Case Study

361

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Chapter 18

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.ch018

ABSTRACT

Resistance to change happens to be a phenomenon in which both the change agents and change recipients are equally responsible for all forms of resistance. Resistance and its various forms are an outcome of the change agents’ observations and their interpretations of the conversations, behavior, and reactions of the change recipients. This chapter uses auto-ethnographic reflexive narratives of two change agents involved in the self-assessment process at a college planning to seek US-based business program ac- creditation to make sense of the change process. The purpose of this chapter is to emphasize the under- reflected role of the change agents and how they influence and affect the behavior of change recipients and thereby contribute towards employee resistance. The chapter also emphasizes the crucial role of reflection and introspection in the sensemaking activities of the change agents in the entire change initia- tive and thereby adds evidence-based organizational change and development initiatives in an academic setting where research is limited.

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia: A Case Study From Palestine

Investigating the Under-Reflected Role of Change Agents

Devi Akella Albany State University, USA

Grace Khoury Birzeit Univeristy, Palestine

362

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

INTRODUCTION

Organizational change has become inevitable over the past few years. With globalization, competition, strategic alignment, introduction of new management theories and models, organizations and their employees are continuously being exposed to change in a variety of ways. Inspite of careful research and planning by organizational leaders, change initiatives are a major source of concern. Usually orga- nizational change and development (OCD) efforts and interventions have a tendency to produce failure (Sorge & van Witteloostuijn, 2004). Resistance to change has been cited as the most common reason for the failure of majority change initiatives (Erwin & Garman, 2009). However, resistance to a large extent has been seen as a “psychological phenomenon located over there in the change recipients” (Anderson, 2016; Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008, p.370) and “objectified as a socio-psychological phenomenon” (Dent & Goldberg, 1999 as cited in Ijaz & Vitalist, 2011, p.119).

This has minimized the development of OCD tools and methodologies to increase the success of change initiatives. Most of the efforts remain concentrated on showing change recipients “the error of their ways by dealing with the misunderstandings, fears and apprehensions believed to underlie their resistance” (Ford et al., 2008, p.370; Kulkarni, 2016), resulting in a lack of ‘evidence based’ organization development tools which assist change agents in repairing trust (Tomlinson, Dineen & Lewicki, 2004), resolve issues of injustice (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999) and restore credibility (Kouzes & Posner, 1993).

Therefore, to portray a more complete picture, resistance to organizational change should be recon- structed as a phenomenon where both the change agents and change recipients are equally responsible for its occurrence. Employees’ resistance to change is observed, deconstructed, made sense of and given appropriate meanings by the change agents (Ford et al., 2008). Employees’ actions, conversations and reactions are behavioral triggers which change agents make sense of and label as resistance. Studies which can “engage all forces of change, all contributions to change i.e., recipient action, agent sensemaking and organizational background and the dynamics of relationship” (Ford et al., 2008, p. 362), allow a more balanced picture of the entire change process. Studies which go beyond the “one-sided change agent centric view” (Ford et al., 2008, p.362; Kulkarni, 2016) by critically reflecting on the contributory role of the change agents and the agent-recipient relationships (Dent & Goldberg, 1999, Ford et al., 2008) are few. Further, “reflexivity has been identified as a useful method to support change agents” and assist them in understanding their role in the entire change process but “there is little to no clarity [on] how it should be executed” (Ostentoski, 2015, p.41).

The entire process constituted action, reflection and new action (Schon, 1987). Change agents reflect, consciously explore using their personal knowledge and experience to critique their actions, seek relevant evidence, learn and then apply this new knowledge to rectify the change resistant environment. Reflec- tion and introspection may appear to be a time consuming, abstract and complex process but however it is also a rich experience. Reflection allows questioning of current evidence-based practices and their subsequent modification to increase the overall success of the entire change initiative (Thompson and Burns, 2008).

The focus of the chapter is on investigating the under-reflected role of the change agents in the entire change process and how they could contribute towards the change recipients’ resistance practices. Also, how change agents by reflecting on their actions and behaviors and its effect on change recipients can minimize resistance. The chapter explores issues such as the various forms of employees’ resistance which might occur within a college functioning under the umbrella of a university, planning to seek busi- ness accreditation offered by an American professional organization within the next few years. How do

363

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

change recipients react? How do the change agents feel and deal with these outward behavioral displays? How do the change recipients interact with the change agents? The chapter uses two auto-ethnographic reflexive narratives of change agents to demonstrate how their actions and inactions led to employee resistance and hindered the change process. However, through reflection and introspection during the entire change process the change agents were able to overcome this resistance and turn it into a force of change instead. To allow a more complete image of the change process to emerge, multiple versions of the same change process are used. An attempt was made to understand the entire change process from the perspectives of two change agents, that of the external consultant (i.e., the accreditation specialist) and the internal consultant (i.e., college Dean).

BACKGROUND

Organizational change and resistance to change has been a topic of research for decades. However, to a large extent views pertaining to resistance to change are predominantly one-sided, favoring change agents and their sponsors (Anderson, 2016; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008; King & Anderson, 1995; Kulkarni, 2016; Meston & King, 1996). Resistance studies have presumed that change agents are “doing the right and proper things” and are the “undeserving victims” of the “irrational and dysfunc- tional responses of the change recipients” (Ford et al., 2008, p.362). This “change agent-centric” view perceives resistance as the negative and opposing actions of the change recipients as observed by the change agents (Ford et al., 2008, p.362). However, change agents are portrayed as outsiders in this entire change process instead of as active participants who interact with change environments and influence the behavior and actions of the change recipients. Change agents interpret the behaviors, actions and communications of the change recipients. And resistance is the aftermath of these interactions and the relationships between change agents and recipients. Change agents, in fact “contribute to the occurrence of resistance through their own actions and inactions and that resistance can be a resource for change” (Ford et al., 2008, p.362). Change agent sensemaking is a “key factor in organizational reconfiguration” (Tucker, Hendy & Barlow, 2015, p.1047) which allows rearranging the sequence of events as they may have occurred during the change process.

