Discussion: Gaining Buy-In and Creating a Vision for Organizational Change

81Mathews and Crocker

Defining “Buy-in:” Introducing the Buy-in Continuum

Brandon W. Mathews Colorado Technical University

Ty Crocker University of Colorado – Denver

Brandon Mathews is the Director of a non-profit criminal justice program in Colorado. He is actively involved in the implementation of evidence- based practices and the practice of

organizational change in criminal justice systems. He is a third year Doctorate Student at Colorado Technical University with a research focus on organizational culture and its relationship to the successful implementation of practices and programs in community corrections agencies.

Ty Crocker is currently an Implementation Specialist with the State of Colorado’s Evidence-Based Practices Implementation for Capacity (EPIC) Resource center in the Colorado

Department of Public Safety’s Division of Criminal Justice. He has extensive experience using Implementation Science to help create the capacity for agencies to change and implement evidence-based practices to scale. He is also a member of the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers (MINT) and currently coaches and trains criminal justice professionals across the State of Colorado in Motivational Interviewing skills and strategies.

Contact Information: Brandon W. Mathews Phone: 719-216-1979

3651 Heather Glen Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80922

Email: [email protected]

Ty Crocker Phone: 303-249-3655

20661 East Hamilton Avenue Aurora, Colorado 80013

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

When discussing organizational change the term

“buy-in” is often used and can be found throughout

the popular and technical literature. It is a near

conceded point that obtaining individual buy-in

for organizational change is not only important,

but critical to success. However, the term is rarely

defined and little support exists to help concretely

elucidate its meaning. Thus, the purpose of this

article is two-fold: to offer a definition of individual

buy-in as it relates to organizational change, making

the term less ambiguous to the field, and to introduce

The “Buy-in Continuum” to the organizational

change lexicon. The Buy-in Continuum is a

conceptual model rooted in individual change

theory, though specifically relevant to organizational

level change, and developed to provide practitioners

with a roadmap to gauge employee buy-in during

change efforts. The continuum is comprised of the

following six linear stages: Denial, Consideration,

Decision, Action, Sustainment, and Resolution.

Ultimately, this article will review the theoretical

82 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

Research on organizational change

continues to persist in both the technical and

popular literature. A cursory search for the terms

“organizational change” and “organizational change

or readiness” in the text of articles in the Emerald

and Sage databases over the last five years returns

more than 28,000 publications. These impressive

numbers are indicative of the attention being paid

to the subject of organizational change. Within

the subject of organizational change lies an oft

cited term that is commonly identified as important

and critical to successful change: “buy-in.” The

term buy-in is prominent throughout the change

literature, especially in popular trade journals and

publications; however, rarely is there any definition

provided to support its meaning or any explanation

about how to quantify its presence or absence.

For instance, a brief review of the trade

literature uncovers several articles referencing buy-

in and its importance to change. Ashford and Detert

(2015) offer seven tactics for getting your boss to

buy-in to change, including: tailoring your pitch,

framing the issue, managing emotions, getting the

timing right, involving others, adhering to norms,

and suggesting solutions. Martin (2012) identifies

buy-in as a critical step in getting leadership

to adopt the use of social channels to connect

with their customers. Jain and Toussaint (2010)

reviewed a case study example of the importance

underpinnings of the continuum, introduce and

explain the continuum and its stages, and conclude

with a discussion of implications for future research

and practice.

Keywords: buy-in, change, organizational

change, individual change, the buy-in continuum

_______________

83Mathews and Crocker

of gaining buy-in from physicians to implement

lean practices in a hospital setting. They provide

three suggestions that can be used to gain buy-in,

including: leaders anticipating and responding to

questions about concepts unrelated to healthcare

into their organizations, using simplified language

and concepts familiar to physicians, and focusing

on the outcome of the implementation—better

care. Sharma (2008) presented six principles of

stakeholder engagement for large-scale supply

management operations. He discussed obtaining

stakeholder buy-in as an important criterion of

success, emphasizing the need to secure buy-in

for implementation instead of forced compliance.

Though each of these articles provides an example

of buy-in as an important criterion across disciplines

and contexts, they share one similarity: each fails to

define the concept or provide any explanation about

how to quantify whether it has been achieved.

