Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story (PDF)

姝 Academy of Management Review 2008, Vol. 33, No. 2, 362–377. RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: THE REST OF THE STORY JEFFREY D. FORD...

姝 Academy of Management Review 2008, Vol. 33, No. 2, 362–377. RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: THE REST OF THE STORY JEFFREY D. FORD The Ohio State University LAURIE W. FORD Critical Path Consultants ANGELO D’AMELIO The Vanto Group Prevailing views of resistance to change tell a one-sided story that favors change agents by proposing that resistance is an irrational and dysfunctional reaction lo- cated “over there” in change recipients. We tell the rest of the story by proposing that change agents contribute to the occurrence of resistance through their own actions and inactions and that resistance can be a resource for change. We conclude by proposing how resistance might be restructured. It is time to expand our understanding of re- This “change agent– centric” view presumes sistance to change, including its sources and its that resistance is an accurate report by unbi- potential contribution to effective change man- ased observers (change agents) of an objective agement. As others have noted (Dent & Gold- reality (resistance by change recipients). berg, 1999a; King & Anderson, 1995; Meston & Change agents are not portrayed as partici- King, 1996), the predominant perspective on re- pants who enact their environments (Weick, sistance is decidedly one sided, in favor of 1979) or construct their realities (Berger & Luck- change agents and their sponsors.1 Studies of mann, 1966) but, rather, as people who deal with change appear to take the perspective, or bias, and address the objectively real resistance of of those seeking to bring about change, in which change recipients. There is no consideration it is presumed change agents are doing the right given to the possibility that resistance is an and proper things while change recipients interpretation assigned by change agents to the throw up unreasonable obstacles or barriers in- behaviors and communications of change recip- tent on “doing in” or “screwing up” the change ients, or that these interpretations are either (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a; Klein, 1976). Accord- self-serving or self-fulfilling. ingly, change agents are portrayed as undeserv- Nor, for that matter, does the change agent– ing victims of the irrational and dysfunctional centric view consider the possibility that change responses of change recipients. agents contribute to the occurrence of what they call “resistant behaviors and communications” We thank Abhishek Haldar and the anonymous AMR re- through their own actions and inactions, owing viewers for their invaluable assistance in the development to their own ignorance, incompetence, or mis- of this manuscript. management (e.g., Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1 For the purpose of exposition, we use the term change 1990; Kanter et al., 1992; Schaffer & Thompson, agent to refer to those who are responsible for identifying 1992; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). Rather, resistance the need for change, creating a vision and specifying a desired outcome, and then making it happen. They are the is portrayed as an unwarranted and detrimental people responsible for the formulation and implementation response residing completely “over there, in of the change and include what Kanter, Stein, and Jick (1992) them” (the change recipients) and arising spon- call “change strategists and implementers.” Change agents, taneously as a reaction to change, independent therefore, include those engaged in the actual conduct of the of the interactions and relationships between change, as well as those who call for and sponsor it. We use the term change recipients to represent those people who the change agents and recipients (Dent & Gold- are responsible for implementing, adopting, or adapting to berg, 1999a; Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002; King the change(s) (Kanter et al., 1992). & Anderson, 1995). 362 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 363 Resistance to organization change is never questioned its continued usefulness (Dent & portrayed as the product of rationally coherent Goldberg, 1999a; King & Anderson, 1995), pro- strategies and objectives (Jermier, Knights, & posed conceptual reformulations (e.g., Piderit, Nord, 1994), even though resistance to persua- 2000), or challenged its theoretical underpin- sion has been found to be the product of nings (Czarniawska & Sevon, 1996; Latour, 1986). thoughtful consideration (e.g., Knowles & Linn, Although each has opened new avenues for ex- 2004b; Wegener, Petty, Smoak, & Fabrigar, 2004). amination, we see a consistent failure of re- Nor is resistance to change viewed as a poten- searchers to explicitly consider the contribution tial contributor to or resource for effective of change agents to resistance and the implica- change, despite the fact that authentic dissent tions of that contribution for the role of resis- has been shown to be functional in other areas tance in change. The intent of this article is to of management (Nemeth, Brown, & Rogers, 2001; begin addressing this failure. Nemeth, Connell, Rogers, & Brown, 2001; Schulz- Hardt, Jochims, & Frey, 2002). As a result, we RESISTANCE AS CHANGE AGENT have a one-sided view of resistance that is SENSEMAKING treated as received truth, even though this view is both theoretically and practically limited, Current approaches to change tend to treat overly simplistic, and perhaps even misguided change agents like the umpire who asserts, “I (Dent & Goldberg, 1999b; Jermier et al., 1994; call them [balls and strikes] as they are” (Weick, King & Anderson, 1995). 1979)—that is, assuming they are mirroring a Given these limitations, we think it is time to reality in which resistance is a report on objec- expand the resistance story in three ways: first, tive phenomena that exist independent of them. by considering resistance as a self-serving and This assumption ignores that change presents potentially self-fulfilling label, given by change both agents and recipients with potential prob- agents attempting to make sense of change re- lems that are an occasion and trigger for sense- cipients’ reactions to change initiatives, rather making (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia, than a literal description of an objective reality; Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994; Weick, 1995). second, by examining the ways in which change Problems are not givens; they are constructed agents contribute to the occurrence of the very from novel, discrepant, or problematic situa- reactions they label as resistance through their tions that are puzzling, troubling, or uncertain to own actions and inactions, such as the breach of participants (Weick, 1995). Change is a situation agreements and failure to restore trust (Cobb, that interrupts normal patterns of organization Wooten, & Folger, 1995; Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; and calls for participants to enact new patterns, Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Tomlinson, Dineen, involving an interplay of deliberate and emer- & Lewicki, 2004), which implies that resistance is gent processes that can be highly ambiguous neither a sudden nor a direct response to a par- (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). In these circum- ticular instance of change but, rather, a function stances both change agents and change recipi- of the quality of the relationship between agents ents engage in sensemaking: change agents try and recipients in which change agents are and to determine “How will this get accomplished?” have been active participants and contributors; and change recipients try to determine “What and, third, by considering that there are circum- will happen to me?” (Gioia et al., 1994). stances under which what agents call resis- Sensemaking is an active process that in- tance can be a positive contribution to change volves the interaction of information seeking, (e.g., Knowles & Linn, 2004c). By assuming that meaning ascription, and associated responses resistance is necessarily bad, change agents (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993). It includes ex- have missed its potential contributions of in- tracting particular behaviors and communica- creasing the likelihood of successful implemen- tions out of streams of ongoing events (i.e., tation, helping build awareness and momentum bracketing), interpreting them to give them for change, and eliminating unnecessary, im- meaning, and then acting on the resulting inter- practical, or counterproductive elements in the pretation. In the process, events and meanings design or conduct of the change process. become commingled, resulting in what Bohm We are not the first to reexamine resistance or (1996) terms a net presentation, in which events its role in organizational change. Others have and meanings are treated as a single, seamless 364 Academy of Management Review April reality (see also Goss, 1996, and Watzlawick, idating their expectations, and sustaining the 1990). Change agents take actions consistent received truth that people resist change. with the net presentation, reifying and objecti- fying it as if it exists