) chooses to define resistance referring to its consequences
and states that resistance is “a multifaceted phenomenon, which introduces unanticipated
delays, costs and instabilities into the process of a strategic change”. As we can see from
the previous definition negative consequences are derived from resistance whose effects
will impact the correct development of the change process.
For his part Zaltman and Duncan (1977, p. 63) argue that resistance is “any conduct that
serves to maintain the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo”. Status quo
refers, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of idioms, as “the existing order of
things, present customs, practices and power relations”.
In an organizational setting resistance is defined by Block (1989, p. 199) as “an expression
of reservation which normally arises as a response or reaction to change”.
Resistance to change has long been recognized as a critically important factor that can
influence the success of any organizational change effort. In this respect, research
undertaken by Maurer (1996) indicated that one-half to two-thirds of all major corporate
change efforts fail and resistance is the “little-recognized but critically important
contributor” to that failure (p. 56).
All these descriptions about resistance to change seem to have a negative connotation
which is predominant in the study of this concept. This perspective mostly sees resistance
to change as an obstacle that goes hand in hand with every change process. Managers
should be aware of this and try to eliminate it.
26
Related to the concept of resistance to change appears the notion of inertia. However in
our own understanding resistance to change usually focus on employees‟ reactions to a
change initiative whereas inertia centers in the organization as a whole.
Inertia is viewed as the “strong persistence of existing form and function” (Rumelt 1995).
Its consequences can be different depending on the environment. In a stable and
evolutionary environment, structural inertia provides organizational accountability and
reliability, which promote organizational survival (Hannan & Freeman, 1984).
Nevertheless, when organizations have to face radical change inertia is detrimental to
change success (Chen-Yi 2006).
Inertia is also seen as beneficial when the current organizational practices are efficient but
when they are not inertia causes difficulties to change. Rumelt (1995) classifies the sources
of organizational inertia in five different groups with different categories in each of these
groups. Some of the factors he mentions are sunk costs, embedded routines, leadership
inaction, and vested values. For instance, organizations tend to have selection processes
that choose certain people, training techniques that reinforce specific skills and behaviors
and formalization mechanisms. All of those aspects when the necessity of change arises will
act to sustain stability causing difficulties to implement change (Robbins 2009).
Since our purpose is to focus on resistance to change emerging from the participants of the
organization we will explain the main sources of this resistance. The factors that we will
take into consideration are mainly based on Kotter and Schlesinger‟s (1979) classification,
however we have added some other categories that are also relevant and have been
mentioned by other scholars.
4.1 Sources of resistance
4.1.1 Self-interest or concern over personal loss:
The basic idea is that people focus more on their own interests than in those of the
organization. People can have the belief that they will be negatively affected by the change.
They might consider that they can lose something they value as a consequence of the
change process, neglecting the possible benefits that change can provoke for the whole
organization.
27
This resistant behavior stems from the consequences on employee‟s established
relationship with the organization or the perception of his role or place in the organization
(Van Dijk & Van Dick 2009). The most common concerns in this category are:
- loss of power
- loss of prestige
- loss of salary
- change in working conditions
- loss of comfort
4.1.2 Group Resistance
Resistance not only manifests at an individual level but also related to groups and teams.
Groups establish norms of behavior and performance that are communicated to members.
This communication establishes the boundaries of expected behaviors. Failure to comply
with such norms usually results in sanctions against group members by the group. If
leaders initiate changes that are viewed as threatening to the staffs‟ norms, they are likely to
meet with resistance. The more cohesive the staff is, the greater their resistance to change
will be. (Lunenburg 2010)
Since groups and teams have more power than individuals alone it is relevant that leaders
acknowledge these issues to avoid unexpected events such as strikes or lack of cooperation.
An illustration for group resistance can be seen in Spain in the educational field. It has been
noted that there is a great amount of resistance related to the introduction of new
technologies in the educational system (Vaquero 2011). The Spanish Government and
public institutions are trying to promote the use of new technologies in the educational
system by installing computers and digital screens to improve teaching methods as well as
to adapt education to the modern times. Despite these efforts most teachers do not use
computers or other material and stick to the old ways since it is most comfortable for
them.
The main reason for that group resistance has its roots in the lack of familiarity with new
technologies of the majority of teachers. Also teachers might feel threatened or reluctant to
the initiative since most of the students will know better than them how to use the new
technologies.
28
4.1.3 Misunderstandings:
Employees‟ resistance to change can arise because they do not fully understand the change
and its implications. If they do not understand the need for change or interpret in a
different way the initiative resistance is likely to occur.
An example of misunderstanding is offered by Kotter & Schlesinger (1979) which
illustrates the importance of clarifying things so that they do not lead to different
interpretations; therefore highlighting the important role that communication plays in
resistance to change.
In that case the president of a company decided to implement flexible working schedules
for his employees in order to ease working conditions. Beforehand, the measure is meant
to be beneficial for employees since with this system they have more freedom to choose
when they want to work making easier to balance family life and work life.
The president was surprised when he knew that employees did not agree with the initiative.
In fact, they had talked to the local union about the change and after that handed in a
nonnegotiable proposal to turn down the initiative.
The underlying problem was that none of the employees really knew what the term flexible
working hours meant. The meaning attributed by the employees was that they could be
asked to work whenever the supervisors wanted to. Therefore they thought that they would
have to work also in the evenings and week-ends if it was demanded by their superiors.
4.1.4 Different assessments:
Another reason that can be identified is the different assessment made by the initiators of
change and by the employees. Sometimes people think that the change is not going to
benefit the organization or in other words that the benefits will not outweigh the costs.
They perceive weaknesses in the proposed change initiative therefore their unwillingness to
change. Van Dijk & Van Dick (2009) also point out that people in the organization have
different backgrounds, roles and experiences which can lead them to evaluate the situation
differently even though, most employees are aware of the necessity of change for
organizations in order to remain successful.
Often, leaders tend to think that they have all the necessary information to conduct an
adequate analysis of the organization and more importantly they assume that the rest of the
29
people forming the organization have the same facts. Actually, none of these assumptions
is correct. People have different information which will lead to different interpretations of
the same reality and it is also possible that leaders have sometimes less accurate perceptions
of the organization than some other workers. (Kotter & Schlesinger 1979)
4.1.5 Low tolerance for change:
Low tolerance for change might be a matter of individuals‟ personality. Some people show
more preference for values related to stability and security therefore they will be more
prone to develop resistant behaviors when facing situations that challenge their values.
Moreover, uncertainty and fear of the unknown also make people prefer the actual
situation which is certain that something unsure.
Another explanation for a low tolerance is the feelings that people hold about themselves.
People with low self-confidence, poor self-esteem and low sense of self-efficacy may feel
unable to engage in the change.
It might be possible that people intellectually understand the change but they are
emotionally unable to make the adjustment (Honey 1997). An illustration of this concept
can be seen in the medical field. In most occasions people suffering from hypertension are
recommended to engage in physical activities. Beside the fact that many of them recognize
and understand the benefits of exercising in reducing the risks associated with high blood
pressure they still resist performing these activities because of their low tolerance for
change (Walsh & Crumbie 2007).
4.1.6 Lack of Skills:
Almost always organizational change comes with the necessity of learning or developing
new skills or abilities as well as acquiring new knowledge. Participants may feel incapable of
meeting these demands therefore they will resist change. Whether it is real threat or a
matter of perception lack of necessary skills usually contributes to fear of failure and
concerns over job security.
People can resist change because they think that they will not be able to develop the
required skills and behaviors needed for the new situation. Sometimes change demands too
much change in a short time span. Related to this issue Peter F. Druker acknowledges that
the inability of managers to change their attitudes and behaviors with the speed that the
30
organization asks accounts for one of the most important obstacles to organizational
growth. As we can see not only employees but also managers can find hard to adapt on
time to the new conditions and demands of the business reality.
4.1.7 Organizational Change cynisim:
Cynisism is a factor that has been recently acknowledged as a contributor to resistance
during the change process. It can undermine change initiatives (Reicher, Wanous, &
Austin, 1997) therefore we consider important to include this factor in our research.
Firstly, it is necessary to clarify what cynicism means. According to (Abraham, 2000, p.
269) “The core belief is that principles of honesty, fairness and sincerity are sacrificed to
further the self-interests of the leadership, leading to actions based on hidden motives and
deception”. Furthermore, Cole, Bruch, and Vogel (2006) referred to cynicism as “an
evaluative judgment that stems from an individual‟s employment experiences” (p. 463).
To gain better understanding of the concept it is useful to compare and distinguish it from
skepticism. Skeptics doubt “the likelihood of success but are still reasonably hopeful that
positive change will occur” (Reicher et al., 1997, p. 48). The concern of skeptics is viability
about the achievement of the marked objectives; however, their perceptions are not
influenced by the stated or implied motives for change (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky,
2005). In contrast, cynics are much more pessimistic about change because of a history of
repeated failure (Brown and Cregan 2008). Organizations where managers or leaders have a
tracked record of promises that cannot be fulfilled are candidates of being in charge of an
organization where cynicism levels are high (Fleming, 2005, p. 290).
The similarity between both attitudes is that both have concerns about the prosperity of
the change process but unlike skepticism, cynicism puts blame into the initiators of change
for the possible failure of the change initiative. Initiators are usually people holding high
positions in the hierarchy of the organization such as managers or leaders and are usually
regarded by cynics as “incompetent and/or unmotivated” (Wanous et al., 2000).
Cynicism has been associated with a variety of feelings including: frustration, negative
feelings toward the organization, and disillusionment (Dean et al., 1998).
31
It is important to note how the process happens. It is not something that individuals bring
with themselves when entering the organization but an attitude that is shaped by the
experiences lived in the workplace (Johnson & O‟Leary-Kelly, 2003, p. 640–641).
Andersson (1996) identifies some aspects that contribute to increased cynicism levels:
“formulation of unrealistically high expectations, second, the experience of disappointment
at failing to meet these expectations and third, subsequent disillusionment” (p. 1404).
Dean et al. (1998) suggest some of the mechanisms used by people to manifest their
cynicism. They can do it overtly but there are some subtle ways of expressing it such as
sarcastic humor or non-verbal behaviors (smirks, rolling eyes, knowing looks).
Leaders should be aware of the levels of cynicism and try to keep them as lower as
possible. Since people base their beliefs on how the organization worked on past events
leaders should be careful with their actions and set realistic goals that can be accomplished
so that they can keep a positive record of successes that encourages people to believe in the
capability of their superiors.
Brown and Cregan (2008) conducted a study about organizational change cynicism to test
the influence of two of the more common approaches that are suggested in the change
literature to cope with resistance to change. Both mechanisms are information sharing and
participation in decision making. The sample was taken from employees of the public
sector in Melbourne, Australia.
The results of the study found that both information sharing and participation where
negatively correlated with organizational change cynicism. Therefore a higher degree of
information sharing was related to lower levels of cynicism giving the employees the
chance to better understand the decisions made by the management.
According to the authors the mayor improvement was seen when employees were involved
in the decision making process. In this way, employees have the opportunity to examine
the motives associated with the change before binding decisions are implemented.
4.1.8 Fear of failure:
This feeling can stem from many sources and is detrimental to change implementation.
One of the most common scenarios leading to fear of failure comes from managers‟
attitudes. In some organizations managers spend too much time looking for and pointing
32
all the things people are doing wrong (Harvey & Broyles, 2010). When managers are
focusing on failures it is not difficult to imagine that a climate of fear is going to be
installed in the organization. It is not hard to predict that changes will not be welcomed in
such a climate since changes are source of uncertainty, at least temporarily. In these
situations, it is recommended to stop and think that innovations which are a major source
of competitive advantage are usually associated with risk taking. Therefore managers willing
to stay competitive should avoid behaviors leading to fear of failure among the
stakeholders.
