Organization Development

Understanding Resistance to Change – Building on Coch and French

BERNARD BURNES

Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, UK

ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to explore the nature of resistance to change (RTC) and the notion that employees are the prime source of such resistance. It takes a historical perspective on the subject, beginning with an examination of Coch and French’s [1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512 – 532] influential work on resistance, especially their assertion that resistance does not arise from the individual, but from the context in which the change takes place. The article explains that their work was part of a long-running series of studies of change by Kurt Lewin. This leads on to a review of the development of the resistance literature since their article was published. This is followed by an examination of four theories of resistance, which shows that they are consistent with and help develop Coch and French’s work. The article concludes by arguing that taking a ‘long view’ enables us to see why their work provided not only the foundations for our understanding of RTC, but also how it can be built on to produce a rounded and robust view of RTC.

KEY WORDS: Coch and French, resistance, change, Lewin

Introduction

Over the last two decades, there have been increasing calls to take a historical per- spective on the study of organizations and the development of organization the- ories (Schreyögg, Sydow, & Holtmann, 2011; Üsdiken & Kieser, 2004). Whether this is referred to as a ‘historic turn’ (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004) or taking the ‘long view’ (Burnes & Cooke, 2012), the meaning is the same: we need to look at how ideas and practices develop and change over the long term rather than just examining them at one point in time. This article seeks to apply this approach to the study of resistance to change (RTC).

Journal of Change Management, 2015

Vol. 15, No. 2, 92 – 116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2014.969755

Correspondence Address: Bernard Burnes, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9

4LA, UK. Email: [email protected]

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

We live in an era where change is seen as essential if organizations are to survive (Dunphy, Griffiths, & Benn, 2007; Kanter, 2008; Sackmann, Eggenho- fer-Rehart, & Friesl, 2009). Such is the importance now given to change that it is seen as the prime responsibility of those who lead organizations, as the rise of the transformational leader shows (Bass, 1995; Burns, 1978; Yukl, 2010). However, it is often claimed that some 70% of change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2011; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Kotter, 1996; Rogers, Meehan, & Tanner, 2006; Senturia, Flees, & Maceda, 2008). Many reasons have been put forward for such a high level of failure (Burnes & Jackson, 2011), but employee resistance has been one of the most frequently cited (Erwin & Garman, 2010; Geisler, 2001; Lucas, 2002; Maurer, 1996; Oreg, 2006; Pardo del Val & Martı́nez Fuentes, 2003; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Achilles, 2013; Waddell & Sohal, 1998). It should be noted that we are not seeking to chal- lenge those who argue that change is not always for the best or that resistance can play a positive role in the change process (Ford & Ford, 2010; Piderit, 2000; Thomas & Hardy, 2011; Waddell & Sohal, 1998). Instead, our aim is to under- stand the nature of RTC and investigate the notion that employees are the prime source of such resistance.

Certainly, there are many who argue that employee RTC is innate, pervasive, irrational and dysfunctional (Choi & Ruona, 2011; Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Hon, Bloom, & Crant, 2011; Self & Schraeder, 2009). In their review of the literature, Dent and Goldberg (1999, p. 25) noted that this view ‘is found in nearly every textbook about management or organizational behaviour’. As Oreg (2003, p. 680) maintains, it is not just that individuals and groups resist changes that threaten their interests, some ‘seem to resist even changes that are consonant with their interests’.

Peiperl (2005, p. 348) defines resistance as:

. . . active or passive responses on the part of a person or group that militate against a

particular change, a program of changes, or change in general.

In reviewing the literature on resistance, Erwin and Garman (2010, p. 42) found that there was widespread agreement with Peiperl’s view, noting that

. . . resistance is viewed as multi-dimensional involving how individuals behave in

response to change (behavioral dimension), what they think about the change (cog-

nitive dimension), and how they feel about the change (affective dimension).

Certainly, looking at the literature on resistance, the focus seems to be firmly on the individual as the source of resistance (Erwin & Garman, 2010; Judge, Thore- sen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Mumford, Baughman, Threlfall, & Uhlman, 1993; Oreg, 2003; Thomas & Hardy, 2011). However, if we go back to the foun- dations of the subject, a different picture emerges, which – as we will show – challenges this view of resistance. As Bouckenooghe (2010) notes, the earliest and one of the most widely cited studies on the topic of resistance is Coch and French’s (1948) article ‘Overcoming resistance to change’. This offers a view of resistance that is diametrically at odds with the widely held view that resistance

Understanding Resistance to Change 93

to change arises from employees (Hardy & Thomas, 2011), and instead focuses on the organizational context.

Over the years, Coch and French’s article has attracted much attention from both critics and supporters alike (Bartlem & Lock, 1981; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Gardner, 1977), and still achieves a level of citation that most academics would give their eye teeth for (see Google Scholar). Unfortunately, there is a ten- dency for influential articles such as this to be cited without being read and even to support arguments incompatible with their contents (Davis & Songer, 2008; Gravenhorst, 2003; Latour, 1987; MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 1996). Certainly, the Coch and French’s article seems often to be cited in a totemic fashion, with the onus on the reader to be conversant with the article rather than for the citer to explain its key findings. For example, Ijaz and Vitalis (2011, p. 113), in an article entitled Resistance to organizational change: Putting the jigsaw together, state: ‘With the foundation laid by Coch and French (1948), the concept of resist- ance to organizational change began to take shape, and questions about its exist- ence were asked.’ However, though Ijaz and Vitalis (2011, p. 116) also refer to Coch and French’s article as ‘this pioneer work’, they do not say what this ‘foundation’ is or why it is a ‘pioneer work’. It is also widely cited in the employee participation literature, but usually without mentioning in what circumstances Coch and French advocated participation or their Action Research approach to achieving it (see Camman, 1976; Nurick, 1982). Many writers assume that the reader is familiar with the text, merely putting ‘e.g. (Coch & French, 1948)’ in brackets at the end of a sentence in order to indicate that it provides support for the point they are making, whatever that might be (see Avila, Galindo, & Mendez, 2012; Mulki, Jaramillo, Malhotra, & Locanderd, 2012).

This is not to denigrate the work of those who cite Coch and French in this way: after all, this is standard academic practice. However, in this case, where the work cited is crucial to an understanding of the topic under discussion, the reader is likely to be left no wiser as to what Coch and French did, what was important about it, or how it might inform the current debate about resistance to change. In particular, they are unlikely to realize that Coch and French’s work was not a one-off study of resistance to change, but part of a long-running series of ‘exper- iments’, in both organizational and social settings, conducted by Kurt Lewin in the 1930s and 1940s (Burnes, 2007; Marrow, 1969). Lewin’s work created the basis of the organization development (OD) movement, which has been the dominant approach to organizational change for more than 60 years (Burnes & Cooke, 2012). Consequently, the significance of Overcoming resistance to change does not just arise from the research findings it reports, but also from the wider body of work to which it contributes and which in turn provides additional support for its findings.

In order to address the issue of resistance, this article begins by examining Coch and French’s work, first by setting it within the broader context of Lewin’s research on change and then by examining the work itself. This leads on to a review of how the resistance debate has developed since the 1940s. This is fol- lowed by an examination of four important theories of resistance which have been developed over the past 60 years – cognitive dissonance, depth of interven- tion, psychological contract and dispositional resistance – which shows how these

94 B. Burnes

relate to and support Coch and French’s work. The article concludes by arguing that taking a ‘long view’ enables us to see why their work provided not only the foundations for our understanding of resistance to change but also how it can be built on to produce a rounded and robust view of resistance to change.