independent of them and as A Self-Serving Account if they had nothing to do with its creation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Sensemaking, by in- Sensemaking occurs in conversations that in- cluding authoring and creation as well as dis- volve giving accounts or self-justifying explana- covery, implies a higher level of change agent tions of events and activities. Scott and Lyman involvement than simply reporting or interpre- (1968) defined an account as a linguistic device tation (Gioia et al., 1994; Weick, 1995). employed when action is subject to evaluation, particularly when there is a gap between action and expectation or between promise and perfor- Expectation Effects mance. A form of defensive speaking (Schutz & Expectations, such as those found in self- Baumeister, 1999), an account’s purpose is to ex- fulfilling prophecies and the Pygmalion effect, plain unexpected or untoward behaviors or out- can have a significant impact on change agent comes in a way that will help the speaker main- sensemaking, particularly bracketing (Eden, tain a favorable relationship with the audience 1984, 1988; Madon, Jussim, & Eccles, 1997; hearing the account. If change agents are ex- Watzlawick, 1984). A self-fulfilling prophecy be- pected to mobilize action and fail to do so, an gins with a person’s belief, false at the time, that account for the failure is warranted (Eccles, Noh- a certain event will happen in the future. The ria, & Berley, 1992). person holding the belief then behaves as if the But not just any account will suffice. Whether event is an inevitable occurrence, making sense an audience accepts an account depends on the of the actions and communications of others in shared background expectancies and under- such a way as to confirm the prophecy. In so standings of the interactants. Accounts that ap- doing, he or she enacts a world that appears as peal to what “everyone knows” have a higher an insightful awareness of reality, rather than a likelihood of being accepted (Scott & Lyman, product of his or her own authorship (Weick, 1968). As a received truth, resistance meets this 1979). Accordingly, research shows that expecta- standard, making it a readily acceptable ac- tions regarding the ability and potential of oth- count. This means that change agents’ accounts ers affect the assessments of their performance of unexpected problems in a change process can and subsequent treatment by authority fig- safely attribute those problems to resistance as ures—for example, teachers and leaders (Berger a way to divert attention from other factors, in- & Luckmann, 1966; Eden, 1988; Eden & Shani, cluding their own failings (Meston & King, 1996). 1982). Change agents are thereby encouraged to en- The work on self-fulfilling prophecies and the gage in sensemaking that entails scapegoating Pygmalion effect suggests that if change agents and sloughing off responsibility by blaming dif- go into a change expecting resistance, they are ficulties on resistance. likely to find it (Kanter et al., 1992). As Winslow The literature on self-serving attributions and points out: bias is replete with examples of decision mak- ers at all levels giving accounts that shift blame Someone holding the hypothesis of, or actually and make them look good (e.g., Bettman & Weitz, believing in, resistance to change, will plan on resistance, will plot ways to minimize it, will be 1983; Ford, 1985; Kelley, 1973; Salancik & Meindl, tempted to disguise or hide the change, will keep 1984). Unless we are willing to assume that it a secret, in short take any and all actions to change agents are immune to these same attri- overcome this assumed resistance, which then, butional tendencies, it is reasonable to expect surprise, surprise, leads to the appearance of the them to give accounts in which they take credit very phenomenon that was hoped to be avoided (quoted in Dent & Goldberg, 1999a: 38). for successful changes and blame other factors, such as resistance, for problems and failures. Expectations, by shaping the very phenomenon Giving accounts for the problems associated to which change agents are paying attention, with change, therefore, is a matter of making predispose change agents to look for and find sense of failures, setbacks, or complaints for an resistance, thereby confirming its existence, val- interested audience. As such, invoking “resis- 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 365 tance to change” as the source of these prob- or the ways in which people of greater authority lems is both individually and collectively self- interact with those of lesser authority (Shapiro & serving for change agents, because it sustains Kirkman, 1999). standardized terminology and beliefs within the Research on organizational justice has shown community of change agents, validates the fun- that when people see themselves as being or damental tenet that people resist change, and having been treated fairly, they develop atti- absolves or mitigates agent responsibility for tudes and behaviors associated with successful the unexpected negative aspects of change. By change (Cobb et al., 1995). However, when peo- locating resistance “over there, in them” (i.e., ple experience an injustice or betrayal, they re- change recipients), rather than treating it as the port resentment, a sense of being done to, and a interactive systemic phenomenon envisioned by desire for retribution (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999), Lewin (1952), change agents shift responsibility which can result in such negative behaviors as for resistance from things under their control stealing, lower productivity, lower work quality, (i.e., systemic factors) to the characteristics and and less cooperation (Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999), attributes of recipients (Caruth, Middlebrook, & along with the loss of trust of, obligation toward, Rachel, 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; O’Toole, and satisfaction with their employer (Robinson, 1995). In this way the generic explanation of 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson & resistance serves to conceal the specific behav- Rousseau, 1994). In extreme cases, people may iors and communications of both agents and seek revenge or retaliation and engage in sab- recipients that lie behind it. For these reasons, otage, theft, or other aggressive or violent be- we should not be surprised that recommended havior (Benisom, 1994; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; strategies for dealing with resistance focus on Tripp & Bies, 1997), believing that such actions doing things to or for change recipients, while are justifiable ways to “get even” for perceived saying little or nothing about the actions of mistreatment and to balance a perceived injus- change agents (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). tice. Many of the responses to injustice have also been labeled as forms of resistance (Caruth et CHANGE AGENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO al., 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; O’Toole, RESISTANCE 1995), suggesting that resistance may be the re- The contribution of change agents to resis- sult of perceived injustice and broken agree- tance goes beyond the labeling that results from ments. Our own speculation is that this result their own sensemaking to breaking agreements may be particularly evident in cases of transfor- and violating trust, misrepresentation and other mational change, where there is a greater like- communication breakdowns, and their own re- lihood that existing agreements will be broken sistance to change. and replaced with fundamentally different ones (Rousseau, 1996), eroding recipient trust and agent credibility. Nevertheless, victims of bro- Broken Agreements and the Violation of Trust ken agreements are willing to reconcile and re- Change agents contribute to recipient reac- pair a relationship if the offender offers a sin- tions by breaking agreements both before and cere, formal, and timely apology that clearly during change and by failing to restore the sub- admits personal culpability (Tomlinson et al., sequent loss of trust (Andersson, 1996; Cobb et 2004). al., 1995; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). This line of research suggests that change Agreements, including psychological and im- agents who repair damaged relationships and plied contracts (Rousseau, 1995, 1996, 1998), are restore trust both before and during change are broken or breached whenever agents of the or- less likely to encounter resistance than agents ganization knowingly or unknowingly renege on who do not. Moreover, since past broken agree- a promise or an understood and expected pat- ments have been found to have a negative effect tern of cooperation (Axelrod, 1984; Morrison & on victims’ expectations of future violations Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989). Breaches occur (Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999; Tomlinson et al., 2004), when there are changes in the distribution and agents who fail to bring about closure (Albert, allocation of resources, the processes and pro- 1983, 1984; Albert & Kessler, 1976) are more likely cedures by which those reallocations are made, to encounter actions they will label resistance 366 Academy of Management Review April not only in later