Reframing Resistance to Organizational Change PDF

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2011) 27, 322—331 a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t. c o m j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m...

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2011) 27, 322—331 a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t. c o m j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n Reframing resistance to organizational change Robyn Thomas a,*, Cynthia Hardy b,1 a Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK b Department of Management & Marketing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia KEYWORDS Abstract We examine the literature on resistance to organizational change and identify two Resistance to change; dominant yet contrasting approaches: the demonizing versus the celebrating of resistance to Power; change. We show that both of these approaches fail to address power relations adequately and, in Organizational change so doing, raise practical, ethical and theoretical problems in understanding and managing change. We propose an alternative, more critical approach, which shows how both power and resistance constitute organizational change. We highlight how power-resistance relations lie at the heart of organizational change. # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Charles Darwin famously observed that adaptation to change it as a pathology that obstructs attempts to change organiza- is the key to survival. An observation often reflected in tions (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). This work grants change management of change neologisms, this sentiment seems agents2 the right — if not the duty — to use whatever means beguilingly simple to those who face the challenges of com- necessary to prevent resistance, including the use of power plex organizational change. Consequently the management against employees (Hardy & Clegg, 2004). This way of dealing of change has attracted considerable attention in the man- with resistance does not however appear to have been very agement literature. Of particular note is the energy devoted successful, given the number of change initiatives that fail to how to deal with the challenges associated with resistance (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Consequently, some researchers have to change, resulting in a sizeable body of literature on the recently argued for a different approach. They suggest that causes of resistance, and how it can be best managed. In this what change agents label as resistance may, in fact, repre- paper we identify two dominant approaches in the concep- sent novel ideas for change (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; tualizing of resistance: demonizing it and celebrating it. We Piderit, 2000). This work celebrates resistance, arguing that examine these two approaches to show how both fail to it plays an important role in successful organizational address power relations adequately and, in so doing, raise change. However, this approach also privileges change agents significant theoretical, ethical and practical issues. — granting them the sole prerogative of deciding whether We start by critically exploring the most common certain behaviours on the part of employees constitute approach to resistance, which is to demonize it by viewing resistance or not. Accordingly, employees may be placed in an even more invidious position than when resistance is demonized: encouraged to resist, they risk condemnation if * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 29 2087 5724; fax: +44 29 2087 4419. 2 E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Thomas), The term change agent is used in much of the literature to refer [email protected] (C. Hardy). to those individuals who lead a change initiative, usually senior 1 Tel.: +61 3 8344 3719. managers. 0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2011.05.004 Reframing resistance to organizational change 323 their responses are not deemed to be palatable by their done to overcome such resistance. This problematizing of superiors. resistance was then taken up by Lawrence (1954: 49), who Demonizing and celebrating approaches, despite very argued that employee resistance to change was one of ‘‘the different conceptualizations of resistance, both privilege most baffling and recalcitrant of the problems which business the change agent. In so doing, they legitimate asymmetrical executives face.’’ Other studies followed, which also focused power relations between change agents and change recipi- on overcoming resistance (e.g., Zander, 1950), especially in ents, raising a series of practical, ethical and theoretical the Organization Development (OD) approach to change issues. In order to overcome these problems, we argue that (Cummings & Worley, 1997; French & Bell, 1990). Even organizational change should be viewed as an outcome of the processual and political approaches (e.g., Kotter, 1995; Pet- dynamics of both power and resistance, drawing on insights tigrew, 1973, 1987; Quinn, 1980), which criticized OD for from Foucault’s (1979, 1980, 1982) conceptualisation of failing to capture the ‘‘messiness’’ of change, explicitly power relations. By emphasising power-resistance relations, acknowledged the strong possibility of resistance and treated we shift the focus away from questions of who resists change it as something that needed to be overcome — an assumption and why, to questions of how relations of power and resis- which continues to be popular today (e.g., Furst & Cable, tance operate together in ways that are constitutive of 2008; Harvard Business School, 2005). change. Change involves establishing new understandings, Not surprisingly, studies went on to investigate the causes new practices and new relationships (Thomas, Sargent, & of, and solutions to, resistance. Causes were typically con- Hardy, 2011). While change can be imposed, it is more likely ceptualized in terms of shortcomings in an individual’s atti- to be taken on by members of the organization if they have tudes, emotions and/or behaviours (Piderit, 2000; van Dam, played a part in the negotiations of new meanings, practices Oreg, & Schyns, 2008). For example, parochial self-interest led and relationships. In this paper, we show how power and employees to resist because they focused on ‘‘their own best resistance lie at the heart of these negotiations, and in doing interests and not on those of the total organization’’ (Kotter & so provide insights into the multi-faceted and transversal Schlesinger, 1979: 107). Other deficiencies on the part of ways in which organizational change occurs. employees included misunderstanding the change; a lack of The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The tolerance for change; and cynicism towards change (Furst & next section will examine the management literature on Cable, 2008; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Reichers et al., 1997; organizational change to outline the ways in which resistance van Dam et al., 2008). Some work did argue that resistance has been conceptualized. We then examine how power and could be caused by the mishandling of the change by change resistance shape organizational