Past experiences are another worth mentioning source of fear of failure within
organizations. The history of the organization in terms of successes and failures plays an
important role in determining the fear of failure level. When initiating a new change past
experiences will come up into employees‟ minds to affect their degree of confidence and
readiness to accept the proposed change.
Although sometimes it is necessary to point errors managers should never neglect the
power of positive feedback. By highlighting positive attitudes and behaviors in the
organization the level of trust and confidence will be enhanced which will serve as a vehicle
to implement change initiatives easier.
4.1.9 Culture:
Before relating culture to resistance it is useful to define the concept. Culture according to
Plog & Bates (1988) is “the system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and
artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another,
and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning”.
Culture accounts as another variable to have in mind when reviewing resistance to change
sources. Changes in any aspect of an organizational system are linked with the cultural
context (Baba 1989, Manring 2003, Schein 1992).
Culture based resistance is more prevalent when the direction of the change and the way it
is handled are not aligned with the cultural understandings and meanings characterizing the
organization (Cooper 1994). Moreover, leaders evaluating culture should not only focus on
organization‟s culture but also in societal culture. However, differences between both
cultures are not dramatic since usually they share common values.
33
To illustrate how culture can affect change initiatives we will briefly expose an example of a
Turkish construction company (Danışman 2010). The main goal of the change was to
professionalize the company since they had to fulfill the requirements imposed by ISO
9000 Quality Management System. The company proposed three different changes not
simultaneously which did not have success due to cultural factors.
- The first measure was prompted in part due to the busy agenda of the CEO. Since
he was not able to handle all the affairs that he was required he proposed to
establish managerial titles that were going to be used to represent the firm in
relations and communications with third parties, however inside the company this
titles were not supposed to have any function. Basically the titles were a form of
preserving the image of the organization since the CEO was not anymore present
in certain events.
The problem was that people given the titles began to emphasize their status rather
that their duties and responsibilities. “Turkish culture relies more on who you are
than what you are” (Trompenars & Hampden-Turner 1998). According to this
value employees with titles started to define some limits since they thought that
some tasks that they were used to do were not meant to be done by a typical
manager. For instance, some of them stopped photocopying and filling documents
because of their new acquired titles. As a result of these practices some work was
problematic to do in the company so the titles were eliminated.
- The second attempt to reorganize the firm was to appoint two coordinators for two
different areas (financial and administrative affairs and the other one technical and
adjudication affairs). This decision was made since everyone was dependant on the
CEO so he was busy with minor issues and routines.
Despite the fact that both coordinators were elected through a democratic
approach the initiative was not successful. The reason was that subordinates
thought that their inability to talk directly with the CEO will result in a larger power
distance to the boss. In addition the coordinators promoted open discussions to
solve the problems but employees were not used to it since open discussions,
disagreements and conflicts are not a characteristic of Turkish organizations
(Danışman & Özgen 2003). These clashes between rooted cultural values provoked
the reversal of the initiative again.
34
- After some time the CEO gave a new try to the coordinators for the two different
areas. For the financial and affairs department everybody agreed upon the person
who had to be in charge of this department. Nevertheless for the other area it was
different. Recently, the company had hired a new experienced engineer to guide a
highway project. When electing the person responsible for the technical department
everyone (employees and CEO) thought that the most adequate person for the job
was the recently hired engineer. However, there was a younger engineer in the
company who was also interested in the position. Nobody raised the hand to vote
for any of the candidates and the employees asked the CEO to take the decision on
his own. Beside the fact that the CEO wanted the new engineer for the position he
thought that the younger one will be upset to know that someone recently hired
would take a position with such authority instead of him who had been working for
the company several years.
Finally the emphasis on loyalty and relationships made the CEO assign both to the
position with the same authority. The situation did not go well since both were
competing against each other and wanted the other to do mistakes.
After a relatively short period of time the newly hired engineer abandoned the
company and things came back to the starting point.
As we can see in light of the example cultural issues such as preference for loyalty and long
term relationships, power and authority perceptions can influence the way employee react
to a change.
4.2 Resistance to change psychological approach:
The psychological approach considers that people go through a reaction process when
facing organizational change (Jacobs 1995, Kyle 1993). Scott and Jaffe (1998) identified 4
stages for this process:
35
Figure 4: Four stages in Resistance to change psychological approach.
*Source: own elaboration based on Scott and Jaffe (1998).
4.2.1 Denial:
It is people‟s first response when facing change. They think that it is not possible that this
situation is happening to them. The most common feelings associated to this stage are
negation and apathy (people avoid the topic as much as possible and act as if nothing new
was happening). People at this stage act as if things will go on and stay the same as always.
4.2.2 Resistance:
In the second stage people have disagreements. They feel disillusioned and discouraged. In
addition, they might show anger at the organization, believe that the task is impossible to
accomplish, feel overwhelmed and depressed and refuse to cooperate. The worst scenario
can happen when individuals do not overtly express their disagreement and instead work in
the background against change.
4.2.3 Exploration:
In this phase people start to look toward the future evaluating the possibilities and
opportunities of changing. People start to think about the change as an opportunity and
not as threat.
Energy and excitement are encountered in this step although confusion and frustration can
be also present because there is too much to do or to think about.
36
4.2.4 Commitment:
In the last stage people become engaged and focused with the change enhancing team
work and beginning to feel satisfied about the initiative.
It should be noted that the pace at which individuals move from one phase to another is
different. This is because individuals perceive change differently so their willingness to
accept change measures will be also dissimilar (Darling 1993, Carnall 1986).
Psychologically speaking individuals have some defense mechanisms when they are
challenged by change. These defense mechanisms protect individuals from anxiety. The
problem arises because these ways of dealing with anxiety can prevent individuals from
changing since they withdraw attention from main tasks rendering the process of change
ineffective (De Board 1983). These defense mechanisms are considered as unconscious
processes that are developed when habitual thoughts, feelings or behaviors in the
subconscious conflict with new intentions, feelings or thoughts in the conscious mind (De
Board 1983). The mechanisms are summarized in following table:
Figure 5: Defense mechanisms.
*Source: Bove and Hede (2001).
37
As we can see in the table there are six defense mechanisms:
- Two are considered adaptative: humor and anticipation
- Four are accounted as being maladaptative: denial, dissociation, isolation of affect,
projection and acting out.
Bove and Hede (2001) tested the relationship between the different mechanisms and the
degree of resistance to change. The methods used were self-questionnaires to preserve
anonymity and to ensure responses to these questionnaires as closer to reality as possible.
Nine different organizations where involved in the study.
As the authors hypothesized at the beginning of the study maladaptative mechanisms
where linked to higher levels of resistance to change. On the other hand, organizations
where individuals had adaptative mechanisms found less levels of resistance. In addition,
individuals who are accustomed to use humor as a way to combat anxiety situations
showed fewer intentions to resist changes. The cause is that using humor allows individuals
to deal with problems in a constructive way as well as improving people‟s capacity to get
control over these problems (Dixon 1980).
Regarding maladaptative mechanisms the one who was more detrimental to employees‟
capacity to adapt to change was projection. Projection basically consists in a process where
the psyche tricks itself into believing that the cause of anxiety is located in somebody else
(de Board, 1983). Therefore since this person considers the cause of anxiety as external he
is going to resist it (in this case the change process). To overcome this situation it is
necessary to help the person to understand that the source of anxiety is internal.
Managers should also be aware that personal lives also influence the degree of anxiety and
therefore the possible level of resistance. Turbulent events such as divorce or other major
changes in employees‟ lives can diminish their capacity to adapt.
The message emerging from this concrete view of resistance is that leaders should be aware
of the role that human behaviors play in the change process. They should pay attention and
acknowledge these defense mechanisms to understand the sources that can hinder change
implementation. There are two different interventions according to Bove and Hede (2001)
that can help with this issue:
38
1- Information-based interventions: their purpose is to boost awareness of the
unconscious processes that human beings experience and the way they influence
our motivations and behaviors.
2- Counseling interventions: they consist of activities designed to help individuals to
understand and analyze how their own defense mechanisms impact their
willingness to change.
4.3 Resistance to change positive aspects:
In spite of the fact that most of the research behind resistance to change focuses on this
phenomenon as something adverse that should be overcome, we also want to include the
positive side of resistance.
First, it is relevant to note that even though change is something usually necessary in
nowadays environment we cannot say that change is inherently good, instead change can
only be evaluated by its consequences. These consequences can be analyzed when change
efforts have being already made and sufficient time has already passed. In other words, we
have to wait to see the consequences of change to decide whether it has been a good
decision or not (Hultman, 1979, p. 53). Taking into account the previous argument
resistance should be considered as a force that challenges the efficacy of change since
change itself cannot be appropriate for the organization.
In addition, organizations need a balance between change and stability; therefore resistance
can play an important role trying to avoid the dysfunctionality that too much change can
bring (Waddell & Sohal 1998). Furthermore, the same authors mention that employees do
not resist change per se but rather the uncertainties and possible outcomes that change
might produce. As a result, this resistance can benefit the organization since resistors can
draw attention to aspects concerning change that are not well defined, not appropriate or
plain wrong.
Another advantage that resistance can offer to the change process is the influx of energy
resulting from change (Waddell & Sohal 1998). Litterer (1973, p.152) argues that
implementing change in a workplace where apathy and passivity are predominant is a
difficult task. With resistance conflict is a common byproduct which comes with energy
and motivation which can help to address the problems more closely and examine the
proposed change deeply. Nevertheless, it is necessary to specify that too much conflict can
39
cause problems when trying to implement change so it is necessary to have healthy conflict
levels to avoid possible disturbances and a negative atmosphere within an organization.
Another argument that speaks in favor of resistance is its capacity to “encourage the search
for alternative methods and outcomes in order to synthesize the conflicting opinions that
may exist”. The more opinions and insights that can be gathered about the change process
from all the participants the better the possibilities to reach an improved outcome for the
change process. As a consequence of all these opinions, concerns and ideas, resistance can
be an important source of innovation in a change process as more possibilities are
considered and evaluated (Waddel & Sohal 1998).
Albanese (1973) points that often decisions are favored by the management team therefore
they do not benefit from a comprehensive discussion. As a result, the decisions made in
this manner solely rely on the capabilities of the management team neglecting the possible
suggestions that employees can offer. An example of useful resistance can be seen in
politics. Very often the conflicts and confrontations between the involved political parties
produce better outcomes in form of new legislations and alternatives than if there were
only one party without any competence.
According to Pascale & Athos (1982) one of the main problems by which organizations are
not able to harness the possible benefits of resistance is that they are conflict averse. He
adds that contention is most of the times seen as a sign of past mismanagement.
Furthermore, they suggest that the objective is “to learn how to disagree without being
disagreeable and channel this contention as a means of self questioning and keeping the
organization on its toes”.
Ford & Ford (2009) summarize their concept about resistance to change as a form of
feedback. This feedback comes from “people with deep knowledge about the company‟s
daily operations”. Therefore they suggest that organizations should “treat these concerns as
valuable information in order to gain important ideas for communicating and executing the
change initiative”. Furthermore, it will confer buy-in from the employees which is essential
for successful change. In addition, the authors provide some steps that can be taken to use
resistance as a mechanism to produce effective change:
40
Boost awareness:
When the change is ready to be implemented managers have had sufficient time to
internalize the change initiative but this does not happen with other participants in the
organization such as employees. Because of this reason it is not recommended to suppress
“dialogue about what the change will involve because leaders will miss the opportunity to
gain buy-in from their employees” Ford & Ford (2009). Instead it is suggested to
encourage talk about the initiative even if there are complaints because it can be the only
way to keep a conversation about the change alive.