Lewin and Harwood

Kurt Lewin is considered to be the founding father of OD and one of the leading social scientists of his day (Ash, 1992; Benne, 1976; Burnes, 2004; Burnes & Cooke, 2012; Dent, 2002; Freedman, 1999; Marrow, 1969; Schein, 1988). His three major contributions to OD are as follows:

. Planned change – comprising four interrelated elements: field theory, group dynamics, action research and the three-step model of change (Burnes, 2004);

. Showing how psychological theories and techniques developed and used in laboratory experiments to study group behaviour could be applied to studying and changing group behaviour in the real world (Dent, 2002; Highhouse, 2007);

. A set of radical values and ‘utopian aspirations’ (Mirvis, 2006, p. 77) that emphasize the need to promote democratic values and participation in order to tackle social and organizational conflict (Lewin, 1946; Marrow, 1969).

As Table 1 shows, between 1939 and 1947 when he died, Lewin conducted a range of studies and action research projects designed to develop and refine his philos- ophy and approach to change. Though many of these studies addressed change in diverse social settings, the main arena for developing the organizational dimen- sion of his approach to change was the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, the selfsame organization where Coch and French conducted their research under Lewin’s guidance (Marrow, 1969).

As Dent (2002) commented on the work conducted at Harwood:

. . . although this comprehensive effort is much less well-known than the Hawthorne

studies, the research which came out of it has perhaps had a greater impact on group

decision-making processes, self-management, leadership development, meeting

management, stereotyping and resistance to change, among others (p. 272).

The Harwood plant was established in Marion, Virginia in 1939 to make pyjamas. The link between Harwood and Lewin was Alfred Marrow. Harwood had been founded by Marrow’s grandfather and his father was President of the Corporation, a role to which Marrow succeeded in 1940. Marrow, who would go on to have a distinguished career as an industrialist, academic and public servant, first met Lewin in 1934, just after he arrived in the USA as a refugee scholar from Nazi Germany. Marrow was seeking advice on his Ph.D., and this initial meeting led to a long-term friendship, with, after Lewin’s death, Marrow becoming his biogra- pher and chief promoter (French, 1979; Marrow, 1969). In 1939, Marrow invited Lewin to help Harwood address the problems the plant was having with high labour turnover. The result, as Table 1 shows, was that the Harwood studies formed a central plank in the development of Lewin’s approach to change;

Understanding Resistance to Change 95

Table 1. Kurt Lewin – key projects and events 1939 – 1947 a

(Burnes, 2007)

Date b

Study/event Location Linking figures Focus Concepts Citation

1938/1939 Autocracy – democracy Iowa Lewin, Lippitt and White

The effects of different leadership styles on children’s behaviour

Participation and group decision-making

Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939)

1939 Employee turnover Harwood Lewin Employee retention Changing supervisory behaviour

Marrow (1969)

1940/1941? Group decision-making Harwood Bavelas Democratic participation and productivity

Participation and group decision-making

Marrow (1969)

1941? Training in democratic leadership

Iowa Bavelas and Lewin

Improving leadership behaviours and techniques

Sensitivity training Bavelas and Lewin (1942)

1942 Food habits Iowa Lewin and Bavelas

Changing the food-buying habits of housewives

Participation and group decision-making

Lewin (1943)

1942? Self-management Harwood Bavelas Increasing workers’ control over the pace of work

Group decision-making Marrow (1969)

1944/1945 Leadership training Harwood French Improving the interpersonal skills and effectiveness of supervisors

Role play French (1945)

1944/1945 Commission on Community Interrelations (CCI)

New York Lewin, Marrow and Lippitt

The problems and conflicts of group and community life

Action research Marrow (1969)

1945 Research Center for Group Dynamics

MIT Lewin, Marrow and French

Understanding and changing group behaviour

Action research Marrow (1969)

1946 Changing stereotypes Harwood French Changing attitudes to older workers

Information gathering, discussion and reflection

Marrow (1957), 1972)

1946 Connecticut State Inter- Racial Commission

New Britain, Connecticut

Lewin and Lippitt

Leadership training Sensitivity training/role play

Marrow (1969)

1947 NTL Bethel, Maine Coch, French and Lippitt

Leadership training T-groups (sensitivity training/role play)

Marrow (1967, 1969)

9 6

B .

B u

rn e s

1947 Overcoming resistance to change

Harwood Coch and French

The impact of different approaches to change on productivity

Participative change/ force field analysis

Coch and French (1948)

a Marrow (1969) has attempted to list Lewin’s research activities. The list is staggeringly long. This table focuses only upon those Harwood and non-Harwood studies and events

which appear to share common concepts, techniques and people, and which, when considered together, show the means by which Lewin moved the focus of his research from

laboratory studies to real-life change situations, and the progressive development of his planned approach to change. b Though the order in which the major Harwood studies took place can be established from the writings of Marrow, it is not always clear which year individual studies were

undertaken. Where there is some doubt a ‘?’ is put after the date. The same nomenclature is used for the Bavelas and Lewin (1942) study which was published in 1942, but

appears to have taken place in 1941.

U n

d e rsta

n d

in g

R e sista

n c e

to C

h a

n g

e 9

7

Lewin played a central role in initiating and directing a new approach to partici- pative management at Harwood, of which Coch and French’s work was just one element. This is not to minimize their work, but to emphasize that their findings in terms of resistance to change stand on a broader foundation than just the work reported in their 1948 article, and that this broader foundation provides added credibility to their findings. Having provided the context for Coch and French’s work, we can now proceed to examine it in more detail.

Coch and French: ‘Overcoming resistance to change’

Lester Coch and John French came from very different backgrounds before joining Harwood and had very different careers after leaving. Lester Coch was born in New York in 1921 and died in 2005. He studied engineering at university, but left before finishing his degree to join the US infantry at the outbreak of the Second World War. For the latter part of his military service, he was a prisoner of war in Germany. After his liberation, he went to work at Harwood as Personnel Manager for a short period before going on to have a successful career as an engin- eer with a number of patents to his name.

1 John French was born in Boston in 1913

and died in 1995. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1940. He worked closely with Lewin from the late 1930s through to Lewin’s death in 1947. Through Lewin, he became Plant Psychologist at Harwood between 1943 and 1948. After leaving Harwood, he went to work at the Research Center for Group Dynamics, which was established by Lewin at MIT in 1946, and then moved to Michigan University after his death. French had a distinguished aca- demic career, especially in terms of his later work with Bertram Raven on bases of social power, but it was his collaboration with Lewin at Harwood which provided the foundations and continuing inspiration for much of his work (House, 1993; Marrow, 1969).

In explaining the motivation for their work, Coch and French (1948, p. 531) state that: ‘A majority of all grievances presented at Harwood have always stemmed from a change situation.’ Given that the factory employed over 500 pro- duction workers, whose methods of work and job tasks changed several times a year, this was a major problem for the company (Marrow, 1972). Workers com- plained bitterly about being transferred from jobs they knew well and could do quickly to new ones where their productivity was far lower. Their earnings and morale would plunge, and some workers would be reduced to tears by the changes whilst others would react very aggressively. Some experienced machi- nists never regained their previous levels of output. The company wanted to find a way of introducing change that did not lead to a decrease in productivity and a high staff turnover. As mentioned earlier, staff turnover was the reason why Lewin’s assistance was sought in the first place, and how the company came to employ a Plant Psychologist, first Alex Bavelas and later John French (Marrow, 1969). The results of Lewin’s Harwood studies, which in essence were attempts to test the efficacy of industrial democracy, were reported in a number of publications (see Table 1). The Coch and French’s article reports the various experiments in democratic participation designed specifically to address Harwood’s problems with resistance to change.