Employee resistance is not a phenomenon that exists independent of the change agents. On the contrary both change agents and the change recipients together make sense of the events, conversations and decisions which surround the change process with change agents trying to sensemake --“how will this get accomplished?” and change recipients trying to sensemake--“what will happen to me?” (Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994 as cited in Ford et al, 2008, p.363). Sensemaking involves seek- ing information, ascribing meanings, understanding behaviors and conversations and acting on these interpretations (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Mills, Thurlow & Mills, 2010; Tucker et al., 2015; Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). And in organizations undergoing a change process it is not possible for a change agent to sensemake in a “reifying and objectifying” manner “as if it exists independent of them as if they had nothing to do with its creation” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 as cited in Ford et al., 2008, p.64). Sensemaking would involve more than just reporting and interpreting the change process. It would also involve influencing and reacting to the organizational events taking place (Kuntz & Gomes, 2012; Mills, Thurlow & Mills, 2010; Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005).

364

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

The entire change process is an interactive systemic phenomenon (Lewin, 1952) where the actions and reactions of the change recipient and change agent equally matter. Therefore, change agents along with change recipients are responsible for resistance and its various forms (Kuntz & Gomes, 2012). Change agents contribute to employee resistance through their own faulty sensemaking, violation of employee trust, communication breakdowns and misrepresentation of facts (Ford et al., 2008). Change agents influence employees’ reactions by breaking agreements, failing to restore loss of trust, know- ing or unknowingly reneging on promises (Andersson, 1996; Cobb, Wooten & Folger, 1995; Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997), thereby creating situations of resistance.

The role of change agents is to understand the entire organization and its culture and working environ- ments, to design appropriate change strategies and regularly assess the effectiveness of these strategies (Hamlin, Keep, & Ash, 2001). Change agents both internal and external are faced with the challenge of supporting change recipients, understanding the organization and its members, their reactions and adapt their change initiatives accordingly (Hamlin & Davies, 2001; Handy, 1989). An important responsibility of the change agents in this entire change process is to critically reflect on the effectiveness of the change strategies and keep modifying them as needed to increase the overall effectiveness of the entire change process (Hamlin, Keep & Ash, 2001). Also, as argued in Chapter 2 of this book, critical reflection and introspection provide new insights on the OCD strategies chosen by the change agents and allows replac- ing or modifying those which are not working, thereby resulting in emergence of new strategies based on the lessons learned by the change agents. Therefore, critical reflection should become an integral aspect of all evidence-based practices used by change agents in all OCD programs.

Effective change agents are those who are “critically reflective, research-informed/evidence-based practitioners” (Hamlin, 2002; 2007). Change agents are to a large extent responsible for creating employee readiness to change and their acceptance to organizational changes (Barrett, Thomas & Hocevar, 1995; Boje, 1995; Czarniawska & Sevon, 1996; Fairclough, 1992; Ford, 1999). They need to understand the organization, its culture, structure, member roles and expectations and then interpret the entire change process within these parameters (Hamlin & Davies, 2001; Johnson, 1992).

Change agents who repair damaged relationships to restore trust during the change process are less likely to face resistance (Ford et al., 2008). Similarly, those agents who are cynical and critical, tend to lower employee motivation and commitments (Andersson, 1996; Dean, Brandes & Dharwadkar, 1998; Reichers et al., 1997). In the same manner, change agents can also be responsible for the occurrence of resistance through communications failures. Communication happens to be an important aspect of all organizational changes. Recipients overcome their doubts and fears through questioning, evaluating and clarifying their doubts. If the change agent misses this opportunity it increases the chances of recipients resisting change at a future date (Knowles & Linn, 2004; McGuire, 1964; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961).

Also, sometimes change agents may unknowingly mislead the change recipients (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol & Wyer, 1996) during negotiations and discussions. This could create a climate of optimism in the beginning which could prove to be misleading as the time unfolds resulting in feelings of violation, distrust and injustice (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; Tomlinson et al., 2004) undermining the credibility of the change process. This increases the chances of resistance as well. Change agents need to be truthful, realistic and accurate about the change process and the need for it. Realistic and authentic previews are encouraged (Wanous, 1992).

Change is dependent on mobilizing employee support through talk and conversations with the employees (Ford et al., 2008). When change agents ignore this aspect it invariably leads to resistance (Ashkenas & Jick, 1992). Sometimes change agents themselves may be resistant to new ideas, critical

365

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

views, and recommendations. They may be defensive, unreceptive and discourage dialogue and two- way communication with the employees (Ford et al., 2008). The outcome of this defensiveness could be escalation in employee resistance (Powell & Posner, 1978).

Finally, employee resistance is not always dysfunctional in nature. In fact, it could assist the change agents in their change endeavors (Anderson, 2016; Ford et al., 2008). Change recipients’ reactions and criticisms could lead to further reflection and introspection prior to implementation of the change initia- tives (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Talking in a negative manner, has been labelled as resistance (Caruth, Middlebrook & Folger, 1985). However, it also provides an opportunity for the employees and the change agents to participate in conversations, leading to clarifications, exchange of views and perspectives and subsequent acceptance of the change process (Barrett, Thomas & Hocevar, 1995). People usually resist change because of fears, anxieties and inner worries. Change agents instead of considering these attitudes as resistance, should encourage employees to bring these feelings out in the open. Open communica- tion in the form of voicing and listening to these complaints, fears and comments would allow change agent feedback and employee engagement (Amason, 1996; Anderson, 2016; Schweiger, Sandberg & Rechner, 1989).