change. Third, we illustrate agents (Greiner, 1992; Reichers et al., 1997; Spreitzer & Quinn, how our approach can be applied. Finally, we discuss the 1996) but, even here, subordinates were still blamed for implications for understanding and managing change. engaging in resistance (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Solutions to this continued challenge of resistance are Resistance to change manifold. Some appear to be benign insofar as they revolve around communication, education, and participation (Furst & Cable, 2008; Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). For example, Change is a firmly established priority for organizations. The many change models provide suggestions for developing an 1980s and 1990s saw organizations experiment with TQM, effective communication strategy as a means of avoiding customer service initiatives, reengineering, right-sizing, resistance (Klein, 1996). In the event that employees remain downsizing, culture change, and countless other managerial unconvinced of the benefits of change or do not change fads and fashions (Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). More quickly enough, change agents are then justified in resorting recently, global environmental, technological and financial to exercising power through various coercive methods to shocks have forced organizations to adapt and transform force through the change (French & Delahaye, 1996). their activities (Bennebroek Gravenhorst & In’t Veld, 2004; Employees can also be forced to cooperate through such Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008). To realize such changes, it is strategies as manipulation, withholding information, imply- commonly held that successful change requires the coopera- ing future benefits, and using coercion in the form of sanc- tion of employees, since any resistance on their part can tions, edicts, threats and dismissals (Bennebroek hamper the change initiative (Piderit, 2000). In this section, Gravenhorst & In’t Veld, 2004; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; we identify two dominant approaches to conceptualizing Poole, Gioia, & Gray, 1989). Change agents are thus justified resistance to change, and examine how each deals with in using the stick as well as the carrot in their attempts to power. eradicate resistance (Hardy & Clegg, 2004; McCarthy, Puffer, May, Ledgerwood, & Stewart, 2008). Demonizing resistance to change Viewing resistance as a problematic obstruction is a domi- nant view in both management practice and theory (Dent & A long established assumption in the literature on organiza- Goldberg, 1999). It can be seen in studies of change that tional change is that resistance constitutes a problem. For range from firms in Russia (McCarthy et al., 2008) to public example, in Coch and French’s (1948) seminal study in a US utilities in Italy (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005) to hospitals in pyjama sewing factory, employees reacted to being moved to New Zealand (Kan & Parry, 2004). It views resistance unequi- different jobs by quitting, being absent, restricting output vocally in ‘‘negative terms, as a sign of failure... or as a and showing hostility towards management. It was concluded problem to be eliminated or minimized’’ (Giangreco & Pec- that this behaviour constituted resistance to the change and, cei, 2005: 1816). As a result, the change agent is placed ‘‘on accordingly, the study was designed explicitly to examine the side of the angels, and the people being changed as why people resisted change so strongly and what could be mulish and obstinate, resisting innovations that have proved 324 R. Thomas, C. Hardy successful elsewhere’’ (Dobosz-Bourne & Jankowicz, 2006: zation of power relations remains the same. In both 2030). approaches, the conceptual distinction between the change agent and recipient is retained, and crucially, it is still the Celebrating resistance change agent who determines which responses constitute resistance and which do not. More recently, a different conceptualization of resistance has emerged which, rather seeing resistance to change as some- Practical, ethical and theoretical challenges thing to be avoided or eradicated, views it as part of success- ful change. This work proposes that the demonizing of Our analysis of the two dominant ways of conceptualizing resistance has not provided sustainable ways of managing resistance to change within the management literature change and argues that this mindset can interfere with shows how both are situated within a particular discursive successful change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Furst & Cable, framing where the interests and assumptions of management 2008). Further, negative reactions to change may be moti- and change agents dominate. This raises a series of practical, vated by positive intentions (Piderit, 2000), and middle ethical and theoretical challenges that inhibit the develop- managers, in particular, can make an important contribution ment of a more adequate understanding of organizational to change through their questioning of the claims and under- change. standings of change agents (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Wool- First, there are practical limitations with both approaches dridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008). Similarly, participation by that relate to the privileging of the change agent in deciding employees and other stakeholders can enhance change initia- what does and does not constitute resistance. In the case of tives by challenging taken for granted assumptions (van Dam demonizing resistance, these practical problems are two- et al., 2008). In this way, it is argued, resistance can, despite fold. First, the demonizing of resistance does not appear to challenging change agents, lead to better change and, con- have resulted in its eradication as failed change attempts are sequently, is to be encouraged, even celebrated (Dobosz- common and are regularly attributed to employee resistance Bourne & Jankowicz, 2006; Ford & Ford, 2009). (e.g., Boonstra, 2004; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Sorge & van According to this view, subordinates ‘‘resist’’ by making a Witteloostuijn, 2004). Second, demonizing resistance rules counter-offer i.e., ‘‘a move in a conversation made by some- out the possibility of using it to enhance the change initiative one who is willing and receptive to the request yet is seeking (Ford et al., 2008). In a customer-oriented cultural change some accommodation’’ (Ford et al., 2008: 373). Change agents programme in a telecommunications company, Thomas et al. should then be willing to make that accommodation, even if it (2011) show that where challenges by middle managers to is not what they initially had in mind. Such thoughtful (Ford change implementation plans were dismissed, the result was et al., 2008), productive (Courpasson, Dany, & Clegg, 2011) or degenerative dialogue and the reproduction of existing facilitative (Thomas et al., 2011) resistance depends upon knowledge. In contrast, when change agents were willing subordinates being willing and able to make counter-offers and to build on challenges to their assumptions around customer change