Return to purpose:
People not only need to know what the change is about but also why their jobs are
upended.
Change the change:
Often people who criticize changes are those who genuinely care about the organization
and want things to be the done right. They have knowledge about the organization and can
make suggestions that can improve the change initiative by recognizing pitfalls and help
addressing them.
Build in participation and engagement:
When leaders care about employees opinions on how to make change work they promote
enthusiasm, sense of ownership and commitment to change.
Complete the past:
Due to the fact that many change efforts fail, leaders should consider past failures in order
to uncover possible sources of resistance. Sometimes employees do not resist a particular
change because of its content but by past experiences of unfruitful changes. They expect
the history to repeat so leaders should know about past issues to understand better
resistance.
In brief, we can say that resistance to change according to this positive perspective can
benefit the organization in the following ways:
1. Pointing to the areas that need to be addressed in the process of change.
41
2. Serving as a source of energy and motivation to keep the organization and the
change process alive.
3. Promoting innovation since it is based on debate which brings more ideas and
solutions to potentially reach better outcomes.
4. Improve employees‟ commitment and sense of ownership since their
considerations and ideas are taken into account.
4.4 Reflection about resistance based on the literature:
We think that resistance to change is a complex phenomenon that can yield both positive
and negative outcomes. Solely relying on the negative perspective of resistance will drive
leaders to try to eliminate it in order to effectively implement change, since resistance is
seen as something dangerous. If leaders dismiss employees‟ ideas, worries and objections
about the change initiative they will avoid benefitting from possible solutions and feedback
that can be useful to smooth the change process.
We consider more appropriate to be more constructive with resistance by diagnosing the
nature of resistance and trying to understand the concerns of the employees. With this
diagnose leaders and managers can have a picture of the reasons that can lead to resistance
to evaluate the logic behind them. Sometimes the reasons for resisting can be irrational but
in others cases they can be well-founded and can be used to enhance the process and reach
a better outcomes for the whole organization.
In the following part we will describe the equity implementation model as a tool the
diagnose resistance to change.
4.5 Equity Implementation Model (EIM): Theory and empirical illustration
Resistance to change is a serious problem usually because leaders do not pay enough
attention to the issue. They are more concerned about other things leaving resistance aside.
Therefore we think providing a model to predict resistant behaviors is necessary and
adequate.
It is a model to analyze and evaluate resistance to change. It is a tool that can guide leaders
to discover the possible reactions to change from his employees. We will explain it because
it is used in the case study when approaching the change initiative.
42
The starting point of this model is based on the hypothesis that changes which are
considered favorable are not resisted while changes considered unfavorable are likely to be
resisted.
The model is based on the equity theory which is a well-established and widely used theory
in social sciences (Joshi 1991). It uses this theory to identify the process that individuals
might follow as a means of evaluating changes brought by a new system, work practice,
technology or other changes in the work environment.
Employees use a three level analysis to assess the change initiative. Depending on the
analysis done the result will be embracing or resisting change.
The theory suggests that individuals, when facing exchange situations are constantly
concerned about their inputs and outcomes as well as the fairness of the exchange. In
addition, they do not only evaluate these items in isolation but also in comparison with
other groups of reference; therefore establishing also a relative perception of their gains
and losses with other employees. (Adams 1963, Walster et al. 1978).
Change processes modify the balance between inputs and outcomes as well as the fairness
perception that employees hold about the organization. People perceiving inequity as a
result of the change will experience distress and will resist change. On the other hand,
people whose equity is improved as a consequence of the implementation will welcome the
initiative.
The first and most important level deals with the net gain that change provides comparing
outcomes and inputs. If the result is positive change will be accepted while if it is negative
resistance will occur.
In the second level of analysis individuals compare the modifications in their relative
outcomes with the employer. Changes are supposed to bring benefits to the organization
and more specifically to managers or people holding positions on top of the hierarchy.
Better productivity, reduced costs or better adaptation as a result of the change will
positively impact the company gains. The employees since they have also participated in
the change they will consider appropriate and fair to receive something in exchange
because of their cooperation and effort.
43
The evaluation in this step is made relying on the deservingness of the gains. For instance,
it may seem obvious that employees in most cases will not expect to gain the same as their
manager or leader since they will probably have different accountabilities, backgrounds
and/or experience. Having said that employees still think they deserve a portion based on
their contribution.
The third is the last level of analysis and refers to the comparison made by employees and
other colleagues belonging to reference groups in the organization.
The next table summarizes the three levels of analysis.
Figure 6: Three levels of analysis in Equity Implementation Model
*Source: Joshi (1991).
In the next table we can see a compilation of the possible outcomes and inputs that can be
modified as a consequence of the change. Although it is quite clear that some of the inputs
and outcomes are specific for a context where the change is about the implementation of
an information system the others can be used for any type of change. Additionally, other
propositions can be added depending on the peculiarities of a concrete change initiative.
44
Figure 7: Compilation of the possible outcomes and inputs that can be modified as a
consequence of the change.
*Source: Joshi (1991).
The most important value of the model should be providing a tool or method for leaders
in order to analyze the impact on equity that a change can produce. This will help leaders
to identify or at least to have an approximated idea of the level of resistance that can be
encountered, who is likely to resist change and what are the possible reasons of resistance
to act upon them so that the change can be better welcomed.
The utilization of the model is more suitable prior to the implementation of the change so
that measures can be taken with the intention of readjusting the possible deviations in
equity that employees can perceive. Nevertheless, we can also use the model to analyze past
45
situations in order to learn from the possible mistakes and errors that could have been
done to avoid them in the future.
The mechanisms to compensate inequity situations so that change is more favorable for all
stakeholders are focused on three dimensions:
1. Increase outcomes: the most obvious measure in this category is compensating
possible inequity with increases in salary or also non monetary rewards. There is
also the possibility of using the tactic of positive equity. According to Krebs (cited
in Joshi p.9) “most individuals who experience positive equity in a relationship feel
obliged to reciprocate by increasing the outcomes of the participants in the
relationship”.
Appreciation letters, recognition are other methods a part from rewards that can
counterbalance negative gains and foster individuals‟ sense of reciprocity resulting
in commitment and better performance.
2. Decrease inputs: such as making the leaning process easier through more practical
or entertaining teaching methods.
3. Modify employees‟ perceptions: these measures stem in the idea that individuals
will make different assessments of what it is for them and input or and outcome as
well as the perception of fairness in the change process. For instance, a young
person can consider that leaning a new language is for him and outcome because it
will enrich his CV, it can improve his chances for a promotion or offer the
possibility to work abroad. On the other hand, another person can perceive the
same initiative as in input because he has to put efforts in learning.
Most of these changes in perceptions are tackled via communication processes. For
example, referring to the second level of analysis, if an unbalance between the
employer and the employees is a concern proper communication explaining that
the change measure is vital for the survival of the company can make employees
realize that job security could be under threat so that they consider the initiative as
more positive.
Perception of unfairness can also arise from the procedures used to implement
change. Individuals might consider more appropriate a measure that has been
discussed with the work union or employees directly than a change that was made
directly by top executives and forced to be implanted without any concern about
employees‟ opinions and feelings.
46
The next table shows some of the mechanisms to improve equity.
Figure 8: mechanisms to improve equity
*Source: Joshi (1991).
Models are by definition simplifications of reality, meaning that some aspects will be
excluded in the model. If vital components are excluded from the model it can become too
simple and lack accuracy. On the other too many details can render the model complex and
difficult to understand. Consequently it is recommended to find a balance between those
components. After this clarification we will continue by explaining the limitations of the
equity implementation model.
It might be possible that employees are not aware of all the inputs and outcomes that can
impact them due to the change process. In this case in our opinion the leader could take
47
advantage of this issue by pointing some possible benefits that employees could have
missed therefore positively affecting the equity. In addition, leaders should be aware that
user‟s objectivity assessing inputs and outcomes may be distorted by issues such as
uncertainty or fear. Finally, users can change their evaluations in the course of the
implementation process and even after the implementation because they will have more
information to assess the impact of the change.
4.5.1 Case study using the Equity Implementation Model.
Analysis of the article “Transition and Change during the Implementation of a Computer-Based
Manufacturing Process Planning System: An Analysis Using the Equity Implementation Model” by
Kailash Joshi & Thomas W. Lauer.
The article analyzes the “implementation of a computer-based manufacturing process
planning system in an automotive assembly plant”. We have chosen this article because it
deals with a real change process where we can identify the concepts that are explained in
the theoretical framework in a real context. Moreover it is relevant because changes in
information systems are really common nowadays and chances are that in one moment or
another an organization will have to face this type of initiative to gain efficiency or to
survive in the market. Additionally, successful implementation of modern technologies,
innovations and management science are seen to be critical for improving productivity and
competitive position of organizations (Clemons, 1986, Joshi, 1990)
It is important to note that obtaining the benefits that new technologies and systems can
provide depends on the acceptance and implementation of the employees (Delone &
Mclean 1992). Because of that reason it is crucial to carefully manage the change process so
that people who are involved are willing and committed to change.
The article is also valuable in the sense that it uses a specific method to analyze resistance
to change within organizations: the equity implementation model. We think it is helpful
because in the literature there are many references to the sources of resistance and the steps
to be taken in order to successfully implement change, however not many practical
methods are given to leaders in order to identify and evaluate the possible reactions of
human systems to change initiatives.
48
4.5.1.1 Background of the change:
The name of the company was changed by the authors of the study to preserve its
anonymity. They refer to it as CMC in the case study. The new technology system was
implemented in the Ecorse plant which is one of the oldest automotive assembly plants in
North America. Below we will state the most important facts that matter to understand the
development and consequences of the change process.
Workforce:
- Staff at Ecorse plant is one of the oldest in the company. The least seniority among
production workers is 17 years.
- The majority of production supervisors where promoted about 10-20 years ago.
The abilities that were highly valued for hiring supervisors at that time where their
ability to control the workforce based on intimidation and presence.
- Supervisors had three different tasks in their everyday work.
o Organizing the workforce in their zone of influence.
o Training new or transferred operators.
o Supply the necessary tools and materials to solve the assembly problems
with the help of manufacturing information sheets.
4.5.1.2 The problem:
The company was using manually generated manufacturing process sheets that were issued
once a year. The information contained in the sheets was about the breakdown of assembly
operations and the list of tools needed for each operation. The sheets were organized into
zone supervisor process books.
In the past, changes in the process sheets were only made once a year; however, in the
course of time changes in design and new car models were much more common. As a
result, the company decided to stop updating the sheets once a year. The new rule was to
update the sheets whenever some modification was done. That is where the problem began
and the necessity for change arose in the eyes of the managers of CMC. The manually
generated sheets were difficult to update so the process became inefficient since it required
lots of work and was difficult to finish on time.
49
4.5.1.3 The proposed solution/change:
To solve the problem a new computer-based manufacturing process planning system
(MPPS) was developed and introduced. The main objective of the new system was to
improve the work efficiency of engineers and zone supervisors. In particular, zone
supervisors were meant to use the information provided by the system to better manage
their production zone.
The system replaced the old manual process sheets. In addition, it included some
interesting features:
- Supervisors were able to see the details of the process in the computer screens.