This chapter will reconstruct employee resistance from the sensemaking perspective of the change agents. It will demonstrate how change agents could themselves be responsible for resistance through their own actions, reactions and conversations. Furthermore, how becoming aware of their role in the occurrence of resistant forces could convert that resistance into resources of change. This increases the chances of an effective change initiative.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER

This chapter investigates the under reflected role of change agents in the change process and examines how change agents themselves could contribute towards the overall resistance practices taking place within an organization during the entire change process. To allow maximum success in any form of change program, i.e., to minimize the occurrence of resistance, the change agent combines action research with sensemaking and reflection. Sensemaking allows the change agent to interpret and deconstruct the past sequence of events, s/he would then be able to reflect on them and take appropriate action.

Sensemaking as discussed earlier “is the discursive process of constructing and interpreting the social world” (Gephart, 1993, p. 1485). It revolves around the process of studying and interpreting how the actions of the actors influence and give meaning to the reality or external sequence of events. Sense- making is primarily a process “grounded in identity construction, retrospection…ongoing…focused on and by extracted cues and driven by plausibility rather than accuracy” (Weick, 1995, p.17). As Rouleau (2005, p. 1415) further clarifies sensemaking is how managers “understand, interpret and create sense for themselves based on the information surrounding strategic change”. It is a highly retrospective and prospective thinking process involved in constructing reality where the emphasis is laid on making sense of past events to influence the sequence of future events. In other words, sensemaking “is a process” (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Cornelissen, 2012; Gephart, Topal & Zhang, 2010; Weick, 1995 as cited in Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 66), “is a recurring cycle” (Louis, 1980 as cited in Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 66) and “unfolds as a sequence” (Weick et al., 2005 as cited in Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 66). Members confront events, issues and actions which they interpret and explain in the context of their environments using their past experiences and knowledge (Weick, 1995). The crux of sensemak-

366

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

ing is on its emphasis on “retrospective interpretation of the actual event” (Giogia et al., 1994, p. 623) to create a future perfect situation.

If the change agent adopts reflexivity when making sense of the organizational events, it provides more clarity to the events, roles and conversations. Reflexivity involves reflecting and understanding one’s own personal feelings, emotions, behaviors, making it possible to locate oneself in research study and theory. Reflexivity means acknowledging the role of the researcher in the creation and interpretation of research data (Dubois, 1983; Harding, 1992; Maynard, 1994; Stanley & Wise, 1983; 1993).

While action research is the process of gathering data about groups, then intervene in the change process and evaluate the overall results of the intervention. “It seeks to bring together action and re- flection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people…” (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1). Here there is a combination of both action and research in resolving current problems existing in the organization (Anderson, 2016) [see Table 1].

Some of the established methods to study sensemaking and action research constitute case studies, ethnographies, and textual analysis and also qualitative methods like interviews, observations and second- ary sources (Gephart, 1993; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia et al., 1994; Weick, 1988; 1993). Methods which record first-hand accounts of the entire sensemaking process and experiences are also highly useful. Auto-ethnography is a data collection method which allows a structured self-examination by the change agent and his/her role as a change agent when leading the change process. In fact, it has been accepted as a legitimate method to make sense of past experiences (Boyle & Parry, 2007). Auto-ethnography possesses the ability to show “how the personal struggles of an individual are linked to the cultural and social meanings” (Mischenko, 2005 as cited in Osentoskli, 2015, p.52). While Haynes (2011) comments that auto-ethnography allows examination of self both from the theoretical stance and as a contributory factor within the social phenomenon. “Auto-ethnographical material provides a valuable resource for exploring, presenting and representing the self, encapsulates a personal, intuitive knowledge, deriving from a knowing subject situated in a specific social context” (Haynes, 2011, p. 134). It encompasses reflection on outward observation (Parry & Boyle, 2009). In fact, auto-ethnography can be effectively used to give voice to those events, situations and conversations which otherwise might have remained silent (Doloriet & Sambrook, 2012). “People seem to see past events as much more rationally ordered than current or future events, because retrospective sensemaking erases many of the casual sequences that complicate and obscure the present and future” (Starbuck & Miliken, 1988, p. 37). Sensemaking here would be concerned with picking out elements and incidents from the past and then reconnecting them to write a story “which makes present and future meaningful” (Degn, 2015, p. 1183).

Table 1. Action research perspective

Action Frame of Reference Perspective Organization: Consists of a network of actively constructed meanings. Analysis: The focus of analysis is on the interactions between people and groups within organizations to identify the apparent and/or latent meaning of these interactions from the point of view of the interacting participants in order to understand the rules which govern organizational behavior. Change: The aim is to change the rules which inform and shape behavior so as to change and transform the meaning of the organization for the individual.

Note: Adapted from Hamlin and Davies (2001, pp. 44-45).

367

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

Auto-ethnography inspite of its drawbacks, like becoming “too involved with the organization” (Leonard-Barton, 1990, p. 256), or lack of objectivity and biased accounts (Ellis & Bochner, 2000) “provides depth of ethnographic immersion and richness of data” (Van Maanen, 1988, p.18). The authors therefore decided to choose the method of auto-ethnography. A case study in academia undergoing a change process was identified. Both the authors happened to be actively involved in the entire change process as internal and external change agents.

The authors compiled narrative accounts of their experiences of the change process in their roles as change agents. The authors recorded their observations during the entire change process within a range of pre-determined parameters consisting of organizational background, change agents’ backgrounds, change agents’ expectations, change agents’ observations of the change environment.

The authors positioned their research study within the analytical framework of sensemaking and ac- tion research (Anderson, 2006) and auto-ethnography was used in combination with case study informa- tion consisting of document analysis and reports. In this situation, the auto-ethnographer follows a “(1) complete member researcher status (2) analytic reflexivity, (3) narrative visibility of the researcher’s self (4) a dialogue with informants beyond the self and (5) a commitment to theoretical analysis” (Anderson, 2006, p. 378). The main crux of auto-ethnography however remains reflexivity (Perriton, 2001), but how it is done can be flexible dependent on the preferences of the researchers, the research topic and issues (Osentoski, 2015). The next section introduces the academic case study and the change agents and the issues they faced during the entire change process.