98 B. Burnes

Dent and Goldberg (1999, p. 25) observe that the notion of ‘resistance to change’ is credited to Kurt Lewin and that he ‘introduced the term as a systems concept, as a force affecting managers and employees equally’. The theoretical underpinnings of Lewin’s approach to resistance derive from field theory in physics and Gestalt psychology, both of which stress the importance of context in shaping individual actions (Burnes & Cooke, 2013). Lewin’s (1947a, 1947b) ‘field theory’ maintains that individual and group behaviour is the product of a complex system or field of forces that surround individuals and form a force field or life space which generates a ‘quasi-stationary equilibrium’. Lewin argued that changes in behaviour only occur when the field changes, either by a decrease in the power of restraining forces or an increase in the power of driving forces.

When Coch and French (1948) began to examine resistance to change at Harwood, they sought to identify and reduce those forces that acted to increase workers’ resistance and promote those that acted to reduce it. Coch and French selected four groups to take part in the study – one control group and three exper- imental groups. Group 1 was the control group, and changes to their work prac- tices were undertaken in the normal Harwood fashion, namely that they were called into the office, told that changes would take place, and given the opportu- nity to ask questions. Group 2 was given more detailed information and was allowed to nominate representatives to participate in designing the new jobs and setting the new production rates. In line with Lewin’s Action Research approach to change, all the members of Groups 3 and 4 participated in the design of the new jobs and the setting of the new rates. The result was that the pro- ductivity after the changes was ‘directly proportional to the amount of partici- pation, and that the rates of [labour] turnover and aggression are inversely proportional to the amount of participation’ (Coch & French, 1948, p. 524). They also sought to examine the role of personality factors, such as aggressive- ness, in resistance. They state that their research showed ‘conclusively that the results obtained depended on the experimental treatment [i.e. the degree of partici- pation] rather than on personality factors’ (Coch & French, 1948, p. 524). In a later article, seeking to explain the results further, French and Zander (1949, p. 75) drew attention to ‘the dynamic concept of force, field of forces, and conflict of forces’. They maintain that by allowing the workers to participate in the design of new methods and the pace of work, they were strengthening those forces that tended to increase workers’ confidence in themselves and weakening those forces that tended to undermine it.

Coch and French (1948) observed that many of the techniques used in their study were developed at the first session of the National Training Laboratory (NTL) held in 1947. However, the NTL session drew on the 1944 – 1945 leader- ship training programme French had conducted at Harwood (Marrow, 1969). It also drew on the methods developed in the leadership training programme Lewin conducted for the Connecticut State Inter-Racial Commission in 1946 (the New Britain workshops). This in turn was an extension of Lewin et al. (1939) autocracy – democracy leadership studies, which showed, amongst other things, that if leaders wished to change the behaviour of their followers, they might first have to change their own behaviour. This, of course, is what happened

Understanding Resistance to Change 99

at Harwood. In order to change workers’ behaviour in terms of how they reacted to change, Coch and French had to get Harwood’s leaders to change how they managed change situations. A further and central element of Lewin’s work is also apparent in Coch and French’s article: the importance of choice. Lewin argued, and others since have also shown, that individuals and groups are more likely to be committed to change if they feel that they have a genuine choice over what changes take place and how they are managed (Burnes & Cooke, 2012; Carpenter, 2013; Diamond, 1992; McMillan & Connor, 2005; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

In showing the relationship between their work and Lewin’s, we can see why Coch and French (1948, p. 512) observe that they drew ‘repeatedly from the works and concepts of Kurt Lewin for both the action and theoretical phases of this study’. This is further emphasized by their labelling their work as ‘action research’, an approach to change developed by Lewin (Marrow, 1969). This confirms the point made earlier in this article that Coch and French’s work has to be seen within the wider context of Lewin’s work (Burnes, 2007; Burnes & Cooke, 2012).

Returning to Ijaz and Vitalis’s (2011) assertions, it is now possible to understand why the Coch and French’s article is a ‘pioneer work’ which laid the ‘foundation’ for understanding resistance to change. It produced two key findings:

(1) Resistance does not arise from the individual, but from the context in which the change takes place. As Dent and Goldberg (1999, p. 25) note, Lewin saw it as ‘a systems concept’. For Lewin (1947a, 1947b), as mentioned earlier, individual and group behaviour is the product of a complex system or field of forces that surround individuals and form a force field or life space.

(2) The way to change the forces in the field to achieve a desired outcome is not to attempt to impose change, but to encourage participative decision-making through Action Research.

Coch and French’s work is commonly seen as providing the basis for our under- standing of resistance to change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Also, it is supported by Lewin’s wider body of work, which has dominated the field of change since the 1940s (Burnes & Cooke, 2012). This raises the question of why, since its publi- cation, its basic argument has been lost. Instead of resistance being seen as arising from the nature of the organization’s context, it is individual employees who are seen as the main barrier to change (Erwin & Garman, 2010).

In addressing this question, the next section will argue that the cause lies in the aftermath of Lewin’s death in 1947. It will show that his inheritors and supporters in the OD movement lost interest in field theory element of his work and tended to focus less on the influence of the contextual factors and more on group dynamics and individual psychology, which in turn became the accepted dominant expla- nation for resistance.

After Coch and French

The year before the publication of the Coch and French’s article, Lewin died. Though Lewin’s work on group dynamics, action research and his three-step

100 B. Burnes

model of change was taken up by other scholars and became the basis of OD (Burnes & Cooke, 2012), interest in field theory declined and, as Gold (1992, p. 67) observed, ‘the general understanding of field theory by social scientists has grown increasingly vague’. Field theory declined for two reasons. First, it was a work in progress and only Lewin appeared to understand fully the complex mathematics on which it was based. As his biographer noted, it was ‘dif- ficult reading’ and ‘few psychologists were willing to devote the time to the careful study of his complex system of concepts’ (Marrow, 1969, p. 116).

Second, after his death, Lewin’s collaborators and supporters were busy devel- oping another aspect of his work – T-groups. These emerged from the famous New Britain workshops in 1946 and formed the rationale for the creation of the NTL in 1947 (Freedman, 1999). They were also the dominant force behind the fledgling OD movement. Indeed, up to the early 1970s, OD and T-groups were almost synonymous (Highhouse, 2002). In essence, T-groups (also called sensi- tivity training) are about enabling individuals to understand and change their own behaviour – ‘therapy for normals’ as it was often labelled (Schein, 1995, p. ix). Consequently, those who might have developed Lewin’s situational per- spective on resistance were instead looking inside the individual for solutions to the problem of change and, by and large, ignoring the organizational context. Only with the collapse of T-groups in the 1970s did the OD movement as whole turn its attention once again to the wider context in which change took place, but even then, it had difficulties in breaking away from the individual- group perspective on change (Beer & Walton, 1987; Burnes & Cooke, 2012).

In the years since Coch and French, as Dent and Goldberg (1999) find, the concept of resistance has moved from being seen as an organizational shortcoming which requires system changes to overcome it, to one which arises from individual and group self-interest and/or their psychological makeup. This can be seen by looking at the literature on resistance since then. Shortly after the publication of the Coch and French’s article, Zander (1950) argued that resistance reflects attempts by individuals to protect themselves from change. This is worth noting because Zander was a close associate of Lewin and, with French as a co-author, he had written about the Coch and French work (French & Zander, 1949). Zander’s emphasis on the individual rather than the organization shows the change of focus occurring amongst Lewinians.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the individual perspective on resistance grew. For example, Dent and Goldberg (1999, p. 37) examined three studies of resist- ance to change in this period (Dreese, 1955; Flower, 1962; Lawrence, 1954) and observe that: ‘Each author who identifies resistance lists a symptom of the supervisor or the way the change was implemented but blames subordinates for the problems.’ In addition, Lawrence (1954) challenged the validity of Coch and French’s findings by challenging their research methods and the way they interpreted events at Harwood.