The academic literature provides a similar

treatment of buy-in. Kotter and Whitehead (2010)

published an entire book on the subject of obtaining

buy-in for good ideas and initiatives, “Buy-in”:

Saving Your Good Idea from Getting Shot Down.

The book’s main purpose is to help readers

recognize the top four strategies used to attack good

ideas and organizational change: (1) death by delay

or putting off discussion of the idea to force a loss of

momentum, (2) confusion or flooding the field with

information to create distraction, (3) fear mongering

or building anxiety about the idea, and (4) character

assassination or tearing down one’s credibility to

sabotage support (Kotter & Whitehead, 2010).

Lauby (2011) conducted an interview of Professor

John Kotter with a focus on the concept of buy-in.

In the interview, Kotter cited the prevalent statistic

that 70 percent of change efforts fail. However,

he emphasized the unsuccessful efforts are largely

due to leaders failing to obtain enough buy-in

from their people. Green and Aarons (2011) used

Concept-Mapping and Multidimensional Scaling

(MDS) to identify barriers and facilitators of

change and implementation in large mental health

agencies. The analysis uncovered a variety of

constructs important to change and implementation.

Two of them, the system readiness and staff

development constructs, explicitly identified

buy-in from staff and stakeholders as critical

facilitators of implementation success. Pinedo-

Cuenca, Gonzalez-Olalla, and Setijono (2012)

examined Six Sigma implementation in a British

manufacturing organization. They discovered that

buy-in was important to the level of involvement

and participation gained from members of the

implementation project team. Shtivelband &

Rosecrance (2010) investigated organizational

change and buy-in in the field of ergonomics. They

uncovered four overarching domains necessary to

84 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

gain buy-in for change: “(1) establish credibility,

(2) know the organization and key stakeholders,

(3) know your opportunities, and (4) align with

business objectives” (p. 1277). Similar to the trade

literature, each of these studies originates from

a different field or discipline; however, they also

share the same fundamental characteristic: each

study identifies buy-in as an important component

of change, but provides no definition, quantification,

or elaboration of the concept.

Even in the rare instance when a definition

of buy-in is included, there is often no discussion

elaborating on the particulars of the concept. Moon

(2009) developed a model of sensemaking and

common sense for organizational change buy-in. In

his discussion of the model he asserted that gaining

buy-in is a boon for successful organizational change

management” (p. 522) and included the following

description of the term: “buy-in is a commitment

to agreements about work, and it involves some

degree of trust between the change agent and

stakeholders…buy-in depends on psychological

contracts” (p. 528). Though Moon (2009) provided

a description of buy-in and even identified buy-in

as a psychological contract, he failed to elaborate

further or provide details about what that means.

Additionally, no offering was made about how to

measure or accurately assess whether buy-in has

been obtained.

Buy-in is clearly a dominant and important

concept in the study of organizational change;

however the extant literature is missing a conceptual

framework explaining what buy-in entails and how

to gauge the extent to which it is actually present.

Additionally, the literature presents buy-in as either

present or absent, which inaccurately constrains

the term to a dichotomous variable. This paper

seeks to add to the body of literature by offering a

new perspective on a wildly popular term through

application and adaptation of the Transtheoretical

Framework (TTF) and its accompanying Stage of

Change Model (SOCM) (Prochaska & DiClemente,

1982; 1983). Rather than focus on buy-in as

an ambiguously defined criterion necessary to

facilitate successful change, this article concedes

its importance. Instead, this article focuses on

the development of a framework that defines

buy-in and provides an avenue of evaluation to

determine an individual’s level of buy-in related

to an organizational change effort. The TTF and

SOCM (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982; 1983)

provide the building blocks for the creation of an

adapted model, branded “The Buy-in Continuum.”

This continuum helps clarify that buy-in is not a

dichotomous dimension; rather it exists along a

continuum according to an individual’s cognitive

and behavioral stage of change. The TTF asserts

that behavior change as a process unfolds over time

85Mathews and Crocker

and involves progress through a series of stages that

individuals purposefully navigate (Prochaska, 1994;

2008). Guided by this view, this paper makes one

main proposition: buy-in is an individual cognitive

and behavioral activity related to an employee’s

commitment to a specific change effort that exists

on a continuum from denial to resolution.