phases of current changes but ments in order to identify strengths and weak- in subsequent changes as well (Duck, 2001; nesses (Knowles & Linn, 2004b). As a result, Knowles & Linn, 2004b). In this respect, research strong, well-developed supporting justifications shows that failing to repair damaged relation- tend to be accepted and weak ones rejected. By ships and restore trust leads to other responses dismissing this scrutiny as resistance, change that will be labeled resistance: cynicism, a ten- agents not only miss the opportunity to provide dency to engage in disparaging and critical be- compelling justifications that help recipients haviors toward both change and change agents, make the cognitive reassessments required to and lower work motivation and commitment support change but also increase the risk of (Andersson, 1996; Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, inoculating recipients against future change 1998; Reichers et al., 1997). (Knowles & Linn, 2004b). According to McGuire’s theory of inoculation, Communication Breakdowns change recipients’ success in resisting influence is determined by their ability to refute argu- Change agents can also contribute to the oc- ments that challenge their prevailing beliefs currence of resistance through communication (McGuire, 1964; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961). breakdowns, such as failing to legitimize Developing counterarguments builds a stronger change, misrepresenting its chances of success, defense of and rationale for their current per- and failing to call people to action. spectives, thereby serving as a form of inocula- Failure to legitimize change. Traditional per- tion against future challenges (Tormala & Petty, spectives on diffusion contend that adoption is 2004). Inoculation theory suggests that change driven by the merits of the innovation and/or agents who do not develop and provide compel- characteristics of adopters, rather than the dis- ling justifications that overcome the potential or cursive practices of change agents (Green, 2004). prevailing counterarguments, or who fail to In this respect, diffusion is treated as an object- demonstrate the validity of those justifications, like phenomenon that moves in the same way end up inoculating recipients and increasing physical objects move and is slowed by contact their immunity to change. Inoculation theory with recipients (Latour, 1986). But innovations has been used successfully in increasing col- and changes are not objects; they are conversa- lege student resistance to credit card advertise- tions, discourses, and texts (Barrett, Thomas, & ments (Compton & Pfau, 2004), preventing the Hocevar, 1995; Boje, 1995; Czarniawska & Sevon, 1996; Fairclough, 1992; Ford, 1999), the merits of erosion of public attitudes toward an organiza- which are seldom self-evident. Change agents, tion following a crisis (Wan & Pfau, 2004), and therefore, must provide discursive justifications increasing the resistance of supporters of polit- that establish the appropriateness and ratio- ical candidates to attack messages from oppos- nality of change adoption, create readiness for ing candidates (Pfau & Burgoon, 1988). change, and increase not only the likelihood of Finally, although Piderit (2000) has suggested recipient acceptance and participation in the that ambivalence may be helpful during change but also the speed and extent of that change, Larson and Tompkins (2005) have found acceptance (Amenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, that change agents undermine the power of 1993; Green, 2004; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). their justifications for and the legitimacy of a Recipient acceptance of and participation in change by being ambivalent. Using the rhetoric the initial stages of a change has been shown to of the new while engaging in the practices of the depend on recipients’ assessment of its instru- old, or advocating the value of the new while mentality—that is, the likelihood the change praising the success of the old, sends an incon- will lead to personal and organizational bene- sistent message to change recipients, making it fits (Kim & Rousseau, 2006). Because the valua- easier for them to invoke the discourses of the tion of a change’s instrumentality requires con- successful past to counter arguments that siderable information processing and cognitive change is really needed. Through their ambiva- effort (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Withey & Cooper, lence, agents give recipients greater certainty 1989), recipients give greater scrutiny to pro- and confidence in what arguments to use while posed changes by questioning, evaluating, and undermining their own ability to effectively countering the elements of supporting argu- counter those arguments when they are em- 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 367 ployed (Quereshi & Strauss, 1980; Tormala & ple, found that a realistic merger preview—a Petty, 2004). complete and authentic explanation of both the Misrepresentation. Change agents may en- positive and negative outcomes of a merger— gage in intentional misrepresentation to induce reduced the uncertainty change recipients had recipients’ participation, to look good, or to about change and increased their ability to cope avoid losing face and looking bad (DePaulo, with it. Realistic previews have also been Kashy, Kirkendol, & Wyer, 1996). Deception and shown to be effective in other settings (Wanous, misrepresentation are bargaining tactics that 1992). may be used during negotiations and are more No call for action. Discursive justifications likely to occur in competitive situations where and realistic representations of change are nec- the stakes (e.g., reputations and careers) are essary to the perceived legitimacy and credibil- high and there are incentives (e.g., “winning”) ity of change and change agents, but they are for unethical behavior (Hegarty & Sims, 1978; not sufficient for producing action. Change is Tenbrunsel, 1998). Tenbrunsel (1998), for exam- fundamentally about mobilizing action, and al- ple, found that in competitive situations an ex- though talk is essential, not all talk leads to pectation of unethical behavior by one party action (Eccles et al., 1992; Ford & Ford, 1995; promotes a type of defensive ethics whereby the Winograd & Flores, 1987). Of the four conversa- other party responds with his or her own uneth- tions involved in the conduct of change, only ical behavior in order to protect him/herself and conversations for performance are specifically avoid being seen as a sucker. This suggests that designed to elicit action (Ford & Ford, 1995). where change is seen in a competitive context, When change agents mistakenly assume that such as when agents believe recipients have understanding is, or should be, sufficient to pro- engaged in deceptive behavior during previous duce action, they are likely to emphasize con- changes or expect they will this time in order to versations for understanding over conversations get some type of concession, agents may mis- for performance and are, as a consequence, represent the costs, benefits, or likely success of likely to see little or no action (Beer et al., 1990; the change. Ford & Ford, 1995). Ashkenas and Jick (1992), for Not all misrepresentations of change, how- example, found, in their study of General Elec- ever, are intentional. Since decision makers tric’s Work-Out Program, that without conversa- have a bias toward optimism (Lovallo & Kahne- tions for performance, people naively assumed man, 2003), change agent optimism may be gen- that recipient understanding and acceptance uine and not intended to be either deceptive or would lead to action. If change agents make this misleading. As a result of their optimism, agents assumption, they may inappropriately attribute may oversell the positive and undersell the neg- the lack of action to resistance rather than to a ative. Nevertheless, as change unfolds and re- failure to use an appropriate mix of conversa- cipients compare actual results to the original tions, particularly conversations for perfor- promises and projections, unfavorable devia- mance. tions can result in perceptions of misrepresen- tation, injustice, and violations of trust (Folger & Resisting Resistance Skarlicki, 1999; Tomlinson et al., 2004) that un- dermine agent credibility and add to recipient By assuming that only change recipients re- anticipation of future inconsistencies (Folger & sist change, proponents of traditional ap- Skarlicki, 1999). proaches ignore the possibility that change As a practical matter, change agents are en- agents may be resistant to the ideas, proposals, couraged to communicate frequently and enthu- and counteroffers submitted by change recipi- siastically about change (Lewis, Schmisseur, ents. Research on procedural and interactional Stephens, & Weir, 2006). Yet, in doing so, they justice (Folger et al., 1999; Whitener, Brodt, Kors- run the risk of being seen as misrepresenting gaard, & Werner, 1998) indicates that if change the change. Agents can reduce the chances of agents fail to treat the communications of such accusations by being as truthful, realistic, change recipients as genuine and legitimate, or and accurate in their depiction of the change as as extensions and translations of the change, possible, including revealing what they