agents making being willing and able to make recipro- focus, new knowledge was generated concerning the need cal accommodations. In this way, different positions and the for the company to create a commercial focus. In the latter values that inform them are resolved, ‘‘not through conflict, case, therefore, ‘‘resistance’’ was incorporated into the but through the negotiation of mutually sensible meanings’’ change effort; in the former case, change agents resisted (Dobosz-Bourne & Jankowicz, 2006: 2030). the ‘‘resistance’’ and, in so doing, lost the opportunity to If resistance is celebrated as a core element of effective bring about more innovative change. change, then the role of change agents is to harness it, in The work that celebrates resistance is intended to redress designing and implementing successful change initiatives. the shortcomings of the demonizing approach; however, it Resistance now ceases to be dysfunctional behaviour and too runs into practical problems. It assumes that change instead is a product of interactions between the change agents will be responsive to counter-offers and cautious agent and change recipient, whereby the former makes sense about precipitously dismissing them as resistance. They must of the reaction of the latter. be willing and able to evaluate the impact of counter-offers and incorporate them appropriately into their change plans. [T]here is no resistance to change existing as an indepen- However, assessments as to whether a counter-offer dent phenomenon apart from change agent sensemaking. ‘‘improves’’ the change effort may be difficult. Counter- This does not mean that recipients don’t have reactions to offers add to complexity and, when confronted with complex change, nor does it mean that their actions can’t have an problems, individuals adopt various heuristics to simplify adverse impact on change; they can and they do. What it decision making rather than seek out more complexity (Hodg- does mean, however, is that none of these actions/reac- kinson, Maule, Brown, Pearman, & Glaister, 2002; Marnet, tions are, in and of themselves, resistance, and they do 2007). In particular, there is a tendency to prefer information not become resistance unless and until change agents that supports a chosen alternative rather than to engage with assign the label resistance to them (Ford et al., 2008: 371) conflicting information (Schulz-Hardt, Frey, Luthgens, & Mos- In other words, resistance only exists if change agents covici, 2000). It seems likely, therefore, that there will be label the actions of change recipients as such; and a tendency significant practical problems if change agents have a mono- to do so precipitously or unthinkingly may hinder the change poly in deciding whether or not reactions to specific change effort. initiatives should be accepted, challenged, accommodated This approach appears to be diametrically opposed to the or negated, and therefore whether they are constituted as work that demonizes resistance. However, the conceptuali- resistance. Reframing resistance to organizational change 325 Second, a number of ethical issues can be noted arising agent. This position is at odds with recent theoretical devel- from this privileging of the change agent, which result in opments in understanding change, which argue that success- existing asymmetrical power relations being accepted and ful change arises from the co-construction of meanings by a normalized, instead of being scrutinized and problematized variety of actors (Thomas et al., 2011). The labelling of (Hardy & Clegg, 2004). In the case of demonizing resistance, actions as resistance involves interpretation of those actions. this usually means taking for granted the right of change Interpretative acts are ‘‘a fundamentally social process’’ agents to use power under any circumstances, while ignoring whereby actors ‘‘interpret their environment in and through employee concerns. For example, while references to Coch interactions with others’’ (Maitlis, 2005: 21). Whether and and French’s (1948) original study abound in the change how new organizational arrangements ensue, therefore, literature, the situation of the employees — young women, upon the negotiations of meaning that involves multiple from rural backgrounds, who were subjected to rigorous organizational members (Morgan & Sturdy, 2000; Thomas supervision by male supervisors — is rarely mentioned. The et al., 2011; Tsoukas, 2005). Furthermore, these negotiations factory adopted piece-work, time and motion studies, and are multilateral, interactive, and iterative processes that do harsh production quotas, yet discussions of employee resis- not divide neatly into change vs. resistance. Theoretical tance drawing on this study take it for granted that such developments in the analysis of identity also throw doubt responses were dysfunctional, pathological, and unneces- on the neat categorising of the change agent and change sary. There is rarely any acknowledgement of the power resistor. For example, research has shown that middle man- exercised by male managers; discussion of the potential agers can be both change agents, leading the change effort reasons that might have led the young female employees (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Wooldridge et al., 2008), and change to resist; or recognition of how oppressive management recipients, resisting change initiatives (Feldman, 2004; Tho- practices might have contributed to the ‘‘problem’’ of resis- mas & Linstead, 2002). Identity is not fixed but constructed in tance (Agócs, 1997). Thus, the demonizing of resistance different ways over time as a result of such factors as career discounts the interests and experiences of a range of stake- progression, organizational settings, and the nature of work holders who may be adversely affected by change. It also (George & Chattopadhyay, 2005; Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010; assumes that, fundamentally, employers are doing the Roberts, 2005). The labelling and fixing of essentialist iden- ‘‘right’’ thing when they design and propose change pro- tities of change agent and recipient is thus problematic. grammes, even if they sometimes mishandle aspects of Thus, neither the neat packaging of change and resistance implementation. Yet organizational change initiatives rarely behaviours, nor the various actors’ identities in the change represent ‘‘win-win’’ scenarios where everyone benefits. process is clear-cut and fixed. Most often, there are trade-offs, which affect some stake- In sum, the two dominant ways of conceptualizing resis- holders more than others, and some change initiatives are tance fail to deal adequately with the issue of power and in so undertaken on questionable grounds (Staw & Epstein, 2000). doing give rise to a series of practical, ethical and theoretical At a time when critics argue that the global financial crisis is issues. Both demonizing and celebrating approaches main- being used to legitimize changes that have significantly tain a distinction between change agent and change recipient negative effects for employees (e.g., Centre for Research and privilege the former. It is the change agent who decides on Socio Cultural Change, 2009), it is important that we