- If there were any assembly problems supervisors could check if the process was
being done according to what was established in terms of tools used and release
level of the of the parts.
- Plant engineers could also use the system to assign time values and to allocate the
elements to individual operation stations.
- The new system was menu driven and required passwords for its usage. The
passwords enabled access to different user privileges. Some could only read
information and print whereas others could modify the information.
4.5.1.4 Implementation of the new system:
After having developed the new system and included all the information of the processes in
it, the implementation began.
The company focused on training the staff about the new system. First, they decided to
select a group of engineers who were familiar with computer usage and were also aware of
how the old process sheets worked. The selected engineers were educated to be trainers for
the new system implementation in the plant.
All the employees who were meant to be involved in one way or another in the utilization
of the new system were given 40 hours of training in the use MPPS. Additionally, staff with
no previous experience or knowledge about computers was also trained on that aspect.
The implementation of the new technology resulted in two different responses from
employees. Plant engineers and supervisors both belonging to the same company showed
quite opposite reactions to the change initiative.
50
Engineers:
- This group was familiar with computer technologies and readily understood the
usefulness that the new system was going to bring to their day-to-day work. As a
result, they began using the system as soon as it was available. Furthermore, they
also took a participative approach suggesting ideas to help with the improvement of
MPPS.
Zone Supervisors:
- The integrants of this group were not as enthusiastic as engineers with the new
system. In fact, the system faced great resistance coming from this group of
employees. Some did not begin to use the system after the training was completed
and others just used the system for the first few weeks and after they abandoned its
usage.
- Six months after the end of the training phase only 10 % of zone supervisors were
able to log onto the new system. Since changes in the Ecorse plant had been
minimal in the past 10 years these workers continued relying on their experience
and did not perceive or evaluate the new system as something useful or necessary
to their work activities. When they needed some information contained in the
system they asked engineers to print the specific information for them.
- With the increased introduction of innovations and changes the utilization of the
system was becoming a necessity. In spite of this fact only 50% of plant supervisors
learned the new system over a period of two years after several refreshing courses.
4.5.1.5 Analysis of the change based on the Equity Implementation Model:
For the evaluation of the change individuals follow the three levels of analysis.
In the first level employees analyze the impact that change has on them individually. To
assess this impact they calculate the net gain comparing inputs and outcomes. A summary
of the most important changes observed for this particular case is found in the following
table:
51
Figure 9: The most important changes observed during the change process in the company.
*Source: Joshi and W. Laurer (1999).
What we can see in the table is that engineers basically did not need to put much effort into
learning the new system thanks to the knowledge they already had. Apart from that, they
benefitted from many features of the new system that made their work more productive
and easier to perform therefore improving the whole work experience.
On the contrary, zone supervisors viewed how their previous skills became obsolete. These
skills needed to be replaced by others that were unfamiliar to them. Due to their
inexperience in the computer field they had to struggle a lot in order to learn the new
system. Additionally, their job security was affected since with the features included in the
new system it was easier to be monitored. Moreover, they were accountant to solve any
problem that could happen in their zone with the help of the new system. The overall
result for supervisors was a decline in net gains.
Concerning the second level of analysis it is quite obvious that the employer made some
gains with the new system since the aim of the introduction of MPPS was being able to
52
efficiently handle the more frequent changes in car models which results in a productivity
increase. In the case of supervisors they had limited options to benefit from the new
system since their lack of technical knowledge was an impediment for them for career
advancement. No visible benefits were passed to supervisors such as rewards or increases
in salary.
Engineers‟ importance increased with the new system since they had expertise in this field
so their role was more relevant after the change. They were also more prone to career
advancement since the environment was more connected to their background.
On the third level of analysis and after the previous comments it seems clear that
supervisors have the impression that engineers were better affected by the change than
them. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that there were no conflicts between both
groups of workers since plant engineers were eager to help supervisors when the latter
were asking for help. In this case, it seems that the third level was not really a big issue for
supervisors who were more concerned about their particular impact and not in the
comparison with other groups.
4.5.1.6 Conclusions:
The case was useful to draw some conclusions about the change process as well as the
phenomenon of resistance to change.
In the review of the literature we could see that many times resistance is considered as
something inevitable in the sense that any change initiative will face resistance that will
need to be overcome in order to make the change implementation easier. As we can see in
light of the case, plant engineers embraced the change process and even made it better with
their suggestions for improvement, showing an active and positive role in the change
process.
This example reveals that what people resist are the consequences of change and not
changes in general. The equity implementation model applied to engineers showed a
favorable situation for them due to the change initiative, therefore since the implications
for them were in general more positive than negative they were satisfied with this particular
change.
53
Another relevant aspect highlighted by this case study is the lack of planning that many
managers exhibit when it comes to the issue of resistance. They tend to pay much more
attention to the technical aspects of the change initiative therefore allocating less time and
efforts to the impact that change has on human systems. In this particular case, it was not
very difficult to predict the resistance coming from the supervisors group. There were
some indicators that could have been taken much more into account to foresee the
resistance coming from this group. First and foremost, the background of supervisors (no
previous computer skills) added with their high seniority make clear that such a
technological innovation was going to be hard for them to learn. Although it is true that
the company put efforts in the training process it seems evident that a single training
process was not efficient to tackle engineers and supervisors.
The degree of understanding and the previous skills in the computers area were really
dissimilar among both groups of employees so it should have been more convenient to
tailor a specific training for plant supervisors.
Besides the specific training, some communicational efforts could have been undertaken in
order to gain more commitment from the resistant group. For example, supervisors
seemed to disagree with the need of change. They though they still had enough with their
previous way of doing things to cope with the environment; after all they had been doing
this for 20 years. Regarding this issue the company should have tried to emphasize the
importance that the computerization of the process had to the survival of the company.
Some meetings and group conversations could have been appropriate to convince
supervisors about the change relevance as a way to remain competitive in the market.
It is also important to note the different responses that can happen as a consequence of a
change process. Not all the staff will react in the same way. This fact adds complexity to
the management of resistance to change and should be considered by leaders so that they
can effectively deal with this issue. Kotter and Scheslinger (1979) argue that even though
managers are aware that resistance is an important factor they take few time to assess who
might resist change and what could be the reasons for this resistance. In addition, one
relevant problem is that managers often “apply some simple set of beliefs” such as
“engineers will probable resist change because they are independent and suspicious of top
management”. This is a limited approach that is far from reality and that can be a primal
cause for change failures.
54
Another significant point is to acknowledge the possibility of failure even when changes are
necessary. In this case, the necessity of change was clear; the old process was becoming
outdated since it could not handle the new demands in the form of more designs and more
frequent car models. The key thing to realize here is that even changes that are planned and
not reactive can fail. Maybe labeling this case as a complete failure is too harsh but at least
we can say that it did not reach the expectations that were set. The fact that only 50 % of
plant supervisors learned the new system over two years period even after refreshing
courses shows that the process was not really successful.
4.6 Coping with resistance to change:
In this part we will review communication and participation since we think these are two
critical aspects in order to effectively implement change and reduce the negative effects of
resistance while harnessing the positive ones. In case that change still fails to reach the
expected outcomes we suggest learning from the mistakes made.
4.6.1 Participation, involvement:
Participation and involvement have been recognized as quite effective methods that can
benefit the change process and reduce the negative aspects of resistance to change.
The positive outcomes of involving participants in the process of change are included in
most of the research concerning change management. Lewin (1991) and Coch and French
(1948) both concluded that involvement in the learning, planning and implementation
stages of a change process significantly influence commitment to change and apparently
lower resistance.
Other researchers following the same line argue that participative management, by using a
set of techniques consisting in two way communication, information sharing and
consultation tend to produce committed rather than compliant employees (Kotter et al.,
1986, p. 355; Makin et al., 1989, p. 165; White and Bednar, 1991, p. 510).
A large survey and indepth case studies in Dutch organizations (Bennebroek Gravenhorst
et al., 2003) suggest that top-down change approaches and the conduct of change managers
and top managers seem to be the primary focus of resistance.
Participation should be carefully implanted. It is not just letting the stakeholders express
their ideas, concerns and suggestions; they should feel that all these opinions are valued and
55
taken into account. When employees repeatedly find that they never use any of their
suggestions they will begin to realize that the participation implanted in this situation is just
an illusion since all decisions are still made by the top management (Van Dijk & Van Dick
2009).
Peter Bregman CEO of Bregman Partners a global consulting company also supports the
idea of allowing participation and sharing decision making with employees. He argues that
people freely choose to make major life changes every day; changes such as getting married,
moving to another country or learning a new language. Nevertheless, changes in
organizations usually encounter resistance by the same people who are willing to make
changes in their own lives. Therefore there must be a difference between the personal and
the professional life that makes individuals be ready to change in one situation but not in
the other. The answer provided by Bregman is that people do not resist change, they resist
being changed. In their personal lives people make their own choices but at work those
changes are imposed. His advice is to give people control, letting them making decisions.
The process has three steps:
1. Defining the outcome that you as a leader want to reach.
2. Suggest a path to get this outcome.
3. Allow people to reject the proposed path as long as they choose an alternative route
leading to the same destination.
Kanter et al. (1992) identify three different roles in the change process:
Strategists: usually these positions are held by leaders, CEOs, managers and consultants.
Their role is identifying the need of change and initiating the process.
Implementors: Commonly line-managers are playing this role in the change process. They
translate the goals of the teams into the divisions, departments and teams in the
organization. They are in charge of the day-to-day process of change.
Recipients: People usually in positions at the bottom of the hierarchy who must adapt and
adopt change.
The paradox is that usually recipients of change form the largest group in the organization
but in most cases their role in the change process is rather passive (Bennebroek 2003).
Therefore a big part of the resistance can be encountered when part of the stakeholders are
56
not included in the design and implementation of the change process. Kanter et al. (1992)
say that recipients can fundamentally reshape change but their behaviors determine
whether a change will stick or not.
A good example of participation can be seen in General Electric‟s workout process.
Armenakis & Harris (2011) pointed that benefits attributed to employee participation “are
particularly visible in the work-out process invented by General Electric”. The process
consists of empowering a group of employees to analyze and propose solutions to
problems that they deal with directly.
The method was created by Jack Welch. In his own words he wanted to “create an open
collaborative workplace where everyone‟s opinion was welcome”. He developed work-out
to harness the collective power of General Electrics‟ employees, create a free flow of ideas,
and redefine the relationships between boss and subordinates.
According to Ulrich et al. (2002) Work-Out “is not a program or activity, it is a
methodology to support organizational change, solve problems, and help managers to get
results”. In the same line, Labate (2010) argues that work-out is “a simple straightforward
methodology for cutting bureaucracy and solving problems quickly”. The underlying idea is
to harness the intelligence of the workers closest to a problem. The process can be divided
into four basic steps:
1- The first thing to do is getting together people who know best about the issues that
will be treated.
2- Afterwards challenge the group of people from the first step to develop creative
solutions.
3- Thirdly, the one guiding the work-out process will make yes or no decisions on the
proposed solutions.
4- Finally, people are empowered to carry out the solutions.
Work-out not only serves as a problem solving tool but also creates an empowered
workforce since employees feel that their ideas and suggestions are taken into account
and have an impact in the organization. In addition it helps to create a culture that is
fast-moving, focused on innovation and unconcerned about boundaries. Leaders also
can benefit from the program by developing his skills as listeners.
57
To conclude we can say that involving some resistors in the process of design or
implementation can lead to commitment from the employees and not mere compliance.