do not they may be seen as resistant (e.g., “defensive,” know. Schweigger and DeNisi (1991), for exam- “unreceptive,” or “their mind is made up”) by 368 Academy of Management Review April change recipients. Change agent defensiveness challenge for change agents is getting new con- may also be more likely when recipient reac- versations heard—and ultimately spoken—in tions indicate that more effort will be required to enough places, often enough, and long enough accomplish the change than was originally that they catch on and take root (Barrett et al., planned or that there will be undesirable bud- 1995). This is where resistance can be of value. get or other performance impacts, or when the Resistance helps keep conversations in exis- change agent has career consequences associ- tence, as evidenced by the following example ated with the success of the change (King & from a pharmaceutical company introducing a Anderson, 1995). The cost of this defensiveness new product: is the persistence of resistance and its escala- Using [the] data was very strong, something like tion in a vicious cycle, in which resistance be- “shock therapy,” but it gave us the opportunity to gets resistance (Powell & Posner, 1978). get our foot in the door. We wanted as many One way in which agents resist resistance is people as possible talking about the issue; we to not talk about it in the mistaken belief that to wanted to create a debate. In the beginning, we weren’t concerned whether people were talking acknowledge something is to give it power and in a positive or even a negative way, because credence. However, Tomala and Petty (2004) either way, it was bringing attention to our issue point out that not talking about or acknowledg- (Reputation Management, 1999: 59). ing resistance may actually exacerbate it. Build- ing on the approach-avoidance theory of per- Although talking in a negative way—for exam- suasion, they contend that a persuasive ple, complaining and criticizing— has been la- message raises both accepting consideration beled as resistance (Caruth et al., 1985), it can and counteractive resistance and that acknowl- nevertheless be functional because it keeps the edging resistance, labeling it as such, and topic “in play”—that is, in existence— giving overtly identifying its role in change have the others an opportunity to participate in the con- paradoxical effect of defusing its power. versation. Barrett et al. (1995) found that criti- cism of the introduction of total quality leader- ship helped keep the conversation active, gave RESISTANCE AS A RESOURCE agents an opportunity to clarify and further le- Change recipients’ reactions to change are gitimize the change, and gave recipients an op- not necessarily dysfunctional obstacles or lia- portunity to create translations and understand- bilities to successful change. On the contrary, ings that contributed to their subsequent recipient reactions can have value for the exis- acceptance and expansion of the change. tence, engagement, and strength of a change, Rather than being an obstacle or detriment to serving as an asset and a resource in its imple- successful change, therefore, resistance para- mentation and successful accomplishment doxically may be a critical factor in its ultimate (Knowles & Linn, 2004b). success. In fact, the ephemeral nature of conver- sations, when combined with the principles of extinction in verbal behavior (Skinner, 1991), Existence Value of Resistance leads us to speculate that if people want a Organizational change entails introducing change to die (i.e., go out of existence), they new conversations and shifting existing conver- would be better off not talking about it than sations and patterns of discourse (Barrett et al., engaging in existence-giving “resistance” com- 1995; Czarniawska, 1997; Fairclough, 1992; Ford, munications that provide energy and further its 1999). But new conversations have difficulty translation and diffusion (Czarniawska & Sevon, competing with already existing conversations 1996). that are well practiced and habituated, not be- cause the new conversations are without value Engagement Value of Resistance but because they suffer from the liabilities of newness, inexperience, and unfamiliarity (Bar- Resistance is one possible form of engage- rett et al., 1995; Kanter, 1989, 2001, 2002). Add to ment with change (acceptance and ambiva- this that conversations are ephemeral, disap- lence being others [Piderit, 2000]) and may, in pearing when they are not being spoken (Ber- some cases, reflect a higher level of commitment quist, 1993), and it becomes evident that one than acceptance, because some resistance is 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 369 thoughtful. Treating resistance as “irrational” change recipients not to engage in the very presumes that it violates normative standards of thing that is wanted. For example, insomniacs decision making by being the result of an un- may be advised to stay awake, or dieters to stop thoughtful, unconsidered, and uninformed dieting. By resisting the instruction, change re- choice between acceptance/compliance and re- cipients move in the direction of the desired sistance (Brunsson, 1986). However, as in the outcome—sleep and weight loss. Kavanagh case of attitude change, there are thoughtful as (2004) has contended that the development of well as nonthoughtful mechanisms for both ac- open source software was the result of a para- ceptance and resistance (Wegener et al., 2004). doxical intervention in which software develop- Attitudes based on high levels of information ers were told not to develop such software. processing (i.e., thoughtful attitudes), on the one In physics, resistance is understood as an in- hand, are more likely to generate scrutiny and evitable consequence of motion (except in a vac- well-considered counterarguments and, thus, to uum), with the magnitude of resistance provid- be less susceptible to persuasion than attitudes ing feedback on the mechanism’s design. based on lower levels (Wegener et al., 2004). As Change agents can similarly use resistance as a result, changes in these attitudes represent a feedback on recipient engagement by listening significant “win” (conversion) for change agents keenly to comments, complaints, and criticisms that can give them highly committed and moti- for cues to adjust the pace, scope, or sequencing vated partners over the duration of change (Kim of change and/or its implementation. Thus, & Mauborgne, 2003; Kotter, 1995). Unthoughtful rather than dismissing recipient scrutiny as irra- acceptance, on the other hand, although it pro- tional and acceptance as rational, change vides immediate agreement and support, can agents can use resistance as an indicator of erode as change progresses, undermining its recipient engagement and a valuable source of long-term viability (Duck, 2001). feedback for improving the process and conduct Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) proposes that of change (Amason, 1996; Schweiger, Sandberg, people resist externally imposed changes that & Rechner, 1989). In fact, agents may want to threaten freedoms important to them, indicating consider the absence of resistance as a sign of a potentially higher level of psychological in- disengagement and a harbinger of future prob- volvement and commitment among people who lems resulting from unthinking acceptance are demonstrating “resistance” than those ap- (Wegener et al., 2004). pearing to accept the changes. Change recipi- ents who are highly committed to the success of Strengthening Value of Resistance the organization but who disagree with a pro- posed change because it threatens something of Resistance is a form of conflict. And since value to them may engage in the change pro- conflict has been found to strengthen and im- cess by expressing their concerns. Such expres- prove not only the quality of decisions but also sions are particularly likely from recipients who participants’ commitments to the implementa- are high in organizational identity and psycho- tion of those decisions (Amason, 1996), it stands logical ownership (Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, to reason that resistance can provide a similar 1996; Eccles et al., 1992). Where recipients have a strengthening value during change. This is par- stake in what happens to “their” organization, ticularly likely where resistance is authentic process, or group, they may raise objections or rather than contrived or artificially generated questions or may engage in other “resistive” through the use of such strategies as dialectical behaviors as a function of an authentic commit- inquiry or devil’s advocacy (Nemeth, Brown, & ment to and concern for the organization’s via- Rogers, 2001; Nemeth, Connell, Rogers, & Brown, bility or success. 