what constitutes resistance, who can be resistant, and how subject the asymmetrical power relations evident in the resistance should be dealt with. discursive constitution of change to closer scrutiny. The ethical challenges associated with the celebrating approach are less visible but are, perhaps, even more pro- Power-resistance relations and change nounced, as change recipients are placed in an invidious position. In demonizing resistance the message to employees The work that has been concerned with resistance to change is clear: don’t resist! In the case of celebrating resistance, has not only ignored power as a theoretical concept linked to change recipients are encouraged to resist, but still risk being resistance, but also contributed to a situation where asym- labelled as resistors in the event that their challenges are metrical power relations — and the privilege of change agents construed as antithetical to organizational interests. This — are taken for granted. We contend that, in light of the places them in a double-bind: if they do not resist, change problems identified above, studies of organizational change recipients risk being penalized for not contributing to the need to consider both power and resistance. Our approach change effort; if they do resist, there is still a good chance builds on Foucault’s (1980; 1982) work, which sees power and that change agents may categorize their responses as nega- resistance as co-constitutive, diffuse and multidimensional tive for the reasons mentioned above. In addition, more (Thomas et al., 2011). critical questions about the effects of change initiatives on Foucault characterizes power as operating dynamically at employees or other stakeholders are just as likely to be a ‘‘given place and time’’ in a more or less coordinated ignored as in the work that demonizes resistance; as are ‘‘cluster of relations’’ (Foucault, 1980: 199). This concep- questions concerning whether the exercise of repressive tualization challenges the idea of ‘‘sovereign’’ power i.e., power is justified in the event that certain actions are individuals possessing a battery of power sources that they deemed to be unacceptable. Even the fact that power mobilize to produce particular outcomes. Instead, power may reside in the act of labelling certain reactions as resis- circulates through complex webs of possible actions in which tant is obscured. all actors are located (Deetz, 1992a, 1992b). The way in Finally, there are theoretical limitations with both which power circulates through this web has effects, none- approaches as a result of their conceptualization of resis- theless. For example, it causes new meanings to develop, tance as something that is defined solely by the change new objects to emerge and new bodies of knowledge to 326 R. Thomas, C. Hardy accumulate (Maguire & Hardy, 2009). However, these effects The new approach was seen by some to violate existing are contingent and indeterminate. Actors may consciously understandings of medical practice with the result that, attempt to influence the circulation of power and ‘‘jockey for while some individuals (reformers) pushed for reform, others their own advantage’’, but ‘‘it does not follow that the (defenders) defended the status quo. However, power and broader consequences of those local actions are coordi- resistance were not neatly separated out in the case hospitals nated’’ (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982: 187). as a clash of two monolithic ideals i.e., power vs. resistance Foucault argues that power is productive. It produces or change agents vs. change recipients. Instead, power- ‘‘reality’’, including ‘‘domains of objects’’, and ‘‘rituals of resistance relations were intertwined and iterative i.e., truth’’ and individual subjects (Foucault, 1979: 194). In defenders resisted the change; reformers resisted the defen- producing reality in this way, some actors may be privileged, ders; defenders resisted the reformers and, eventually, at while others may be marginalized; some subjects may one of the hospitals, defenders supported the reformers. Nor ‘‘secure their sense of what it is to be worthy and competent were power-resistance relations equated with particular human beings’’ (Knights & Morgan, 1991: 269), while others work or hierarchical groups — some chiefs and seniors sup- may rebel against the ways in which they are defined, ported the change; others did not; some interns actively tried categorized and classified (Sawicki, 1991). Individuals are, to enact the new work practices, some did not. then, always ‘‘in the position of simultaneously undergoing There were a number of reasons for defending the status and exercising this power’’ (Foucault, 1980: 98). quo. First, surgeons were concerned over their own potentially Foucault (1980) also argues that power and resistance increased workloads as they would now need to communicate implicate each other. There are no relations of power without with more people. Second, the changes challenged the tradi- resistance. Resistance is an adaptive response to power, it tional surgical identity of the ‘‘iron man’’ surgeon, who was operates in tandem with power, and it forms at the points tough enough to deal with long hours. Third, the requirement where relations of power are exercised. for interns to hand off work to night floats violated professional ‘‘Resistance is what opposes power, not simply diame- norms that: prohibited junior residents from asking their trically but transversally, opposing by going off in a differ- seniors for help with routine work; maintained that the best ent direction... Acts of refusal indeed typically involve patient care was provided when patients remained with the power themselves, even the most passive responses (Kelly, same resident throughout their hospital stay: and advocated 2009: 109)’’. that the most effective way to educate residents was in the In sum, power and resistance thus operate together in a web hospital and on the job. Consequently, as Vignette 1 below of relations in which power is never complete and possibilities shows, defenders attempted to reproduce existing meanings for resistance always exist. Power is exercised through multi- concerning practices and professional identities. They did this ple points of pressure and so too is resistance. Such struggles in a number of ways, for example, through jokes that excluded are not necessarily repressive since there is a creative poten- certain reformers and gossip that served to restrict their tial when meanings are renegotiated (Rouse, 1994). professional opportunities. Defenders used terms such as This conceptualization of power and resistance shifts the ‘‘commanders’’ and ‘‘wingmen’’ to accord status to those focus away from questions of who resists organizational who resisted the changes, compared to the terms such as change, why and when, to a question of how relations of ‘‘stopgaps’’ and ‘‘beasts of burden’’ for those who tried to power and resistance operate together in producing change, introduce the changes. In order to resist the changes, however, and in what ways. defenders drew on existing power relations, such as those evident in hierarchical positions, that allowed chiefs and seniors to treat interns in this