Allowing participation is a key aspect to be able to benefit from employees‟ feedback about
the change. Without giving voice to the employees it is almost impossible to harness the
possible benefits of resistance. Nevertheless, as argued by (Kotter & Schlesinger 1979),
leaders should be aware that participation requires time so in situations where really fast
responses are needed it might be difficult to involve all the participants in the process.
4.6.2 Communication
Lack of communication is seen as a major problem when analyzing unsuccessful change
processes. Studies on organizational change show that companies‟ inability to keep
employees and other stakeholders informed about how the changes are to proceed in
organizations are quite common (Chung-Fang 2010)
Communication is described as an indistinguishable part of organizational change efforts
and is considered as a crucial factor in planning, implementing and managing change
according to experts in the field of change (DiFonzo, Bordia, 1998; Lewis, Seibold, 1998;
Schweiger, Denisi, 1991) and practitioners (Lewis, 1999). The authors agree that a number
of negative change aspects (resistance to change also) are influenced by poor
communication (DiFonzo et al., 1994; Smelzer, Zener, 1992).
Communication is defined as “the process by which information is exchanged and
understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate or influence
behavior”. Communication is the process on which the initiation and maintenance of
organizational change depends. Ultimately the success of any change effort depends on
how effectively the strategy for and the substance of the change is communicated to those
who are the targets of change (Witherspoon, Wohlert, 1996).
Many researchers have noted the benefits that effective communication can offer to
organizations seeking change implementation. Schweiger and Denisi (1991) mentioned that
“multiple forms of employee communication were linked to higher satisfaction,
commitment and perceptions of trust and caring compared to the control group which did
not receive this information”. In addition, communication with employees keeping them
informed about change progress along with appropriate training was shown to foster
58
confidence and the necessary skills to make the transition (Davy et al., 1988; Petchers et al.,
1988; Koonce, 1991; Newman and Krzystofiak, 1993; Fairfield-Sonn et al., 2002).
Uncertainty is predominant when changes are proposed. Employees evaluate uncertainty as
a threat. Uncertainty is based on doubtful feelings about changes outcomes or job
insecurity among other factors. Communication helps to diminish the level of uncertainty
by providing accurate information (Hoag et al., 2002).
Allen et al. (2007) argue that effective communication during times of changes ultimately
depends on the ability of the information provided to address the concerns that employees
hold. Moreover, these authors point that communication is basically focused on strategic
issues only. These strategic issues are useful in the first steps of change, but afterwards
employees‟ concerns tend to shift to more job-related issues that should be addressed. In
addition Allen et al. (2007) found that the level of trust of the source of information was a
good predictor for employees‟ attitudes towards change along with the quality of
information.
Zairi (1992) argues that communication should not be a process of telling and informing
but an exchange of ideas, thoughts, fears and reservations. The important part of this
statement is the term exchange which emphasizes the participation and involvement of
employees in the communication process so that it can smooth change implementation.
Communication is an ideal method to tackle resistance coming from inadequate or
inaccurate information analysis from the recipients of change. It helps to convince people
of the need of change. Some methods can include one-on-one discussions, presentations to
groups, conferences, reports (Kotter & Schlessinger 1979).
The first step for leaders in order to effectively develop communication skills begins by
realizing that communication has a key role in the process of change (Pundziené et al.
2007). The previous authors provide some of key aspects that are relevant for leaders in
order to effectively communicate:
4.6.2.1 Usage of appropriate language – speaking comprehensively:
To accomplish this task it is first useful to indentify the audience/s that leaders are
addressing. It will be different to speak to the shareholders than the employees. Therefore
the leader should tailor his speech according to the characteristics of the group that he is
59
addressing. In addition, it includes using a language that can be clearly understood by the
target group since sometimes paying too much attention to details or focusing on technical
concepts can hinder the understanding of the core message that leaders what to convey.
4.6.2.2 Active listening:
Hoppe (2007) defines active listening as a “person‟s willingness and ability to hear and
understand”. In addition, Scarnati (1998) refers to active listeners as people who are
involved in the listening process. Many leaders take for granted their ability to effectively
listen, however a task that seems to be simple is not carried properly quite often.
Scarnati (1998) states that research on effective leaders shows that they spend around 70%
of their time communicating. Moreover, 45 % of their communication is in the form of
listening.
One of the reasons that hinder our capacity to be active listeners has its origin in our own
nature. Robbins (1998) points that “the average person speaks at a rate of 150 words per
minute, whereas we have the capacity to listen at the rate of over 1,000 words per minute”.
The gap between our capacity of listening and the actual rate of words when we speak
provokes that people can easily get distracted. As a consequence people are not fully
concentrated on what the other person is saying.
Another barrier for active listening is a lack of know-how. When referring to leadership
qualities there is great emphasis in communicating the vision and it also seems that the
leader should have all the answers to the problems therefore not much attention is placed
on listening.
Hope (2007) identifies six necessary skills in order to become an active listener. We will
introduce each of the 6 skills according to the author:
1- Paying attention: is meant to be a primary goal when attempting to be an active
listener. It refers to giving the other person opportunity and time to think and
express his ideas. Moreover, it is about .being interested in what the speaker is
saying. It is recommended to make sure to give non-verbal affirmations such as
nodding so that the other person notices that you are attentive and you understand
the message. Additionally, the listener should pay careful attention to non-verbal
60
communication to further make sense of the real message that the speaker wants to
transmit.
2- Holding judgment: the author highlights the importance to be open-minded;
meaning that one should be open to new ideas, perspectives and possibilities.
It should be noted that depending on many factors such as the experience, the
background and the context each person will have a unique perspective of the
situation. Consequently, it is not uncommon that the leader does not have the same
understanding of the situation than the employee. To reflect this open-mindedness,
leaders should not jump at the first word of disagreement that they listen to.
Instead they should remain silent and let the speaker continue since the main
objective is listening and understanding and not judging nor criticizing the other
person.
Empathy is a desired quality for active listeners. It refers to “the ability to share
someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in
their situations” (Cambridge Online Dictionary). In light of the definition we can
see that it is a basic attribute to understand the situation through the lens of
another person.
3- Reflecting: is based on periodically demonstrating the other person that we are
tracking the information that he is transmitting. The listener should paraphrase
from time to time the words that the speaker says. The word paraphrase is
intentionally used since the listener is not meant to show agreement or
disagreement but understanding. Reflecting is done since one as listener cannot
assume that he is getting all the information correctly. Mentioning the key points
stated by the speaker is a good way to approach this issue.
One can introduce the arguments by saying “let‟s make sure that I understand what
you are saying…” or “If I have understood correctly …”
Understanding the emotional message embedded in the content is also important;
this is however a more challenging task. The listener must pay attention to the
content, the tone of the voice and the body language.
4- Clarifying: refers to seeking information when one thinks that something is unclear
or ambiguous. Different kinds of questions can be used to accomplish this purpose.
Open-ended questions are used because they provide broad-based responses. They
allow the other person to express himself and share his feelings and intentions.
61
Some examples of this type of questions are: What do you think about…?, What
does that mean to you? How did u make that choice?
Clarifying questions are used to ensure understanding and clear up confusion. For
instance, one can ask the other person to repeat something or to be more specific
in a certain aspect.
Finally we have probing questions which introduce new ideas or suggestions. They
are meant to foster deeper understanding by seeking for more details referred to a
certain topic.
5- Summarizing: or saying again the main points that the speaker has said during the
conversation to confirm that the listener has understood the speaker‟s point of
view. Furthermore, it helps both parties to be clear on mutual responsibilities and
follow up. The summary can be done by the listener or can be asked to be done by
the speaker.
6- Sharing: being an active listener does not mean that one should be passive and quiet
all the time. As time passes the listener gains knowledge about the situation
therefore he can introduce his own ideas and suggestions, address any concern or
collaborate to solve any problem that could have been raised during the
conversation.
4.6.2.3 Encouragement of feedback
It should be promoted by the leader when he communicates a message. One of the main
reasons to encourage feedback is to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the message. In
other words, to make sure that what one has said has been understood the way it should.
For instance, if the leader has just explained a task to an employee it is desirable to ask if
the employee has any doubts or questions and also let the employee explain his perspective.
The previous explanation was more directed to oral feedback however the company can
use other methods of getting feedback such as surveys or emails.
4.6.2.4 Development of a climate of trust:
As we could see in the part devoted to resistance (Chapter 4.1.7) one of the sources of
resistance is organizational cynicism. The major contributor to cynicism is lack of trust.
When cynicism is at play, employees think that the proposed changes might have hidden
aspects besides what they have been told. As a result, communicational efforts will be
62
ineffective since the words of the leader will not be trusted. For these reasons leaders
should work hard on building trust in the organization.
4.6.2.5 Understanding of communication channels:
In his research Professor Albert Mehrabian of UCLA established that the impact of our
communication can be divided into three categories. 55 % of the impact is attributed to
body language, 38 % to the tone of the voice and only 7% to the words. These figures
should not be considered as something strict since the experiments were based on
communications dealing with feelings and attitudes but still we can acknowledge the
importance of paying attention to non-verbal communication and not only to words.
Bridges and Mitchell have developed a simple model to deal with communication in times
of change. They advice leaders to concentrate on communicating the “Four P’s of Transition”
that emphasize connections with and concern for people (Mitchell 2003):
1. The purpose: Why we have to do this.
2. The picture: What it will look and feel like when we reach our goal.
3. The plan: Step-by-step, how we will get there.
4. The part: What you can (and need to) do to help us move forward.
4.6.2.6 Learning from Failure:
It is clear that organizations aim for success but when failures appear a good reaction can
make the difference. The relevant aspect is to learn from failures since they help people to
understand what they have to address in order to improve. Not only exists the possibility to
learn from our own mistakes but also from the ones happening around us. Sitkin (1996)
after analyzing the way different types of organizations learn from failure concludes that it
is a fundamental part of the learning process in organizations. Additionally, he considers
that minor failures should not be hidden. He explains that often employees and managers
are not willing to admit small failures because of the possible negative consequences. This
attitude does not benefit the organization since they are not able to respond and recognize
a potential crisis that might be intensified in the future.
63
Sitkin (1996) also states that in “successful organizations failure creates recognition of risk
and a motivation for change that otherwise would not exist”. Moreover, he points
“intelligent failures” as the ones which possess more potential for organizational learning.
These failures have 5 characteristics according to Sitkin‟s criteria:
1- They are “carefully planned” so that people in the organization are able to identify
why things went wrong at a certain point.
2- They are genuinely uncertain, so the outcome cannot be known ahead of time.
3- They are modest in scale, so that a catastrophe does not result.
4- They are managed quickly, so that not too much time elapses between the outcome
and interpretation.
5- Something about what is learned is familiar enough to inform other parts of the
business.
Learning from failure presents 3 different opportunities.
1- Vicarious learning: also known as observational learning happens when
organizations take advantage of the learning that comes from failures experienced
by similar companies. Through this learning firms take the necessary measures to
avoid the mistakes that have been made by other competitors.
An example of vicarious leaning was seen after Nike‟s problem in Vietnam. The
firm suffered a boycott of their products due to accusations of workers abuse in the
previously mentioned country. The decrease in sales made the persons in charge of
the company to take the problem into serious consideration by announcing new
standards for workers and safety inspections in Asian factories. As a means of
avoiding similar situations, rivals (Reebok and Adidas) adopted similar standards.
As we can see, competitors did not wait to have similar problems to take the
necessary steps to solve the potential problem.