2001; Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002). Resistance can also be used to engage people The difficulty, however, is that both functional in change through paradoxical interventions (e.g., task) and dysfunctional (e.g., emotional) (Tormala & Petty, 2004; Watzlawick, 1990) in conflict can occur simultaneously, and since which agents specify a target for the resistance, emotional conflict is highly contagious (Hat- thereby constraining, controlling, and using the field, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994), it has the po- energies of resistance to help promote a given tential to overshadow or dominate task conflict. change. Quite literally, change agents instruct Moreover, any significant level of conflict—task 370 Academy of Management Review April or emotional— can be detrimental (DeDreu & RECONSTRUCTING RESISTANCE Weingart, 2003), negatively impacting partici- Dent and Goldberg (1999a) have argued that pants’ experience and lessening their accep- part of the reason for the current and limiting tance of and support for the implementation of assumptions about resistance is that the con- change (Schweiger et al., 1989). It is understand- cept has been pared down since its origin. Ini- able, therefore, that change agents might con- tially envisioned as a systemic phenomenon sider any resistance dysfunctional. Neverthe- (Lewin, 1952), resistance has come to be seen less, by treating resistance as dysfunctional largely as a psychological phenomenon located conflict, change agents lose the potential “over there” in change recipients. This paring strengthening value that functional conflict can down has reduced the need to develop new tools contribute to the change and its implementa- to improve success rates for organizational tion. change and has left change agents with only Treating resistance as dysfunctional also ig- one path to take: refine ways to show recipients nores much of the classic work on attitude the “errors of their ways” by dealing with the change that focuses on ways to strengthen, misunderstandings, fears, and apprehensions rather than weaken, the resistance properties of believed to underlie their resistance. There are attitudes (Wegener et al., 2004). In a world with few tools, for example, that help change agents absolutely no resistance, no change would stick, (1) repair damaged trust resulting from broken and recipients would completely accept the ad- agreements (Tomlinson et al., 2004), (2) address vocacy of all messages received, including and resolve issues of mistreatment or injustice those detrimental to the organization. Conflict is (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999), (3) admit mistakes or one of the ways used to help inoculate and im- take other actions that restore credibility munize people against subsequent change, in- (Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Reichers et al., 1997), or cluding backsliding (McGuire, 1964). One possi- (4) complete and bring closure to the past (Al- ble outcome of resistance, then, is a potentially bert, 1983; Ford et al., 2002). stronger commitment to the change on the part In the face of such paring down from systemic of recipients. to psychological phenomena, it might be easy to Emotional conflict is not necessarily related to propose, as others have (e.g., Dent & Goldberg, present change proposals or conditions. Rather, 1999a; Piderit, 2000), that the concept of resis- it may be a function of unresolved issues from tance to change may have lost its value and previous changes (Reichers et al., 1997). For this should be abandoned. This is not, however, the course of action advocated here. Rather, we see reason it can indicate that some organizational an opportunity to reconstruct resistance by ex- housekeeping is required, such as restoring panding it to include the contributory role of trust. If this need is recognized and addressed, it change agents and, thus, of the agent-recipient can provide the opportunity for agents to relationship. strengthen their relationships with recipients A reconstruction of resistance based on the (Tomlinson et al., 2004). arguments presented here implies that what is Finally, the mere threat or anticipation of re- currently considered “resistance to change” can sistance can encourage change agents to adopt be more appropriately understood as a dynamic some of the management practices known to among three elements. One element is “recipi- reduce resistance and strengthen change. These ent action,” which is any behavior or communi- practices include communicating extensively, cation that occurs in response to a change ini- inviting people to participate, providing people tiative and its implementation. This element has with needed resources, and developing strong been the primary focus of the extant resistance working relationships (Caruth et al., 1985; Kotter, literature. The second element is “agent sense- 1995; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Kouzes & Pos- making,” including agents’ interpretations of ner, 1993). Where these management practices and meanings given to actual or anticipated have fallen by the wayside, a good dose of re- recipient actions as well as the actions agents sistance (or the fear of it) may be exactly the take as a function of their own interpretations reminder needed to have change agents alter and meanings. Although agents’ responses to their practices. their interpretation of resistance have been con- 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 371 sidered as strategies for overcoming resistance directly and, thus, bring old hurts, angers, or (e.g., Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979), their sensemak- assumptions out of the hidden background and ing has not. The third element is the “agent- into the light of a dialogue for closure, resolu- recipient relationship” that provides the context tion, or inclusion in agent sensemaking (Isaacs, in which the first two elements occur and that 1993). In this way, what is labeled resistance shapes, and is shaped by, agent-recipient inter- (and its assumed causes) becomes an observ- actions. Each of these elements has implications able transaction “in between” agents and recip- for the reconstruction of resistance. ients and not a purely conjectured phenomenon residing “over there” in the recipients of change. Recipient Resistance Is Public Agent Sensemaking Is Determinant The first implication of this reconstruction is that resistance can be restored from a psycho- A second implication of this reconstruction is logical to a systemic phenomenon by shifting that there is no resistance to change existing as attention from the “private” or “internal” resis- an independent phenomenon apart from change tance of recipients to the public behaviors, con- agent sensemaking. This does not mean that versations, and observable activities that con- recipients don’t have reactions to change, nor stitute the interactions between agents and does it mean that their actions can’t have an recipients. This is not to say that recipients can- adverse impact on change; they can and they not and do not have a variety of thoughts, feel- do. What it does mean, however, is that none of ings, and attitudes toward changes or those who these actions/reactions are, in and of them- sponsor them; clearly, they do (Piderit, 2000). Ap- selves, resistance, and they do not become re- proach-avoidance theory (Knowles & Linn, sistance unless and until change agents assign 2004a) tells us that people can be simulta- the label resistance to them as part of their sense- neously for (approach) and against (avoid) making. When agents can include their own change. In this regard, research shows that peo- sensemaking in the diagnosis of resistance, ple who voluntary undertake to quit smoking their orientations, logics, and assumptions can still have strong positive and negative beliefs be brought into the conversation for change and and feelings about doing so (Petty & Cacioppo, resistance to change. 1996), and people with high-quality employment When agents are included in the resistance relationships have both positive and negative dialogue, the interesting question is no longer views toward change (Kim & Rousseau, 2006). “Why do recipients resist change?” but “Why do By saying that resistance is public, we mean agents call some actions resistance and not oth- that observable recipient actions are the trig- ers?” This question puts the agent squarely in gers for agent sensemaking, and it is these ac- the equation for resistance and asks us to con- tions that are the basis for the label resistance. sider why almost every observable phenomenon Accordingly, it is possible for recipients to be of change, from a smirk or a glassy look of inat- internally positive toward a change while si- tention to insubordination or sabotage, has been multaneously taking actions or delivering com- called resistance (Caruth et al., 1985; Knowles & munications that change agents call resistance. Linn, 2004b). Indeed, some have concluded that It also possible for recipients to be internally almost any recipient response can be labeled ambivalent, or even negative, while taking ac- resistance (Meston & Kings, 1996). tions that agents do not call resistance. Agents, This question is even more interesting when it of course, may make sense of these actions by is recognized that actions labeled resistance by attributing them to unseen but hypothesized pri- agents are not perceived as such by those en- vate or internal motivations, which they then gaged in them (Eccles et al., 1992; Kelman & seek to redress through various resistance- Warwick, 1973). Young (2000), for example, found reducing strategies (Knowles & Linn, 2004b). that managers labeled resistant by change When we agree to deal with resistance in agents actually saw their actions to be support- terms of publicly observable phenomena, we do ing, not undermining, the organization’s goals. not