In the 1970s, Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) conducted research on choosing strategies for change. One of their main conclusions was that these had to be tai- lored to overcoming resistance to change by employees. They argued that resist- ance arose for four reasons: ‘These are a desire not to lose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, a belief that the change does

Understanding Resistance to Change 101

not make sense for the organization, and a low tolerance for change.’ Similarly, Diamond’s (1986) study of resistance focuses on human psychology and argues that resistance to change is innate to human beings.

Nor was there any diminution of this view in the 1990s and 2000s: if anything, it increased. Greiner (1992) found that it was a common assumption amongst senior managers that resistance arises from the individual and not the system. Mumford et al. (1993) argued that personality characteristics influence people’s ability to adapt to change. Along similar lines, Coghlan (1993, p. 10) maintained that ‘resist- ance to change by individuals in organizations is a natural phenomenon’ and Lau and Woodman (1995) argued that reactions to organizational change are signifi- cantly affected by personality. Judge et al. (1999) also drew attention to the impor- tance of personality factors when examining how managers cope with change. Perhaps the most significant theoretical development work in relation to personal- ity and change is Oreg’s (2003) work on dispositional resistance, which maintains that we are all disposed to resist change, though some individuals are much more disposed to resist than others.

We could, of course, present further examples of research that supports the notion that individuals are the main source of resistance to change (Erwin & Garman, 2010; Heath & Heath, 2011; Palmer, 2004). However, this would merely serve to emphasize a point already well demonstrated, that there is a con- siderable body of opinion which sees human beings as innately programmed to resist change and defend the status quo (Ford et al., 2008; Piderit, 2000).

Though the notion that resistance is a normal human trait appears to have become broadly accepted (Choi & Ruona, 2011; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Erwin & Garman, 2010; Oreg et al., 2011; Self & Schraeder, 2009), the system or con- textual perspective is not without its supporters. From the 1970s onwards, propo- nents of OD and other disciplines began to take a greater interest in the role of organizational culture in helping or hindering change, though in practice this often boiled down to a belief that many employees had unsuitable values and beliefs (Burnes, 2014; Watson, 1997). Similarly, supporters of the culture-excel- lence approach saw inappropriate cultures and structures as impediments to change, which led to recommendations for wholesale replacement of those employees who did not fit the new cultural – structural mould (Cummings & Worley, 2009; French & Bell, 1995; Peters & Waterman, 1982). The advent of the emergent and processual perspectives on change also gave a fillip to the contextual view (Dawson, 2003; Pettigrew, 1985; Weick & Quinn, 1999), though the result, as a number of writers have argued, appears to have been to promote the view that change is a political battle between individuals and groups, each pursuing their own self-interests (Burnes & By, 2012; Collins, 1998; Hendry, 1996).

There are, however, other writers whose work appears to have moved the focus of change closer to Coch and French’s perspective. For example, Senge’s (1990) The fifth discipline sees resistance as arising from incompatible goals within the system, and Beer, Eisenstadt, and Spector (1993) advocate changing the organiz- ational context in order to overcome or avoid resistance. Kotter (1995) also sees resistance as being generated by obstacles in the total system. This continuing interest in the systems approach to resistance reflects not just the influence of

102 B. Burnes

Lewin, but also the rise of newer perspectives on organizational life that view organizations as complex social systems (Burnes, 2004, 2005).

Therefore, we appear to be faced by something of a contradiction. On the one hand, there is evidence to support Coch and French’s assertion that resistance does not occur due to the psychological propensities of individuals, but arises from the context in which the change is taking place, that is, forces within the system. On the other hand, the received wisdom appears to be that resistance does arise from an individual’s psychological makeup (Buchanan & Boddy, 1992; Diamond, 1986; Erwin & Garman, 2010; Hon et al., 2011; Kim & Kankan- halli, 2009; Oreg, 2003; Peiperl, 2005). The individual and systemic views of resistance need not be seen as irreconcilable per se. If one takes the view that organizations are social systems, it is not contradictory to see resistance as arising from the interplay between the characteristics of the individual and the characteristics of the organization (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Ford & Ford, 2010; Hon et al., 2011; Pardo del Val & Martı́nez Fuentes, 2003; Schein, 1996). Seen in this light, the key questions are as follows:

. Is resistance innate and inevitable?

. What triggers resistance?

In order to address these questions, the next section will examine four well- supported theories of resistance which have been developed in the years since the publication of Coch and French’s findings. As will be shown, though they appear to focus on individuals as the main cause of resistance, their findings offer support for the Coch and French’s contextual view of resistance.

Theoretical Developments since Coch and French

The following four theories of resistance have been chosen for three reasons. First, they span the period since the Coch and French’s article appeared and as such indi- cate how the resistance debate has developed. Second, in their own right, they were seen as important contributions to the resistance debate. Lastly, they each make a distinct contribution to our understanding of resistance to change.

Theory 1 – Cognitive Dissonance

In seeking to understand why and how resistance arises, the theory of cognitive dissonance has proved extremely influential (Burnes & James, 1995; Gawronski, 2012). It was developed in the 1950s by Festinger (1957) and is still very widely cited. Festinger’s Ph.D. supervisor was Kurt Lewin and he went on to work in the Research Center for Group Dynamics, which was established by Lewin. Cognitive dissonance states that people try to be consistent in both their attitudes and behav- iour. When they sense an inconsistency either between two or more attitudes or between their attitudes and behaviour, people experience dissonance; that is, they feel frustrated and uncomfortable with the situation, sometimes extremely so (Jones, 1990). Peters (2012) refers to such change situations as ‘paradoxes’,

Understanding Resistance to Change 103

where staff are put in the stressful position of having to pursue two mutually exclu- sive objectives at the same time.

Relating this to Lewin’s field theory, they find themselves pushed in opposite directions, caught by powerful forces driving change and equally powerful forces restraining change. In order to reduce the severe stress that high levels of dissonance can occasion, individuals will seek to re-establish a balance between their attitudes and behaviour by changing the strength of the driving or restraining forces. It is unlikely that dissonance can ever be totally avoided, but where the elements creating the dissonance are relatively unimportant, the pressure to correct them will be low. Where the issues involved are perceived by the individ- ual to be significant, however, the presence of such dissonance will motivate the person concerned to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance, by changing either their attitudes or behaviour to bring them into line (Robbins, 1986; Smith et al., 1982). This may involve a process of cognitive restructuring, which is unlikely to be free from difficulties for the individual concerned (Mahoney, 1974). However, as Festinger (1957) pointed out, in addition to trying to reduce the dissonance, people will actively resist situations and infor- mation that would be likely to increase the dissonance, which is to say, they will resist paradoxical situations brought about by incompatible organizational objectives. Since the emergence of the theory of cognitive dissonance in the 1950s, it has been developed and refined (see Cooper & Fazio, 1984; Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper, 1977; Jones, 1990).

Applying principles of cognitive dissonance to organizational change, it can be seen that, if an organization embarks on a change project that is decisively out of step with the attitudes of those concerned and/or its own values, assumptions and practices, it will meet with resistance unless those concerned change their attitudes (Burnes & James, 1995). On the other hand, where the level of dissonance occa- sioned by proposed changes is low, attitudinal adjustments will be minor and potential resistance, negligible. As Burnes and Jackson (2011) found when they explored the issues of values and change, where the proposed change and the way it was managed broadly aligned with the values of the change recipients, it was accepted, and where it did not, it met with resistance. Therefore, the level and type of involvement should be geared to the level of dissonance that any proposed changes may provoke.