2- Organizational memory: refers to the retention of knowledge that is accumulated as
a result of the observation of successes and failures. Maintaining this knowledge is
not a simple task since it fundamentally belongs to individuals. Given that these
individuals can move to another organization or retire it is necessary that
knowledge is distributed to new members in order to preserve it within
organizations.
3- Unlearning: it based on the process of discarding learnt practices and policies that
have become outdated by environmental changes. It may sound easy to discard
64
knowledge however participants in organization often become comfortable with
the existing way of doing things making unlearning problematic.
Until organizations realize that current practices constrain their ability to respond
to crisis unlearning is not effectively achieved (Huber 1996).
65
5-TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Leaders have a major role in the change process. Kotter (1995) argues that the importance
of leadership is accentuated by the fact that “change requires creating a new system and
then institutionalizing new approaches”. Leaders are responsible for guiding people
through the transition process. During times of change employees will expect well-timed
communication, effective decision-making and adequate planning. Furthermore,
employees will seek support from the leader to help them with the change process. In
addition, the way of exerting leadership will have a significant impact on the levels of
resistance encountered during the change. As we have already mentioned if the leader
chooses a top-down approach and or neglects to take into account the impact of the
change on employees the organization will likely face negative resistance.
There are multiple leadership styles; however some scholars have pointed that
transformational leadership is appropriate in times of change (Bennis & Nanus 1985). In
addition, Tichy & Devanna (1985) argue that a dynamic, changing environment may
require a change-oriented or transformational style of leadership. Therefore, we think it is
interesting to include a description of this leadership style in our work.
The main objective of this part is to depict the main attributes and characteristics related to
transformational leadership. To allow better understanding of this leadership style we will
relate all the aspects to a concrete example. We have chosen Josep „Pep‟ Guardiola (current
coach of FC Barcelona) to illustrate the concepts about transformational leadership.
5.1 Background:
In this part we will explain the background of the situation to provide an accurate picture
of the context related to the case of Guardiola as leader.
Barcelona had not won any title in two years. This is something that is considered as a
failure for a team whose budget is one the biggest in the football world with around 400
million euros a year. The team was being criticized by the press and the supporters. There
was a bad atmosphere in the locker room since some players were not really committed
and often arrived late to the trainings.
A proof of the disenchantment that supporters were feeling was the vote of censure that
happened in 2008. More than 60% of the voters wanted the former president Joan Laporta
66
to abandon his position. However, the demanding legislation of the club required 66% of
the votes in order to be successful, so the president stayed.
To sum up the situation of the club was far from promising. The club needed a
transformation. After deliberating with several candidates Barcelona's president decided to
give a chance to Josep Guardiola. At that time, he was the coach of Barcelona's youth
team. Guardiola managed to advance this team to the next division in his first year as
coach.
Barcelona was in an urgency situation which demanded to win titles at all costs. As a result,
many people were not comfortable with the election of Pep as coach. The main argument
was that he had no previous experience in training at top level so people believed that
maybe it was too early for him to take this position.
In the beginning of the league, the team only managed to get one point out of six against
weaker opponents. It seemed that people's critics were right and that Guardiola was not
ready for this challenge. However, this was only a mirage since the season ended as the
most glorious of all Barcelona's history. The team won the three major competitions
(League, Champions League and League Cup). This achievement was only made by four
other teams in the whole history. Not even bitter rivals Real Madrid have managed to lift
the three titles in the same year even though they have been recognized as the best club of
the twentieth century.
Currently, Guardiola is in his third year as coach of FC Barcelona and has already managed
to lift ten titles.
We think that such transformation in a team has not only been a result of good players but
also because of the good leadership of the trainer Pep Guardiola. We want to mention that
we have tried to be as objective as possible in the description of the leader considering that
one of the authors supports FC Barcelona. In addition, we are not the only ones
supporting this opinion since there are some authors who have written books about the
leadership exerted by Guardiola. For instance we have „Liderazgo Guardiola‟ who uses
Guardiola as an example of good leadership which can be extrapolated to the business
world.
67
5.2 Transformational leadership characteristics:
The concept of transformational leadership was first articulated by Burns in a political
science context and later formulated into a theory of leadership by Bass (Mao & Long
2007). In his research Burns made a difference between transactional (ordinary leaders)
and transformational (extraordinary leaders).
Transactional leadership is based in an exchange relationship between leaders and
followers. Followers comply with leaders' wishes in exchange of something such as wages
or prestige. This style usually includes some behaviors such as:
- Contingent rewards: after clarifying the tasks to be done by employees and their
responsibilities leaders use different rewards and incentives to modulate behavior
depending on how the employees meet the desired expectations.
- Passive Management by exception: in this case the leader takes a rather passive role
and only intervenes after the errors have been detected or after standards have
been violated (Rowold & Schlotz 2009).
- Active management by exception: contrary to the previous category the leader
engages in active monitoring of the tasks and activities to correct possible
deviations from the desired path.
On the other hand, transformational leadership occurs when leaders “broaden and elevate
the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the
purposes and the mission of the group and when they stir their employees to look beyond
their own self-interest for the good of the group” ( Bass, 1990). In light of the previous
definition, transformational leadership can reduce the level of resistance to change by
creating congruence between employees' interest with the organizational vision (Long &
Mao 2008).
Thus, while transactional leadership may lead to expected performance, transformational
leadership has the potential to result in performance beyond expectations. (Gang Wang et
al 2011).
After clarifying the concept we will continue with the characteristics attributed to
transformational leaders. We will begin for what is known as the Four I‟s and then we will
add some other attributes also identified in the literature about this topic.
68
5.3 The “4” Common I’s:
5.3.1 Idealized Influence: (II) (Also known as charismatic leadership)
"Transformational leaders behave in ways that allow them to serve as role models for their
followers" (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6). That is to say they lead by example. In addition,
followers admire them and want to emulate them. The relationship between the leader and
the followers is based on respect, admiration and trust (Simic 1998).
Another important aspect is the fact that followers admire the virtues and capabilities of
the leader. As a result of this confidence and admiration towards the leader, when trying to
implement changes, the followers will be less likely to resist the proposal. We can link then
transformational leadership with decreased level of cynicism since, as it was mentioned in
the sources of resistance to change, cynics doubt about the proposed change in part
because they think that the initiators of change are incompetent and unmotivated.
One the core values that Guardiola has promoted in Barcelona is hard-work. In the press
conference of his presentation as coach of FC Barcelona he said “I will forgive that they
miss, but I will not tolerate that they do not put effort”. The coach not only demands
hard-work to his players but also to himself. People close to Guardiola have pointed that
sometimes he spends more than 12 hours a day working for the club without stopping for
eating. This fact highlights his willingness to serve as an example for his players and the
passion he has about his profession.
Respect and admiration towards Guardiola also comes from his humility. First, he always
values the opponent no matter how strong they are. It is a sign of respect and also a
strategy to avoid falling into over-confidence when facing weaker rivals. Second, there are
some specific behaviors that show his humility:
- He bought his own big screen for his office to analyze the rivals instead of asking
the club to pay for it.
- He does not allow individual interviews and he explains the reason with the
following words:
“Why am I going to give an interview to some powerful guy and I'm going to deny
it to some small provincial reporter? Why would I run to the number one
69
broadcaster every time they call instead of going to a small radio town station?
What is the purpose to do things like that? My own interest? That is advantageous”.
- The team has Audi as sponsor. The brand, in order to enhance its image and
prestige offers a free car to all the football players as well as the coach so that
people always sees their favorite stars driving an Audi. Guardiola turned down the
offer since he felt that it was unfair that he was given a car and his assistants not
(second coach, goalkeeper trainer and the others conforming the staff).
5.3.2 Inspirational motivation: (IM)
Transformational leaders act in ways that “motivate and inspire their followers by
providing meaning and challenge to their followers‟ work” (Bass 1998). For this purpose
these leaders resort to public speeches, conversations or meetings to name a few examples.
Pep also has brilliant motivational qualities. The evidence supporting the last argument is
that after winning everything the team was able to keep winning titles. They have won
fewer titles than the first season, however this was something to expect since winning all
the titles at play does not happen every year. We can say that he was able to keep the
hunger of his players despite the success.
The most popular motivational action was seen in the Champions league final against
Manchester United in 2009. Guardiola shortened the warm-up, so while Manchester
players were on the field Pep took his players into the locker room. There he put a video
to his players to motivate and energize them. He had asked some friends to make a special
video. The final was in Rome and the video was inspired in the movie Gladiator. Basically
the video showed images of the movie alternated with fragments of the best moments of
the team during the season such as goals or spectacular plays. Guardiola also made sure
that all the players forming the squad appeared in the video further highlighting the
importance of everyone to form the team. This emphasis on teamwork can be summarized
in words of Maximus (interpreted by Russel Crowe) “Whatever comes out of these gates,
we‟ve got a better chance of survival if we work together”.
Inspirational motivation also relies on the capacity of the leader to project confidence and
optimism. Followers have to perceive that the leader believes in the vision that he has
proposed since this vision will help the organization to improve. Furthermore, leaders
show confidence on his employees' capabilities. Optimism will combat possible fear of
70
failure feelings and the confidence on the capabilities of the employees will help them to
have more interest and assurance that they will be able to develop the new skills required
for the change.
A proof of the optimism and confidence that Guardiola has on his players could be seen
after the defeat against Arsenal in 2011 in the first leg of the round prior to quarterfinals.
They lost 2-1 and the coach was asked about his feelings about the second match. He said
“the players have given me enough reasons to be optimistic” and he added “allow me to
have faith in my players. They have done a lot of good things during too much time”.
Finally, Barcelona won the second match and advanced to the next round.
5.3.3 Intellectual stimulation: (IS)
It is based on the ability to stimulate the efforts of the followers towards innovativeness
and creativity. Transformational leaders are constantly reexamining and challenging
existing assumptions. They encourage innovation creating an atmosphere where there is no
fear of punishment therefore facilitating followers‟ creativity (Bass 1998).
In the case of Guardiola we can link intellectual stimulation with two processes. First,
Guardiola has been able to encourage some players to play in different positions with a
great performance. Usually, many players just play at their best in a single position.
However, Guardiola has challenged some of his players to adapt their skills to other
positions to have more possibilities in terms of strategies and chances to play. For instance,
Messi who is used to play as right wing is now able to play as forward when Guardiola
thinks it can be better in order to defeat a particular opponent.
Moreover we can link IS to Guardiola‟s capacity to enhance players‟ performance; above
all in young players belonging to the youth team of Barcelona. In this case we have the
examples of Pedro Rodriguez and Sergio Busquets. Both players were in the reserve team,
however since Guardiola came they have experienced a radical transformation. They have
gone from playing in Third division to playing in the first team and also in the Spanish
national team in a time span of one year. This argument clearly points Pep‟s capacity to
recruit and develop talent.
71
5.3.4 Individual Consideration (IC):
This feature refers to the capacity of the leader to individually analyze their followers
(Simic 1998). It means that the leader is aware of the potential differences between their
followers and demonstrates acceptance for these differences (Bass 1998). Transformational
leaders are able to diagnose followers‟ needs, wishes and abilities in the right way.
Bass (1998) points that a “two-way exchange in communication is encouraged. Good
leaders are meant to be good listeners in this communication process. In contrast, not so
good leaders are good talkers”.
Additionally, Individualized consideration can play an important role in coping with
resistance since as it was already mentioned transformational leaders take care about
particular employees' concerns. In this way the leader shows understanding about the
reasons why concrete individuals resist changing and offers solutions and support to them.