SENSEMAKING EMPLOYEE RESISTANCE: A CASE STUDY FROM ACADEMIA

The identified case study is a college, or Faculty of Business and Economics (FBE), planning on apply- ing for US (United States of America) based business program accreditation in the next few years. The college is part of a larger university located in West Bank/Palestine. Palestine is part of the Arab world also known as The Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) which consists of two separated territories; the West Bank and Gaza. The university is a public university in Palestine. In Fall 2016, the students went on a major strike protesting, against the increase in tuition fees. Currently the students only pay 70 percent of the tuition fees and the rest is covered by the Palestinian Education Ministry and other independent donors who sponsor tuitions of needy students. The Palestinian government has been fac- ing dwindling financial resources in the last few years and is unable to allocate the much-needed funds to universities in Palestine. The Palestinian universities lack sufficient funds, international faculty and student and faculty exchange programs are limited. The West Bank is isolated from the rest of the world due to checkpoints and other enforced security measures. As a result, Palestinian universities suffer from lack of diversity and opportunities to internationalize their curriculum and expose their students to multi- cultures. The Palestinian institutions are thus faced with the challenge of overcoming these problems while simultaneously ensuring their academic reputations continue to grow (Khoury & McNally, 2014). However, FBE had an advantage, it had the financial support of its student alumni and advisory board members in the form of donations, grants and

scholarships. For instance, FBE had organized various activities such as an annual career day which had been sponsored by several leading Palestinian corporations. In fact, some corporations had donated approximately $30,000 to FBE and had also sponsored a few doctoral scholars in their educational endeavors.

368

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

The college dean of FBE decided on pursuing US based business accreditation for her college. She is a well published female in her early fifties who had been working for the same institution for the past twenty-six years. She had occupied different administrative positions in the faculty as the chair of the department of business administration with two bachelor programs for two years and then as the MBA program coordinator for three terms each of two years’ duration. The dean was also a member of a num- ber of committees at a university level and the head of the steering committee for strategic planning few years ago with an emphasis on quality assurance and curriculum development.

She initiated the entire accreditation process by first inviting an official representative from the US based accreditation body to visit the faculty in September 2015. She invited faculty council members and the academic provost to attend the meeting. The representative mentioned that the University had a good reputation and that the business school might be ready for US based business accreditation. However, once the top-level management of the university heard that the faculty was planning to seek US based business accreditation, they expressed their concerns about the financial cost and the inappropriateness of the decision. The top-level management felt US based business accreditation was not as important as local Palestinian accreditation which the faculty already possessed. They also cited the example of another college within the university which had applied for US based program accreditation and it had taken them six years to receive the program accreditation. The dean was disappointed at this reaction. She felt with the university’s high rankings in the Arab region, and it being the only Palestinian univer- sity currently mentioned in the QS World University rankings, US based business accreditation would prove to be a plus point for FBE. She therefore persisted in her efforts. After the university council and the president had made their views clear, the president formed a committee to discuss the pros and cons of accreditation and provide its recommendations to the university council. The committee submitted its report expressing that accreditation had more pros than cons. However, the top-level management of the university was not convinced about the need for US based business accreditation and did not want to take up unwanted additional expenses.

During this time, the dean received an email about country specific consulate scholarships, and thought it was a good idea to apply and secure a specialist who could evaluate the programs prior to applying for accreditation. The scholarship request was accepted. She invited an external consultant-an accreditation specialist- to assess the college and its readiness for US based business accreditation. The external consultant had to review the curriculum, faculty and staff, research and professional experience and suggest steps to overcome any existing limitations which might come in the way of a possible ac- creditation failure. The dean was interested in minimizing the risk of accreditation failure in the future. Inspite of lack of support from the top management, she was encouraged by the fact that the other college which had sought US based accreditation had managed to get accredited and she could seek financial assistance from student alumni and college advisory board members. She was confident a positive as- sessment by the accreditation specialist would overcome top-level management’s current apprehension about seeking US based business accreditation. She was not aware at this time that the business faculty would also resist this decision during the accreditation specialist’s visit.

The accreditation specialist received a grant for 42 days to visit FBE. The specialist was in her early forties and a faculty member herself at a business college in USA. This was her first visit to Palestine and the Middle East region. The purpose of her visit was to assist FBE in assessing themselves on the different quality standards of the US based business accreditation organization. As per the grant regula- tions she submitted a scope of work plan prior to her travel in Fall 2016. The scope of work detailed the

369

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

items and deadlines to ensure work was completed within the time-period allocated. However, it was not possible to strictly adhere to it because of lack of existing data and faculty’s lack of cooperation in accumulating it for review purposes and for the finalization of the report.

The subsequent sub-sections analyze the narrative accounts of both the internal and external consul- tants (i.e., the college dean and the accreditation specialist).

Excerpts From the Sensemaking Narratives of the Change Agents

In this entire accreditation assessment process, the accreditation specialist (i.e., external change agent) and dean (i.e., internal change agent) came across numerous difficulties aside from the lack of quantita- tive data and evidence in the form of faculty non-cooperation, office politics and other forms of overt and covert resistance. The dean was aware of the opposition. Management at the university level did not feel the need for an US based business program accreditation and did not want to allocate the additional financial resources needed for this endeavor. Also, her faculty was not in favor of her decision to carry out US based business accreditation because they felt uneasy and anxious about its implications in terms of their job security. However, over the period of six weeks of review process things gradually improved.

The empirical data was analyzed in three phases: initial review, open coding and then development of themes. First, both the change agents’ narratives were read, that of internal and external change agents to decipher commonalities and variations in their experiences as change agents. The narratives were then read again to relate observed employee resistance as reactions to change agents’ behavior and con- versations. The entire change process at FBE can be reconstructed as a three-stage process consisting of action, reflection and introspection and new action.