way; professional norms whereby An illustration interns’ reputation with surgeons had consequences for their careers; and the well-established macho identity of surgeons. We illustrate the complex interactions between power and Thus the ability of defenders to resist the proposed change resistance and their role in constituting organization change relied on the (re)articulation of power relations expressed in with reference to a study of change published elsewhere the constitution of organizational meanings and professional (Kellogg, 2009). The study compares similar change pro- identities.3 grammes in two US hospitals, one of which was deemed Vignette 2 shows how reformers then resisted the resis- successful — at Advent Hospital — and one which was not — tance of the defenders by mobilizing support through stories at Bayshore Hospital. The programmes were proposed by and gossip aimed at creating a common language and iden- surgical directors to reduce the working hours of surgical tity, as well as by creating new rationales for practices. residents — doctors who undergo hands-on training after med- Reformers subsequently gained support for these new prac- ical school — following new regulations reducing their working tices from directors, who then authorized their staff to week from over 100 h to 80 h (see Fig. 1). Both hospitals implement them. Thus we can see that, in their attempts created new ‘‘night float’’ teams with additional staff, to to bring about the change, reformers had to resist existing reduce the number of nights that residents spent ‘‘on call’’ professional norms through the creation of new ones and, at and to allow interns (first-year residents), who worked the longest hours, to shorten their workdays. The aim was to ensure a maximum of 80 h per week for all residents. The changes required interns to hand off routine work not completed by the 3 The material in the vignettes is quoted verbatim from Kellogg time they finished their day to the new ‘‘night float’’ residents, (2009) with page numbers provided. Any insertions or deletions made who were senior to them i.e., ‘‘chiefs’’ (fifth-year residents) by the authors are indicated with the use of square brackets for the and ‘‘seniors’’ (second, third or fourth-year residents). former and dots for the latter. Reframing resistance to organizational change 327 Figure 1 Hierarchical Levels of Doctors4. the same time, draw on the power relations embedded in the hierarchy. Vignette 1. ‘‘[Defenders chiefs and seniors] Vignette 3 shows how reformers met with further resis- rewarded interns who broke the formal rules tance as defender chiefs asserted their seniority in the of the new system and stayed late in the hos- hierarchy to blame interns (rather than the night float) when pital by not punishing these interns for minor lapses in patient care occurred. This interpretation was then mistakes, by ‘‘throwing them bones’’ (assign- passed up to directors and, although it clashed with alter- native interpretations from reformers, defenders appear to ing them interesting cases), and by including have prevailed at this point as a result of the power them in the daily practical joking that they embedded in the hierarchy. Here we see the iterative nature reserved for members of their select group of power and resistance — as power is applied at one point,... They also punished those who attempted resistance is used to ‘‘push back’’. However, what constitutes to change practice by gossiping about them to power and what constitutes resistance is hard to separate out their defender peers and to the staff surgeons. since it depends on whose perspective is being taken: defen- Staff surgeons at both hospitals lent the defen- ders are resisting reformers; while reformers are resisting ders their support by making snide comments defenders; and both are asserting existing professional norms about the 80-h working week when in the OR and organizational status at the same time as they resist [operating room] with residents and by with- these self-same power relations. holding teaching from those who attempted Vignette 4, shows that, over time, reformers at Advent were able to pass their positive interpretations of new work change. Several staff surgeons...[felt] less practices up to directors in such a way as to displace the motivated to help these interns and took less negative interpretations of defenders. Directors then drew time showing them how to do things in the on their position the hierarchy to promote this interpretation OR. Interns working with defender seniors feared to their subordinates — the staff surgeons — and to authorize gossip and did not want to risk having their the composition of night float teams, which helped to provide reputations ruined in the eyes of the staff sur- evidence that convinced defenders that the changes in work geons... [D]efenders resisted change by empha- practices were effective and manageable. As a result, the sizing the traditional surgeon identity–— new practices started to become institutionalized and new displaying individualism, living in the hospital, work norms emerged. and being an iron man–—which conflicted with Thus, from these four vignettes, we can see how power- resistance relations were intertwined in ways that perme- the planned changes... They also emphasized ated the change programmes at the two hospitals. At Advent, their iron man personas by enacting the cultural changes in work practices were introduced and, over time, vernacular of machismo through their appear- identities changed and defenders become reformers. Accord- ance: short haircuts for men, tucked-in scrubs ingly, we should be wary of pre-determining and essentializ- tops with the pants worn low on the hips, green ing particular individuals or groups as change agents and surgical masks around their necks long after change recipients. At Bayshore, the changes in practices leaving the OR, and black leather surgical clogs did not ensue. Reformers ultimately failed to challenge... Defenders also reinforced the traditional po- defenders even though the same solution used successfully sition-specific identities in their language by re- ferring to chiefs as ‘commanders’ (responsible for breaking the will of the interns), day seniors as 4 ‘wingmen’ (who did whatever was required to Figure reproduced from Kellogg (2009: 666). 