Guardiola excels at paying attention to details and showing individualized consideration for
his players' problems. There are two clear examples to illustrate this point. First, even
before he was coach of the first team he went to visit Gabriel Milito to the hospital. The
Argentinean player had undergone surgery because of a knee injury. Even though he was
busy with the reserve team as well as with his new daughter he visited the defender and
spent almost three hours talking with him.
On another occasion Thierry Henry was having a hard time since his performance was not
in accordance with his quality. He was receiving critics and was disappointed. Guardiola
who was aware of the situation decided to invite him to a dinner to encourage him and
show his confidence on the player. In the next match Henry scored a hat-trick against
Valencia.
Another feature attributed to transformational leaders is their willingness to take the blame
when mistakes happen instead of looking for scapegoats. Guardiola always assumes the
responsibility when things go wrong avoiding blaming players or other circumstances; but
praises his players for the good things. For instance, when Barcelona lost against Sevilla in
King‟s cup in 2010 he said “we have lost and therefore I was wrong, but I want to make
clear that when we won the six titles, we won them all together (referring the titles that the
team won in the previous one and a half year”.
72
In the concept of Transformational leadership the vision also has a crucial importance. We
have seen many authors highlighting this aspect such as Kotter in his eight steps for
leading change as well as Bennis and Nanus in their book “Leadership strategies for taking
charge”. The vision or desired future proposed by the leader challenges the old beliefs
promoting a future picture which considerably improves the actual situation. Furthermore,
the leader has to formulate a strategy for achieving this vision; otherwise the vision is
useless.
Guardiola‟s vision can be summarized in a single word “winning”. Saying only this seems
far for impressing since the aim of every sports club is to win. However in this case the
relevance stems in the way to achieve this vision.
The strategy to win is what makes the difference between Barcelona and the rest of the
teams. Guardiola declares himself a fan of offensive football; he likes to dominate the
matches. He says that he is calm when his team has the ball because when they have it, it is
more difficult to concede a goal. We can say that he is a firm believer of the adage “the
best defense is a good offense”.
A proof that he works towards this way of playing is the fact that since he is the trainer of
Barcelona the team has always had more ball possession than the opponent even when
losing the match. In addition to this overwhelming ball possession we have the great
capacity to score goals with an average close to 3 goals per match.
Barcelona and his coach are not only admired because of their successes winning titles but
also for the way they play. Barcelona style of playing is based on a fluid passing system and
very talented players who are able to do the impossible. The result is a spectacular football
well-liked by fans all over the globe.
Transformational leaders are individuals led by values (Simic 1998). We have mentioned
hard-work as a core value. But there is another one which is also essential: we are talking
about teamwork.
Most of Guardiola‟s endeavors are directed towards emphasizing the relevance of the team
over the individuals. That it is to say team goals over individual accomplishments. In
words of Pep “I only get angry with my players when they think more in themselves than
in the team”. This feature further identifies Guardiola as a transformational leader since he
73
is able to motivate his followers to transcend their own interests for some other collective
purpose (Feinberg, Ostroff & Burke, 2005, p. 471).
Other attribute linked to transformational leaders is courage. Certainly, to produce changes
they need to assume risks in order to challenge the status quo.
Pep is a coach willing to take risks and making important decisions always aligned to the
values he wants to instill in the club and the players. A sample of this statement is the
decision he made when he took over his position. He decided to communicate the board
of directors that he did not want in the team Ronaldinho and Deco. These two players
were transferred to FC Barcelona for a total amount of 50 million euros. Moreover, they
were worldwide stars with prestige. For instance, Ronaldinho won the award of the best
football player of the season 2005/2006. Even though, the performance of both players
was below their level in the last year many fans still believed in them. What we want to
remark with all these details is that it was an unpopular decision; however Guardiola made
it relying on his values. Guardiola said “we want to make a team and these two players are
not in our agenda”.
He refused to maintain these players because they were too individualistic and did not care
about the group. They created a bad atmosphere, something that is contrary to Guardiola‟s
objectives. In addition, Juan Carlos Cubeiro who is a coach and consultant of Eurotalent
as well as co-author of “Liderazgo Guardiola” points that in the quest for talent;
commitment capacity is increasing its importance. In other words, talented players without
commitment will not build a strong team.
In this case we think Guardiola predicted the resistance to change from these two players.
He thought that they were not going to be able to modify their behavior to adapt to the
new values that Guardiola wanted for his team so it was best to sell them. In this respect,
Kotter points in one of his videos that some people when facing a change will always say
“no no” and they will resist to death. He continues by saying that usually we tend to
change the mind of these people. However, according to him the best thing is to get them
“out of the way no matter who they are in terms of power or relationships”. The reason to
advice this is because if you let them in the company “they will do so much damage that
the change will be undermined”.
74
As it has been said Guardiola‟s lack of experience as coach of high level teams was one of
the disadvantages of his election. However if we look closer at his background in this
particular case we will see that he was not as inexperienced as it could seem at first glance.
It is true that he had been training only for one year but there were key factors that
counterbalanced this inexperience especially in the case of FC Barcelona:
Guardiola was in FC Barcelona‟s structure since he was 13 years old. Moreover he spent
10 years playing for the first team of Barcelona, most of these years he was the captain of
the team. He also played for the national team, and after leaving Barcelona he went to
Italy, Qatar and Mexico. The point is to notice that he was immersed in the culture of FC
Barcelona for many years. As a Catalonian, and former Barcelona player he was aware of
the values that made the team grow such as quality, respect, courage, work and
responsibility. Also his experience as player allows him to better understand and lead his
players.
75
6-CONCLUSIONS:
We began our work talking about organizational change. In this respect we can highlight
the pivotal role that change and change management have acquired in our society.
Specially, because of the fast-moving environment firms are required to change more than
ever. We saw that despite the information available about the topic in forms of models to
implement change and recommendations successful changes are quite infrequent.
Within the list of causes responsible for failures we decided to focus on resistance to
change. After analyzing the concept of resistance to change we concluded that focusing on
it just as an obstacle to overcome is not the best approach to follow; even though we
acknowledge that resistance also causes problems. We decided that managing resistance
was a best alternative to take advantage of the possible benefits that resistance can bring
such as enhancing the change process with employees‟ suggestions and concerns, bringing
energy and motivation to the change process or attaining innovations.
With this logic behind we proposed the equity implementation model to diagnose
resistance which is a basic step to uncover the nature of resistance and manage it
effectively.
The model explains the degree of resistance following a three-level analysis based on the
impacts on equity. Equity is altered by modifications in the incomes and outcomes
produced by the change. In the first level individuals evaluate the net gain resulting from
the alterations of inputs and outcomes that change has produced. Individuals are
concerned about the fairness of the change process; therefore they compare the results that
have obtained in the first level with the employer (level 2) and also with other groups of
reference (level 3).
In light of the case study using this model we could see that employees may have different
reactions to the same change initiative. This issue emphasizes the idea that managing
resistance requires acknowledging differences and not applying the same beliefs for the
whole organization. Another conclusion was that change even when the reason for
changing is appropriate can fail.
In addition to diagnosing resistance we described the role of communication and
participation concerning our topic.
76
Communication is a critical skill to manage resistance effectively. It directly affects many
sources of resistance to change. Timely and complete information will help to avoid
misunderstandings about the proposed change. In addition information will help to reduce
uncertainty and fear of unknown by shedding light about all the aspects of the change
process. Finally, transparent communication also allows building a climate of trust toward
the leader so that employees value the change objectively and do not think that there are
hidden agendas in the change.
We have also reviewed the most important aspects to communicate effectively: speaking
comprehensively, active listening, developing a climate of trust, encouraging feedback and
understanding the communication channels.
Participation has also a major importance in the effectiveness of change and the
management of resistance. Forcing or pushing employees to change will lead to compliant
employees in this best scenario, whereas participation and involvement can lead to
commitment and willingness to change. Participation is the path to harnessing the positive
effects that resistance can bring to the change process. Giving voice to employees will
allow the organization to receive feedback about the change. After having this feedback the
organization can assess the appropriateness of this feedback so that they can take into
account the concerns and suggestions made by the participants in order to improve the
process. Furthermore, participation will enhance employees‟ optimism and confidence
since they see that their opinions are taken into account and contribute to the
organizational goals. Finally by participating in the process employees will be less cynical
since they have the possibility to better understand the decisions made and avoid thinking
that leaders are acting to ensure their own interests and not the ones of the whole
organization.
A part from communication and participation we have analyzed transformational
leadership as a top contributor to effective change implementation. This leadership style as
we have seen is capable of bringing changes to organizations. Their capacity to motivate
people to transcend their own interests in favor of organizational ones makes them
minimize resistance based on personal self-interest. Moreover, individual consideration
makes these leaders acknowledge the differences in terms of adaptation that different
individuals may have. In this way they can work with people to understand their concerns
and work together to develop solutions.
77
Transformational leader‟s also gain employees‟ admiration and trust through their
behaviors such as leading by example. This faith in the leader allows lower levels of
cynicism resulting in a better acceptance toward change initiatives. Finally, the optimism
and confidence that the leader demonstrates makes the participants focusing on improving
instead of fearing failure.
Despite our recommendations organizational change can fail because it is a complex issue
with many factors to take into consideration; therefore we have also reviewed the
possibility of learning from failure. In this respect, we highlighted the chance to learn from
other competitor‟s mistakes (vicarious learning), the necessity of maintaining the
knowledge in the organization since most of this knowledge belongs to individuals. Finally,
it is relevant to unlearn the practices that have become outdated.
6.1 Future Research:
During the process of writing this thesis we found that the amount of research dealing with
the positive aspects of resistance was anecdotal compared to research on the negative
perspective. Therefore future studies on the positive side of resistance can be quite
interesting. It would be attracting to have real cases where we could see how a company
benefitted from the employees‟ resistance in order to achieve a better result than the one
planned at the beginning.
We think that increasing the amount of evidence of the positive perspective will help
leaders and managers to have a more balanced approach to resistance instead of being just
negative about it.
78
REFERENCES:
Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic, social and general
Psychology Monographs , 269-292.
Adams, J. (1963). Towards An Understanding of Inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Normal Social
Psycology (67) , 422-436.
Albanese, R. (1973). Overcoming resistance to stability. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during Organizational
Change: Managing Perceptions through Communication. Journal of Change Management , 7 (2), 187-
210.
Andersson, L. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework.
Human Relations , 1395-1418.
Ansoff, I. (1988). The new corporate strategy. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2011). Sage Journal Online. Retrieved March 2011, from Creating
Readliness for Organizational Change: http://hum.sagepub.com/content/46/6/681.abstract
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military and Educational Impact. Mahwan, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Bennebroek-Gravenhorst, K. (2002). Sterke staatjes va samewerking. Deventer.
Bennebroek-Gravenhorst, K., Werkman, R., & Boonstra, J. (2003). THe change capacity of
organizations: General assessment and five configurations. Applied Psychology: An international review
(52), 83-105.
Bennis, W & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper Row.
Bennis, W & Nanus, B (2004), Leaders: strategies for taking charge, 2nd edn, Harper Business, New
York.
Block, P. (1989). Flwless Consulting . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organisational change: the role of defense
mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 534-548.
79
Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational Change Cynism: the role of emplyee involvement.
Wiley InterScience , 20.
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A Casual Model of Organizational Performance and Change.
Journal of Management (JofM), Vol.18, No. 3 , 523-545.
Calder, B. (1997). Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research. Journal of
Marketing Research , 353-364.
Cambridge-Dictionaries. (2011). Cambridge University Press 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Addison-Wesley.