need to hypothesize recipient feelings of in- Similarly, King and Anderson (1995) have con- justice, betrayal, and violations of trust. Rather, tended that actions perceived by agents as we can overtly inquire about such perceptions harmful and warranting dismissal may be per- 372 Academy of Management Review April ceived by others as morally justified or heroic Overcoming “Resistance” behavior worthy of praise. A third implication of our reconstruction is If sensemaking leads to assigning “resis- that what is currently called “overcoming resis- tance” to virtually any recipient action agents tance” is an issue of agents effectively manag- find to be suspicious, distasteful, or disagree- ing the agent-recipient relationship, including able, then not only does the term lose its dis- making recipient “resistance” and agent sense- criminatory power but it raises questions con- making a public part of the discourse for cerning the basis for agents making such change. If, as Weick (1979) proposed, the basic assignments. Morrison and Robinson (1997) sug- units of organizing are the interact and double gest one reason agents may label recipient ac- interact, then resistance cannot be a one-sided tions as resistance is because they feel the ac- recipient response. Rather, it must be a function tions constitute a failure by recipients to honor of participant interactions that shape and are and fulfill their psychological contracts. If this is shaped by the nature and quality of the agent- the case, agents may label some actions resis- recipient relationship. tance not because the actions are necessarily A relationship can be understood as a context harmful to the change but because the agents of background conversations against which ex- consider them contrary to what should be done, plicit foreground actions and communications, what’s right, or what’s appropriate. such as those taking place during the initiation Another agent motivation for labeling behav- and implementation of change, will occur (Ford ior as resistance stems from the challenge of et al., 2002). Background conversations are prod- separating “background resistance” in an orga- ucts of experiences and traditions, both direct nization from the special factors that need to be and inherited, that provide a space of possibil- addressed in order for a change to be successful. ities and influence the way people listen to what There may be a variety of actions in an organi- is said and what is unsaid (Berger & Luckmann, zation, such as foot dragging, failing to follow 1966; Harré, 1980; Heidegger, 1971; Winograd & procedures, being late for or missing meetings, Flores, 1987). This context shapes the meaning of complaining, gossiping, failing to perform, and what is said and whether a particular speaking so forth, that are endemic, albeit in varying de- (including action) is correct or incorrect, appro- grees, in all organizations. These normal, every- priate or inappropriate (Wittgenstein, 1958). day actions are a function of many factors, such When we expand the context of change to bring as leadership style, reward systems, group dy- the previously unspoken or assumed concerns of namics, and interpersonal conflicts, and not both recipients and agents out of the back- necessarily related to a specific change. Still, ground and into the foreground conversations these everyday actions are cited as evidence of for change, agents have the opportunity to en- resistance to change (e.g., Caruth et al., 1985; gage people in creating new realities, rather O’Toole, 1995). than in only prying them loose from old ones. Because change is often associated with One thing that can support agents in manag- greater urgency, pressure, and risk than normal ing the agent-recipient relationship is their will- organization activities (Kotter, 1995), agents may ingness to be responsible for their own sense- be less tolerant of and more frustrated by ac- making. When agents are willing to see tions habitually displayed by recipients. Label- “resistance” as a product of their own actions ing these actions resistance provides agents a and sensemaking, thus taking more responsibil- readily accepted justification for operating in ity for their role in its occurrence, they are free to different and potentially more aggressive ways, choose more empowering and effective interpre- thereby signaling that the game has changed tations of recipient actions. For example, from a and that certain behaviors will no longer be conversational perspective, a change initiative tolerated, at least during the change. If this is can be seen as a request that can be declined or the case, then agents may assign “resistance” counteroffered (Goss, 1996; Winograd & Flores, not because the actions are necessarily peculiar 1987). When someone declines a request, he or or harmful to the change but because of a desire she is saying, “I’m not going to do that.” When to provide themselves with greater degrees of the individual counteroffers, he or she is saying, freedom in the ways they deal with recipients. “I am willing to do that, but X,” where X is the 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 373 concession he or she is requesting as a condi- butions to change, is being sure we engage all tion for accepting the request. In either case, the of it: recipient action, agent sensemaking, and failure to wholeheartedly accept the request organizational background and the dynamics of could be interpreted by agents as resistance. relationship. In so doing, we avoid attributing But a counteroffer is a move in a conversation too much agency to either recipients or agents made by someone who is willing and receptive while finding a balance that describes how they to the request yet is seeking some accommoda- interact to form situational expressions of “re- tion. Seeking an accommodation may sound like sistance to change” (Larson & Tompkins, 2005). too many questions, or even like challenges, objections, or complaints. If agents interpret such actions from recipients as refusals to ac- REFERENCES commodate, participate, or contribute to the Albert, S. 1983. The sense of closure. In K. Gergen & change, they forfeit the opportunity to consider M. Gergen (Eds.), Historical social psychology: 159 –172. the counteroffer being proposed. Agents can de- Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. liberately opt to make sense of recipient ques- Albert, S. 1984. A delete design model for successful transi- tions, complaints, and so forth by listening to it tions. In J. Kimberly & R. Quinn (Eds.), Managing orga- all as though it is a counteroffer that can update nizational transitions: 169 –191. Homewood, IL: Irwin. and refine the change to be more successful. Albert, S. & Kessler, S. 1976. Processes for ending social Relationships, of course, are dynamic and can encounters: The conceptual archeology of a temporal vary over the duration of a change. Kim and place. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 6: 147– Rousseau (2006), for example, found that al- 170. though recipients with high-quality employ- Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional ment relationships were more likely to conform and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad- to the new norms created by a change than emy of Management Journal, 39: 123–148. those with low-quality relationships, change in- Amenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. strumentality, not employment relationship Creating readiness for organizational change. Human quality, was related to recipients’ initial partic- Relations, 46: 681–703. ipation in change. Since change instrumentality Andersson, L. M. 1996. Employee cynicism: An examination is a function of the credibility of agent commu- using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, nications, these findings suggest that the qual- 49: 1395–1417. ity of the agent-recipient relationship may be Ashkenas, R., & Jick, T. 1992. From dialogue to action in GE more important in early rather than later stages work-out: Developmental learning in a change process. of change. Their findings also suggest that high- Research in Organizational Change and Development, 6: 267–287. quality agent-recipient relationships are likely to result in fewer instances of agents labeling Axelrod, R. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books. recipient actions resistance than are low- quality relationships. Barrett, F., Thomas, G., & Hocevar, S. 1995. The central role of discourse in large-scale change: A social construction The change agent’s job, therefore, must surely perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31: include responsibility for the relationship with 352–372. recipients, as well as the tactics of change im- Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. 