In order to support this proposition a

review of the TTF and SOCM is offered and “The

Buy-in Continuum” introduced to elucidate the

definition and process by which individual’s buy-

in to organizational change. This continuum can

serve as a starting point for discourse about the

buy-in continuum and how its stages influence

and impact the outcomes of organizational change.

Additionally, the introduction of the continuum

opens new avenues for instrument development

to empirically measure buy-in during and prior to

organizational change efforts.

Transtheoretical Framework & Stage

of Change Model

DiClemente and Prochaska (1982)

developed the TTF and SOCM in the early 1980s

to meet the need for a more integrated model of

behavior change. The field of psychotherapy was

in a state of confusion with a flood of new therapies

and approaches aimed at addressing behavior

change (Prochaska, 1979). The solution was the

development of a common theoretical foundation

explaining how people change that could be applied

across a variety of problematic and target behaviors

(Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982).

The TTF as a conceptual framework

emerged from a comparative analysis of 18 leading

approaches to therapy and was later applied to

a study of 872 subjects working to change their

smoking habits (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982).

The study revealed a deep understanding about

how people make self-change. Rather than making

a dichotomous “ready” or “not ready” decision to

change, individuals progress through a series of

stages based upon their level of motivation and

cognitive condition (Prochaska & DiClemente,

1983). Prochaska (2008) asserts that behavior

change does not occur as a single event like other

action based decisions. Rather, decisions about

behavior change are dynamic with extremes of

stability and instability. The Stage of Change Model

(SOCM) was developed to help further explain

this phenomenon and to be used as a tool to gauge

an individual’s stage of change related to specific

behaviors. The SOCM is comprised of five stages

that are applicable to all types of people and change

behaviors. They include: (1) Precontemplation

– the behavior is not a problem and there is no

intention to make a change, (2) Contemplation –

the behavior is being considered as a problem but

no action or preliminary change planning is being

86 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

made, (3) Determination – the decision has been

made to change the problem behavior and plans for

change are being made, (4) Action – the behavior

change is being made by implementing change

plans, and (5) Maintenance – the change is being

maintained over time (Prochaska, 2008). Though

not specifically identified as a primary stage of

change, Relapse is often depicted in contemporary

model configurations. Relapse is defined as “a

breakdown or failure in a person’s attempt to change

or modify any target behavior” (Marlatt & George,

1984). Thus, any individual engaging in behavior

change is subject to relapse or an episode of failure

moving them from more progressive to regressive

stages in the model. Figure 1 illustrates the SOCM

with Relapse included.

Since its development, the SOCM has been

widely used to explain how people make behavior

changes across a variety of contexts, including

substance abuse treatment, criminal justice, and the

health sciences (Prochaska, Prochaska, & Levesque,

2001). For instance, in the criminal justice field the

SOCM is used by practitioners as a tool to gauge

just how much commitment offenders have to begin

changing specific criminogenic characteristics,

such as anti-social thinking, anti-social peers,

and substance abuse. Change is challenging and

conceptualizing the process as occurring in stages

Figure 1. Stage of Change Model adapted from (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992) Figure 1. Stage of Change Model adapted from (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992)

87Mathews and Crocker

a measure of definition, specifically as it pertains

to the term buy-in. By using the building blocks

of the TTF to define buy-in, the concept becomes

measurable and less ambiguous.

The Buy-in Continuum is a staged model

that explains what it actually means when buy-in

is used in the context of organizational change.

Rather than a cycle similar to the SOCM, buy-in

is illustrated by unlocking the cyclical diagram

and laying the following six stages along a

continuum: Denial, Consideration, Decision,

Action, Sustainment, and Resolution (see Figure

2). There is no relapse stage on the continuum,

as relapse is a concept largely attached to the

health and psychological sciences. Rather, buy-

in is conceptualized as a decision-making process

whereby individuals can move back and forth across

the continuum according to their level of intrinsic

motivation. Instead of relapse, this movement

helped practitioners more accurately evaluate an

individual’s level of resistance or acceptance.

This is because movement through the change

process requires motivation and enhancing intrinsic

motivation facilitates progressive movement toward

actualizing a change, while the loss of intrinsic

motivation contributes to regression through the

stages of change.