Action

In the last few years, the educational environment has become highly competitive due to globalization of the world economy. Universities across the world have been forced to reflect upon their quality, cur- riculum and schools’ rankings. FBE is also facing a similar situation. The dean of FBE had realized the significance of US based business program accreditation for her college. She informed her senior manage- ment and the faculty and then subsequently invited the accreditation specialist. The entire accreditation self-assessment started with the external change agent collecting data about the faculty qualifications, business curriculum, promotion and tenure policies and advisement policies amongst a few needed items. The internal change agent informed the faculty about the arrival of the accreditation specialist and then introduced them to her on her first day of arrival. As explained in the change agents’ narratives:

I first met the dean and faculty of FBE and got acclimatized to the college’s environment. The entire college could be divided into the dean and her supporters, senior and older faculty members, junior faculty consisting of teaching assistants and administrative staff. I was assured of all support from the dean and her team of administrators. (External Change Agent)

…The selected specialist arrived and met with the department chairs, my assistant and all my faculty colleagues....(Internal Change Agent)

370

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

The above narratives reveal interesting insights about the college environment and its faculty mem- bers. The external change agent identified faculty members as either supporting the accreditation deci- sion and those against it. While the internal change agent had different views of the same situation. She considered the faculty members as her peers. People with whom she had worked with over the years and despite the differences now, were still her colleagues—“…all my faculty colleagues…”. This attitude, as later revealed, motivated the dean to constantly reach out to the faculty members, question them and try to make them understand her decision and its advantages.

Most of the change processes involved improving the educational quality of the business programs being offered and implementation of new learning and pedagogical standards. It is well known and reported in literature that reasons for employee resistance consist of a fear of unknown, a desire to maintain status quo and one’s habits (Anderson, 2016). Change recipients therefore manifest behaviors like “push-back, not buying in, criticism, foot dragging, work around … not responding to requests in a timely manner, making critical or negative comments” (Anderson, 2016; Ford & Ford, 2010, p. 24) and other sabotaging actions. Similarly, the faculty of FBE was also anxious, nervous and uneasy about the new accreditation standards and quality requirements and how it would affect them. The faculty members of FBE were therefore against this initiative to carry out US based business accreditation. Consequently, they made their feelings apparent in different forms of actions and outward behavioral displays. They refused to cooperate with the change agents.

For instance, as recorded in the change agents’ narratives:

The major issue which was noticeable from the very first day was Arabic language. All documents, programs of study, tenure and promotion policies, recruitment and orientation policies happened to be in Arabic. The MBA Director had all his program policies and goals and objectives in Arabic. His offer to get the information translated never materialized. (External Change Agent)

I asked the department chairs to assign someone from their departments to communicate and gather data from the departments for the specialist. The information requested by the specialist was not available in one place. The chairs had to request some of the information from the registrar’s office, computer center, and institutional research unit. The information was requested by the chairs however there were numerous delays in obtaining the identified information…

Some faculty members did not cooperate with the chairs and did not provide them with the information they had requested like research output…. (Internal Change Agent)

The external change agent had to complete her assignment within forty-two days and was focused on that issue. She overcame the limitation of all documents being in Arabic by using Google Translate:

I finally took a faculty member’s advice and used Google Translate. This helped me in gathering evidence on all academic policies and regulations. (External Change Agent)

As evident from the above narrative, some of the change recipients understood the external change agent’s circumstances. They even tried to help her without openly assisting her. There also appears to be close collaboration and communication between both the external and internal change agents during the

371

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

entire self-assessment process for preparation for the planned accreditation. The external change agent mentions the dean and her reactions in her narratives.

The dean was puzzled with this feedback because all documentation was always prepared in English and Arabic. (External Change Agent)

Other instances of faculty non-cooperation were also evident in the change agents’ narratives. Some are open while others are subtle and insidious in nature.

Another limiting factor happened to be their online portal which housed all their syllabi, policies and advisement plans. Everything was there, the convenient answer to all inquiries—“it is on the online portal.” Later at the end of the visit I finally realized that some of the information was not actually there at all. I heard comments on my last meeting like “it should have been there”, “it is usually there”, “really how strange it is not there!

I approached faculty members for their feedback on promotion and tenure policies, hiring policies and orientation processes in place. During these small meetings consisting of the specialist and 2-3 faculty members, I was told how the college was not ready for accreditation, the faculty was not qualified, none of the processes were in place, there was no need for accreditation—“we already have Palestinian ac- creditation”, “the dean is always trying to enhance the quality of our college”, “there is no need to be international, we are not seeking international students…”.

In spite of deadlines and time schedules, there were always delays. In fact, information was submitted to me even after the report was submitted. Data submitted was not consistent across the entire college as well. Some departments submitted others did not. The person identified as data point, did not submit all the required information. He in fact jocularly remarked to me “I might give it to you in the last week what you had been waiting for the entire six weeks”. (External Change Agent)

“in fact, one department chair had commented “we are working on too many requirements all at the same time” while another department chair had complained “the information is in Arabic and we don’t have time to translate it to English.” One faculty member mentioned that if the accreditation is obtained “it would be costly to maintain.” A chair who was appointed just before the specialist arrived did not know where to obtain information from and asked, “how can I obtain information about the department students’ accomplishments?” (Internal Change Agent)

There is also evidence in the form of some snide and cynical remarks to the external change agent. Unlike the internal change agent, the external change agent is an outsider, at their college for a short period of time. The overall impression was, obstructing her progress on the self-assessment review process would arrest the decision to seek US based business accreditation.

“Another faculty member accosted me on the way to the restroom and informed me “that she had not submitted her excel spreadsheet along with the rest of her department. I have not kept regular record of what I do. Sorry.” Some others cheerfully chirped in as well, after giving a friendly wave or handshake

372

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

“I have not submitted yet. So, busy teaching.” I was also encouraged to visit tourist places, not come to campus every day and just give a good report and leave.” (External Change Agent)

The change agents constantly sought faculty support during the entire self-assessment process in preparation to seek US based business program accreditation at a later date. They talked with them, discussed with them, and explained the documentation required and the need for it etc.