In terms of Coch and French’s work, Harwood prided itself on being a fair and just employer, but when changes were undertaken, many employees felt betrayed by the company for imposing changes on them that not only threatened their earn- ings, but undermined their self-efficacy (Marrow, 1969). For some, this gave rise to a high level of dissonance as they perceived a clash between their own view that they should be treated fairly and what they saw as the company’s betrayal of its commitment to treating them fairly.

However, if we apply the theory to situations where old certainties have lost their legitimacy and the very survival of the organization is at stake, a different picture emerges. A crisis (or potential crisis) raises the level of dissonance in the organization, as it becomes apparent that existing practices are no longer viable and change is required, that is, it increases those forces pressing for change and reduces those forces resisting it. Consequently, those involved

104 B. Burnes

become more prepared to accept and promote radical solutions that might have previously been rejected. Not only does this make individuals and groups more receptive to radical change, but, in addition, change can be one of the main ways of reducing dissonance. In such situations, fundamental attitudinal change can be achieved relatively quickly and without a great deal of employee involve- ment, because management and employees recognize the need for (and indeed want) major change and see the creation and implementation of a new vision as their only hope for the company’s survival. Therefore, in such instances, the dis- sonance is occasioned not by the change, but by the condition of the organization leading up to the change. Ordinarily, however, in many other situations, the absence of a sense of deep crisis prevents existing certainties being successfully challenged. Once again, this shows that context plays an important role in whether individuals resist or accept change, regardless of their personal level of dispositional resistance.

Theory 2 – the Depth of Intervention

This approach was developed over a decade based on the work of four leading proponents of OD and is still utilized in leading textbooks (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Schmuck and Miles (1971) sought to address resistance to change by examining the way change agents manage change, with a particular focus on the issue of employee participation. They concluded that the level of employee involvement required in any change project is related to the psychologi- cal impact of the change on the people concerned. Huse (1980) explored this relationship further. Incorporating earlier work by Harrison (1970), Huse categor- ized change interventions along a continuum based on the psychological ‘depth’ or impact of the intervention on the individuals concerned, ranging from the ‘shallow level’ to the ‘deepest level’. The greater the depth of the intervention, Huse argued, the more it impacts the psychological makeup and personality of the individual, and the greater the need for the full participation of individuals if they are to accept the changes. It should be noted that Schmuck, Miles, Huse and Harrison were all leading figures in the OD movement and were, therefore, familiar with and utilized Lewin’s ideas and practices.

Their argument was that it is necessary to link levels of participation to the types and psychological impact of proposed changes if resistance is to be avoided or minimized. The greater the effect on the individual in terms of psychological constructs and values, the deeper the level of participation required if successful behaviour change is to be achieved. This appears to explain why in some cases, participation can be dispensed with or minimized, that is, in cases where the psychological impact is shallow, whilst in others it is vital. It does not, however, explain why major and rapid attitudinal changes can be achieved without a great deal of employee participation. In terms of the debate between those who see resistance as arising from an individual’s psychological makeup and those who see it as being more system- or context-based, the Depth of Inter- vention theory offers two interesting insights. First, it supports the view that resist- ance can be moderated by the way it is managed, that is, by the level of

Understanding Resistance to Change 105

participation, which very much aligns with Coch and French’s findings. Indeed, a recent analysis of 60 years of change studies found that

As a rule, change recipients who experienced high levels of participation tended to

report higher readiness and acceptance of change, appraised change as less stressful

and exhibited overall support for the change. (Oreg et al., 2011, p. 491)

Second, resistance appears to be moderated by the nature of the change interven- tion itself, that is, the degree to which it challenges an individual’s psychological makeup. This is corroborated by Burnes and Jackson’s (2011) work on the relationship between values and organizational change. In essence, what this theory shows is that when the forces driving change come into conflict with strong forces restraining change, then organizations need to adopt an approach to change which enables those involved to reflect on their attitudes and beha- viours. This is consistent with Lewin’s view that change is a learning process, the first stage of which involves ‘unlearning’ (Burnes, 2004). However, this ‘unfreezing’ can only be effective if those involved decide to change of their own volition (Burnes, 2014).

Theory 3 – the Psychological Contract

A complementary explanation for employees’ acceptance of or resistance to change is offered by the notion of the psychological contract, which has proved to be highly influential and widely cited (Guest, Isaksson, & De Witte, 2010; Wellin, 2007). The term was originally coined by Argyris (1960), who was both greatly influenced by Lewin and a founder of the OD movement. However, it only gained widespread attention in the 1980s and 1990s, mainly through the work of Rousseau (1989, 1995). As Schein (1988, pp. 22 – 23) explains:

The notion of a psychological contract implies that there is an unwritten set of

expectations operating at all times between every member of an organization and

the various managers and others in that organization . . . . The psychological con-

tract implies further that each role player, that is, employee, also has expectations

about such things as salary or pay rate, working hours, benefits and privileges . . .

and so on. Many of these expectations are implicit and involve the person’s sense

of dignity and worth . . . . Some of the strongest feelings leading to labor unrest,

strikes, and employee turnover have to do with violations of these aspects of the

psychological contract, even though the public negotiations are often over the

more explicit issues of pay, working hours, job security, and so on.

The psychological contract is a classic conceptualization of Lewin’s field theory. On one side are the expectations of employees, including factors such as pay, hours, promotion prospects, training, and so on. On the other are employer expec- tations, including work effort, commitment, loyalty, responsibility, and so on. (Rousseau, 1989, 1995). When both sets of expectations are congruent, then rela- tive stability prevails, but if employers attempt to bring in changes which affect the balance of forces, resistance and conflict may arise.

106 B. Burnes

We can certainly see why, for example, the employees of a public sector organ- ization with a public sector ethos might feel as though their psychological contract had been violated if they were suddenly told they were to be transferred to the private sector – particularly as such a change might represent a considerable threat to their job security. However, in other instances, similarly radical change might not produce a significantly adverse reaction from staff. The reason offered by proponents of the psychological contract for this would be that in these cases, staff recognized the need and justification for the changes and therefore the legitimacy of the need to change their psychological contracts. Therefore, though the notion of the psychological contract might appear to support the argument that resistance arises from the individual’s psychological makeup, it is in effect about the context in which the individual is situated and the forces that impinge on them.

If the organization, either wittingly or unwittingly, changes or violates one part of the psychological contract without renegotiating the contract, in effect, it puts individuals in a situation where the organization is making conflicting demands on them. However, if the individuals can see why the contract needs to be changed and if this leads to a new psychological contract which aligns the demands on them, they are unlikely to resist the changes. The psychological contract also has a strong affinity with the concept of organizational-procedural justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of policies and procedures used as the basis for decision-making (Cohen & Keren, 2008; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). It has been shown that where employees perceive either the process or outcome of change to be unfair, they may resist it (Komodromos, 2013; Novelli, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 1995; Wooten & White, 1999). Once again, this resistance arises not from the individual per se, but from situations where organizations create a con- flict between their espoused values of rationality and fairness and actual practices which employees see as unfair and irrational. This, of course, is how the employ- ees at Harwood saw their situation; the company had in effect reneged on its ‘con- tract’ to treat them fairly.