The Buy-in Continuum

Though the TTF originated in the counseling

and psychological disciplines, its application in the

organizational sciences is not novel. Prochaska,

Prochaska, and Levesque (2001) first made the

argument that the TTF could be adopted and used as

a framework to explain and evaluate organizational

change. Phillips (2004) also used the framework

by operationalizing core constructs of the TTF and

testing its use in a planned organizational change

effort. However, the TTF has never been used as

Figure 2. The Buy-in Continuum

Figure 2. The Buy-in Continuum

88 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

points along the continuum. However, exiting the

continuum requires the individual to fully adopt the

change as the new status quo in the Resolution stage.

Once discrepancy no longer exists and internal

reconciliation has been made, the permanent

acceptance of the change leads to an exit from

the continuum. Figure 3 provides an illustration,

manifests itself as continuous progression and

regression along the continuum. The regression-

progression path of the model demonstrates this

tenet. The entrance point of the continuum can vary

according to an individual’s level of motivation at

the time they learn of an impending change effort.

This is depicted by the arrows showing entrance

Figure 3. Buy-in Continuum and Stage of Change Model side-by-side comparison

Figure 3. Buy-in Continuum and Stage of Change Model side-by-side comparison

89Mathews and Crocker

comparing the SOCM and the Buy-in Continuum

side-by-side. As the figure demonstrates, there are

both similarities and differences between the models.

Most notably, the continuum has six stages with a

focus on an individual’s internal level of commitment

to organizational change; whereas the SOCM has

five stages with a focus on general problematic

individual behaviors. Additionally, the continuum

contains a “Resolution” stage whereby individuals

ultimately resolve to adopt the organizational

change as the new status quo. The SOCM has no

such stage due to the lifetime commitment required

to maintain many problem individual behaviors,

such as substance abuse. Specific organizational

changes occur in relative surges and thus don’t

share the long-term maintenance requirement of

the SOCM. The following sections will further

describe the characteristics associated with each

stage of the Buy-in Continuum.

Denial

The first and most difficult stage to move

an individual out of is Denial. When confronted

with an organizational change, an individual in

the denial stage of buy-in does not believe that

the change is necessary or disagrees with the

scope of the change. This could be due to heavy

investment in the status quo, a misunderstanding of

the change, or a lack of clarity or communication

regarding the initiative (Whelan-Berry, Gordon,

& Hinings, 2003). No matter the reason, denial is

the sheer absence of the need or desire to change.

For instance, an employee in denial who has just

been informed of an impending change to the

technology that drives their work may engage in

the following type of dialogue: “there’s nothing

wrong with the technology I currently use, change

will make it harder to do my work” or “I just don’t

understand why this change is happening, what

is driving the need for a new technology.” These

types of statements are indicative of someone who

must be moved beyond denial before a useful level

of buy-in can be established. In order to move an

individual out of the denial stage, discrepancy must

be developed between the current state or status

quo and the desired state. In other words, to build

an individual’s intrinsic motivation to buy-in, they

first must cognitively process that their current state

conflicts with the desired or needed state (Miller,

Zweben, DiClemente, and Rychtarik, 1992).

Consideration

The second stage on the continuum is

Consideration. Consideration is defined as careful

thought or engaging in the act of thinking carefully

about something one might make a decision about

(Consideration, 2015). The consideration stage

involves the conscious consideration of the need

to buy-in to the impending change. Individuals

reaching this stage are no longer denying,

90 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

deciding to buy-in. At the decision point, the

discrepancy that has been built within the individual

using targeted interventions and has contributed

to the understanding that their current state is less

desirable than their future state as part of the change

effort. In the decision stage individuals begin

actively planning how they will participate in the

change effort, contribute to the change effort, and

support the change effort. However, it is important

to understand that they have not actually taken any

action, as they have only just decided that buying

into the change brings more benefit than cost. For

example, the same employee facing a change to the

technology that drives their work may engage in the

following type of internal and external dialogue:

“I think this new technology will be useful, I’ll

volunteer to be part of the change team to help with

implementation” or “I’d like to be a change agent and

help others see the benefits in adapting to this new

technology.” In order to further move an individual

along the continuum continued development of

intrinsic motivation to buy-in is required. This

is because when individuals perceive change as a

result of both extrinsic and intrinsic factors, they

will discount the intrinsic and attribute the behavior

change to the extrinsic (Kruglanski, Alon, & Lewis,

1972) making it difficult to sustain buy-in and reach

the point of resolution where the change becomes

the new status quo.

disagreeing with, or avoiding the organizational

change. Rather, they have begun to consciously

think about whether or not they will buy-in. When

considering whether to buy-in, individuals are

driven by several criteria, including benefits to self,

benefits to others, approval from self, approval

from others, costs and benefits, and disapproval

from self and others (Prochaska, 2008). Depending

upon the balance of this cost-benefit analysis an

individual will either regress back to denial or

progress along the continuum to the Decision stage.

Continuing with the example above, an employee

facing a change in the technology that drives their

work may engage in the following type of self-talk,

which emerges as external dialogue: “learning a

new technology could give me marketable skills,”

“this new technology could save the organization

money, which could mean more dollars available

for bonuses and raises” or “a new technology might

actually make it easier for me to do my job in the

long run, making me better off than I am now.” This

type of internal and external dialogue is indicative

of an individual considering whether or not they

will buy-in to the organizational change.

Decision

Once an individual reaches the decision

point of the continuum, they have consciously

moved from only considering the costs and benefits

of buying into the change effort to affirmatively

91Mathews and Crocker

through task completion and positive promotion and

need little to no continued intervention to support

their intrinsic motivation. Rather, in sustainment

an individual has becoming firmly attached to

the success of the change effort and is unlikely to

regress to lower levels of the continuum without

a catastrophic occurrence. The employee facing

the technology change might make a statement

similar to the following indicating they’ve reached

the sustainment stage: “I am invested in this

change effort and helping to sustain the successful

implementation of the new technology into the

organization.”

Resolution

Resolution is an important point on the

continuum, as it signifies the cognitive moment

when the change effort is no longer an effort.

Rather, the change has become so engrained in the

way of working and being within the organization,

it is the new status quo. Thus, cognitively and

behaviorally the individual has resolved that the

old way of doing no longer exists. Resolution is

the end of the buy-in continuum and the individual

understands and accepts the new status quo. The

change has now been installed. For instance,

the employee experiencing the change to the

technology that drives their work would no longer

perceive the technology as “new,” rather it would

be the way work is done now. The employee might

Action

The action stage of the continuum is similar

to that of the TTF. However, the TTF is uniquely

suited to explain actions taken by those involved

in addiction, such as abstaining from the use of

alcohol or cigarettes (Miller & Rollnick, 2013).

The action stage of The Buy-in Continuum involves

the individual engaging in required and requested

change activities. For instance, the employee facing

the technology change that impacts their work

would be actively completing tasks above the level

of expectation or positively promoting the change

effort with other members of the organization facing

the same change. These activities are indicative

of an individual who is in the Action stage of the

continuum. The Action stage is the tipping point of

the continuum, as the intrinsic motivation to buy-in

to the change effort has reached a level that can be

sustained with only minimal ongoing intervention.

Thus, moving an individual to action is important

to change efforts, as resources such as individual

coaching, mentoring, and performance management

can be reallocated to those at lower levels of the

continuum once someone has reached this stage.

Sustainment

Once an individual reaches the sustainment

point of the continuum, they have largely internalized

the change effort as necessary and beneficial. They

continue to overtly act in support of the initiative

92 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

the continuum. Though intrinsic motivation is

an important concept to change, it is important to

understand that the tools and techniques available to

move an individual along the continuum are more

useful to leaders, managers, and change agents than

understanding its theoretical underpinnings. This

is because intrinsic motivation theory does not

inform about the practice of actually enhancing it

in real world organizational contexts. However,

one such tool that does provide a substantive and

tangible means to increase an employee’s intrinsic

motivation to buy-in is Motivational Interviewing.

Motivational Interviewing

Motivational Interviewing (MI) was

originally developed as a counseling technique.