In some situations, the data was not formatted properly. For instance, one department head listed all her faculty members by names and the qualifications possessed by them. When requested to correct it, she modified it…. (External Change Agent)

I approached the heads of departments personally…. (External Change Agent)

I constantly requested the faculty to cooperate and commit to deadlines. But it was a noticeable fact that a number of faculty members had no appreciation for time and tried to ditch their obligation to help by saying that the information was only available in Arabic or that it wasn’t available at all, when in fact it was available all the time. (Internal Change Agent)

Reflection and Introspection

The change agents need to make sense of their actions and their influence on the change recipients. This would elucidate the events taking place, reasons for resistant behavior and the change outcomes. Change agents’ narratives show evidence of reflection and introspection. They reflected on their actions, the ac- tions of the faculty members and attempted to deconstruct all outward behaviors of the change recipients.

I had numerous conversations with the dean usually at the end of the working day. The dean would give me an account of the office gossip going on. I heard conversations… (External Change Agent)

I felt like they were purposefully not giving information to their chairs, because they did not support my leadership and did not want me to show results during my tenure as the dean. I also happened to be a woman in a leadership position which was very rare in the Arab world. I also happened to be well qualified and published as well. This I felt had created jealousy and strong feelings of rivalry amongst my colleagues. (Internal Change Agent)

As evident from the above accounts, the change agents reflected on their actions and its effect on employee resistance. The external agent tried to seek feedback from the dean about the working envi- ronment of the college and its culture. She eagerly sought tidbits on the general climate of the college and office gossip to secure faculty cooperation. On the other hand, the internal change agent reflected if employees’ resistance was due to her being a woman and emerging as a leader in a male dominated society, or her being well qualified and published, or her wanting to bring about change could be at- tributed to be the cause of rivalry and jealously amongst her colleagues.

There is also an effort to deconstruct the behavior of the change recipients. And these deconstructions reveal a genuine feeling of sympathy and empathy for them.

373

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

I was aware of the doubts and anxiety of my faculty members. They were worried because majority of them did not have PhD’s and possessed limited published research…

…the older faculty members felt that the accreditation would put extra pressure on them because many of them had very low research output. (Internal Change Agent)

It was however noticeable that these feelings of concern were more prominent within the narrative of the internal change agent. This could be attributed to the fact that inspite of being the leader, a dean, she was also an academic who had worked with the faculty members at the institution for years.

New Action

It could be deduced that these introspective feelings ultimately resulted in change agents modifying their change strategies, their communication techniques and leadership styles.

I was invited for faculty meetings where the dean …sought faculty support on the decision to carry out US based business program accreditation…directly seeking clarifications for their behavior and non- cooperation. For instance, she questioned a department chair “…why did you say students have no accomplishments when they participated in this case study competition, published papers …”? Again “why did you inform…when there is survey data on the program participants feedback…”? (External Change Agent)

In this case study the change agents treated employee resistance as a plus point and confronted it. They offered further clarifications and opened up forums for debates and discussions. Sometimes “divergent opinions about direction are necessary in order for groups to make wise decisions and for organizations to change effectively” (Piderit, 2000, p. 790). Resistance could also be a reaction indicating that those resisting may want to know about the change process. By “listening keenly to comments, complaints and criticisms for cues to adjust the pace, scope or sequencing of change and/or its implementation” (Ford et.al., 2008, p. 369), better solutions can be created.

I was invited to the advisory board meetings and other committee meetings as well. This provided op- portunities for open dialogue and conversations with new understandings and perceptions being created. The faculty members became aware of what I was doing, why I was collecting data that is to show where the college stood on each of the fifteen standards of the US based accreditation body. They understood this process of seeking US business accreditation was a slow and lengthy process which would take a few years to materialize (even in US it sometimes takes eight years). This would allow them to gradu- ally increase their research output, work on their qualifications, or on any other existing deficiencies.

The farewell meeting consisted of a presentation before the faculty covering the outcome of the entire visit. This allowed faculty to get an idea of the report, ask questions and feel reassured about the purpose of the US based business program accreditation. (External Change Agent)

374

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

After carefully reviewing the faculty’s environment I appointed two committees one for assurance of learning and another for accreditation to follow up …and work accordingly. I thought these commit- tees would help …-- to believe in the importance of meeting the standards of US based accreditation body and reinforce a culture that would be supportive of the college’s new strategic direction. (Internal Change Agent)

In the above situation, the change recipients were integrated into the entire change process. Commu- nication and dialogue along with participation and collaboration between the change agent and change recipients were the new action techniques adopted by the leader. This paved the path for a college culture where the faculty realized the importance of US based business accreditation and supported the strate- gic decision of the college. In fact, at the end of the accreditation specialist visit, the top management based on the report findings felt more positive about the decision to seek US based business program accreditation and was willing to consider applying for it in the future. The top management also invited the external change agent to conduct two workshops emphasizing quality and learning assurance for the faculty and staff members at the university level to create awareness throughout the university, as this step was taking place at a university wide level as well.

Dialogue, open and honest communication and collaboration and participation techniques may not be new in overcoming employee resistance. But in this situation, an attempt was also made to identify with the change recipients instead of dividing the people involved in the change process into separate groups—the change agents and change recipients with the change agents trying to overcome employee resistance. In this case study, change agents especially the internal change agent identified themselves with the change recipients and made efforts to become ‘in-group’ and or one of them.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The challenges faced by universities are different from those faced by organizations within the private and public sectors. The environmental pressures facing educational institutions consist of changing trends in the labor markets, changes in technology, new ways of design and delivery of learning services. Educational institutions also possess a more consensual form of governance involving faculty, administra- tors, students, parents and communities. The faculty is committed to their subjective disciplines and the vocation of teaching and learning while the administrators believe in responding to the external forces and developing the institution accordingly (Ruben, 2005; Torraco, Hoover, & Knippelmeyer, 2005). The conflict to any change process usually occurs at the faculty and administrative level (Torraco et al., 2005). However, not much is known about OD and change initiatives at the university level. There is a need to further thresh out issues such as “who initiates [the change process]? …what strategies are associated with the development and expansion of OD-based change? Why do some OD initiatives succeed while others fail?” (Torraco et al., 2005, p. 858) within an academic setting.