Theory 4 – dispositional resistance

Though the most recent of the four theories, the rigour of its development and testing has resulted in its being no less influential (Oreg et al., 2008). The concept of dispositional resistance to change was developed by Oreg (2003) and focuses on the individual as the main source of resistance rather than wider organizational factors. Though neither a Lewinian nor a proponent of OD, he does acknowledge the importance of the work of Coch and French and other Lewinians in drawing attention to the importance of context and participation as promoters – moderators of resistance to change (Oreg, 2003, 2006; Oreg et al., 2011).

Oreg’s research showed that individuals varied in the degree to which they were psychologically ‘disposed’ to accept or resist change. Consequently, individuals ‘who are [highly] dispositionally resistant to change are less likely to voluntarily initiate changes and more likely to form negative attitudes toward the changes

Understanding Resistance to Change 107

they encounter’ (Oreg et al., 2008, p. 936). He constructed a resistance to change (RTC) scale to measure ‘an individual’s tendency to resist or avoid making changes’ (Oreg, 2003, p. 680). The RTC is designed to measure the personality factors that Oreg identified as influencing resistance to change. These are: routine-seeking; emotional reaction to imposed change; cognitive rigidity; and short-term focus (Oreg, 2003). Oreg and his collaborators confirmed the validity of the RTC scale in different situations and nations (Oreg, 2006; Oreg et al., 2008). Oreg, Nevo, Metzer, Leder, and Castro (2009) also showed that dispositional resistance can even influence an individual’s choice of occupation.

Oreg’s work rejects the notion that all human beings are programmed to oppose change, but it does show that some individuals with a high dispositional resistance will be predisposed to resist change. However, Oreg also found that an individ- ual’s reaction to change can be moderated by their relationship to the change agent; that is to say, those individuals with a positive view of the change agent would be less likely to resist change regardless of their level of dispositional resist- ance (Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011). This indicates that context, the nature of the system, also plays a part in determining whether or not an individual will resist change. Research by Michel, By, and Burnes (2013) also supports the notion that disposi- tional resistance is moderated by contextual factors, such as the role of the change agent and the way in which they manage the change process. If this is the case, then, as with the above discussion of cognitive dissonance, depth for intervention and psychological contract, we are presented with a perspective of change that aligns with Lewin’s field theory and his argument that resistance arises from and can be moderated by the driving and restraining forces for change.

To summarize, this section has reviewed four theories which seek to explain why individuals resist change. Though developed independently and at different times, they appear to support and elaborate rather than challenge Coch and French’s work. In particular, the following points should be noted:

(1) Resistance to change is not uniform amongst human beings; instead, it varies according to a person’s level of dispositional resistance (Oreg, 2003). Those with a low level of dispositional resistance will be predisposed to accept change and those with a high level predisposed to reject it. This may explain why some workers at Harwood had great difficulty in adapting to change whilst others appeared to find it relatively easier.

(2) An individual’s level of dispositional resistance does not necessarily predict their actual level of resistance to any particular change initiative. Instead, it will be moderated by the context and the nature of the change. As the Coch and French’s study showed, those workers in experimental Group 1, the control group where change was imposed, reacted far more adversely to change than those in Groups 2, 3 and 4, where change was more participatory.

(3) A further factor that is likely to affect the level of resistance is the way the change is managed, in terms of both the management style of the change agent and the degree of involvement of those affected (Buchanan & Boddy, 1992; Burnes & Jackson, 2011; Hon et al., 2011). There is strong support for the view that employee involvement allied to a participative style of leadership is essential in most cases for successful change (Oreg et al., 2011), which, of

108 B. Burnes

course, was Coch and French’s conclusion from their Harwood research. As the discussion of the psychological contract showed, in many cases, it will be necessary to convince staff, through a process of constructive engagement, of the need to challenge their existing beliefs, behaviours and expectations and to renegotiate their unwritten ‘contracts’ with the organization.

(4) In some instances, the legitimacy of existing beliefs, behaviours and expec- tations may already have been undermined because the organization is experi- encing a crisis (the restructuring of many financial institutions owing to the ‘credit crunch’ may be a good example). In such situations, it might be that cultural and behavioural change can be quickly achieved without the need for elaborate involvement techniques. This is because those concerned can see that the old attitudes and ways of behaving are no longer appropriate and, unless major or radical changes are made, their jobs or even the entire organization may cease to exist. Of course, the reverse may also be the case. Organizations seeking to bring about small changes to structures or tasks might find that they meet greater resistance than they expected because they underestimate the psychological importance employees attach to these existing arrangements. Therefore, approaches to change, including the level of employee involvement, have to be tailored to the change context rather than being applied in an unthinking fashion. In order to under- take this ‘tailoring’, managers and change agents have to understand the nature of the existing situation and its readiness for change. In a sense, this is not inconsistent with Coch and French. They argued that resistance arose from the organizational context and not an individual’s psychological makeup. It follows that if the organizational context is conducive to change, a lower level of participation may be suitable.

(5) Last but not least, there is a common thread which links Coch and French’s work with the four later theories and which explains why they appear to be con- sistent with and support their Harwood work – this is their explicit or implicit link to the work of Kurt Lewin. For the first three theories, the link is quite clear in terms of the personal links to Lewin and/or OD. In terms of dispositional resistance the link is less clear, but can be seen in the literature cited by Oreg and the apparent relationship of his work to field theory. However, it should be noted that the link is most explicit in terms of group dynamics (participative management) and least explicit, though still present, in terms of field theory, which is what one might expect, given the move by Lewinians away from this.

Conclusion

There can be little doubt that the ability to change successfully is crucial to the competitiveness and survival of organizations and that change recipients’ reactions can play a vital role in this (Oreg et al., 2011). In seeking to explain why so many organizations experience a high level of change failure, much of the focus in the literature has been on employee resistance to change, especially the degree to which it is an innate human trait (Choi & Ruona, 2011; Dent & Gold- berg, 1999; Erwin & Garman, 2010; Ford et al., 2008; Geisler, 2001; Mumford et al., 1993; Oreg, 2003; Self & Schraeder, 2009; Waddell & Sohal, 1998).

Understanding Resistance to Change 109

The aim of this article has been to understand the nature of resistance to change and to evaluate the notion that employees are the prime source of resistance. First, it went back to the origins of the debate on resistance by reviewing Coch and French’s work and arguing that it needed to be seen in the wider frame of Lewin’s work on change. This showed not only that Coch and French rejected the notion of individ- uals being the source of resistance, but also that their work was not a one-off inter- vention designed to overcome resistance in a particular instance. Instead, it was part of a series of experiments and interventions by Kurt Lewin which led to the creation of the OD movement. This enhances the credibility of Coch and French’s findings and emphasizes the importance of the work they were undertaking.

Second, the article sought to explain why their work had not be been built on to the extent that their citation count might indicate. It was shown that, owing to the waning of interest in field theory, the fledging OD movement and others focused on the individual and how they reacted to change and tended not to take account also of how the context provoked or shaped that reaction.

Third, in looking at the four theories dealing with resistance to change, it was argued that they provide substantial support for Coch and French’s work. Consideration of cognitive dissonance showed that where changes create an inconsistency between values and behaviour, resistance may occur. This supports Coch and French’s view that resistance arises from imbalances and contradictions within the system or force field rather than from the individual. This was supported by an examination of the depth of intervention, which showed that it is the nature of the change itself, rather than any innate propensity in individuals, which is the determining factor in evoking resistance. It also added support to the idea that the reaction of individuals to change is moderated by the way it is managed. This point was also supported by an examination of the psychological contract, which main- tains that resistance arises when changes to employee – employer expectations lead to conflicting and incompatible forces. The examination of dispositional resistance showed not only that the level of individual resistance varies across the popu- lation, which supports Coch and French’s view that it is not innate per se, but also that an individual’s propensity to accept or reject change is moderated by the organizational context and the way change is managed.