1990. Why change pro- plementation. This includes taking charge of the grams don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, change dialogues to include inquiry that gets to 67(6): 158 –166. the root of apparently resistive behaviors by Benisom, H. F. 1994. Crisis and disaster management: Vio- bringing both agent and recipient background lence in the workplace. Training and Development, 48(1): conversations to the fore and engaging in those 27–32. actions needed to maintain and improve the Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of agent-client relationship. Overcoming resis- reality. New York: Anchor Books. tance, then, in the restructuring proposed here, Berquist, W. 1993. The postmodern organization. San Fran- becomes an outdated, one-sided concept that cisco: Jossey-Bass. ignores agent sensemaking and the agent- Bettman, J., & Weitz, B. 1983. Attributions in the board room: recipient relationship and suppresses or side- Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports. Admin- lines the potential contribution of recipients. istrative Science Quarterly, 28: 165–183. Our challenge, rather than suppressing contri- Bohm, D. 1996. On dialogue. London: Routledge. 374 Academy of Management Review April Boje, D. 1995. Stories of the storytelling organization: A post- Eden, D. 1988. Creating expectation effects in OD: Applying modern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-land.” Academy self-fulfilling prophecy. Research in Organizational of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035. Change and Development, 2: 235–267. Brehm, J. W. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. New Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. 1982. Pygmalion goes to boot camp: York: Academic Press. Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 67: 194 –199. Brunsson, N. 1986. The irrational organization: Irrationality as a basis for organizational action and change. Chi- Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cam- chester, UK: Wiley. bridge: Polity Press. Caruth, D., Middlebrook, B., & Rachel, F. 1985. Overcoming Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. 1999. Unfairness and resistance resistance to change. S.A.M. Advanced Management to change: Hardship as mistreatment. Journal of Orga- Journal, 50(3): 23–27. nizational Change Management, 12(1): 35–50. Cobb, A. T., Wooten, K. C., & Folger, R. 1995. Justice in the Ford, J. 1985. The effects of causal attributions on decision making: Toward understanding the theory and practice makers’ responses to performance downturns. Academy of justice in organizational change and development. of Management Review, 10: 770 –786. Research in Organizational Change and Development, Ford, J. D. 1999. Organizational change as shifting conversa- 8: 243–295. tions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Compton, J. A., & Pfau, M. 2004. Use of inoculation to foster 12(6): 1–39. resistance to credit card marketing targeting college Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations in students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, producing intentional change in organizations. Acad- 32: 343–364. emy of Management Review, 20: 541–570. Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organization: Dramas of Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. 2002. Resistance and institutional identity. Chicago: University of Chicago the background conversations of change. Journal of Or- Press. ganizational Change Management, 15(1): 105–121. Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (Eds.). 1996. Translating organi- Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sense- zational change. Berlin: de Gruyter. giving in strategic change initiation. Stratetgic Manage- ment Journal, 12: 433– 448. Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. 1998. Organiza- tional cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23: Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. 1994. 341–352. Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dy- namics of sensemaking and influence. Organization DeDreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus rela- Science, 5: 363–383. tionship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy- Goss, T. 1996. The last word on power. New York: Currency chology, 88: 741–749. Doubleday. Dent, E., & Goldberg, S. 1999a. Challenging “resistance to Green, S. E. 2004. A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of change.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35: 25– Management Review, 29: 653– 669. 41. Harré, R. 1980. Social being: A theory for social psychology. Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. 1999b. Resistance to change: A Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. limiting perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci- Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. 1994. Emotional con- ence, 35: 45– 47. tagion. Paris: Cambridge University Press. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., & Wyer, M. M. Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. 1978. Some determinants of 1996. Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and unethical behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 70: 979 –995. Psychology, 63: 451– 457. Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. 1996. Psycho- Heidegger, M. 1971. On the way to language. (Translated by logical ownership in organizations: Conditions under N. P. Hertz.) San Francisco: Harper & Row. which individuals promote and resist change. Re- Isaacs, W. 1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, search in Organizational Change and Development, 9: and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 1–23. 22(2): 24 –39. Duck, J. D. 2001. The change monster: The human forces that Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. 1994. Resistance and fuel or foil corporate transformation & change. New power in organizations: Agency, subjectivity and the York: Crown Business. labour process. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord Eccles, R. G., Nohria, N., & Berley, J. D. 1992. Beyond the hype: (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations: 1–24. New Rediscovering the essence of management. Boston: Har- York: Routledge. vard Business School Press. Kanter, R. 1989. When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon Eden, D. 1984. Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: and Schuster. Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Re- Kanter, R. 2001. Evolve!: Succeeding in the digital culture of view, 9: 64 –73. tomorrow. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 375 Kanter, R. 2002. Teaching old companies new tricks: The Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., & Weir, K. E. challenge of managing new streams within the main- 2006. Advice on communicating during organizational stream. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. change. Journal of Business Communication, 43: 113–137. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. 1992. The challenge of Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. 2003. Delusions of success: How organizational change: How companies experience it optimism undermines executive decisions. Harvard and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press. Business Review, 81(7): 56 – 63. Kavanagh, J. F. 2004. Resistance as motivation for innova- Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. 1997. In search of the tion: Open source software. Communications of the As- powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of Personality sociation for Information Systems, 31: 615– 628. and Social Pschology, 72: 791– 809. Kelley, H. 1973. The process of causal attribution. American McGuire, W. J. 1964. Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some Psychologist, 28: 107–128. contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad- vances in experimental and social psychology, vol. 1: Kelman, H. C., & Warwick, D. P. 1973. Bridging micro and 191–229. New York: Academic Press. macro approaches to social change: A social-psycholog- ical perspective. In G. Zaltman (Ed.), Processes and phe- McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. 1961. The relative efficacy nomena of social change: 13–59. New York: Wiley. of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Kim, T. G., & Rousseau, D. M. 2006. From novelty to routine: Social Psychology, 62: 327–337. Employee motivational shifts across phases of organiza- tional change. Working paper, University of Delaware, Meston, C., & King, N. 1996. Making sense of “resistance”: Newark. Responses to organizational change in a private nurs- ing home for the elderly. European Journal of Work and Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. 2003. Tipping point leader- Organizational Psychology, 5: 91–102. ship. Harvard Business Review, 81(3): 60 – 69. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and King, N., & Anderson, N. 1995. Innovation and change in emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257–272. organizations. London: Routledge. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Klein, D. 1976. Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to Extrarole efforts to intiate workplace change. Academy change: The defender role. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, of Management Journal, 42: 403– 419. R. Chin, & K. E. Corey (Eds.), The planning of change (3rd ed.): 117–124. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract viola- Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. 2004a. Approach-avoidance tion develops. Academy of Management Review, 22: model of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies for 226 –256. change. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion: 117–148. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- Nemeth, C. J., Brown, K. S., & Rogers, J. D. 2001. Devil’s baum Associates. advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31: Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. 2004b. The importance of resis- 707–720. tance to persuasion. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion: 3–9. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Nemeth, C. J., Connell, J. B., Rogers, J. D., & Brown, K. S. 2001. Erlbaum Associates. Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 48 –58. Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. 2004c. The promise and future of O’Toole, J. 1995. Leading change: Overcoming the ideology of resistance and persuasion. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn comfort and the tryanny of custom. San Francisco: Jos- (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion: 301–310. Mahwah, NJ: sey-Bass. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. 1996. Addressing disturbing and Kotter, J. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts disturbed consumer behavior: Is it necessary to change fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 59 – 67. the way we conduct behavior research? Journal of Mar- Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. 1979. Choosing strategies for keting Research, 33: 1– 8. change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2): 106 –114. Pfau, M., & Burgoon, M. 1988. Inoculation in political cam- Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. 1993. Credibility: How leaders gain paign communication. Human Communication Re- and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jos- search, 15: 91–111. sey-Bass. Piderit, S. K. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing Larson, G. S., & Tompkins, P. K. 2005. Ambivalence and ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes to- resistance: A study of management in a concertive con- ward an organizational change. Academy of Manage- trol system. Communication Monographs, 72: 1–21. ment Review, 25: 783–794. Latour, B. 1986. The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.), Powell, G., & Posner, B. Z. 1978. Resistance to change recon- Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? sidered: Implications for managers. Human Resource Sociological Review Monograph 32: 264 –280. London: Management, 17: 29 –34. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Quereshi, M. Y., & Strauss, L. A. 1980. Immunization of a Lewin, K. 1952. Field theory in social science: Selected theo- controverted belief through group discussion. Social Be- retical papers. London: Tavistock. havior and Personality, 8: 229 –232. 376 Academy of Management Review April Reichers, A., Wanous, J., & Austin, J. 1997. Understanding and Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. 1999. Employees’ reaction to managing cynicism about organizational change. Acad- the change to work teams: The influence of “anticipa- emy of Management Executive, 11(1): 48 –59. tory” injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Man- agement, 12(1): 51– 66. Reputation Management. 1999. Sex Ed 101. 5: 58 – 60. Skinner, B. F. 1991. Verbal behavior. New York: Copley. Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 574 –599. Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. 1996. Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. Journal of Ap- Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1997. Workplace deviance: Its plied Behavioral Science, 32: 237–261. definition, its nature and its causes. Research on Nego- tiation in Organizations, 6: 3–27. Tenbrunsel, A. E. 1998. Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995. Organizational citi- incentives and temptation. Academy of Management zenship behavior: A psychological perspective. Journal Journal, 41: 330 –339. of Organizational Behavior, 16: 289 –298. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. 1993. Stra- Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psy- tegic sensemaking and organizational perfor- chological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Jour- mance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, ac- nal of Organziational Behavior, 15: 245–259. tions, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, Rousseau, D. 1996. Changing the deal while keeping the 36: 239 –270. people. Academy of Management Executive, 10(1): 50 –59. Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. 2004. The road Rousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Man- Journal, 2: 121–139. agement, 30: 165–187. Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organiza- Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. 2004. Resisting persuasion and tions: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. attitude certainty: A meta-cognitive analysis. In E. S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion: Rousseau, D. M. 1998. The “problem” of the psychological 65– 82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. contract considered. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. 1997. What’s good about revenge? 19: 665– 671. The avenger’s perspective. Research on Negotiation in Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. 1999. What’s a good Organizations, 6: 145–160. reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social ac- Wan, H. H., & Pfau, M. 2004. The relative effectiveness of counts in promoting organizational change. Journal of inoculation, bolstering, and combined approaches in Applied Psychology, 84: 514 –528. crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Re- Salancik, G., & Meindl, J. 1984. Corporate attributions as search, 16: 310 –328. strategic illusions of management control. Administra- Wanous, J. 1992. Organization entry: Recruitment, selection, tive Science Quarterly, 29: 238 –254. orientation, and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Schaffer, R., & Thompson. 1992. Successful change programs Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. begin with results. Harvard Business Review, 70(1): 80 – Watzlawick, P. 1984. Self-fulfilling prophecies. In 89. P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality: 95–116. New Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. 2002. Productive York: Norton. conflict in group decision making: Genuine and con- Watzlawick, P. 1990. Reality adaptation or adapted trived dissent as strategies to counteract biased infor- “reality”? Constructivism and psychotherapy. In mation seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human P. Watzlawick (Ed.), Münchhausen’s pigtail: Or psycho- Performance, 88: 563–586. therapy and “reality”—Essays and lectures. New York: Schutz, A., & Baumeister, R. F. 1999. The language of de- Norton. fense: Linguistic patterns in narratives of transgres- Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Smoak, N. D., & Fabrigar, sions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18: L. R. 2004. Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. 269 –286. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and per- Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. 1991. Communication suasion: 13–38. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field ates. experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 110 – Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). 135. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. 1989. Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Beverly Hills, Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s ad- CA: Sage. vocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic de- Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. cision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange rela- 745–772. tionship framework for understanding managerial trust- Scott, M., & Lyman, S. 1968. Accounts. American Sociological worthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23: Review, 33: 46 – 62. 513–530. 2008 Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio 377 Winograd, T., & Flores, F. 1987. Understanding computers Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical investigations. (Trans- and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, lated by G. E. M. Anscombe.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- MA: Addison-Wesley. tice-Hall. Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, Young, A. P. 2000. “I’m just me”: A study of managerial loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, resistance. Journal of Organizational Change Manage- 34: 521–539. ment, 13: 375–388. Jeffrey D. Ford ([email protected]) is associate professor of management at the Max M. Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Ohio State and specializes in language- and network-based approaches to understanding management and organizational change. Laurie W. Ford ([email protected]) is a management consultant and owner of Critical Path Consultants in Columbus, Ohio. She received her Ph.D. in operations research engineering from SUNY–Buffalo and specializes in the application of net- work- and language-based approaches to organization design, management, and change. Angelo D’Amelio ([email protected]) is a senior consultant for The Vanto Group in San Francisco. He received his B.S. in social studies from Seton Hall University and currently serves as a coach, trainer, and consultant to executives and managers around the world in the field of transformation.