328 R. Thomas, C. Hardy help the chief), night floats as ‘stopgaps’ (who covered only emergencies and performed no Vignette 4. ‘‘[R]eformer chiefs [at Advent] routine work overnight), and interns as ‘beasts pointed out that dropped balls were not a nec- of burden’’’ (p. 679). essary outcome of handoffs. They argued that handoffs between interns and reformer night at Advent was available. Thus a lack of ‘‘resistance’’ on the floats had been handled easily without lapses in part of reformers meant that the ‘‘resistance’’ of defen- patient care whenever the chief, senior, and ders prevailed. In both cases, we can see that power- night float on the service had been willing to resistance relations were not fixed, but fluid and socially work in a less hierarchical manner by taking on constructed depending on the particular actions of differ- routine work.... Advent could solve the prob- ent actors over time. Nor were there clearly demarcated lem by replacing these rotating seniors with a designated intern.. The directors talked to the staff surgeons about this possibility... Pre- sented with the evidence of successful handoffs Vignette 2. ‘‘Groups of reformers often ate among reformers, ten-and-a-half months after lunch together in the hospital cafeterias. When the introduction of the night float program and defenders were not present, these cafeteria five months after the advent of dropped balls, tables allowed for isolation and face-to-face the staff surgeons accommodated the sugges- interaction among reformers’’ (p. 681). tion and agreed to have the [designated] intern’’ ‘‘[R]eformers began to tell stories to one an- (p. 696). The previously defending chiefs also other about their defiance of defenders and of now suggested that although the interns might traditional practices... they began to feel a learn more slowly, they would learn all they sense of loyalty to one another and to develop needed to know by the end of residency. One a belief that others would act with them to said, ‘It might be that they can’t put in chest challenge defenders’’ (p. 681). ‘‘When refor- tubes and lines themselves. But that’s a techni- mers met with one another in free spaces, they cal thing that can be taught in their second year. created new arguments about patient care That is not what makes a good intern or a good (promoting continuity of care in the team rather doctor. I’ll teach them lines and chest tubes next than in the individual) and resident education year’’’ (p. 697). ‘‘Once the intern was moved (advocating learning by doing, but over a lon- onto the night float team, and the previously ger period of time)’’ (p. 682). ‘‘Reformers at defending staff surgeons, chiefs, and seniors both hospitals [eventually] successfully con- came to terms with handoffs, night floats began vinced the directors to begin reemphasizing to accept handoffs in sign-out encounters [at their support of the official rule that night floats Advert]’’ (p. 697). should accept handoffs from interns... Thus, interns began attempting handoffs again to defender night floats’’ (p. 683). sets of actions, one constituting ‘‘power’’ and the other ‘‘resistance’’. Instead, the circulations of power in relation to the change initiative provoked adaptive responses, which not only provoked more resistance but also made Vignette 3. ‘‘At both hospitals, defender subtle changes to the prevailing power relations that had chiefs responded to dropped balls [i.e., lapses given rise to it. This pattern was repeated many times in patient care following handoff] by blaming during the change programme and the particular dynamics of these interactions resulted in changes in practices in one specific interns for tasks not completed by night hospital but not the other. floats. For example, a Bayshore defender chief became outraged when he heard that a preop had not been done, but rather than blaming the Discussion and conclusions night float, he blamed the intern’’ (p. 683). ‘‘At both hospitals reformer chiefs responded to We have proposed an understanding of organizational change dropped balls by alerting directors to this prob- in which power and resistance lie at the heart of the negotia- lem and by naming specific night floats as rule tion of meanings that shape particular instances of change. breakers.... But at this point in both hospitals, Such an approach acknowledges that there is always the possibility of resistance. This is not necessarily in a bi-direc- defender night floats were being supported by tional way, with change agents against change recipients, but the powerful defender staff surgeons and chiefs in multiple, transversal, iterative ways. Our approach throws and they continued to drop balls’’ (p. 684). light on how these dynamics unfold, and whether — and in what ways — organizational change occurs. Reframing resistance to organizational change 329 Our conceptualization offers a number of benefits com- resist, thereby facilitating consideration of disadvantaged pared with the dominant approaches, which label individuals and marginalized individuals by examining the way that as either for or against change, or designate them as change resistance to such change is institutionalized through orga- agents vs. change recipients. Theoretically, it is more con- nizational denial, inaction and repression (cf. Agócs, 1997). sistent with contemporary ideas on the co-construction of Our approach also deals with one of the weakness of the meaning in organizations and the social construction of approach that celebrates resistance, since it allows for identities. It recognizes that what constitutes resistance situations where resistant subjects do not wish to see their cannot lie solely in the eye of the change agent and it avoids responses appropriated, and do not want to contribute to the fixing and essentializing particular identities within change change, i.e., where resistance is adversarial and intended to processes. Rather than making predetermined judgments on prevent change. It is important to give voice to — and allow who is ‘‘for’’ or ‘‘against’’ change, based on membership of for resistance on the part of — identities rendered invisible in particular groups, our interest is in understanding how dif- conventional studies of organizational change; typically, less ferent organizational members contribute to the negotiation powerful individuals such as front-line service workers, non- of meaning, and in what ways. Our conceptualization also unionized employees; the poor and the sick, who often bear acknowledges that, while individuals do attempt to shape the brunt of the more negative aspects of organizational meaning, they are situated within webs of power, which change, as clearly shown in the recent global financial crisis enable and constrain them in diverse, multifaceted ways. and the various structural adjustments that have followed it Therefore the negotiation of meaning is shaped by power- in many countries around the world. resistance relations that are not necessarily consciously Even when asymmetrical power relations appear less mobilized, such as when discourses reproduce taken-for- evident, and the effects appear more benign, organizational granted meanings. change is rarely an unequivocal ‘‘win-win’’ situation. While Our study also calls for greater reflection on how organi- the reduction in working hours may have benefitted medical zational change is conceptualized. Both demonizing and staff in our illustration, the change involved a transition celebrating approaches assume organizational change to period during which patients may very well have been be top down and episodic. Like Choi, Holmberg, Lowstedt, adversely affected (Kellogg, Breen, Ferzoco, Zinner, & Ash- and Brommels (2011), our study confirms the limitations of ley, 2006) and some individuals may have resisted the this taken-for-granted view of change, by showing the impor- changes in order to protect patient care. Such ambiguity tance of power and resistance. Our approach complements a makes the issue of resistance harder to dismiss, showing the ‘‘strong process’’ (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005), or ‘‘organiza- limitations