Its goal is to increase the level of an individual’s

intrinsic motivation to change by creating a

discrepancy between their current state and desired

state and by reducing and resolving ambivalence

(Miller & Rollnick, 2013). MI is uniquely suited

to The Buy-in Continuum, as its premise is to

generate the internal desire necessary to move

from an existing state to a more positive state. MI

is no longer just a counseling technique and is

utilized across a variety of disciplines as a holistic

engagement methodology to enhance intrinsic

motivation to change (Morin, 2014). Miller (1996)

proposes four main components of MI that drive

its ability to facilitate change: expressing empathy,

even express that they don’t remember what it was

like not to use the new technology, signifying the

internalization of the change as the new status quo.

As no further intervention is necessary to build

intrinsic motivation to buy-in, individuals exit the

continuum until the introduction of another change

initiative and a fresh need to evaluate and develop

buy-in.

Discussion

Implications for Practice

There are a variety of reasons change efforts

fail to obtain full buy-in immediately. However,

failure to gain buy-in can be largely connected to

a lack of the development of intrinsic motivation

in target employees. The old paradigm of buy-

in as a dichotomous variable constrained change

interventions to two populations: those who

were bought-in and those who were not. This

made it difficult to target intrinsic motivation

building interventions. With the development of

The Buy-in Continuum, individual interventions

can be tailored according to where one lies on

the continuum allowing the better allocation of

resources. Additionally, the continuum is rooted

in the theoretical underpinnings of the TTF. This

means there are immediately applicable techniques

change practitioners and leaders can deploy that

have been proven to enhance intrinsic motivation

for change and can encourage progression along

93Mathews and Crocker

developing discrepancy, rolling with resistance, and

supporting self-efficacy. These components are

rooted in the core skills of MI delivery: open-ended

questions, affirmations, reflections, and summaries.

Through these components and delivery skills MI

is a powerful tool in the development of intrinsic

motivation.

The intricacies of learning MI are beyond

the scope of this article; however basic to advanced

techniques can be learned by anyone with some

training and practice (Fields, 2006; Graham,

2015) and can be deployed in the organizational

environment where the development of buy-in is

a desired result. Leaders and change practitioners

gauging buy-in using the continuum can identify

individuals who are in the Denial or Consideration

stages, indicative of low motivation to buy-in,

and deploy targeted MI interventions to begin

amplifying discrepancy and enhancing motivation.

Similarly, they can avoid expending resources on

individuals identified as already in higher stages of

the continuum (Action, Sustainment, Resolution),

as limited resources of any organization should be

targeted at those presenting with the most need to

be motivated to buy-in.

Implications for Research

With the introduction of new conceptual

models comes the need for validated instruments

to measure the model’s constructs. The Buy-in

Continuum provides a novel framework for change

practitioners and leaders to gauge the magnitude of

an individual’s level of buy-in to specific change

efforts. Research should focus on the development

of psychometric scales that operationalize the

levels on the continuum. As the continuum is

rooted in the TTF, existing instruments focused on

behavior change related to substance use, smoking,

and exercise should be investigated. For instance,

the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment

Scale (McConnaughy, Prochaska, & Velicer, 1983)

was developed to measure an individual’s stage of

personal change according to the SOCM. Though

the instrument’s items are targeted at problem

social behaviors and not the organizational change

environment, they can be easily adapted and shaped

to fit the organizational space and the constructs

found within The Buy-in Continuum.

Conclusion

Buy-in for organizational change will

continue to be an important factor to successful

change efforts. Understanding that buy-in is not

a dichotomous construct, but rather occurs along

a continuum from denial to resolution is important

for two main reasons. First, change practitioners

and leaders can better define amongst themselves

what buy-in entails and what level and mix of buy-

in is necessary in their own organizations to achieve

success. Second, the continuum facilitates the ability

94 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

References

Ashford, S.J. and Detert, J. (2015, January/

February). Get the boss to buy in. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved from www.hbr.

org

Consideration. (2015). Merriam-Webster Online.

Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/consideration

Fields, A. (2006). Paradigm shifts and

corporate change – all on board?

Motivational interviewing in the

business world. Vancouver, WA: Hollifield

Associates.

Graham, G.S. (2015). Motivational interviewing

made easy: a simple, 5-week program to

build motivational interviewing skills.

[Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from www.

amazon.com.