Further there are few studies which have examined change issues in higher education in the Arab context. This chapter examined a university college in Palestine which was planning to apply for US based business program accreditation in the next few semesters. So, this study contributes towards the limited OCD evidence-based literature. To continue with the case study, the dean, who was the internal change agent had decided on US based business program accreditation for her college, but she lacked the support of the university’s top management and her faculty. To ensure college’s readiness for accredita-

375

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

tion before applying and thereby convince the top management about the soundness of her decision, she decided to invite a specialist to review the curriculum and faculty qualifications. She felt this was the least expensive available option. The entire review period duration was around six weeks. But these six weeks were not smooth, information was scattered, and faculty did not cooperate in compiling, locating or submitting it. The dean and specialist faced faculty opposition, overt and covert resistance and political maneuvers. The dean tried to overcome resistance through open dialogue and employee confrontation and involving them in the entire accreditation review process. She formed two committees for accreditation and assurance of learning to encourage and empower her faculty to think strategically as she was aware that this change process could take years before it gets accomplished successfully.

The chapter reconstructs employee resistance in a university college as a phenomenon which acknowl- edges that both change agents and change recipients are equally responsible for resistance. The actions, conversations and reactions of change recipients are behavioral triggers which the change agents need to make sense of to pave the path for the change initiatives. The study draws upon two auto-ethnographic reflexive narratives of change agents to demonstrate how change agents make or break the change process at their work place. The sensemaking narratives are correlated with different theoretical aspects of OCD evidence-based practices to provide insights on the change process and how introspection and reflection can lead to maximum success. The objective is to allow an understanding of how each change agent interpreted the change process and influenced the stakeholders in the change environment. It focuses on the importance of reflection, introspection and sensemaking activities of the change agents in the entire change initiative.

This study has implications within the higher education sector it provides insights on how success- ful change requires communication and involvement at all levels of organization. In addition, how this can be practically achieved through quality assurance and accreditation committees which allow col- laboration between the faculty and administration. It also recognizes the importance of internal change agents who are aware of the culture of the organization, its problems, and trouble makers and yet are sympathetic to the fears and anxieties of the change recipients. It exhibits how a team of internal and external change agents who are communicating with each other throughout the entire change process, minimize employees’ resistance and increase acceptance of change initiatives.

The empirical analysis reveals differences in interpretations and reactions of both the change agents regarding the change process. The internal change agent is more sympathetic to the change recipients and their internal tensions. While the external change agent is more bothered about completing her assignment and to achieve this she tries to overcome the opposition of the faculty and win the trust of the change recipients. These differences in the change agents’ approaches could be attributed to their respective positions in the college i.e., paid employee vs. non-employee. Research studies on employee resistance to organizational change so far have concentrated on the resistance practices, the organizational leader or the top management. The influence of the change agents, internal and external, and how their personalities, culture and ideologies could affect the change process has been substantially neglected. This could be an issue worth further investigating. Turnbull and Edwards (2005) in fact demand further case studies in higher education of a cross-cultural nature such as the above, to provide insights about OD and the influence of national cultural values and characteristics.

The empirical findings generated by the auto-ethnographic narratives in this chapter should be further investigated through interviews and surveys to get the perspectives of the faculty and staff members at the college level and the higher-level administrators at the university level as well. This would provide a complete and comprehensive picture of the entire change process.

376

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

REFERENCES

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148. doi:10.2307/256633

Anderson, D. L. (2016). Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395. doi:10.1177/0891241605280449

Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49(11), 1395–1417. doi:10.1177/001872679604901102

Ashkenas, R., & Jick, T. (1992). From dialogue to action in GE work-out: Development learning in a change process. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Develop- ment (vol. 6, pp. 267-287). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549. doi:10.2307/20159600

Barrett, F., Thomas, G., & Hocevar, S. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale change: A social construction perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(3), 352–372. doi:10.1177/0021886395313007

Boje, D. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as Tamara- land. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997–1035. doi:10.2307/256618

Boyle, M., & Parry, K. (2007). Telling the whole story: The case for organizational autoethnography. Culture and Organization Journal, 13(3), 185–190. doi:10.1080/14759550701486480

Caruth, D., Middlebrook, B., & Rachel, F. (1985). Overcoming resistance to change. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 503, 23–27. Retrieved from https://laurieford.com/wp-content/articles/2009. Resistance%20Reexamined.pdf

Cobb, A. T., Wooten, K. C., & Folger, R. (1995). Justice in the making: Toward understanding the theory and practice of justice in organizational change and development. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 243–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Cornelissen, J. (2012). Sensemaking under pressure: The influence of processional roles and social ac- countability on the creation of sense. Organization Science, 23(1), 118–137. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0640

Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110879735

Dean, J. W. Jr, Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 23(2), 341–352. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533230

377

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

Degn, L. (2015). Identity construction and sensemaking in higher education-A case study of Danish higher education department heads. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1179–1193. doi:10.1080/030 75079.2014.881345

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25–41. doi:10.1177/0021886399351003

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979 PMID:8656340

Doloriet, C., & Sambrook, S. (2012). Organizational autoethnography. Journal of Organizational Eth- nography, 1(1), 83–95. doi:10.1108/20466741211220688

Dubois, B. (1983). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in feminist social sci- ence. In G. Bowles & R. Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Ellis, C., & Bochener, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2009). Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and practice. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 39–56. doi:10.1108/01437731011010371

Fairclogh, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), 35–50. doi:10.1108/09534819910255306

Ford, J. (1999). Organizational change as a shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 480–500. doi:10.1108/09534819910300855

Ford, J., Ford, L., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Man- agement Review, 33(2), 362–377. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 24–36. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.10.002

Gephart, R. P. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 36(6), 1465–1514. doi:10.2307/256819

Gephart, R. P., Topal, C., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institu- tional legitimation. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking and organizing (pp. 275–312). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594566.003.0013

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. doi:10.1002mj.4250120604

Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics and sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.3.363

378

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

Hamlin, R. G., & Davies, G. (2001). Managers, trainers and developers as change agents. In R. G. Hamlin, J. Keep & K. Ash (Eds.), Organizational Change and Development: A Reflective Guide for Managers, Trainers and Developers (pp. 39-60). Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall.