Fourth, by combining the insights offered by these four theories, not only can we see that they offer strong support for Coch and French’s systems view of resist- ance, but they also indicate how it might be built upon to provide a rounded and robust view of resistance to change. In particular, by drawing attention to the need to understand the likely psychological impact of proposed changes and the degree to which they might clash with or violate existing values and expectations, they demonstrate that change readiness audits need to be taken seriously and indicate the sort of contextual factors they need to take into account (Amiot, Terry, Jim- mieson, & Callan, 2006; Armenakis, Harri, & Mossholder, 1993; Ford et al, 2008). This then enables organizations to tailor how they prepare for and manage change, in order to match their approach to the context at the time of the change, rather than assuming that a particular approach will work in all cir- cumstances (Burnes, 2014).

Lastly, what we can see from our examination of Coch and French’s work, and its linking to cognitive dissonance, the depth of intervention, the psychological

110 B. Burnes

contract and dispositional resistance, is the merit of taking what Burnes and Cooke (2012) refer to as the ‘long view’ of organizational change. Only by looking over the last 70 years or so is it possible to see what the major developments have been within the field and where the gaps and inconsistencies lie. Only by taking the long view was it possible to set Coch and French’s article within the wider context of Lewin’s work and link this to the four theories of resistance discussed in this article. By so doing, we have been able to show how they form a rich and robust picture of resistance to change and indicate how this might be used to manage change more effectively.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Professor Rune Todnem By, the Editor of Journal of Change Management, and the anonymous reviewers of this article for their supportive and very useful suggestions.

Note

1. Correspondence with Lester Coch’s family.

References

Amiot, C., Terry, D., Jimmieson, N., & Callan, V. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of coping processes during

a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32(4),

552 – 574.

Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Armenakis, A. A., Harri, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change.

Human Relations, 46(6), 681 – 703.

Ash, M. G. (1992). Cultural contexts and scientific change in psychology – Lewin, Kurt in Iowa. American

Psychologist, 47(2), 198 – 207.

Avila, E. M., Galindo, M.-A., & Mendez, M. T. (2012). SERCREA1 model: A business tool for change manage-

ment in Mexican organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(5), 736 – 747.

Bartlem, C. S., & Locke, E. A. (1981). The Coch and French study: A critique and reinterpretation. Human

Relations, 34(7), 555 – 566.

Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 463 – 478.

Bavelas, A., & Lewin, K. (1942). Training in democratic leadership. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology and

Social Psychology, 37, 115 – 119.

Beer, M., Eisenstadt, R. A., & Spector, B. (1993). Why change programmes don’t produce change. In C. Mabey &

B. Mayon-White (Eds.), Managing change (pp. 99 – 107, 2nd ed.). London: The Open University/Paul

Chapman.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (Eds.). (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Beer, M., & Walton, R. E. (1987). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 38,

339 – 367.

Benne, K. D. (1976). The processes of re-education: An assessment of Kurt Lewin’s views. Group & Organiz-

ation Management, 1(1), 26 – 42.

Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organizational change

literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500 – 531.

Buchanan, D. A., & Boddy, D. (1992). The expertise of the change agent. London: Prentice Hall.

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management

Studies, 41(6), 977 – 1002.

Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organisational change. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 7(2), 73 – 90.

Understanding Resistance to Change 111

Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: The foundations of OD. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 43(2), 213 – 231.

Burnes, B. (2011). Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we do about it? Journal of Change Manage-

ment, 11(4), 445 – 450.

Burnes, B. (2014). Managing change (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business

Ethics, 108(2), 239 – 252.

Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2012). The past, present and future of organization development: Taking the long view.

Human Relations, 65(11), 1395 – 1429.

Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2013). Kurt Lewin’s field theory: A review and re-evaluation. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 15(4), 408 – 425.

Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and failure in organizational change: An exploration of the role of

values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133 – 162.

Burnes, B., & James, H. (1995). Culture, cognitive dissonance and the management of change. International

Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(8), 14 – 33.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cammann, C. (1976). Effects of the use of control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1(4),

301 – 313.

Carpenter, C. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining tech-

nique. Communication Studies, 64(1), 6 – 17.

Choi, M., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2011). Individual readiness for organizational change and its implications for

human resource and organization development. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1), 46 – 73.

Clark, P., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). The treatment of history in organisation studies: Towards an ‘historic turn’?

Business History, 46(3), 331 – 352.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P.Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512 – 532.

Coghlan, D. (1993). A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 14(4), 10 – 14.

Cohen, A., & Keren, D. (2008). Individual values and social exchange variables: Examining their relationship to

and mutual effect on in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Group & Organization

Management, 33(4), 425 – 452.

Collins, D. (1998). Organizational change. London: Routledge.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A

meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

425 – 445.

Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 229 – 267). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social

entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164 – 209.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development and change (9th ed.). Mason, OH:

South-Western College.

Davis, K., & Songer, A. D. (2008). Resistance to IT change in the AEC industry: An individual assessment tool.

ITcon, 13, 56 – 68.

Dawson, P. (2003). Organizational change: A processual approach. London: Routledge.

Dent, E. B. (2002). The messy history of OB&D: How three strands came to be seen as one rope. Management

Decision, 40(3), 266 – 280.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 35(1), 25 – 41.

Diamond, G. A. (1992). Field theory and rational choice: A Lewinian approach to modeling motivation. Journal

of Social Issues, 48, 79 – 94.

Diamond, M. A. (1986). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of Argyris and Schon’s contribution to

organizational theory and intervention. Journal of Management Studies, 23(5), 543 – 562.

Dreese, M. (1955). Overcoming resistance to change. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: The George

Washington University.

Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organizational change for corporate sustainability (2nd ed.).

London: Routledge.

112 B. Burnes

Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and practice.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 39 – 56.

Fazio, R. H., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1977). Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view of each

theory’s proper domain of application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 464 – 479.

Festinger, L. (1957). The theory of cognitive dissonance. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Flower, O. D. (1962). Overcoming resistance to change [Film]. Beverly Hills, CA: Roundtable Productions.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational Dynamics,

39(1), 24 – 36.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 33, 362 – 377.

Freedman, A. (1999). The history of organization development and the NTL Institute: What we have learned,

forgotten and rewritten. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 3(2), 125 – 141.

French, J. R. P.Jr. (1945). Role playing as a method of training foremen. Sociometry, 8, 410 – 425.

French, J. R. P.Jr. (1979). Obituary: Alfred J Marrow (1905 – 1978). American Psychologist, 34(11), 1109 – 1110.

French, J. R. P.Jr., & Zander, A. (1949). The group dynamics approach. In A. Kornhauser (Ed.), Psychology of

labor-management relations – proceedings of the meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association

(pp. 71 – 80). New York, NY: IRRA.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1995). Organization development (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gardner, G. (1977). Workers’ participation: A critical evaluation of Coch and French. Human Relations, 30(12),

1071 – 1078.

Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social

Cognition, 30(6), 652 – 668.

Geisler, D. (2001). Bottom-feeders: People who reject change. Executive Excellence, 18(12), 19.

Gold, M. (1992). Metatheory and field theory in social psychology: Relevance or elegance? Journal of Social

Issues, 48(2), 67 – 78.

Gravenhorst, K. M. B. (2003, May 14 – 17). A different view on resistance to change. Paper presented to the

“Power Dynamics and Organizational Change IV” Symposium at the 11th EAWOP conference, Lisbon,

Portugal.

Greiner, L. (1992). Resistance to change during restructuring. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(1), 61 – 65.