Green, A.E., & Aarons, G. A. (2011). A comparison

of policy and direct practice stakeholder

perceptions of factors affecting evidence-

based practice implementation using

concept mapping. Implementation

Science, 6, 104. Retrieved from http://www.

implementationscience.com

Kotter, J.P., & Whitehead, L. (2010). Buy-in: saving

your good idea from getting shot down.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Publishing.

of change practitioners and leaders to better manage

resources to identify employees who are in the early

stages of buy-in and need targeted interventions

to build intrinsic motivation—mitigating wasted

effort on employees who have already bought-

in. Ultimately, The Buy-in Continuum is not a

panacea; however, it does add a new dimension to

the change literature by offering a fresh perspective

on the definition of buy-in as a concept and how it

can be evaluated in practical applications.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

95Mathews and Crocker

Kruglanski, A. W., Alon, S., & Lewis, T. (1972).

Retrospective misattribution and task

enjoyment. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 8, 493-501.

Lauby, S. (2011). Interview: Dr. John Kotter on

creating organizational change. Retrieved

from www.hrbartender.com

Marlatt, G.A., & George, W.H. (1984). Relapse

prevention: introduction and overview of

the model. British Journal of Addiction, 79,

261-275.doi: 10.1111/j.13600443.1984.

tb00274.x

Martin, A. (2012). For social media buy-in, lead

with the “why”. Harvard Business Review.

Retrieved from http://www.hbr.org.

McConnaughy, E.N., Prochaska, J.O., &

Velicer, W.F. (1983). Stages of change in

psychotherapy: measurement and sample

profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research

and Practice, 20(3), 368-375.

Miller, W.R. (1996). Motivational interviewing:

Research, practice, and puzzles. Addictive

Behaviors, 21, 835- 842.

Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational

interviewing: preparing people for change.

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Miller, W., Zweben, A., DiClemente, C., & Rychtarik,

R. (1992). Motivational enhancement

therapy manual: A clinical research guide

for counselors treating individuals with

alcohol abuse and dependence. Rockville,

MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

and Alcoholism.

Moon, M.Y. (2009). Making sense of common

sense for change management buy-in.

Management Decision, 47(3), 518-532. doi:

10.1108/00251740910946769

Morin, A. (2014). Looking to motivate someone

to change? try motivational interviewing.

Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.

com

Newell, B.R., & Broder, A. (2008). Cognitive

processes, models, and metaphors in

decision research. Judgment and Decision

Making, 3(3), 195-204.

Pinedo-Cuenca, R., Gonzalez-Olalla, P., &

Setijono, D. (2012). Linking Six Sigma’s

critical success/hindering factors and

organizational change (development): a

framework and a pilot study. International

Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(4), 284-298.

doi: 10.1108/20401461211284752

Prochaska, J. O. (1979). Systems of Psychotherapy:

A Transtheoretical Analysis. Homewood,

Ill: Dorsey Press.

Prochaska, J.O. (1994). Strong and weak principles

for progressing from precontemplation

to action on the basis of twelve problem

96 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2016

behaviors. Health Psychology, 13, 47-51.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982).

Transtheoretical therapy: toward a more

integrative model of change. Psychotherapy:

Theory, Research and Practice, 20, 161-

173.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983).

Stages and processes of self change of

smoking: toward an integrative model of

change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 51, 390-395.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., & Norcross,

J.C. (1992). ). In search of how people

change: applications to addictive behavior.

American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102-1114.

doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102

Prochaska, J. M., Prochaska, J. O., & Levesque,

D. A. (2001). a transtheoretical approach to

changing organizations. Administration and

Policy in Mental Health, 28(4), 247-261.

Sharma, R. (2008). The 6 principles of stakeholder

engagement. Supply Chain Management

Review, 1-8.

Shtivelband, A., & Rosecrance, J. (2010). Gaining

Organizational Buy In: Lessons Learned

from Fifty Ergonomists. Proceedings of the

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Annual Meeting, 54(17), 1277-1281. doi:

10.1177/154193121005401703

Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C.

R. (2003). Strengthening Organizational

Change Processes: Recommendations

and Implications from a Multilevel

Analysis. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 39(2), 186-207. doi:

10.1177/0021886303256270

cld

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.