of demonizing approaches. In sum, by problema- tional becoming’’ conceptualisation of change (Carlsen, tizing power and recognizing resistance, we provide means 2006; Chia, 1995; Nayak, 2008; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Here, by which organizational change initiatives can be held up to even though for analytical purposes researchers do still focus greater scrutiny, to assess the way in which diverse organiza- on instances where certain organizational members attempt tional members and other stakeholders may be affected by to bring about new organizational arrangements, change is change. not viewed as a clearly defined episode that occurs ‘‘within’’ Practically speaking, our approach draws attention to how an organization. Rather, organizations are understood as organizational change is accomplished through complex, unfolding enactments, constituted by local communicative messy, day-to-day working practices, rather than through interactions among its members. Whether and how new planning and design. Such an understanding increases the arrangements constituting change ensue depends upon the chances of ‘‘successful’’ change by providing greater insights meanings that emerge from iterative negotiations involving into how change occurs in unexpected ways; explaining the multiple organizational members. Such negotiations do not multiple points at which changes in direction occur; and divide neatly into the dualism of ‘‘power’’ and ‘‘resistance’’ identifying the multiple and shifting identities that might or into an artificial distinction between change agents imple- contribute to change. The scope for more flexible interven- menting change and recipients responding to change. tions is extended in ways that are more sensitive to multiple However, despite emphasising the ‘‘multi-authored’’ nat- resistances — both adversarial and facilitative — than the ure of change, the organizational becoming approach fails to ‘‘knocking of heads’’ approach found in the demonization of acknowledge how power relations among actors influence resistance, or the deification of change agents associated negotiations and thus offers little opportunity to examine with its celebration. The complexity of large-scale organiza- how certain individuals and groups are marginalized during tional change programmes also means that they are likely to change programmes (Thomas et al., 2011). Consequently, involve input from people from multiple levels, over time. few studies on organizational becoming have examined asym- Accordingly, one can expect shifting views, positions and metrical power relations among different organizational allegiances. Those who face change being imposed upon members or assessed how they influence negotiations. Ulti- them at one point may find themselves driving a particular mately, therefore, organizational becoming suffers from the meaning of change at another time. In refusing to divide problem of obscuring the challenges that some members face organizational members as change agents and change reci- in attempting to shape organizational change initiatives, and pients, and eschewing preconceived notions of resistance, it downplays the experiences to which they are subjected. becomes possible to incorporate input from a wide range of In problematizing power and recognising the role of resis- organizational members and accord a voice to marginalized tance in organizational change, our approach therefore, also identities. addresses some of the ethical problems associated with the Our conceptualization also complements the work on dominant approaches. Specifically, it provides insights into celebrating resistance insofar as it also allows for situations how individuals who are affected negatively by change might where resistance is productive or facilitative so as to give rise 330 R. Thomas, C. Hardy to more effective or successful organizational change. How- Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and ever, it emphasizes that deciding what constitutes resistance other writings 1972-1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). Brighton: Harvester cannot be confined to change agents. Resistance has to be Press. judged on its merits and from multiple perspectives, and the Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword: The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and activities of those who see themselves as resistant subjects hermeneutics (pp. 208—266). Brighton: Harvester Press. must be factored into this analysis. French, E., & Delahaye, B. (1996). Individual change transition: Moving in circles can be good for you. Leadership and Organiza- References tion Development Journal, 17, 22—28. French, W., & Bell, C., Jr. (1990). Organization development: Be- havioral science interventions for organization improvement Agócs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and repression. Journal of Business (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ethics, 16, 917—931. Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Reducing employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader- Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 453—462. Business Review, (May-June), 133—141. Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. M., & In’t Veld, R. J. (2004). Power and George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2005). One foot in each camp: The collaboration: Methodologies for working together in change. In dual identification of contract workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 68—99. J. J. Boonstra (Ed.), Dynamics of organizational change and learning (pp. 317—341). Chichester: Wiley. Giangreco, A., & Peccei, R. (2005). The nature and antecedents of Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Or- middle management resistance to change: Evidence from an ganizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, Italian context. International Journal of Human Resource Man- agement, 16, 1812—1829. 19, 69—89. Boonstra, J. J. (Ed.). (2004). Dynamics of organizational change and Greiner, L. E. (1992). Resistance to change during restructuring. learning. Chichester: Wiley. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1, 61—65. Carlsen, A. (2006). Organizational becoming as dialogic imagination Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2004). Power and change: A critical reflection. In J. J. Boonstra (Ed.), Dynamics of organizational of practice: The case of the Indomitable Gauls. Organization Science, 17, 132—149. change and learning (pp. 343—365). Chichester: Wiley. Centre for Research on Socio Cultural Change. (2009). An Alternative Harvard Business School Press (2005). Managing change to reduce resistance. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Report on UK Banking Reform. http://www.cresc.ac.uk/publica- tions/documants/AlternativereportonbankingV2.pdf. University Hodgkinson, G. P., Maule, A. J., Bown, N. J., Pearman, A. D., & of Manchester: Centre for Research on Socio Cultural Change. Glaister, K. W. (2002). Further reflections on the elimination of Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. framing bias in strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1069—1076. Organization Studies, 23(6), 863—868. Choi, S., Holmberg, I., Lowstedt, J., & Brommels, M. (2011). ‘Execu- Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, tive management in radical change — the case of the Karolinska effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in University Hospital merger’. Scandinavian Journal of Manage- macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35, 135—154. ment, 27, 11—23. Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Kan, M., & Parry, K. W. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded Human Relations, 1, 512—532. theory of leadership in overcoming resistance to change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 467—491. Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2011). Registers at work: Generating productive resistance in the workplace. Organization Kellogg, K. C. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and micro- Science doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0657. institutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organization development 115, 657—711. Kellogg, K. C., Breen, E., Ferzoco, S. J., Zinner, M. J., & Ashley, S. W. and change. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Deetz, S. (1992a). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: (2006). Resistance to change in surgical residency: An ethno- Developments in communication and the politics of everyday graphic study of work hours reform. American College of Sur- life. Albany, NY: State University of New York. geons, 202, 565—714. Kelly, M. G. E. (2009). The political philosophy of Michel Foucault. Deetz, S. (1992b). Disciplinary power in the modern corporation. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies Abingdon: Routledge. (pp. 21—45). London: Sage. Klein, D. (1996). Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to change: The defender role. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, R. Chin, & K. E. Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging ‘resistance to Corey (Eds.), The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart change’. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25—41. Dobosz-Bourne, D., & Jankowicz, A. D. (2006). Reframing resistance and Winston. to change: Experience from General Motors Poland. International Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies, 12, 251—273. Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 2021—2034. Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (Eds.). (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. structuralism and hermeneutics. With an afterword by Michel Harvard Business Review, 73, 59—67. Foucault. Brighton: Harvester. Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57, 106—114. Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and pro- cesses of change. Organization Science, 15, 295—309. Lawrence, P. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: Business Review, 32, 49—57. The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362— Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of 377. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Management Journal, 51, 221—240. Harvard Business Review, 87, 99—103. Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: the decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 148— Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 178. Reframing resistance to organizational change 331 Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemak- Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). ing. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21—49. Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Marnet, O. (2007). History repeats itself: The failure of rational Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 655—669. choice models in corporate governance. Critical Perspectives Sorge, A., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2004). The (non)sense of organi- on Accounting, 18, 191—210. zational change: An essai about universal management hypes, McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., May, R. C., Ledgerwood, D. E., & sick consultancy metaphors, and healthy organization theories. Stewart, W. H., Jr. (2008). Overcoming resistance to change in Organization Studies, 25, 1205—1231. Russian organizations: The legacy of transactional leadership. Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (1996). Empowering middle managers Organizational Dynamics, 37, 221—235. to be transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Morgan, G., & Sturdy, A. (2000). Beyond organisational change: Science, 32, 237—261. Structure, discourse and power in UK financial services. London: Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects Macmillan. of popular management techniques on corporate performance, Nayak, A. (2008). On the way to theory: A processual approach. reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, Organization Studies, 29, 173—190. 501—524. Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision Thomas, R., & Linstead, A. (2002). Losing the plot? Middle managers making. London: Tavistock. and identity. Organization, 9, 71—93. Pettigrew, A. M. (1987). Context and action in the transformation of Thomas, R., Sargent, L., & Hardy, C. (2011). Managing organizational the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 649—670. change: Negotiating meaning and power-resistance relations. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambiva- Organization Science, 22, 22—41. lence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organiza- Tsoukas, H. (2005). Afterword: Why language matters in the analysis tional change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783—794. of organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 18, Poole, P. P., Gioia, D. A., & Gray, B. (1989). Influence modes, schema 96—104. change, and organizational transformation. Journal of Applied Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethink- Behavioral Science, 25, 271—289. ing organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567—582. Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and Homewood, IL: Irwin. resistance to organizational change: The role of leader-member Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, T. T. (1997). Understanding exchange, perceived development climate and change process and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, Management Executive, 11, 48—59. 313—334. Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construc- Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for tion in diverse organizational settings. Academy of Management studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26, 1377— Review, 30, 695—711. 1404. Rouse, J. (1994). Power/knowledge. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The Cam- Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle bridge companion to Foucault (pp. 92—114). Cambridge: Cam- management perspective: Contributions, synthesis and future bridge University Press. research. Journal of Management, 34, 1190—1221. Sawicki, J. (1991). Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, power, and the Zander, A. F. (1950). Resistance to change - its analysis and preven- body. New York: Routledge. tion. Advanced Management, 4, 9—11.