Hamlin, R. G. (2002). Towards evidence-based HRD practice. In J. McGoldrick, J. Stewart, & S. Watson (Eds.), Understanding human resource development: A research-based approach (pp. 93–121). London: Routledge.

Hamlin, R. G. (2007). Generating HRD related ‘general knowledge’ from Mode 2 design science re- search: A cumulative study of manager and managerial leader effectiveness. In F.M. Nafukho, T. G. Chermack, & C. M. Graham (Eds.), 2007 AHRD International Research Conference. Indianapolis, IN: Academic Press.

Hamlin, R. G., Keep, J. S., & Ash, K. (2001). Organizational change and development: A reflective guide for managers, trainers and developers. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall.

Handy, C. (1989). The age of unreason. London: Random Century.

Harding, S. (1992). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Haynes, K. (2011). Tensions in (re)presenting the self in reflexive auto-ethnographical research. Quali- tative Research in Organizations and Management, 6(2), 134–149. doi:10.1108/17465641111159125

Ijaz, S., & Vitalist, A. (2011). Resistance to organizational change: Putting the jigsaw together. Interna- tional Review of Business Research Papers, 7(3), 112–121. Retrieved from https://www.bizresearchpa- pers.com/8.%20Saima-FINAL.pdf

Johnson, G. (1992). Managing strategic change: Strategy, culture and action. Long Range Planning, 25(1), 28–36. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(92)90307-N PMID:10118379

Khoury, G., & McNally, B. (2014). Under pressure: The role of the external context in creating internal tensions-- A case study of a Palestinian university. In Cases on management and organizational behavior in an Arab context (pp. 128-145). IGI Global Publications.

King, N., & Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and change in organizations. London: Routledge.

Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Approach-Avoidance model of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies for change. In E.S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 117-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kulkarni, V. (2016). Employee interpretations of change: Exploring the other side of resistance story. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 52(2), 246–263. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com. proxy1.ncu.edu

Kuntz, J. R. C., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2012). Transformational change in organizations: A self-regulation ap- proach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(1), 143–162. doi:10.1108/09534811211199637

379

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3), 248–266. doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248

Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. London: Tavistock.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251. doi:10.2307/2392453 PMID:10247029

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125. doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177

Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insight from Weick. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00908.x

Maynard, M. (1994). Methods, practice and epistemology. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Research- ing women’s lives from a feminist perspective. London: Taylor and Francis.

McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 19–229). New York: Academic Press.

McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgia, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327–337. doi:10.1037/h0042026 PMID:13773992

Meston, C., & King, N. (1996). Making sense of resistance: Responses to organizational change in a private nursing home for the elderly. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 62(1), 91–102. doi:10.1080/13594329608414843

Mills, J. H., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking: The critical sen- semaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 5(2), 182–195. doi:10.1108/17465641011068857

Ostentoski, N. (2015). Changing from the inside out: Leading organizational change as an insider. Journal of Positive Management, 6(3), 41–66. doi:10.12775/JPM.2015.015

Parry, K. W., & Boyle, M. (2009). Organizational autoethnography. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 690-702). London: Sage.

Perriton, L. (2001). Sleeping with the enemy? Exploiting the textual turn in management research. In- ternational Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(1), 35–50. doi:10.1080/13645570117299

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. doi:10.5465/ amr.2000.3707722

Powell, G., & Posner, B. Z. (1978). Resistance to change reconsidered: Implications for managers. Hu- man Resource Management, 17(1), 29–34. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930170107

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1–14). London: Sage.

380

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

Reichers, A., Wanous, J., & Austin, J. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organiza- tional change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48–59. Retrieved from https://www.jstor. org/stable/4165371

Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-6486.2005.00549.x

Ruben, B. (2005). The center for organizational development and leadership at Rutgers University: A case study. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(3), 368–395. doi:10.1177/1523422305277177

Scheniger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry: Devil’s advocacy and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745–772. doi:10.2307/256567

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sorge, A., & van Wittelootuijn, A. (2004). The (non)sense of organizational change: An essay about universal management hypes, sick consultancy metaphors and healthy organization theories. Organiza- tion Studies, 25(7), 1205–1231. doi:10.1177/0170840604046360

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist consciousness and feminist research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.), In the executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Thompson, D., & Burns, H. K. (2008). Reflection: An essential element of evidence-based practice. Journal of Emergency Nursing: JEN, 34(8), 246–248. doi:10.1016/j.jen.2008.02.024 PMID:18558263

Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2), 165–187. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003

Torraco, R. J., Hoover, R. E., & Knippelmeyer, S. A. (2005). Organization development and change in univeristies: Implications for research and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(3), 422–437. doi:10.1177/1523422305277180

Tucker, D. A., Hendy, J., & Barlow, J. (2015). The importance of role sending in the sensemaking of change agent roles. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 29(7), 1047–1064. doi:10.1108/ JHOM-12-2013-0279 PMID:26556167

Turnbull, S., & Edwards, G. (2005). Leadership development for organizational change in a new U.K. university. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(3), 396–413. doi:10.1177/1523422305277178

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

381

Resistance to Organizational Change in Academia

Wanous, J. (1992). Organization entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation and socialization of newcom- ers. Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00039.x

Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann gulch disaster. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 571–593. Retrieved from http://www.cs.unibo.it/~ruffino/Letture%20 TDPC/K.%20Weick%20-%20The%20collapse%20of%20sensemaking.pdf

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Or- ganization Science, 16(4), 409–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133