Guest, D. E., Isaksson, K., & De Witte, H. (Eds.). (2010). Employment contracts, psychological contracts, and

employee well-being: An international study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Re-engineering the corporation. London: Nicolas Brealey.

Hardy, R., & Thomas, C. (2011). Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Man-

agement, 27(3), 322 – 331.

Harrison, R. (1970). Choosing the depth of an organizational intervention. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 6, 181 – 202.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2011). Overcoming resistance to change. School Administrator, 68(3), 28 – 32.

Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning theory. Human

Relations, 49(5), 621 – 641.

Highhouse, S. (2002). A history of the T-group and its early applications in management development. Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(4), 277 – 290.

Highhouse, S. (2007). Applications of organizational psychology: Learning through failure or failure to learn? In

L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 331 – 352).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hon, A. H. Y., Bloom, M., & Crant, J. M. (2011). Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative

performance. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206311415418

House, J. S. (1993). John R French, Jr: A Lewinian’s Lewinian. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 221 – 226.

Huse, E. F. (1980). Organization development and change. St Paul, MN: West.

Ijaz, S., & Vitalis, A. (2011). Resistance to organizational change: Putting the jigsaw together. International

Review of Business Research Papers, 7(3), 112 – 121.

Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York, NY: Freeman.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational

change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107 – 122.

Kanter, R. M. (2008, January). Transforming giants. Harvard Business Review, 86, pp. 43 – 52.

Kim, H.-W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A

status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567 – 582.

Understanding Resistance to Change 113

Komodromos, M. (2013). Employees’ perceptions of trust, fairness, and management of change using an

organisational justice framework: A brief review of the literature. International Journal of Teaching and

Case Studies, 4(1), 83 – 94.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2),

pp. 59 – 67.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979, March). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review,

pp. 106 – 114.

Lau, C.-M., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A schematic perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 537 – 554.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lawrence, P. R. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 32(3), pp. 49 – 57.

Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the National Research Council,

108, 35 – 65.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In G. W. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflict (pp.

201 – 216). London: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1948)

Lewin, K. (1947a). Frontiers in group dynamics. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science. London:

Social Science Paperbacks (pp. 188 – 237). (Original work published 1952)

Lewin, K. (1947b). Group decisions and social change. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in

social psychology (pp. 330 – 344). New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created ‘social

climates’. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 269 – 299.

Lucas, E. (2002, September). Riding the change roller-coaster. Professional Manager, pp. 27 – 29.

MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435 – 444.

Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Cognition and behavior modification. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Marrow, A. J. (1957). Making management human. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Marrow, A. J. (1967). Events leading to the establishment of the National Training Laboratories. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 3(2), 144 – 150.

Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Marrow, A. J. (1972). The effects of participation on performance. In A. J. Marrow (Ed.), The failure of success

(pp. 90 – 102). New York, NY: Amacom.

Maurer, R. (1996). Beyond the wall of resistance: Unconventional strategies that build support for change.

Austin, TX: Bard Books.

McMillan, B., & Connor, M. (2005). Motivating personal change. In J. Kerr, R. Weitkunat, & M. Moretti (Eds.),

ABC of behavior change. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.

Michel, A., By, R. T., & Burnes, B. (2013). The limitations of dispositional resistance in relation to organizational

change. Management Decision, 51(4), 761 – 780.

Mirvis, P. H. (2006). Revolutions in OD: The new and the new, new things. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Organization

development: A Jossey-Bass reader (pp. 39 – 88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., Malhotra, S., & Locander, W. B. (2012). Reluctant employees and felt stress: The mod-

erating impact of manager decisiveness. Journal of Business Research, 65, 77 – 83.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., & Uhlman, C. E. (1993). Personality, adaptability, and

performance: Performance on well-defined problem-solving tasks. Human Performance, 6, 241 – 285.

Novelli, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1995). Effective implementation of organizational change:

An organizational justice perspective. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational

behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 15 – 36). Wiley: Chichester.

Nurick, A. J. (1982). Participation in organizational change: A longitudinal field study. Human Relations, 35(5),

413 – 429.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(4), 680 – 693.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73 – 101.

Oreg, S., Bayazit, M., Vakola, M., Arciniega, L., Armenakis, A., Barkauskiene, R., . . . van Dam, K. (2008).

Dispositional resistance to change: Measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17

nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 935 – 944.

114 B. Burnes

Oreg, S., Nevo, O., Metzer, H., Leder, N., & Castro, D. (2009). Dispositional resistance to change and

occupational interests and choices. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(3), 312 – 323.

Oreg, S., & Sverdlik, N. (2011). Ambivalence toward imposed change: The conflict between dispositional

resistance to change and the orientation toward the change agent. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2),

337 – 349.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year

review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461 – 524.

Palmer, B. (2004). Making change work: Practice tools for overcoming human resistance to change. Milwaukee,

WI: ASQ Quality Press.

Pardo del Val, M., & Martı́nez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical study.

Management Decision, 41(4), 148 – 155.

Peiperl, M. (2005). Resistance to change. In N. Nicholson, P. G. Audia, & M. M. Pillutula (Eds.), The Blackwell

encyclopedia of management (2nd ed., pp. 348 – 349) – Organizational behavior. Oxford: Blackwell.

Peters, L. (2012). The rhythm of leading change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(4), 405 – 411.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies.

London: Harper & Row.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1985). The awakening giant: Continuity and change in ICI. Oxford: Blackwell.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes

toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783 – 794.

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Achilles, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of

Management, 39(1), 110 – 135.

Robbins, S. P. (1986). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rogers, P., Meehan, P., & Tanner, S. (2006). Building a winning culture. Boston, MA: Bain.

Rousseau, D. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights

Journal, 2(2), 121 – 139.

Rousseaum, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten

agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sackmann, S. A., Eggenhofer-Rehart, P. M., & Friesl, M. (2009). Sustainable change: Long-term efforts toward

developing a learning organization. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(4), 521 – 549.

Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational psychology (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Schein, E. H. (1995). Foreword. In R. Harrison (Ed.), The collected papers of Roger Harrison. London:

McGraw-Hill Developing Organizations Series.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of

managed learning. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27 – 47.

Schmuck, R., & Miles, M. (1971). Organizational development in schools. Palo Alto, CA: National Press.

Schreyögg, G., Sydow, J., & Holtmann, P. (2011). How history matters in organisations: The case of path

dependence. Management & Organizational History, 6(1), 81 – 100.

Self, D. R., & Schraeder, M. (2009). Enhancing the success of organizational change: Matching readiness

strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(2), 167 – 182.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Century Business.

Senturia, T., Flees, L., & Maceda, M. (2008). Leading change management requires sticking to the PLOT.

London: Bain.

Smith, M., Beck, J., Cooper, C. L., Cox, C., Ottaway, D., & Talbot, R. (1982). Introducing organizational

behaviour. London: Macmillan.

Thomas, R., & Hardy, C. (2011). Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Man-

agement, 27(3), 322 – 331.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,

211(4481), 453 – 458.

Üsdiken, B., & Kieser, A. (2004). Introduction: History in organisation studies. Business History, 46(3), 321 – 330.

Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. (1998). Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision,

36(8), 543 – 548.

Watson, T. J. (1997). Sociology, work and industry (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,

361 – 386.

Wellin, M. (2007). Managing the psychological contract. Aldershot: Gower Press.

Understanding Resistance to Change 115

Wooten, K. C., & White, L. P. (1999). Linking OD’s philosophy with justice theory: Postmodern implications.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), 7 – 21.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Zander, A. F. (1950). Resistance to change – its analysis and prevention. Advanced Management, 4(5), 9 – 11.

116 B. Burnes

Copyright of Journal of Change Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.