Cameroon, E., & Green, M. (2004). Making Sense of Change Management: A complete guide to the models,
tools & techniques of organizational change (2nd ed.). London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page Limited.
Carnall, C. (1986). Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change. Human Relations ,
745-766.
Cassel, C., Symon, G., Buehring, A., & Johnson, P. (2006). The role and status of qualitative
methods in management research: an empirical account. Management Decision , 290-303.
Clemons, E. (1986). Information Systems for Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Information and
Management (11:3) , 131-136.
Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming Resistance to change. Human Relations , 1, 512-532.
Cole, M., Brunch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Longitudinal effects of cohesion quality and cohesion on
unit-level affective tone. Emotions and Organizational Life Conference. Atlanta, Ga.
Cooper, R. (1994). The inertial impact of culture on IT implementation. Information and Management ,
17-31.
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. G. (1995). Organization Development and Change. St. Paul, MN: West
Publishers.
Danisman, A. (2010). Understanding the cultural dynamics that lock an organization. European
Group for Organization Studies , 301-317.
Danisman, A., & Özgen, H. (2003). “Örgüt Kültürü Çalışmalarında Yöntem Tartışması: Niteliksel-
Niceliksel Yöntem İkileminde Niceliksel Ölçümler ve Bir. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi , 91-124.
80
Darling, P. (1993). Getting results: the trainer's skills. Management Development Review , 25-29.
Dean, J., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management
Review , 341-352.
deBoard, R. (1983). Counselling Skills. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.
Delone, W., & McLEan, E. (1992). Information systems success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable. Informaiton System Research , 3, 60-95; 258-274.
Dictionary, A. H. (2011). Dictionary.com. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from
http://dictionary.reference.com
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of tow corporations: Managing uncertainty during
organizational Change. Human Resource Management , 295-303.
Dixon, N. (1980). Humour. A cognitive alternative to stress? In I. Sarason, & C. Spielberger, Stress
and Anxiety (pp. 281-289). Washington D.C. : Hemisphere.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2003). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. New
York: Routledge.
Fleming, P. (2005). Workers' playtime? Boundaries and Cynicism in a culture of fun program. The
journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 285-303.
Ford, J., & Ford, L. (2009). Decoding Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review , 99-104.
French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., & Rumbles, S. (2008). Organizational Behavior. Chichester: John
Wiley.
Galpin, T. (1996). The human side of change: a principal guide to organization redesign. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, P. (1982). Change in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American
Sociological Review , 149-164.
Harley, T. R., & Broyles, E. A. (2010). Resistance to change. Aguide to harnessing its positive power.
Plymouth: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group,Inc.
Hoppe, M. H. (2007). Active Listening. center for Creativity Leadership.
81
Huber, G. (1996). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organizational learning , 124-162.
Hultman, K. (1979). The Path of Least Resistance. Austin, Texas: Learning Concepts.
Jacobs, J. (1995). The winners know how to change- do you? Hospital Material Management Quarterly ,
18-24.
Jick, T. (1995). Accelerating change for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics (24), 77-82.
Johnson, J., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. (2003). The effect of psychological contract breach and
organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational
Behavior , 627-647.
Joshi, K. (June 1991). A Model of Users: Joshi,A Model of Users. Perspective on Change: The Case
of Information Systems Technology Implementation. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2 , 229-242.
Joshi, K. (1990). The Role of Systems Designers in Organizations. Omega: The International Journal of
Management Science (18:5) , 463-472.
Joshi, K., & Laurer, T. W. (1999). Transition and change during the implementation of a computer-
based manufacturing process planning system: An analysis using the equity implementation model.
IEEE Transactions on Enginering Management , 407-416.
Kanter, R., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). Organizational participation: Myth and reality. New York: The
Free Press.
Knowledge, F. (n.d.). Lewin's Three Step Process. Retrieved from Organizational Change:
http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/pub/1.0/principles-management-and-orga/32778#web-
32778
Kotter. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Kotter, J. p. (1995). Kotter's Eight Step for Change. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from
http://dynamicsofhr.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/kotters-8-steps-for-change/
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business REview , 106-
114.
Kotter, J. P., Schlesinger, L., & Sathe, V. (1979). Organization. TExt, cases and readings on the
management of organizational design and change. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Kotter, J. (1999). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review.
82
Kotter, J., Schlesinger, L., & Sather, V. (1986). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard
Business Review , 49-57.
Kyle, N. (1993). Staying with the flow of change. Journal for Quality and Participation , 34-42.
Labate, S. (2010). NYS Transition Essentials Training. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from
http://www.budget.state.ny.us/transitionEssentials/SteveLabateStateWorkoutPresentation.pdf
Lewis, L. (1999). Disseminating Information and Soliciting input During Planned Organisational
Change. Management Communication Quarterly , 43-75.
Lewis, L., & Seibold, D. (1998). Reconcetualizing organizational change implementation as a communication
problem: a review of literature and research agenda. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Litterer, J. (1973). Conflict in organisation: a re-examination. Academy of Management Journal (9), 321-
344.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Forces for and Resistance to Organizational Change. National forum of
educational administration and supervision Journal , 10.
Making, P., Cooper, C., & Cox, C. (1996). Using resistance to build support for change. Journal for
Quality& Participation , 56-63.
Management, S. F. (2011). Leading People. Leading Organizations. Retrieved April 2011, from
http://www.shrm.org
March, J. (1981). Footnotes to change. Administrative Science Quarterly , 26.
Marshak, R. (1993). Lewin meet Confucius: a review of the OD model of change. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science , 394-415.
Matejka, K., & Murphy, A. (2005). Making Change Happen on Time, on Target, on Budget. Mountain
View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Maurer, R. (1993). Managing the Metaphors of Change. Organizational Dynamics , 44-57.
Maurer, R. (1996). Why Resistance Matters. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from
http://www.refresher.com
McLenan, R. (1989). Managing Organisational Change. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice Hall.
Mills, A. J., & Mills, J. C. (2008). Organizational Culture. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
83
Mills, A. J., HelmsMills, J., Forshaw, C., & Bratton, J. (2007). Organizational Behaviour in a Global
Context. Toronto: Broadview Press.
Mills, A. J., Mills, J. C., Forshaw, C., & Bratton, J. (2007). Organizational behaviour in a global context.
Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Mills, J. H. (2003). Making Sense of Organizational Change. London: Routledge.
Mintzberg, H. (2010, February). From Management Development to Organization Development with IMpact.
Retrieved January 2011, from http://www.impm.org/files/impact.pdf
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, California 91320: Thousand Oaks.
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1989). Organizational Frame Bending: Principles for Managing
Reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 , 194-203.
Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1982). The Art of Japanese Management. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Plog, F., & Bates, D. (1988). Cultural anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pundziene, A., Alonderiene, R., & Buoziute, S. (2007). Managers' Change Communication
Competence Links with the succes of the Organisational Change. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering
Economics , 61-69.
R.T., P., & Athos, A. (1982). The Art of Japanese Management. London: Penguin.
Reicher, A., Wanous, J., & Austin, J. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change. Academy of Management Executive , 48-59.
Robbins, S. P., Odendaal, A., & Roodt, G. (2003). Organisational Behaviour: Global and Southern African
Perspectives (2nd ed.). Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa.
Robbins, S., & Cenzo, D. D. (1998). Fundamentals of Management. Prentice Hall.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rowold, J., & Schlozt, W. (2009). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and followers'
Chronic Stress. Leadership Review , 35-48.
Ruiz, J. (1998). Metodologia de la investigacion cualitativa. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
Rumelt, R. (1995). Inertia and transformation. Montgomery, CA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
84
Scarnati, J. (1998). On becoming a team player. Team Performance Management: An international Journal ,
5-10.
Scheweiger, D., & DeNisi, A. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A
longitudinal fielf experiment. Academy of Management Journal , 110-135.
Scott, C., & Jaffe, D. (1998). Survive and thrive in times of change. Training and Development Journal ,
25.
Scribd cited by (Baba 1989, M. 2. (2011). Good intentions and failed implementations: understanding culture-
based resistance to organizational change. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from
http://es.scribd.com/doc/54516500/Good-Intentions-and-Failed-Implementations-danisman
Sitkin, S. (1996). Learning through failure: The Strategy of small losses. Organizational learning , 541-
578.
Smelzer, L., & Zener, M. (1992). Development of a Model for Announcing Major Layoffs. Group for
organisations management: an international journal , 446-472.
Soy, S. (1997). The case study as a research method: Uses and users of information. Retrieved 2011, from
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/
Stanley, D., Meyer, J., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to
organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology , 429-459.
Sullivan, W., Sullivan, R., & Buffton, B. (2002). Aligning individual and organizational values to
support change. Journal of Change Management , 247-254.
Thames, B., & Webster, D. W. (2009). Chasing Change: Building organizational Capacity in a Turbulent
Environment. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .
Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. (1986). The transformational Leader. New York: Wiley.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural
diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ulrich, D., Kerr, S., & Ashkenas, R. (2002). The GE Work-Out. New York: McGraw-Hill.
VanDijk, R., & Van Dick, R. (2009). Navigating organizational change. Change Leaders, Employee
Resistance and Work-based Identities. Journal of Change Management , 9 (2), 143-163.
85
Vaquero, A. (2011, April 21). El Pais. Retrieved April 22, 2011, from El Espanol y la Tecnologia:
www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/espanol/tecnologia/elpepusocedu/20110421elpepusoc_14/Te
s
Ven, A. V., & Poole, M. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change.
Organization Studies , 1377-1404.
Ven, A. V., & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of
Management Review , 510-540.
Ven, A. V., & Poole, M. (1990). Methods for studying innovation development in the Minnesota
Innovation Research Program. Organization Science , 313-335.
Waddel, D., & Sohal, A. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management
Decision , 543-548.
Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management.
Management Decision , 543-548.
Walster, R., Walster, G., & Berschied, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Walters, E., Walters, G., & Berceid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory& Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Austin, J. (1998). Cynicism about organizational change. Group and
Organizational Management , 132-153.
Weick, K. E. (2007). Small wins: Redifining the scale of social problems. American Psycologist, Vol. 39,
Issue 1 , 40-49.
Whelan-Berry, K. S., & Somerville, K. A. (2010). Linking change drivers and organizational change
process: A review and synthesis. Journal of Change Management , 175-193.
White, D., & Bednar, D. (1991). Organisational Behaviour. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Whiterspoon, P., & Wohlert, K. (1996). An Approach to Developing Communication Strategies for
Enhancing Organizational Diversity. The Journal of Business Communication , 375-399.
Wille, & Hodgson. (1991).
Wit, B. d., & Myer, R. (2010). Process, Content, Context. An international perspective. Andover,
Hampshire: Cengage Learning EMEA.
86
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study research design and methods. London : Sage.
Zairi, M. (1992). TQM-Based Performance Measurement: Practical Guidelines. Letchworth, Herts:
Technical Communications Ltd.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Linnæus UniversitySE-391 82 Kalmar/SE-351 95 VäxjöTelefon 0772-28 80 00
Linnaeus University – a firm focus on quality and competence
On 1 January 2010 Växjö University and the University of Kalmar merged to form Linnaeus University. This newuniversity is the product of a will to improve the quality, enhance the appeal and boost the development potential ofteaching and research, at the same time as it plays a prominent role in working closely together with local society.Linnaeus University offers an attractive knowledge environment characterised by high quality and a competitiveportfolio of skills.
Linnaeus University is a modern, international university with the emphasis on the desire for knowledge, creativethinking and practical innovations. For us, the focus is on proximity to our students, but also on the world around usand the future ahead.
